Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

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

LGBTQ+ studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingResources ResourcesShowcase Showcase

    Standardizing 'by country' articles

    [edit]

    Our articles on LGBTQ people by country are quite inconsistent. There are variously articles titled LGBTQ people in foo, LGBTQ rights in foo, LGBTQ history in foo, LGBTQ culture in foo, etc., but little consistency between which countries have which articles. Often the articles contain content beyond what their name would suggest, just because it is the best available location for that content. There have been several proposed moves and related discussions on these articles in the past months, which has demonstrated the need for a centralized discussion.

    It would productive to establish a consensus on a model structure for these articles, so that the work to bring them into greater consistency can have a clear goal. To that end, I propose the following:

    • Every country should have LGBTQ people in foo as a WP:Broad-concept article.
    • Where there is enough content for a more specific topic to have its own article (on the rights, history, or culture of LGBTQ people in the country), there should be a WP:Summary style subsection in the broad-concept article.
    • LGBTQ in foo should redirect to the broad-concept article. Per. WP:BCA, disambiguation pages are not needed where the potential destination articles are conceptually linked and covered by a broad-concept article.

    LGBTQ people in Mexico and its sub-articles provide an example of this structure.--Trystan (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If we do choose to move forward with this (or a similar) standardization, I would be down to help work on such a project :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This works for me. Lewisguile (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add that if there is a DAB page, I think it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" instead of "LGBTQ in X", which is grammatically wrong. Raladic (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the WP:BCA guideline suggests that DABs shouldn't exist in these situations: However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. There isn't really an ambiguous title in these situations that requires disambiguation between different meanings, but rather a general concept (LGBTQ people in foo) and sub-topics that spin off from that parent article. The BCA serves as the leaping off point to the more specific topics, so a DAB isn't needed.--Trystan (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup that's fair. So if there is a clear BCA, then we don't need a DAB, but I'm saying for cases where there might be ambiguity if a "LGBTQ people in X" has been properly refacted into the BCA, if there is a DAB, it should be at "LGBTQ topics in X" so it is grammatically correct.
    Else when there is a BCA, all of those "LGBTQ in X" or "LGBTQ topics in X" should redirect to the BCA at "LGBTQ people in X" as we're now establishing as a consensus standard here. Raladic (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @MikutoH who has been involved in a lot of these discussions. Raladic (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea. Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then? If people are interested in working in or expanding such articles, that would be great. --MikutoH talk! 02:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What will happen with categories that use LGBTQ as a noun? Similar to how transgender and intersex categories were moved, or are we gonna add another word (such as community)? --MikutoH talk! 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was going to be "topics", "people", "history", etc, depending on the scope of the article? Lewisguile (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will countries that only have rights be revamped into main topics then? I would say, if the "rights" article is really focussed on rights, it would stay as-is, and at some point hopefully a "people" BCA will be added. But I think a fair number of articles on rights have collected subsections on related topics that would be more suited for a BCA, so there won't be a one-size-fits-all solution.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that we may not want to assume that every country should have a separate "LGBTQ people in" page. Small countries or newly-formed states may be better covered as a section in a broader regional article. Doing a quick Google Scholar search to test this theory, I was sometimes able to quickly find country-specific sources (e.g. East Timor), but not for some others (e.g. San Marino, Seychelles, Maldives, South Sudan). Results for these searches suggest that e.g. LGBTQ people in Sub-Saharan Africa, would more accurately reflect the scope of available high-quality sources (e.g. [1]) signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. I suppose it would be more accurate to phrase it as, "Where reliable sources are available to create a stand-alone article (or articles) on LGBTQ people in a country, LGBTQ people in foo should be created as a WP:Broad-concept article."--Trystan (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I think the suggestion in general is great. I created this list Draft:List of LGBTQ topics. Though I'm not sure if it's a mix of Outline of LGBTQ topics and what would be a "LGBTQ by country" plus some related things in the same affix or similar naming. And I created with non-redirect (aka mainspace) articles only. I was also inspired by this table from Spanish-language version of this WikiProject. So it might be useful for y'all to fill the gaps, broaden the scope of some articles or rename (that would make the list inconsistent as time goes and no one updates it). LIrala (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and created a separate page to coordinate/discuss this project. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Emma Dumont#Requested move 7 December 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Emma Dumont#Requested move 7 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LIrala (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge suggestion/advice

    [edit]

    Hello,

    I am of the opinion that LGBTQ+ media should be merged into Media portrayal of LGBTQ people, as the latter is the better article by far. However, I think that the larger article should retain the title of the former.

    Do the members of this WikiProject feel the same? I am open to suggestions. Also, I don't know how to propose this non-basic merge, so if anyone wants to provide guidance on this, let me know as well.

    Thanks!

    JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think those are two very separate topics. The first is about media made by and for LGBTQ people. The second is about portrayal of LGBTQ people across all media. Neither topic subsumes the other although they do overlap. I agree that LGBTQ+ media is a very poor article. In fact, most of what it should be is so entirely missing that I can't blame you for not realising what the point of that article is.
    Generally, I think our whole coverage of this topic area is poor. We are up to our eyeballs in articles called "List of..." but missing some articles that explain these topics properly.
    If we are going to fix it then this is quite a big project and certainly beyond my abilities. To give an idea of what I think we need, LGBTQ+ media should cover the history of LGBTQ publishing (publishing houses, books, magazines, openly and covertly LGBT publications, academic publications etc), poetry, theatre and then film and broadcasting channels and internet outlets. It needs to take a global perspective. It can pull in a summary of content from Gay literature, Lesbian literature and Transgender literature etc as a good start on the print side. For other topics there is LGBTQ theatre, Gay pornography, Gay pulp fiction, Lesbian erotica (insofar as it is actually made for lesbians). For the globalisation there are several regional articles like LGBT literature in Spain which can be summarised and linked to. These provide jumping off points to things like Homoerotic literature in ancient Rome and Hispano-Arabic homoerotic poetry. We do have a lot of coverage that is not summarised or even linked in this, the main article about the topic. We also have some serious gaps in our coverage. For example, where is our coverage of LGBTQ TV and radio stations? I see this article as the top level jumping off point for all these topics. It should cover them all briefly, trying to provide a coherent overview, and provide links to the individual articles for more detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, they are separate (related) topics and should stay separate. Raladic (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree: we should not merge these. LGBTQ+ media is about (for example) magazines and news organisations that cover queer news or books and films by queer creators, whereas Media portrayal of LGBTQ people is about how predominantly cis-het media represents queer people.
    The Advocate (magazine) and I Saw the TV Glow could both be within the remit of the former, but only the film would be within the remit of the latter. List of horror television series with LGBT characters is within the remit of the latter, but not the former. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 19:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the two articles should remain separate. I've started doing some work to expand LGBTQ+ media, but it definitely needs a ton of work, especially for coverage of non-English speaking countries. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also started a draft on LGBTQ radio, which folks are welcome to add to if they're interested. There's a ton of academic coverage on the subject, which is great. ForsythiaJo (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanielRigal, that is a good point, and its validity is increased by @ForsythiaJo's edits. I'm glad we were able to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of my initial proposal.
    JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support Daniel's idea. Lewisguile (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Daniel. One article discusses media generated to be viewed by LGBTQ people, the other discusses the portrayal of LGBTQ people (or lack thereof) in mainstream media outlets. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that there are portions of the US subsection of LGBTQ+ media which should be moved to the Media portrayal of LGBTQ people article. Specifically the parts which discuss the rules and regulations which limited LGBTQ representation. HenrikHolen (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll put a note about that on the Talk Page and then can move it in a couple days if there's no objections. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    See the discussion about Template:LGBTQ fiction at LGBTQ+ media. Comment if interested :)

    JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 8 December 2024

    [edit]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gay sex roles#Requested move 8 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge proposed for Disorders of Sex Development and Sexual Anomalies

    [edit]

    Since this topic relates to intersex and was labeled of interest to the LGBTQ+ Wikiproject, I figured you guys might want to weigh in. Here is the discussion. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    LGBTQ to LGBTQ+

    [edit]

    Should we re-name pages from "LGBTQ" to "LGBTQ+"? Helper201 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. The acronym for LGBTQ doesn't account for aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, or non-binary people. Nor does it account for varying non-cis and non-heterosexual identities, sexualities, gender identities etc from outside mainstream western media, like two-spirit, Faʻafafine, fakafifine, takatāpui, vakasalewalewa, māhū or palopa etc. I think using "+" would account for all these and more without the need for a long acronym like LGBTIQA (which itself omits non-binary, among others). It would also help negate future moving over "why include Q but not A" etc. Many of the pages using LGBTQ in their title cover aromantic people, asexual people, intersex people, and/or non-binary, so I think this would be most relevant and applicable. Helper201 (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Wasn’t there a discussion recently about changing the acronym that was based on sources? I thought that that was for everything, but maybe not.
    JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer Q+, but snowclose. A move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ (the appropriate venue) occurred relatively recently, with many arguments put forth, which resulted in moving from LGBT to LGBTQ, based especially on Google Ngrams data. Let's revisit adding a plus once Ngrams gets data for 2023. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 03:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefer Q+ but WP:SNOWCLOSE. As per Roxy. Lewisguile (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowclose. I also prefer LGBTQ+, but it is too soon to revisit the consensus established in the recent RM that settled on LGBTQ.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 In this case it is because we are not talking about the move of a single page but mass moving many pages. Those template parameters are for single page moves. WP:RMPM wouldn't be relevant as there are far, far too many pages starting with LGBTQ to list. Helper201 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 please respond. You removed the rfc far too soon, without any adequate chance of response beforehand and haven't responded to what I stated above a week ago. Helper201 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSUB says that subtopics should use consistent naming with the parent article, so articles have generally been kept consistent with the article currently at LGBTQ. This previously meant everything got standardized to LGBT. Since August, when that article was moved to LGBTQ, other articles have followed suit. The move was very thoroughly discussed back in August, and despite it not resulting in my preferred outcome, I think it is much too soon to revisit it.--Trystan (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no harm in holding a normal discussion on this Wikiproject talk page. If you want to escalate it, but don't want to use the WP:RM process, you could try WP:VPR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Shepard move request

