Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

TC Jones

Still hoping for input on this query. Anyone? Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, a single line (and kind of a throw-away line at than), where the person in question isn't really discussed at all - that doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria. IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree. Since the article (and I assume, sources) makes clear that he was married to a woman, it'd be quite a leap to categorize him as gay based on that single sentence. I note you haven't even included anything based on that sentence in the article, and from what I recall categories should be supported by the article text. Basically, if the source isn't strong enough to write something clearly in the text, it's probably not strong enough for categorizing either. (BTW Otto, I'm continously in awe at the amount of quality articles you produce. Good job, truly!) Siawase (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaylactic Spectrum Awards

This has been up at featured list candidates for coming up to a week, and is maybe floundering for lack of reviews. Assuming i convince the 2 reviewers so far, it would still need more to be able to pass. It has a minimum of 10 days for reviewing (so 3 more), but extentions to the time require that it is being improved, any i've done all the improving i can find to do. I'm not expecting automatic supports, just any comments at all would be great. It's the last in a planned Featured topic, so would hopefully get a big jump in visibility if it passes (and be the first LGBT FT, AFAIK).

Also, has anyone ever been to a Gaylaxicon? I'm starting to work it and Gaylactic Network up to GA, but anyone with any knowledge about either might notice things that i'm missing (unfortunately i'm on a wrong continent for first-hand experience), or even anyone with no knowledge that is interested in collaborating. Any newbies that want some GA/FL experience? Experienced editors to show me what i'm doing wrong? Anybody..?Yobmod (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Erika Friedman (moved from Portal talk:LGBT)

The following message was moved here from Portal talk:LGBT (includes link to WP:LGBT-relevent discussion) -- Outsider80 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Members of WP:Anime want to discuss on whatever Erika's Friedman manga & anime reviews are RS. The discussion is here Talk:Yuri_(genre)#Erika_Friedman_RS_Redux. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Suspension by Robert Westfield

I've just finished this novel. It got the 2006 Lambda Literary Awards for Gay Men's Debut Fiction and Gay Men's Fiction. Is anyone else interested in writing a draft? He probably deserves his own page; he also wrote plays directed by Marc Wolf apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation/redundant?: List of LGBT writers

While mooching with the LGBT fiction template i made, i noticed that this List of LGBT writers exists, and is completely unsourced. Are there other occupation lists like this? Doesn't the general list of LGBT people cover occupation? Culling this to what could be sourced would seem redundant to other lists and a lot of work. I thought it best to invite comments here before adding a merge template or posting to the BLP violations board. Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT people by political orientation

The categories

are all up for discussion at this CfD. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

...Oscar Wilde was an anarchist? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Transsexual mafia capo arrested in Naples

This is quite an astounding story. I included it on Transsexual because it is quite a first, though some might say a dubious one. From the sounds of it, Ugo Gabriele might be a cross-dresser; however, keeping with our policies such as WP:RS, we have to go on media reports, which have branded Gabriele aka "Kitty" as Trans. Somewhere in our sexuality pages this belongs. Can other eyes weigh in? --David Shankbone 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez issues turn into good press for Wikipedia

I recently blogged about the "bisexuality" bizarreness and shenanigans going on with Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez denying her history and making things up on her Wikipedia biography. The blog post has led to some very good press for us about our diligence, policies and guidelines. --David Shankbone 04:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad Girrls Studios

Please help deorphan this. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stubs follow-up

Hi again -

I've been sifting through some of Category:LGBT stubs (as have some of you - thank you), and I noticed several stubs which should not normally have been placed in the category. It may be that the way the category is used for stub-sorting purposes is a little different to how some other editors - including probably some of your project - are using it. Specifically, bio-stubs shouldn't be added to the category simply because they are about LGBT people. Let's face it, if every bio-stub about LGBT people was added to the category that'd be - what, 6-8% of the 100,000 bio-stubs we have on Wikipedia? It would completely swamp the category with people who, though LGBT, have had little impact on LGBT culture. To that end, I've added a note at the top of the category - feel free to amend it, but if possible please try to keep the spirit of it intact! Cheers, Grutness...wha? 23:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I'm confused. Are you saying stub articles about LGBT people should not be in both a bio-stub and an lgbt-stub? Or is there a lgbt-bio-stub category? I know very little about stub sorting, so these questions are totally out of ignorance :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
(1) I had created an lgbt-bio-stub template a while ago, in an ill-informed, out-of-process manner. I don't think it has been deleted, but I was made aware of the incorrect manner in which I did things. (One does not simply create a stub template one thinks should exist; it has to go through the vetting process where others may or may not agree that it should exist.) In this case, others involved in the stub-sorting process do not think there should be such a stub category. (2) I think Grutness is saying that biography articles do not generally belong in the lgbt-stub category. Aleta Sing 21:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, a person should only be given a specific type of bio-stub if they made a significant impact to a specific field (the exception being nationality types). While sexual orientation is, of course, very important to the individuals concerned, often a person can be, say, lesbian without it actually having a great impact on LGBT culture or history overall. An fairly crude analogy might be someone like Keanu Reeves being famous as an actor but also widely known for his musical sideprojects. If there was a stub article on him, he would get US-actor-stub but would only get US-musician-stub as well if his band was prominent. As I said in a recent WP:SFD discussion, it makes sense if a stub on someone like Brenda Howard was given an LGBT-stub, but far less so if someone like Brian Epstein was. In my stub sorting, for instance, I've removed the LGBT-stub from Rupert Charles Barneby and Lisa A. Barnett, but left it on S. E. Cottam and Kenneth Zeller. Given how many LGBT people there are, if biographical articles were given LGBT-stub (or LGBT-bio-stub), you'd end up with a category that was too large to use easily that was filled with articles many of which have only tangential connection to LGBT issues and culture. As for LGBT-bio-stub, it hasn't been deleted, though it's not currently in much use. The outcome of the SFD debate was that it could be used but should be appropriately worded and scoped so as to ensure that it is used in pretty much the way I've outlined above. For some reason it looks as though no-one's got round to rewording it (to be honest, I'm not sure how it could be easily reworded to cover the type of stubs I've mentioned). (Thanks to Aleta to alerting me to the follow-up questions) Grutness...wha? 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at rewording {{LGBT-bio-stub}} - please have a look and see whether the wording is appropriate or needs work! Grutness...wha? 00:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working on that (and for setting me straight about the outcome - I had thought it was being discouraged entirely which is why I didn't touch it anymore). Aleta Sing 16:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Gay sucks

