Jump to content

Talk:Transgender Day of Remembrance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kolmosbenitez1. Peer reviewers: Zander62015.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toripie87.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Year Originated

[edit]

TDOR was begun in 1999, not 1998 as shown, in memory of the Rita Hester vigil. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gwendolyn-ann-smith/transgender-day-of-remembrance-why-we-remember_b_2166234.html, an interview with the originator of TDOR.

As written, this makes it appear as if the Rita Hester vigil was the original enactment of a Day of Remembrance, which it was not. It was a local community event. In 1999, Gwen Smith called for an annual remembrance event on the anniversary of the Rita Hester murder. Nancy N (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

(scratches head) Why was the TDoR Webcomics Project redirected here after a AFD voted keep? Krisorey 23:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD

[edit]

I removed the extensive GLAAD coverage. This falls under the no self-promotion rule. There is no reason why GLAAD's communications regarding TDoR should be highlighted here when innumerable LGBT organizations around the world observe the day annually in similar ways. 69.250.207.88 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These were removed but may be useful for sourcing. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transgender Day of Remembrance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article move without consensus

[edit]

The article was renamed from "Transgender Day of Remembrance" to "International Transgender Day of Remembrance" on July 10, here, by a single user without any discussion or claim of consensus.

There are approximately nine times as many google exact-phrase results for the former (223,000) as the later (25,100). If you limit it to results only in the last 12 months, the ratio is 10,300::763; and last 24 months: 16,400::1,250. Among institutions using the shorter name are GLAAD, HRC, The Advocate, Transgender Law Center, Lambda Legal, and NCTE.

It may well be that this is the direction that the reality or the name of this memorial is moving, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a leading indicator; we should follow the preponderance of the sources, and at the moment, this move does not seem justified. It should be reverted. Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I don't understand why this change was made. The day may be observed internationally but "International" is not normally in the title. I also feel the other recent changes made the layout of the article look worse, but as restoring a photo I took myself to a more prominent place might seem self-serving, I'll leave that to other editors to decide. Funcrunch (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if this article title was moved to be in parallel with the International Transgender Day of Visibility, that event is also more commonly known as Transgender Day of Visibility. But that article was created with the former title, so we'd need consensus for a move. Funcrunch (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was moved for reasons of parallelism that would be a false consistency, since the usage of the terms in reliable sources would each independently determine their respective common name, as they are two different topics.
I noted the other changes in format and was troubled by those as well. The format changes can more easily be handled by a BRD cycle of which someone already supplied the 'B', so I'll supply the 'R' and let's see if it gets Discussed here. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that we will get some discussion regarding this page move. Such discussion should keep in mind the policy on article titles, in particular the part about common name, as well as the list of reasons for moving a page from the how-to guide. If there's no discussion after a reasonable interval, I'll figure out how to get an uninvolved admin to move it back. Mathglot (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot: Please participate in the discussion on this talk page before continuing to revert other editors, thanks. Funcrunch (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be parallelism, I agree significantly with that point. That being said, both fall under the trans sidebar. Castncoot (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot: Respectfully, I think you're mistaken or confused. First of all, Mathglot was arguing specifically against using parallelism as an argument to move the page title (especially without getting consensus first), and I agree with him. Second of all, the trans sidebar is this template. It has the trans flag, not a symbol. Funcrunch (talk) 06:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused at all. If you look carefully, this article refers to the other in its See also section, but this article is not being allowed into the other article's See also section. These two days of observance fall under the same sidebar and should be speaking with one Wikivoice. For whatever reason, this other editor is preventing that from happening. Castncoot (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hi Castncoot, thanks for joining in. Just to clarify: I'm arguing neither in favor nor against consistency in article naming, I'm arguing that consistency is irrelevant here. What I'm saying is that guidelines on article titles including WP:COMMONNAME govern what the title of this article (and every article) should be, based on the preponderance of usage in reliable sources in English and on other naming criteria. If there were a naming convention for LGBT organizations we might consider that as well, but there isn't one. So parallelism and consistency are irrelevant to questions of proper article naming in this case. The only governing principles to be considered here are those mentioned at WP:AT and associated guidelines. Hope that makes my position clearer. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point which I missed in the {{edit conflict}}, please see WP:NOTSEEALSO. It's not "for whatever reason", it was specified in the edit summary, here. Mathglot (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But we're getting kinda off-topic here, talking about the see-also's on some other article. This section is about the article move without consensus, for which I raised some objections at the top, along with some search engine counts. I wonder if you could respond to those points? Or, putting it another way: why did you rename the article? Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


There seems to be considerable interest in discussing the transgender sidebar, which is fine. In the interest of clarity, it should have its own section, so I've created section, #Use of transgender sidebar, below. I'm going to ask that all discussion about the transgender sidebar be held in the new section. If there is no objection, I'd like to move portions of the discussion above pertaining to the sidebar to the new section.

