Talk:Lesbian literature
 | Literature Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | LGBT studies Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Lesbian literature section improvements
While this article contains some good information, the overview section on lesbian literature does not contain enough sources to back up what the writer is saying. At least for the paragraph about the limited availability of lesbian lit outside of tiny lesbian publishers, I found an article that can back up the statements. Here's the citation if anyone is interested in checking the article out before I add it to the article: [1]. If any other editors have another thoughts on this, please let me know.
Tisamerefleshwound (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)tisamerefleshwound
____
References
- ^ Seajay, Carol (December 1994). "The Backlash and Backlist". The Women's Review of Books. 12 (3): 18–19.
External links modified
1 January 2017
|
|---|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Lesbian literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC) |
Expansion and improvement
I've expanded the article a bit. It could still use some work on discussing writers outside Europe and the U.S., as well as more info on any changes brought by third wave feminism and the 21st century. I'll probably keep chipping away at it, but feel free to add any additional input or contributions! ABF99 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
14 May 2017
|
|---|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 4 external links on Lesbian literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
See also
Pyxis Solitary, regarding this, I'm sure it was included because, per WP:See also, we include related or similar topics in the See also section. It makes sense to link to Gay literature and Bisexual literature in that section. That's why Jami430 made this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, Flyer22. I get that. But besides WP:See also stating that "one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", it also says: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent", and "[A link] is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." Sometimes LGBT articles are edited by the seat of one's pants. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, I think that the links should be there, and that their relevance is immediately apparent, but I'm not hard-pressed on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- As the WP:See also guidelines states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". What does Gay literature have to do with Lesbian literature? What does Bisexual literature have to do with Lesbian literature? An L is not a G, a B, or an H(eterosexual). That's it in a nutshell. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, I work on sexual articles too. What you are stating is like asking: "What does fellatio have to do with cunnilingus?" They are related because they both have to do with oral sex. They are the inverse of each other. That's why they are in the See also sections of each other's article. Similarly, lesbian literature and gay literature both concern LGBT literature, and "gay literature," when taken to mean "gay male literature" (since the Gay literature article notes that "gay literature" may refer to LGBT literature as a whole), is the inverse of lesbian literature. This is why the links you removed should be restored, and is why editors will keep adding them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Flyer, I don't edit for myself. I edit for the general reader that turns to Wikipedia for information. All an editor has to do is include an explanation of why Gay and Bisexual literature is a relevant link. That's what WP:See also requires. I may know what pussy and dick may be, but is the reference to pussy about a kitten, a cat, a human female's genitals, or a profanity? Pyxis Solitary talk 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't edit for myself either. I'll go ahead and drop a line about this at the WP:LGBT and WP:See also talk pages, pointing them to this discussion, and see if others have anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Flyer, I don't edit for myself. I edit for the general reader that turns to Wikipedia for information. All an editor has to do is include an explanation of why Gay and Bisexual literature is a relevant link. That's what WP:See also requires. I may know what pussy and dick may be, but is the reference to pussy about a kitten, a cat, a human female's genitals, or a profanity? Pyxis Solitary talk 09:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, I work on sexual articles too. What you are stating is like asking: "What does fellatio have to do with cunnilingus?" They are related because they both have to do with oral sex. They are the inverse of each other. That's why they are in the See also sections of each other's article. Similarly, lesbian literature and gay literature both concern LGBT literature, and "gay literature," when taken to mean "gay male literature" (since the Gay literature article notes that "gay literature" may refer to LGBT literature as a whole), is the inverse of lesbian literature. This is why the links you removed should be restored, and is why editors will keep adding them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- As the WP:See also guidelines states: "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent". What does Gay literature have to do with Lesbian literature? What does Bisexual literature have to do with Lesbian literature? An L is not a G, a B, or an H(eterosexual). That's it in a nutshell. Pyxis Solitary talk 08:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, I think that the links should be there, and that their relevance is immediately apparent, but I'm not hard-pressed on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)