Things to do?

1) Move historic uses to Gay (historic uses)

2) Move pejorative high school usage to Gay (Pejorative non-sexualized usage) or something.

1x) OR move both of them to Gay (other uses)

3) Expand expand expand, this article has so much more to tell. Make it more like Lesbian.

Check out Talk:Gay#Proposal Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, Moni3 did too good of a job with Lesbian. Makes other articles look sucky by comparison. ;) Siawase (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian rewritten

I posted the rewrite of the Lesbian article on February 10. It is up at wiki-wide peer review. You folks are the ones who can give it the best comments, though. Anything you can give. Even if it's just a section... With some more work, I think this article can be FA, though it might take a few tries to get it through (Roman Catholic Church has gone through 5 times unsuccessfully - large abstract concepts tend to be more difficult). As soon as I add a bit about literature and lesbians in Asia, I'm going to nominate at GA.

You can find the peer review here. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another plea for anyone in Europe to point me toward reliable sources that account for media representation of lesbianism. The film and television sections of the Lesbian article are centered in North America because I don't know what books to use to highlight media outside the US and Canada. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class articles

I don't know if anyone noticed this or not, but there is discussion about A-class articles being a higher grade then GA-class articles here. Basically the A-class articles are assesed by Wikiproject. For example see Military History WikiProject. Is this something we would like to do as well. That way we can go from getting an article as an A-class and then to a FA-class instead of going from GA-class and then FA-class. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of MilHist's A class review. MilHist is an extremely productive WikiProject with clear goals to get articles as high as possible. I think any attempt to improve LGBT articles should be commended, but I have honest doubts that we as a group are capable of assessing articles for content, writing, and sources. We appear to be many individuals working alone on our projects, as opposed to a group working toward a common goal. I'm not sure why that is, or really what to do about it. Furthermore, I suppose we would have to determine that A class is worthwhile as a kind of intermediary between GA and FA, and that there are enough articles to warrant A class designation. Is it a pre-FA staging area? Or an assessment for articles that are beyond GA but for whatever reasons, have not been promoted as FA? --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would find it useful, but agree that it depends on people doing the in depth reviews needed, and only if it used as a "i think this is ready for FA but needs a final review" check. The gap between GA and FA is so huge, and peer review only provides so much feedback. I suspect it woulod become just another place to list articles in a queue, which we already have enough of.Yobmod (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The LGBT project does not appear to have any articles currently assessed as A-class. And when it did, there were about 7 or 8. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment. The continuum (excluding lists) for us is Stub-Start-C-B-GA-A-FA, which follows the Version 1.0 Editorial Team continuum. I participated in the community discussion about setting up the C-class (I supported) and also some discussion about where the A-class should be in that continuum (below GA or above GA). My vote was that it should be below GA, for a C-B-A flow before getting to GA. Here (to the right) are the current assessment statistics so we can see where we are now. Note that there currently is an order of magnitude more articles in B-class than GA-class. Could we, as a WikiProject, and differently from milhist, use A-class articles as a developmental pad for GA-class, since C-B-A class articles do not require a community wide review process? Or more in line with Moni's thoughts as a staging area for FA. Also, I think she is right about our project assessment structure. Is it worth doing something about it? Or just continue as is? Frankly, I have doubts about getting enough people together. — Becksguy (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex Panic!

Anyone know of this organization? I started the article yesterday; it would be great to see it develop. It would be especially useful if anyone knows whether it's still operative. It appears to have had a website at some point, though I haven't found one extant just now. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

possible DYK?