In the current section, let's continue to discuss the rename of the article from Transgender Day of Remembrance to International Transgender Day of Remembrance. Anything else is off-topic.

So, picking up the thread above: I was asking: why in fact, did you rename the article, Castncoot? Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me address your concerns and User:Funcrunch's concerns here. First of all, in this article, the See also section includes the parallel article's title. However, in the other article, you are not allowing this article (whatever we name it) to be listed as an entry: WP:MOS:SEEALSO clarifies that the See also section is to be used for listing tangential topics. By definition, if one article is tangential to a second, then the second must be tangential to the first! Second of all, I thought that the name is International Transgender Day of Remembrance. I was surprised to see the word "International" missing! Thirdly, I know that the trans sidebar is. If you notice, both of these observant days are listed as topics in the sidebar. Wikipedia should speak with one Wikivoice, and consistency is therefore important. The advantage of keeping the transgender symbol at the top (specifying the annual date of the observant occasion, of course) and over the trans sidebar and flag, and placing images of individual events which are time-specific in the body of the Wikipage, is the advantage of timelessness. The time-specific events are going to become dated at one point and really detract from the timeless annual symbolism of the day by putting them up top in an infobox format, in my opinion. By instead putting a couple in the body of the article, they give the reader a more representative flavor of events rather than having a year-specific event represent the entire holiday in an infobox format. By the way, just to clarify, I don't really have a any strong preference where the event pics are placed in the body of the article. I hope I was able to convey my concerns properly! Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is getting long and blurred, so at the outset, let me just reiterate that this talk page section is called Article move without consensus, and I'll address your concerns about that here. Regarding your other points, I will respond to them in separate sections. (A response to your "See also" concerns, can be found here.)
To my previous question to you about "why did you rename the article", you said, "Second of all, I thought that the name is International Transgender Day of Remembrance. I was surprised to see the word "International" missing!"
Okay, finally we know what the issue was that prompted your move of the article, you thought it was wrong. But you understand that article titles do not depend on what some editor "thought" the name of should be, right? We have guidelines, like WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME for that. And did you read the top of this talk thread where it says:

There are approximately nine times as many google exact-phrase results for the former (223,000) as the later (25,100). If you limit it to results only in the last 12 months, the ratio is 10,300::763; and last 24 months: 16,400::1,250. Among institutions using the shorter name are GLAAD, HRC, The Advocate, Transgender Law Center, Lambda Legal, and NCTE.

(The expression "the latter" refers to the title with "International" in it, and "the former" means without it.) That strongly suggests to me that the article title should not contain the word "International" in it. What is your response to those specific data? I hope they show you that this is not what the memorial is called. I would ask you to revert the move of the article name, if you now understand this point. If you disagree with the data, or if you don't wish to revert the article move for some othe reason, please explain your reasoning. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot: Did you want to respond to the above, or add anything; or do you need more time? If there's nothing further within a week or so, I'm inclined to request an admin or uninvolved page mover to restore the original title. Adding @Funcrunch:. Mathglot (talk)

