Talk:List of LGBTQ awareness periods

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of LGBTQ awareness periods article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Holidays Low‑importance

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Revert

@Raladic reverted my edits of removing "QIA+" from the "LGBTQIA+" term used in the lede. This was accused as disruptive editing. My reasoning is that, because this article is entitled simply "List of LGBT awareness periods", that the term "LGBT" should be used to reflect the topic, unless another variant is explicitly used in quotes from a source. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list is quite literally a list of recognized LGBTQIA+ events, so in this case I strongly feel it is inappropriate to have the lead say just LGBT.

The discussion on why articles across the board have not yet been renamed was recently had on the LGBT main talk space and it was close, but no full consensus, so it ended up being a stalemate. Raladic (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a major inconsistency. "LGBT" as a topic across the board is the current consensus (no consensus to move); it thus makes no sense to use further acronyms. Additionally, "LGBTQIA+" is not described by any (but a few) of the article's 92 sources. As LGBT is quite literally the topic of the article (from the title), and the most general term used by all sources, to use the term "LGBTQIA+" is both original research, and, as a variant of the term, arbitrary. Why not use LGBTQQIAAP or other variants? Zilch-nada (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the lead should say LGBT until there is a consensus to change it something else. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even the lead on LGBT contains a section that recognized LGBTQ (without the IA) as the more common inclusive variant as what LGBT stands for it a contentious itself - so if you change it to just LGBT, then you also have to bring in that part into the lead to clarify as some people do use it in an exclusionary way and the list here is very much not just LGBT periods, which as you scroll up in the talk page has in fact been fought multiple times where things like the Asexuality day we’re gatekept because someone argued it wasn’t LGBT in the stricter sense. Raladic (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At most, I would be open to the use of the term "LGBT+" as that mostly corresponds with the article's title, and isn't as arbitrary as "LGBTQ", "LGBTQIA" etc. The fact is that anything included beyond "LGBT" in the acronym is included in that plus sign. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my quick search online now, there are more new sources using LGBTQ+ awareness periods than just LGBT, so in fact, we may want to change this to a page move discussion and change this here to list of LGBTQ+ awareness periods.

[1] [2] [3] [4] to list a few. Raladic (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether that should be approached as a broad thing, covering all articles with "LGBT" in the title (except when it is part of a name for an organisation), or just this one. In this specific case I think the argument for a move is strengthened because the list includes many items which fall outside of a narrow interpretation of "LGBT". (Yes, I know that a lot of people interpret it with an implied Q+ but not everybody.) Of course, that leaves the question of exactly what to change it to. "LGBTQ+" seems perfectly reasonable to me but I'm sure that there would be a mix of both reasonable and less reasonable objections. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. If is indeed the most common wording, then I am open to this change. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Q" and the "+" serve a similar purpose. There some nuances, that we don't need to get into here, that lead people to include both in the acronym and that's perfectly reasonable too. "LGBT", "LGBTQ" and "LGBTQ+" are all widely used versions of the acronym while "LGBT+" is less so. I would suggest that you reflect on why you have a problem with the longer versions of the acronym and seemingly with the "Q" specifically. I hesitate to bring up your behaviour on other articles but I think that the edit summary here is telling. I'm not going to blame you if you have a personal feeling of distaste for the word "queer". It has been widely stigmatised for such a long time, but so have all of the other elements of the acronym and that is not a reason to omit any of them. I suggest that you need to acknowledge (to yourself, not to us) that any personal distaste is just that, personal, and try not to let that cloud your judgement when editing Wikipedia. Sure, that isn't always an easy thing to do and nobody gets it right all the time. I'm just asking you to try. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an absurd set of accusations. You accuse me of having a distaste for the word "queer". Not at all; my above preference for LGBT+ was not in relation to how often it is used (LGBTQ+ is indeed more common), but in respect to how it covers all of the noted gender-identities and sexualities, including queer. There are also acronyms, such as LGBTI, LGBTIQ+ etc. that do not immediately follow with "queer"; LGBT+ would cover any variation or order beyond the simple "LGBT".

I raised concern on both this article, and the article above you linked, because of the long acronym, "LGBTQIA+". Now, while it's my personal opinion that the acronym is not a good one in general (that is the bias I admit to here; a distaste for long, gratuitous acronyms), it is not one reliably sourced such that "LGBTQIA+" should be used in the ledes of articles. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I know it is a BIG issue, but personally I would rather it was resolved to be the same on ALL LGBTQ pages rather than just on this one. I totally agree with you that it SHOULD be changed, but I don't want to only be on this page. Historyday01 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pansexual Pride Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pansexual Pride Day has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 15 § Pansexual Pride Day until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]