Does anything in the article Torikaebaya Monogatari strike anyone as DYK-worthy? I'd like to nominate it, but I'm a bit concerned it might be too salacious for the front page. Thanks! --Malkinann (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if anything looks hooky, but I'd say don't worry about salacity - we're supposed to be uncensored after all, and the worst the DYK guys can say is no. Of course, my view's coloured by having just nominated Sex Panic! for DYK - let's see if that gets anywhere :D Gonzonoir (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Awesome article, fascinating subject. For the DYK, I think a fairly high-level overview hook would be good; something like: "...that the Heian Period Japanese story Torikaebaya Monogatari tells the tale of a brother who lives as a woman and his sister who lives as a man, who eventually swap places in order to lead happy lives?"
One note, as well: I was a bit confused in the plot summary about the bit with the tengu. It might be worth introducing that figure earlier on: is this someone who had cursed the children at some point in early life to experience life as the other gender? Also, when the curse is lifted and you say their "sex realigns with their gender", does that mean Naishi no Kami become physically female and the Chunagon physically male, or is it the opposite - Naishi no Kami starts to feel male and the Chunagon starts to feel female? I'm guessing the latter, but that could maybe use clarification. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You're not alone in being confused about the tengu - the reviews I've read are confused about him too. The father or the children cross paths with the tengu in a previous life, so the tengu curses them to have the wrong gender-sex alignment from their current birth. Luckily, the tengu (or the father) finds Buddha and so the curse is removed. As a result of this, the pregnant tomboy becomes female in her mind, and the effeminate man becomes a masochist man among men - marrying three women to prove it. --Malkinann (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Heheh. That's all clear, then. Might be worth sharpening just a little in the article too. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about scope of cat:Gay novels

Category:Gay novels is a child category of cat:LGBT novels and cat:Gay (male) fiction. After accidently LGBT-novel-stubbing (& self-reverting) some of the novels within the author sub-categories within it, I added a header note specifying cat:Gay novels is for gay-themed novels & not just gay-authored novels (without gay themes). Also removed Category:Novels by Samuel Delany from cat:Gay novels as I have been informed by another editor that (most?) of his novels are not LGBT-themed. Before further de-populating this category wanted to ask for clarification over this category's scope. (i.e. is it for gay-themed novels, and the gay-authored novels were mistakenly added, or is it for all novels by gay authors regardless of theme). (Additionally, if the author sub-categories are removed from cat:Gay novels, their individual novels which are gay-themed would have to be added back in individually to cat:Gay novels. (Assuming cat:Gay novels is actually meant to be only for gay-themed novels, this is kind of a mess) Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the category; I was just concerned that the text of Template:LGBT-novel-stub makes it unsuitable to be added to all novels by LGBT authors, since it refers to "a novel with a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender theme", which is not always the case... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this WikiTabloid?

I need some others opinions here, please. Would you all look at the personal life section of Aubrey O'Day and see if this sounds more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia? It sure sounds that way to me. Aleta Sing 19:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have some tone issues, and per WP:WEIGHT it might be a bit long. I'd also look closely at the reliability of the sources used. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's on tabloid level. It could definitely do with a work-over though, with more neutral wording and summarizing to cut down the length, it looks like it could be cleaned up to be quite encyclopedic. Siawase (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI: WP:AfD:Midwest_Bisexual_Lesbian Gay Transgender_Ally_College_Conference

Ikip (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Question: Re LGBT project tags on porn star bio's

Resolved: self-reverted edits in question Outsider80 (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the policy regarding this (if consensus ever was established for this)? Back in the day, SatyrBot auto-tagged pretty much everything with a gay keyword in it, from my understanding -- though this no longer happens, so some porn stars are project-tagged, and some aren't. I re-tagged some to the seemingly-more-relevent WikiProject:Pornography, but was reverted on 1 & so am asking for clarification.

I can appreciate the pron as much as the next guy, but how exactly does someone sucking it on camera for money qualify them as an "LGBT studies" to be chronicled in the annals of LGBT history? (and would a straight studies wikiproject do the same, when a more relevent project exists?) Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, the article I restored it to was the same one where I and not the bot originally added it. If you removed the tag from other articles that may be true of those as well. Secondly, SatyrBot was pretty accurate and I believe was quickly followed up to ensure it had found correct articles. Thirdly, we serve as a resource on LGBT issues in regards to articles just as other projects do. It's perfectly reasonable that our tag would sit comfortably on these articles if they concern subjects about same-sex desire and activities. No special guideline is needed except if it regards a LGBT subject. The tag is the easiest component regarding this project's involvement. It's quite general and intended to alert those smart enough to use the talkpage to know we exist and are willing to help. Categories have a much higher standard and need policing but our tag is relatively safe. -- Banjeboi 21:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
(what, no fourthly? lol) okay, firstly, fair enough, i accidently called that particular one as a bot-added tag. I had seen enough SatyrBot taggings that I assumed it was the case. Secondly, no comment, Thirdly, really I don't care -- If consensus is infact to tag these then I will happily self-revert. Thank God SatyrBot can't read the minds of article subjects as well, or every "straight" person who ever had a gay fantasy would be project-tagged as well. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it can! -- Banjeboi 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All LGBT celebrities get project tagged AFAIK, and i don't think porn stars are any less important to LGBT studies than minor soap opera stars, or failed reality TV show contestants. If they acted in gay or Bi porn, may as well leave them tagged (although i don't think there is any rush to make sure we have tagged them all, unless they actually identy as LGBT).YobMod 11:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rescue potential of List of terms for gay in different languages?

List of terms for gay in different languages was flagged for automated copying to Wiktionary on 11 Feb, but hasn't been transwikied yet. Copying does not equal deletion, but this likely will be become an AfD once the transwiki is complete. It would be a shame to lose this list, but not sure what the rescue potential is to get it up to code (see WP:NOTDIC). If it can't be brought up to standards as a stand-alone list, it could be merged elsewhere -- but Terminology of homosexuality is already pretty long -- and burying it in there would make it lose its appeal as a quick-and-dirty list of terms for gay in various languages/cultures (it is actually linked-to in the Intro of Portal:LGBT because of that quick-and-dirty appeal (similar to LGBT rights by country or territory being a quickly browsable list of laws around the world, without having to read prose). thoughts or ideas?........ Outsider80 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A transwiki redirect can be set up instead of deletion. The wiktionary article on gay should already have all the translations, so the reader still gets all the info, just as easily. Bit i would guess that the transwiking will not happen soon. The template looks like a standard one for dicdef's and i don't think the Bot will be able to do anything with a tabulated list.YobMod 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

March collaboration of month?