I was correct - the day of observance actually goes by both names: see here. Castncoot (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot: The question isn't whether both names have been used for the occasion, it is which name is more prevalent. Mathglot made the case above that the name without the word "International" is more commonly used, and that therefore Transgender Day of Remembrance should be the name of the article. I agree with him, and recommend the article be moved back to its previous title, after which you can start a formal move discussion if you still think it should be changed. Funcrunch (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot:, we already know that it goes by both names, see top of this thread where I confirmed this. I'm not sure what else to say that hasn't been said, but if there's nothing further, I agree with Funcrunch that you can always open an Rfc to try to get community consensus for your change. This topic has been listed for a week already at WT:LGBT, and if there's no substantive comment in another week I'll request the move. Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to contest it either way. The observant day began in the U.S. and then evolved internationally. Both terms are correct and accepted, regardless of which may be a more familiar term in the U.S. or elsewhere - therefore, why not use the more comprehensively inclusive and evolved term? That's my viewpoint with regard to this matter. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Castncoot said: "Why not use the more comprehensively inclusive and evolved term?"
A fair question. The answer is, because editors at Wikipedia do not sit in judgement about inclusivity or evolution when deciding on article titles. Instead, we use Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as the policy for article titles, including such things as WP:COMMONNAME. The latter states, among other things, that:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.

So your viewpoints about inclusivity and evoloution are immaterial, because we don't decide things here based on editors' viewpoints, but on policies.
How do you feel about the article title "United Negro College Fund"? A lot of editors might think it's not inclusive enough, or not an evolved enough term, but that doesn't matter, because the title adheres to the policy on article titles, and that's all that counts, not our opinions. Hope this helps when thinking about other article titles or possible renames in the future. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot and Funcrunch: Move completed. Mathglot (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of transgender sidebar

[edit]
(This section created to hold the discussion about the transgender sidebar that was initiated in the section above.)

@Castncoot: To repeat, since you didn't respond to my point: This is the trans sidebar. I'm bolding the link not to shout but to bring your attention to it. If you click on the bolded link, you'll see that the sidebar shows an image of the transgender flag and a list of links, including the Trans Day of Remembrance and Trans Day of Visibility (under the "Society and Culture" section heading). The large symbol you've repeatedly inserted on this article does not appear, and I do not see any other trans sidebar template in the relevant category. So I don't understand what other "trans sidebar" you are referring to. Funcrunch (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the transgender symbol in question is used on very few trans articles; the vast majority of the articles linked in the actual trans sidebar do not use it. (Mathglot, I apologize if this is derailing your article move discussion; I can start a new section if you'd prefer. The current formatting of this article is just really bothering me.) Funcrunch (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also redundant and unnecessary to have both the sidebar and the transgender topics footer, which have identical content, on such a short page. Removing the sidebar as well as the large symbol image would greatly improve the layout. Funcrunch (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Boxed material below copied from discussion thread above.)
Thirdly, I know that the trans sidebar is. If you notice, both of these observant days are listed as topics in the sidebar. Wikipedia should speak with one Wikivoice, and consistency is therefore important. The advantage of keeping the transgender symbol at the top (specifying the annual date of the observant occasion, of course) and over the trans sidebar and flag, and placing images of individual events which are time-specific in the body of the Wikipage, is the advantage of timelessness. The time-specific events are going to become dated at one point and really detract from the timeless annual symbolism of the day by putting them up top in an infobox format, in my opinion. By instead putting a couple in the body of the article, they give the reader a more representative flavor of events rather than having a year-specific event represent the entire holiday in an infobox format. By the way, just to clarify, I don't really have a any strong preference where the event pics are placed in the body of the article. I hope I was able to convey my concerns properly! Best, Castncoot (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Castncoot: I'm replying here to your most recent comments in the above section per Mathglot's request to keep the formatting discussion separate from the title discussion. I disagree that the symbol is more "timeless" than either the memorial image on this page or on the group image on the Transgender Day of Visibility page. An image showing photos of deceased trans people is exactly what this occasion is about, in any year, and I would say more respectful than including an oversized generic symbol that does not convey the meaning of the occasion or the article. And my image on the TDoV page actually includes the words "Trans Day of Visibility" in it, which I believe helps illustrate the article better than a generic symbol. In any case, Mathglot has reverted to the earlier layout on this page, so unless other editors weigh in in your favor, I hope we can leave it this way as there is not currently consensus for your preference. Funcrunch (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Transgender Day of Remembrance. 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Article Balance

[edit]

Hi folks, so I'm a little concerned about the balance in the article. While the section on "Race, TDoR, and Trans Women of Color" is *really* important, it's odd that it contains more text than the rest of the article combined. I don't think we should cut it, but we should be thinking about what else we can add to the article to flesh the rest out better. Perhaps a history section? TallNapoleon (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transgender_Day_of_Remembrance&oldid=1205747292"