Jump to content

Talk:The Trevor Project

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 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cappiahkubi. Peer reviewers: P.salas95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include the phone number?[edit]

For most articles I do not see much point to including a contact phone number, but given that this is a crisis hotline it makes sense. The whole point of the organization is for people to call, which would seem to make the number relevant. Would anyone mind if I were to add a sentence along the lines of The Trevor Project may be reached at 866-4-U-Trevor (866-488-7386). to the end or the lead paragraph or a note in the External links section? The infobox does not have a phone number entry, but I could create a new template if there is interest in that. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately addding the phone no. would not be within policy (see WP:NOTDIR). That's why there is no "telephone" field in the infobox. Lionel (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To play devil's advocate here (and personally, I could argue this either way, but heck, I'm up for a friendly debate), NOTDIR is not, I believe, a blanket prohibition on the inclusion of phone numbers within articles, but a statement that in general phone numbers are not encyclopedic. The latter framing allows that a phone number might be encyclopedic for other reasons. For example, "411" and "555-1212" are, in my view, encyclopedic at directory assistance.
Now, there's obviously a difference between 411 and 1-866-4-U-TREVOR, but what is the test of whether a number is encyclopedic? If news outlets that would normally not include the number within articles about the subject makes a point of including it (e.g., [1],[2] does that affect the test? I don't have a great answer for the Trevor number, but I do think we could make an argument for the number here without setting a precedent for completely abandoning NOTDIR. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add the number. 216.189.186.52 (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding the telephone number in this instance and would agree that it is encyclopedic Ddosguru (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Trevor Project. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I'm against deletion.—‎Lost Whispers talk 05:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost Whispers: The deletion discussion is this way. Whoever closes it may or may not see your comment here. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertorch: thanks! *poof*'—‎Lost Whispers talk 14:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Trevor Project. 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) 12:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Trevor Project's logo has changed recently, and the Wikipedia article has not been updated to reflect this. There is also no copy of the current logo on Commons, and one should be added. andritolion (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the logo after posting the previous talk page message. Thank you WP:Discord (special thanks to User:SuperHamster) for helping me learn more about uploading to Wikimedia Commons and about how the threshold of originality can help with uploading logos to Commons. andritolion (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Editing Process[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JohRog (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by JohRog (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Labor Union Controversy[edit]

Many folks are currently following the labor union controversy involving Trevor. I added it to the article with secondary sources, and I'll try to monitor this event for updates. However, I'd appreciate any updates that folks can make, as we find out more about what's going on! Also, I'm super sad about this, but I worked super hard to maintain neutrality during the writing process -- very much relied up X said this and Y said this to keep neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) regarding the use of suicide crisis telephone numbers (which this article includes). The thread is Suicide hotlines. Thank you. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TrevorSpace[edit]

TrevorSpace is an important part of the webseite. It is an forum/portal that is used by members of the lgbtq+ comunity ages 13-25 to connect and talk. "TrevorSpace" even rediracts to this article and I See no point in it not being mentioned. I remenber that it was in the article, but got removed. Please add it back in. 2001:9E8:19BC:D900:81C4:6C8D:946D:4080 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff on that. It might warrant it's own section, it might end up being better just to mention it throughout. I'm currently having trouble figuring out when they did the redesign (or if they did at all). I'll research this further. Wayback Machine breaks older versions of the site, and I haven't been able to find a press release for when Trevor Space was launched and I'm unclear on if "Ask Trevor" was simply re-named to "Trevor Space" after this in 2009
Any information would be helpful. Balancing-the-scales-contrarianism (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the History Sections and Research Section Woes[edit]

I have found the article to be quite lacking in terms of the history of what is now quite the "old" organization which is also leading in it's area. It would be good to expand it...

I've started to do a bit of the work, but it is quite slow going for the early web related things. The real pain is that their website has been updated so many times that a lot of the older information simply doesn't exist on the website anymore. Wayback Machine is good for some things, but the website is mostly broken from 2004-2007.


The most helpful thing would be to get copies of the "Trevor News" releases that they used to do. I can't find actual copies of those on the internet to review.


Eventually, I will be adding significantly to the research section (which I personally think is more interesting) but that carries with it a different sort of problem... it is hard to find a complete list of studies because those are published under the Author(s) name(s). Given that people change employment, the organization has been around for quite a while, and the Trevor Project's website doesn't have a clear list or archive of studies it will take a bit of work to compile a list of names to cross reference when looking at various studies and media reports of them releasing a new study.

It's also unclear if the organization itself can be credited with anything more than collecting raw data of various sorts with their surveys and their annual report. However, quite clearly, people employed by them do in fact write and publish studies with that data. So, the data is from The Trevor Project, the people work for The Trevor Project, the Trevor Project claims to do research, but when a research article is actually published it is not "technically" by the Trevor Project itself (instead it is "by" the people who work/ed there.)

For example (and, an important one, since the Trevor Project claims this is the first large scale study of this sort):

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00568-1/fulltext

TIME reports "comes from researchers at The Trevor Project" (https://time.com/6128131/gender-affirming-hormone-therapy-study/) which is the same language used on the Trevor Project's own site (https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/new-study-finds-gender-affirming-hormone-therapy-linked-to-lower-rates-of-depression-suicide-risk-among-transgender-youth/)... I've found this to be a pattern.

The article itself doesn't render any aid: "This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors." and then, "Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose."... Which, now that I am thinking about it, might actually be debatable and incorrect since they are getting the data from the place that they work at and are, presumably, being payed by them, but... it isn't phrased explicitly as a "Trevor Project Study" in either press releases, media coverage, nor the article itself. I might be wrong, but that "No conflicts" statement seems false if we want to seperate the author from the organization... Assuming good faith, I think we have to conclude that the above example is a "Trevor Project Study" squarely and flatly. Can we can safely conclude "researchers at The Trevor Project" means a "Trevor Project Study" in a literal sense in all of these cases (including this one)?

It will be hard to sort out what studies go in this bucket of "from researches from The Trevor Project Study", which ones (like the above) are "literal Trevor Project Studies", and which ones the given author(s) are doing on their own "not for/from The Trevor Project". Where do we draw the line?

More to come, and will update. Balancing-the-scales-contrarianism (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Trevor_Project&oldid=1230491124"