Collaboration was never changed after January... any nominations for March? ( the COTM instructions call for ad-hoc nominations, so I am ad-hoccing :-D ) Outsider80 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What about Lesbian? After all the work Moni3 put in, would be nice to get a bunch of apple polishing done and improve it's FA chances. Scarykitty (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Or what about Gay for that matter? I note that a call for help was issued above [1]. Scarykitty (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support either one, though would lean toward Lesbian because of the FA reason you mentioned. Outsider80 (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done — no additional noms or votes as of start of month, changed collaboration to Lesbian. Outsider80 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal of List of GLB people

Listing this here since I'm not sure how many people monitor the main GLB dab/contents page, and notifying all 19 talk pages might be viewed as overkill -- I have raised a split proposal at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (currently a 19-part list), proposing moving all Bisexual listings to the already-existing 4-part List of bisexual people, and splitting what remains into separate Gay men and Lesbian lists. Discussion thread if you have an opinion is at Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people#Split proposal. Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea. It is sometimes very difficult to be sure if a person is Bi compared to G or L. The combined list could allow for such ambiguity. Is Oscar Wilde Bi or gay? Or Samuel Delany (who identifies as gay, but had children and a wife). Ig the lists are competely split, how will ambguiuty be addressed?YobMod 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Liked your proposal better, replied on the talk page. Outsider80 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur. It's fine to have a full LGBT, just T, just L, just G and just B lists as appropriate. The labels we presently use don't easily translate across culture and time. Having the same person on several lists is also fine - over time one can be gay, bisexual and transgender, etc. I would support an effort to ensure each list referred to the other lists. -- Banjeboi 05:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, what exactly is the reasoning in having bisexuals as a group (or any letter of the alphabet soup) listed in 2 separate lists at the same time? Either the Bi list is redundant to the LGB list, or the LGB list is redundant to the Bi list. Transgender has its own list, but this is not a duplicate as the GLB list is sexual identity-based, and the T list is gender identity-based.
I'd say that it's just a question of reader utility, where duplication is better than the initial split-and-bin-comprehensive-list proposal (which I see you've withdrawn; just saying this for illustrative purposes). I can imagine readers having a use for the more specific lists, but given that they're always going to be fraught (for the reasons discussed above), the combined list should remain also. So, it serves readers to have both comprehensive and finer-grained lists. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems like it would create double-work for editors, but as long as the people maintaining these particular lists aren't complaining... have at it -- Outsider80 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Intergrating the Bi list has been tried before - some very vociferous editors consider that an attempt to hide or minimise bisexuality. I would prefer it merged, as the Bi list has low standards of sourcing, but the fight it would cause is not worth it.YobMod 16:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawing split proposal, is unlikely to go any further (based on comments here & on article talk). Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm coming late to this party, but I agree that this was a good decision. Where I probably would not have cared some months ago, the recent involvement I had in the Lesbian article made my mind up. Sexual identity and behavior are often two separate things, and it would not be a good idea to impose 2009 standards by a handful of individuals to define in concrete terms how people behaved when these concepts did not exist. One of my favorite quotes is by author Djuna Barnes, who had affairs with women and participated in Natalie Barney's Paris salon for Sapphists, but was famously quoted saying, "I am not a lesbian. I just loved Thelma." What about Edna St. Vincent Millay who had affairs with women, but such was the social atmosphere in Greenwich Village in the 1920s that there was no coherent gay or lesbian community, but rather a neighborhood of Bohemians and rebels who believed in free love and embodied all kinds of liberal attitudes except when it came to gender roles; Lillian Faderman suggest Millay married and had affairs with men due to the enormous pressures of Greenwich Village males in her social circle. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
And even in contemporary culture, recently there's been a whole slew of women who self-identify as unlabled. I've been thinking it might be more useful to categorize people as somewhere on an LGBT spectrum, unless they specifically self-identify. Oh, and re: the list(s), I think it'd be much easier to maintain and source if it's just one big master list. I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the separate bisexual list is probably better off usurped into the main list. Siawase (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree w/ both of your comments, sexuality is a complex thing. The only way to split without breaking down by sexual identity labels would be to split by gender (like Yobmod suggested). While an interesting idea, it would open its own can of worms in regards to gender identity. Which leaves us with the phonebook approach :-D . Outsider80 (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As arbitrary as it is, I think the phonebook style works pretty well. And if a reader is looking for a specific category of L G or B, it's still possible to sort the tables based on the "Notes" column (now there's a vague name btw), making it easier to sift through. Siawase (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems very, er, authoritarian - since when did I have the right to make decisions or speak for a project? Just ask everyone else... Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The intent, as I understand, is to ensure at least one active member is in the loop rather than spamming every project with each new discussion and rounds of input, voting. Anything notable enough could still be posted to the group. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for project eyes/opinions: Redirect for discussion: WP:HOMO redirecting to our project

