This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
time and again every year we have the SAME issue. this is a list of RIGHTS not a timetable of events, for which a proposal was made to move the page but ignored as an accomodation, as such these are not rights as nothing has been gained. An act of parliament in the process of legislating is not a right. Furthermore the deceptive edit reverts everything blindly like spelling.
What right is gained by UPHOLDING a fine, not legislating a fine or even enforcing for the first time but on appeal.
12 feb indicated a bill passed and says its short of a veto suggesting a veto and/or not yet in affect. as per 16/17
13 feb takes effect in july 7, we can add it then or add it to july now.
maryland house bill is passed not in effect. the stages of legislation are not rights. same for MD senate. veto? passed? in effect?Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
This consoldites NOTHING. It removes accomodation as discusseda bove without any discussion (with the editor instead resorting to NPAs), removes globalised specifiction on the presumption that everything is US unless states (and with the spelling), as Otto4711's socks have done and does so ewithout explnation/distorted lies that are not AGF (more so as a sock)Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This is hardly AGF when it blindly reverts everything,and it hits that Otto's multitude of socks are back. It also indicates a blind revert of anything when the correct spelling was reverted, and without reason. But anyways, as explained this was an act which the revert doesnt explain why. This was epxlained too, the article is about rights not a list of weblog statements to record. What does this statement mean? Its legalised or will be? There are referenda in November, not all of which will even pass. This was explained while the removal was not. All in all each mentions was expained while the reverts (barring the 2nd one) were not. The onus is to explain such decision, not leave room for doubt where there has been constant sockpupeetry.(Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).
Would it be better to call these articles "2012 in LGBT history", "2011 in LGBT history"... instead of "2012 in LGBT rights", "2011 in LGBT rights"... This would significantly expand scope of these articles, and we wouldn′t have discussions about what is a "right" and what belongs to articles.--В и к иT 15:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Support. It's a good idea. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done created 2013 as such.(Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)).
The 2013 page seems to have been switched to "LGBT Rights" to comply with the established naming pattern. Would it be a good idea to switch all of the pages to "X in LGBT History"? IndignantWithoutACause (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)