    [edit]

    There's a move request, Matthew Shepard → Murder of Matthew Shepard, that editors here may have useful expertise to contribute: Talk:Matthew Shepard#Requested move 22 December 2024. Davidwbaker (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for American Horror Story

    [edit]

    American Horror Story has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Good article reassessment for Romaine Brooks

    [edit]

    Romaine Brooks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone to create a page for me and my work

    [edit]

    I am a North Carolinian, queer poet, author of numerous books, some awards. The first gay poet in NC .... to remain in NC ... and be completely out. There were others of my generation who left the state and became well known, and some previous to me who also did so. But before me the ones that stayed behind were well hidden, or not out at all. Poet and publisher Jonathan Williams was my main mentor. Also James Broughton and Michael Rumaker. Many gay composers have set my poems to music. Anyhow, you can read and learn about me at my website https://jefferybeam.com/ There is more news (and one new book) not on my website as it has not been updated in a while. Born 1953. Hope someone can step forward from your group to add content about my life and work to Wikipedia. Jeffbeam (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:PROUD. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jeffery. To have a Wikipedia article about you, there must exist reliable and independent sources which provide significant, in-depth discussion of you or your work (see the WP:General notability guideline and WP:Notability (people) for the project's exact policy). Unfortunately, most people, even most published authors do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. If you're aware of reliable sources independent from yourself that would be useful for writing a biography about you, please list them. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow on from Roxy, I would suggest providing at least four independent, reliable sources (not primary or self-published sources) which discuss you and your work in depth. Lewisguile (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Five could be better if possible. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: split off the history sections Gay literature and Lesbian literature pages into one page

    [edit]

    ( It was suggested to be taken here when I asked in the Teahouse, as it involves splitting multiple articles to create a third. If it's the wrong place, blame them, not me. I'm just a newbie trying to help and not make mistakes)

    I propose that we split the history aspects of Gay literature and Lesbian literature into their own third article: History of Gay and Lesbian literature (1), or separate articles History of Gay Literature and History of Lesbian literature (2). --Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support 1 and 2 with equal preference, as proposer, because the history aspect of the topics currently dominates both articles and can easily stand on their own, and I think splitting them off will allow other aspects of both topics to have some breathing room. I excluded Bisexual literature and Transgender literature, as their history section are small enough not to dominate their articles. I know it took me a while to get here from the teahouse, but things happened, and I forgot until now.--Lover of lgbt literature (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Lesbian literature history is focused on the lesbian subject and should remain independent from the history of Gay male literature. And creating a stand-alone article titled "History of Lesbian literature" as an addition to the existing Lesbian literature article (which is historical) is senseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. Gay literature has about 6.2K readable words and Lesbian literature has about 4.6K readable words. Neither is overly long at this point and both of them cover a lot of history. Moving history to one or two new pages would fragment the info and make all of them rather short. A better idea would be to wait and see if any particular section gets overly long, and then spin that off into its own section if needed. But that seems a distant issue for now. Lewisguile (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cass Review page in need of consensus

    [edit]

    Morning all,

    I suspect it's still too soon after Christmas to get many people involved right now, but there are some ongoing discussions over at Cass Review which could benefit from more input. At the moment there are just a small handful of us discussing, so it tends to be one-on-one discussions, and then any emerging consensus gets overwritten as soon as the new one-to-one discussion starts. There have also been some overlapping edits made around the same time which have resulted in accidental restoration of text which no one was happy with, thus making the article worse than it would have been. Some extra eyes on this might help.

    Key discussions:

    • Background: How much do we need to include about the history of GIDS here?
    • Methodology: How much space should be given over to the systematic reviews versus other forms of evidence included, and the nature of synthesis itself?
    • What counts as valid evidence per MEDRS – e.g., is the systematic review by RAND Health & Wellbeing valid, and does it matter that the Cass Review itself wasn't peer reviewed if the systematic reviews were?
    • Should the responses of gender critical groups be removed or should they stay in the responses section?

    There's probably more, but those are off the top of my head. I reckon we can get some quick consensus so I've held off on doing a formal RfC for that reason. I think it's more a problem of few editors engaging right now, rather than one of intractable disagreement. Lewisguile (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies&oldid=1267340090"