Resolved: Shortcut and redirect deleted as a result of the RfD which was closed as delete on 8 March 2009. — Becksguy (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the redirects for this project, WP:HOMO, is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 28#WP:HOMO → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. Both comments so far have been non-project members deferring to our judgement (which so far, since its addition in 2007, has been no objection). I am posting this here not to canvass, but to get project member input on it (whether for or against) and reach consensus now, rather than dragging it out. Thanks, Outsider80 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with it. Will & Grace characters called it each other, so nothing offensive about it to me (which i guess is the potential problem?). I sometimes use it as it is easier to type and rememberYobMod 10:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If i'm the only one that sees a problem w/ this then it's no big deal & i'll drop it. I guess to me, it's kind of like the word "nigga" (with "-a", not "-er"). each carries different connotations when used by ppl outside the group. Outsider80 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just suggested it be deleted. Setting aside the questions of offensiveness, nothing links to that page except discussion pages like this one and an IP usertalk page within a vandalism warning. I can't actual imagine anyone searching for the LGBT project would use WP:HOMO as a search term. --GedUK  12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Just a reminder that your project is subscribed to Article alerts, but you aren't giving any link to the alerts, losing pretty much all benefit of subscription. You can find the alerts at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts (you can transclude it anywhere you want), or you can simply remove the display=none option from the {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template located at the bottom of your project's mainpage. You can find some additional paraments at WP:AAlerts#Subscribing. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, didn't know that list existed (& I probably wasn't the only project member in that) ... I added a link into the open tasks template (which is transcluded here & on the main project page), and commented out the headings which previously served the same purpose as the bot does (and were empty currently anyway). Outsider80 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone click on the article alerts above, it would be great if they clicked further on the FT candidates, and left a comment! We currently have 2 topics waiting for comments, both with no opposes, but too few supports.YobMod 10:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, both passed anyway - yey! -Unsigned
I comemnted at the FT candidacy because I saw your comment here, Yobmod - are those article alerts the place to look for further tasks like this? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! The alerts page list all the open requests for review for virtually all processes. The link above goes to the age showing only the articles tagged with the LGBT project banner. Hence one can find the peer review for lesbian, the good article nomination of homosexual transexual, and deletion/merge nominations for the many year in LGBT rights stubs.
Maybe it should be linked more obviously? In a box like the collaboration of the month?YobMod 07:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that sounds good. It's possibly just a question of my not having taken long enough to familiarize myself with this stuff when I joined the project. Ah well! I'll know now. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
btw, i rated and commented on your sex panic! article at reqs for assessment (finally!) Good work!YobMod 09:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! Well, if the discussion below bears fruit, maybe someone else can help me fix it up a bit per your suggestions :) Gonzonoir (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GayVN->GayVN Awards

Leaving a note here in case any other editors want to review this decision (rather than it being a surprise & getting complaints on my talk page lol). GayVN and GayVN Awards had been tagged for merging for over a year (and were the oldest merge tags listed in our cleanup list). I was going to remove the tags as stale, but the 2 articles were pretty much extremely redundant (except the latter is more up-to-date). I replaced GayVN with a redirect to GayVN Awards (since no action had been taken, & it seemed to be the logical solution). Feel free to revert or revise as needed. Thx, Outsider80 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Help on image deletion file:Frontiers_Aug_1_2006_cover.jpg

(sigh) Yet another image deletion discussion. Jeffree Star, a BLP, rise to fame came from doing high-concept genderfuck fashion photoshoots and building an online fan-base. The only image that helps show them doing this is being slated for deletion here. Any ideas or advice? I'm really sick of having images deleted. -- Banjeboi 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's not really a lot you can do in this situation unfortunately. Policy isn't on your side, though the image can still be used for the article about the magazine. I'd do as was suggested and attempt to contact Star asking for him to release something. AniMatetalk 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this image has enough of a rationale that deletion can be avoided this time and i commented there, but in the long term i agree a free image is essential. Starr is a modern boy, her should understand the benefits of releasing the best possible image as PD.YobMod 11:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Flush inactives list? (except for number 120)

The sexology project flushed their inactives list a week or 2 ago... Given how huge the main page is, maybe this would be a good idea here too? (with the obvious exception of number 120) We have 251 actives and 121 in-actives listed currently. Outsider80 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess? Or move it to a separate page? Aleta Sing 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
And perhaps we need a different designation (simply "deceased members") for Jeff? Aleta Sing 03:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving it to a subpage is better, so the info is easily accessible. But i agree it is too long to be on the main project page. We should also go through the active list to identify inactive members again.YobMod 07:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed the transcluded page, so that only the active members are on the main page, but the inactive members list is still on the mambers subpage. Also started moving editors inactive for 6 months to the inactive list. No opinion on adding a deceased list, but would be simple to put one onto the members page.YobMod 09:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
good thinking on the noincludes... so are we keeping inactives indefinitely, or is there a time-out on those also? Neutral on the deceased list ... I actually thought it was kind of wiki-poetic how he was moved to inactive status. (if we were to start rolling people off of inactive after a certain point, maybe a hidden comment would be needed next to his name though). Outsider80 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

AfDs of possible interest

Members of this project may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-monogamous heterosexual marriage. Aleta Sing 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American College of Pediatricians. This one was in our project, but someone (I forget who, but I don't think it was a project member) removed our tag from the talk page. Aleta Sing 03:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw it on our alerts, and removed our tag. It seemed to be only there because they are against gay marriage, and that this is only a minor part of their activities. We don't tag every politician or organisation that mentions this as one of the things on their agenda, do we? Otherwise we should be taging all politicians that have ever voted for or against any marriage bill, as they have more impact on the LGBT community than this non-notable organisation.
Is fine if someone wants to add it back, but it seems inconsistant to me. Should we also tag any celebrity that speaks out against gay marriage?
Hopefully the prod stands though, so this one will be moot.YobMod 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's notable enough to include then... probably. We are a resource to ensure the content regarding LGBT is handled encyclopedicly. LGBT issues remain central to culture wars and remain central to conflicts and POV problems on articles. I'd rather err on including than regret not being there when needed. -- Banjeboi 10:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
So should we tag all congressmen? (Have any not voted on at least one "protection of marriage" act?) Just wondering - the level of LGBT interest is at least as high as for this article (was).YobMod 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please show me where I suggested we should tag every article of every congressperson who has voted on LGBT issues. Clearly I didn't. I stated "If it's notable enough to include then ... " My hunch is that on most politician pages their votes on LGBT issues aren't that important and thus aren't even mentioned. -- Banjeboi 10:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't, thats why i asked. Should i preface every question with "This is a question"? <--that was a question, i'm not suggesting you said i should do this :-D As the whole organisation is non-notable, how is one press release they made notable to the project?YobMod 10:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I over-reacted as I'm so used to snarkiness (sigh), sorry. In this case the point is there was no need to delete as it's likely the entire article is deleted. If it were kept I still would have wanted to look into it as many of these groups are wolves in disguise and are actually anti-abortion, anti-LGBT in some profound way, etc.

The AFD on the American "College" of Pediatricians was closed as delete due to copyvio. Someone with big Sarah Palin and nOBAMA images on their userpage disagreed with that and it is now at deletion review. See [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 13#American College of Pediatricians]]. - ALLST☆R echo 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

More drama anyone?

OK, sit down for this one. Not one but four articles:

Have been created and, IMHO, fluffed up with content that may belong better on the regular transmen and transwomen articles with the actual content regarding sexual attraction merged to Gynephilia and androphilia.

IMHO, this is more POV creep/fallout from Homosexual transsexual and Autogynephilia which are from Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. This material, like a great ooze that grows and multiplies, never seems to let up and new problematic articles just compound. In any case I'm wondering if anyone else sees the first four above as needing to be merged? If I didn't know better I'd AfD the lot but I think merging is the better route. Any ideas, comments. -- Banjeboi 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging to Gynephilia and androphilia would be best (if there is anything not copied from there). We don't (and shouldn't) have "cis-mem attracted to women", "cis-women attract to women", "cis-men attracted to trans-women" etc etc. There are general and used terms for these things for a reason, and wikipedia should be using them, not making up our own phrases to slice article content into the smallest possible parts.YobMod 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The creator of the later 3 seems to have made them based on precedent from the first, so maybe they will understand the need for merign anyway? -Unsigned
I'd be very tempted to simply replace all 4 articles with redirects. :) --AliceJMarkham (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It would get more messy I'm afraid although that is an option. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A multiple merge discussion has been started to address the possible merger of usable material from:
into gynephilia and androphilia with any remaining material likely sent to transmen and transwomen. Discussion is taking place at Talk:Gynephilia and androphilia#Multi Merge discussion and your input is appreciated. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT references in gender/sex-related articles

Currently the articles on man/woman and boy/girl so far as I can see only represent the majority's common usage of the term. I do not contest that these should remain the main topics that take up the majority of the articles, however I think there should be a place in these articles explaining that the terms are also used by transgendered and homosexual people. For transgenders it is a more serious issue, whereas with homosexual I think it is done more of a joking fashion (such as in Will & Grace, Jack and Will I am pretty sure have said 'girls' or 'ladies' when talking collectively about themselves and/or female friends like Grace or that drunk woman). I am more familiar with the gay male usage of female terms, does anyone know any examples of lesbians (my guess moreso the ones who adopt more perceivedly masculine pasttimes like athletics, 'butch' etc) using 'boys' or 'men' self-referenced?

Even barring this (which I think exists) these words are also used in a pejorative sense even against those who don't use it, such as to insult homosexuals, or to insult people who have certain characteristics not associated with their sex/gender ("pansy" guys, "tomboy" girls). In the latter case, much like homosexuals I think these people may embrace these in a positive fashion "just one of the girls/boys" in a joking manner much like homosexuals can, rather than more seriously as a transgender would who has a strong belief of identifying with that gender enough to want to be referred to by it at all times. Pejorative uses are also notable (and they are probably frequent enough), and already in the girl article people have mentioned the pejorative uses of the word, though used in a matter of ageism whereas what I am referring to here would be sexism or sexualityism. Tyciol (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and I may fall short. It is far worse for a boy to be called a girl than a girl to be called a boy. I noticed this when I was a teacher. It was the worst thing a boy could say to another boy and fights would erupt, while the girls shrugged and walked away. But this is an issue of masculinity and femininity and gender roles, not necessarily physiology or sexuality. Boys who refuse to adhere to what is considered masculine are ostracized. Girls and femininity somewhat, but not as severe as boys. What are you suggesting actually? Improvement/expansion to which articles? And of course, any material would have to be cited with a reliable source. Do you have any in mind? --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh DOMA... how we have missed you

DOMA as an excuse not to give benefits to same sex partners. Thanks, Obama!

Someday, DOMA. I will write you... (or someone else should). --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Princess Ozma LGBT?

There is some discussion going on over at Talk:Princess Ozma over whether Princess Ozma, an Oz character starting from The Marvelous Land of Oz, belongs in Category:Fictional LGBT characters. From my perspective, Ozma physically changes sex in the book, and is therefore transsexual and thus LGBT. I think transgender children have a tendency to identify strongly with this character, as well.

User:Scottandrewhutchins sees things differently. He believes that Ozma does not qualify as transgender because the nature of her transformation is magical and she never experiences any gender identity problems as either sex. Also, in the early plays it is specified that Ozma is merely disguised as a boy and she is ignorant of her sex, which may be different from transgender experience.

At the heart of the question seems to be if transgenderism is strictly a question of gender identity and bodily dysphoria or applies more generally to people with significant experience in both sexes or gender roles. I am asking for help in settling the question of whether Ozma qualifies as transgender. Note that this could also affect her inclusion in List of transgender people and significance in this WikiProject. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

My first hunch would be to go to the sources: Is there any scholarly discussion of the subject, one way or the other? I understand that the question's scope is broader - it's not just about self-identification - but that might be a good place to start. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Google doesn't know anything you could call "scholarly" on this issue, but there are some partially developed ideas, see [2], who seems to claim Baum's ideas are Spiritualist in nature, and so he was probably not trying to develop any (repressed or otherwise) transgender ideas. This doesn't completely satisfy the question of if Ozma is transgender.
A character who arguably falls on the other side of the line is Ranma, though this is getting somewhat subjective - he changes back and forth and never identifies as female, etc. The lack of clarity probably comes from how unrealistic these changes are -- in real life we don't have to categorize people who magically change sex against their will. Regardless of if we decide Ozma is transgender, it still might be handy to have Category:Fictional characters who change sex for these kinds of characters. I think this new category would fall under the scope of this WikiProject. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say yes. Having gender identity issues has nothing to do with it. You might need to amend a description on the category page that articles including gender transitions or where more than one gender may also be included. You can start with Uncovering Lives By Alan C. Elms, pages 143-148, The Lesbian Menace By Sherrie A. Inness and L. Frank Baum, creator of Oz: A Biography By Katharine M. Rogers. Google Scholar also shows some promise[3]. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There's good evidence that Ozma was only given her rather unique history because Baum intended his second book to be made into a play like his first book was, and Tip, being a young boy, would have been played by a woman. As far as the stage was concerned, the transformation couldn't be more natural. In later books, when Baum gave up his dream of being successful on the stage, he changed her history, saying that she was left behind by Lurline to rule Oz when the land was first enchanted. Of course later authors tended to prefer the idea of her being transformed, and adhered more strictly to that version of her history. So, in my humble opinion, if you want to call her Baum's character, she's not--but if you want to say that she belongs to everyone who writes about her, she certainly is. (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't tag her as LGBT (either bi or trans) until a reliable sources are found. Changing sex by magical means could be a metaphor for bisexuality, transexuality, and myriad non-sexual things. If it a metaphor for women's equality and suffrage, then the fact it takes a form superficially similar to real world phenomena is not important, unless sources have discussed it.
If it is put in the trans cateogry, the scope of that category must explain that it includes characters that change gender by magical or science fictional means that may not be consensual or have anything to do with gender-identity. Should characters that are emaculated as a form of torure be included in a trans category?YobMod 10:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Ozma does not belong in the category because a transformation imposed by magic has nothing to do with real-life transgender issues. Being transgender is a paychological issue that I do not believe that there is any indication that Ozma has in any Baum text or anything within the FF.
I mean, if someone performed unauthorized sex reassignment surgery on you, would you really be a transgender? Physical transsexual perhaps, but even that was imposed upon you by somone else. If gender is between the ears, then so is transgender, and I do not think that the books provide evidence for Ozma being transgender, nor for her as a medical transsexual.
I believe Baum's point, other than to prepare something appropriate for the pantomime stage (ironically, in the play, Ozma is simply a girl in disguise as Tip and magic does not play a role), was to present someone of balanced virtues in endorsement of women's suffrage. Jinjur is a foil, or perhaps the other way around. While she is not so in later books, Jinjur is infantile and tries to combine the extremes of masculine and feminine and simply comes off as absurd. I do not think that Ozma being a good role model for LGBT makes her LGBT, and I think she is a good role model for everybody, not just one particular group. -- Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC) 18:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what Baum intended, relaible sources show the character is seen that way. If you have a reliabla source that he did not intend it at all then you would put both and contrast - Although Baum never intended ____ transgender activists and literary scholars have interpreted it that way. -- Banjeboi 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A controversial view of symbolism in the Wizard of Oz has people connecting the scarecrow with turn of the 20th century farmers, the tin man with industrialists, and the lion with the labor movement. Dorothy's silver slippers (in the book) walking on the yellow-brick (gold) road is a statement about what to use to back currency: gold or silver. Baum may or may not have made these connections, but certainly others have gotten the connections from his writings. As such, they belong in the article about Wizard of Oz. I see no difference between the (unintended?) symbolism in the Wizard of Oz and a gender-changing character that is a symbol for transgender folks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. An article regarding LGBT themes regarding the Wizard of Oz is begging to be written. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:LGBT writers from India

I just tagged Suniti Namjoshi after adding a reference that she's a lesbian feminist. I notice there is no Category:LGBT writers from India...Zigzig20s (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there a lot with articles? I'm not sure of any hard rules but if there are a dozen or more i would consider starting a subcategory of LGBT writers. -- Banjeboi 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with creating the cat if there are enough. If not, then maybe "LGBT writers by continent" cats can be made?. Also if they have reliable sources, adding them to the List of LGBT writers.
I wouldn't go by continent as that seems a little illogical to what readers/researchers would utilize. Start with Category:LGBT writers and put in the most sibling cat possible. As it becomes too large it can be divided. The list is a different issue but if they have an article would certainly seem to make sense. -- Banjeboi 08:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree that continents is not ideal. Was just thinking that the category could easily have 40 non-sub-cated members without ever having more than 3 per Asian country, so might end up looking strange. But is good enough for now.YobMod 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Queer theory/studies?

Queer theory and Queer studies... would I end up with egg on my face if I proposed a merge? They seem awfully similar to me... --Malkinann (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose but not with eggs. They should be similar as queer studies by default would include a section on theory whereas the theory article would only need a mention that studies exist. They likely need to be cleaned up to separate the two. In looking at them they actually seem quite distinct with queer studies about the field and theory about ... theories. I've cleaned up the studies one a bit. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
They're different things.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Queer studies/theory isn't quite my field, and so both the articles seem impenetrable to me. Also, in the FAC for Romeo and Juliet, there was some discussion about which link to use, to queer theory or queer studies. Currently the link in the Romeo and Juliet article goes [[queer theory|queer studies]], as the articles were deemed mainly the same, but queer theory went into more depth. --Malkinann (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Queer Theory is what we use in hermeneutics; it is close to Deconstruction. Queer Studies is a broader approach, it looks at queer lives as well; it is closer to sociology/history perhaps.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So, queer theory is about studying/creating queer interpretations of texts by closely reading them and picking apart different interpretations? And queer studies is about people rather than texts???? --Malkinann (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes. Though 'text' in the postmodern sense - also music, painting, etc. We sometimes theorise from Queer Studies texts though - as when Lee Edelman draws upon a 1950s article from Time Magazine...Zigzig20s (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a sentence to the lead of queer theory, linking it to hermeneutics. Hope this is ok. --Malkinann (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The lead is actually misleading. Gay and lesbian Studies are the forefathers of Queer Studies, just as we had Gay Theory before Queer Theory. Lesbian Theory is Lesbian Feminism.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think both articles are misleading, and don't make the distinction between Queer theory being a type of critical theory and Queer studies including history/sociology/anthropology and queer theory. But i agree that good articles written on them would/should be seperate.YobMod 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree on that.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Blood giving in Sweden for MSM

Hi there,

Was just checking out the LGBT rights in Sweden page and saw that there is a table there stating that MSM in Sweden can give blood. This is definitely not true (I have a Swedish language source for this). I'm not entirely sure how to edit the table to reflect this or indeed whether the tick should be replaced with a cross or the item should be removed from the table altogether.

Oh, and there was a citation needed tag attached to a statement about Sweden getting gay marriage on May 1st this year. Here is a source for it if someone wants to add it. I'm not very good at doing the actual editing bit but I don't mind finding sources for stuff if people need it. Intesvensk (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I updated the table, after doing some basic research confirming it. Sheesh, I didn't know about that... Article should probably expand upon it a bit, not hard finding (reliable) sources discussing it. I will see if I have the energy to do so... Dendlai (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I also updated the same-sex marriage claim using your source. Though in the future, bringing it up on the article's talk page works just as well :) Dendlai (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Tack! Intesvensk (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

LGBT rights timeline

A lots of prods, merges and finally a group AfD came to the conclusion that individual "year in LGBT rights" are not needed, (unless there is particular reason that year has a lot of content, which may be the case for more recent years). As a result, i've merged them into decade article or longer time periods if there was still not more than one event per decade. Note i only merge up until the 1970's, as later articles have more content (which may be bloat or not, so have to be decided individually). This gives the articles found here (Table of years in LGBT rights). I updated the merged years, but for some reason i cannot transclude it into articles.

Although i think further merging into the Timeline of LGBT history is not needed, as worldwide there must be enough information for these time periods, they all of them still need a lot of work:

  • Most of the articles are completely uncited.
  • Most have a US/western bias.
  • We need a new navbox that points to the articles, rather than the yearly redirects (see 1950's in LGBT rights for the current nav table).
  • They need a standarised format and a proper, context-giving lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YobMod (talkcontribs)
I'm mixed on this. It seems like we should have these articles as we have so many biographies and organizations just listing the years when people were born, died and groups established would start to populate these. I would instead establish where each of those year in articles should point to and redirect so the navbox works for them all. Standardizing is another issue which I would look to the non-lgbt history year-in articles for suggestions. -- Banjeboi 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Premise of Queer as Folk (North American TV series)

Howdy! There is a discussion at Talk:Queer as Folk (North American TV series) over how the show's premise is described. Apparently, someone has taken offense to the section starting off as:

The series follows the lives of five gay men living in ...

Some editors want to remove the word gay. If anyone has opinions on the removal of the word gay from the show's premise, chime in on the article's talk page please. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

*boggles* Thanks for the headsup. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


And you thought gay gas was from lite beer? -- Banjeboi 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I added unsourced tag to it. I really think it should be AfD'ed as non-notable. Apparently over the years, others think so as well from reading the article's talk page. - ALLST☆R echo 04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, on the fence. The website does seem notable[4] and there are some book links to it. -- Banjeboi 06:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)