Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

LGBT/Queer Studies infobox

The proposed info box:

Part of a series on
LGBTQ topics
      
Sexual orientation and gender
History
General
Identities
Culture
Rights
Health
Social attitudes
Issues
Academic fields and discourse
LGBTQ portal
The thing that strikes me is the word "Transgender" in the top section. The other three are nouns, "Transgender" is firstly an adjective wiktionary:transgender. What do you think of "Transgenderism"?
Also, it seems there should be more in the "Law" section. I can't for the life of me think of what at the moment, but I'll think about it and see what I can come up with.
Overall - very nice work!!! SatyrTN (talk | contribs)
Suggestions for the 'Law' box: Civil Rights, Employment Protection, Something dealing with 'no promo homo' laws. CaveatLectorTalk 08:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It states in 1971 colorado repealed its sodomy law it actually became effective june 30 of 1972. Article by Bart Barnes of the Washignton Post written 05/31/1972. Plus someone had mention case law. The important one would definitely be lawrence v texas.
That information should go on the specific page you're referring to. Feel free to edit it and fix the info! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We Need a List of Subjects

Once we get a list going I'll start working --Kylehamilton 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, what needs to be done? i've been working on gay subjects in a very haphazard way for ages now... Aroundthewayboy 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Here is a List of LGBT-related topics.

There are only a couple red-linked topics (some porn star and a list of lesbian actresses). It's an OK place to start, though.

Aroundthewayboy 22:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to help out with this article. I have been doing research for at least 3 years in a variety of related topics.

Atarifreak06 20:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems that Category:LGBT stubs may be a place top start is you are looking for an article to expand. - Davodd 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I started rewriting the Men who have sex with men article as it was very poor. I will try to develop it further to include the topics I mentioned in the discussion page of this article. Roger jg 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody want to write an article on Stonewall F.C.? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category Confusion

I've been getting really confused by the organization of the whole LGBT category (and its subcategories). I wanted to post something about us doing a review of how articles tend to be categorized and maybe do a little cleaning up (I, in no way, would consider doing something so widespread by myself), but I don't know where to post this on the project page. - Rugadh 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the LGBT categorization scheme is a patchwork with no real logical hierarchy. - Davodd 02:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Washington

Greetings! Just wanted to direct everyone's attention to this article and event. The Washington State Supreme Court will be handing down their ruling on the same-sex marriage ban in this US state tomorrow (Wednesday, July 26, 2006), so expect quite a few edits to that page and try to keep an eye on it, which I will do, but I'll be away from a computer for most of tomorrow--with the publicity that might come with this decision, there might be hefty vandalism (if people can find the page! It took me a while to surf it out). Thanks! --Rkitko 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

POV notwithstanding (and I tried hard to not include my POV in those articles, but you might want to check me on it for subtle details), all I can say regarding the ruling is "damn." Rkitko 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD Homosexuality in ancient Greece

The article Homosexuality in ancient Greece has been proposed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in ancient Greece. You may want to comment on the proposal or make any changes to the article that seem appropriate. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pederasty

I resent that the Pederasty article has been associated with LGBT studies. I resent seeing our flag associated with the practice of pederasty. It is the same as associating the American flag as symbolic of American studies with race-based murders. Pederasty is not part of the GLBT movement or our struggle for equal rights, represented by our rainbow flag. I would like to know who decided that Pederasty should be included in this project, where there was consensus and how to contribute, because I certainly do not wish to see this association. This is not a denial that there are GLBT pederasts, but it is a legitimate wish to not have this practice included as some how integral with our community. Enzedbrit 02:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto - forcefully! -- SatyrTN 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't people mixing up pederasty and pedophilia here? Pederasty in ancient greece was the closest they got to socially recognised same sex relationships. The subject was then taken up by prominant "gay" writers and thinkers which probably contributed to putting the issue of same sex relations in the public eye. As such, it is part of our history.

Currently, in the news media the term tends to be incorrectly used as a synonym for pedophilia, even though the latter designates the sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent boys or girls. This confusion may arise from the fact that a single organization, NAMBLA, is the most prominent public advocate for both groups, making the practical distinction between pederast and pedophile activism difficult to define, whatever their theoretical differences.

Zefrog 11.42, 04 September 2006

LGBT resources

Basically I'm trying to get ahold of sources for Twink, but can't find much (a Google search for "twink" brings up a load of porn sites. Nice and all, but not quite what I need right at this moment). Are there any good, reliable LGBT sites around which would have info on this? -- Steel 18:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just did a Google search for 'twink "gay slang"' (with the quotation marks) and, while still turning up quite a bit of porn, there's a few nuggets... er, good sites... in there as well :) -- SatyrTN 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, your search did bring up something useful, I can definitely use that. There must be an encyclopedia of all things gay somewhere, though. I'll keep looking I guess. Oh, and I never thought I'd ever get irritated by a Google search bringing up too much porn. -- Steel 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And I have no idea why my link redirects to the Wiki article. It doesn't when you click on it from Google. -- Steel 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after having a closer look I'm concerned about its reliability. Either the Wikipedia article was written from that, or that was written from the Wikipedia article. I'm aware of sites like answers.com copying wiki articles, and this whiffs a bit of that. -- Steel 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure About.com (which is where that link goes to) has an agreement with Wikipedia and that they copy wholesale from here to their site. That's why the two are pretty much identical. SatyrTN (talk | contribs)
That's a bit of a pain. It's like trying to use Wikipedia to source Wikipedia... -- Steel 22:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Animal homosexuality

I am a bit disappointed that not enough attention has been given here to animal homosexuality. I think it is an integral aspect of this topic, as humans are animals after all, and the subject has been part of the discussion since the ancient Greeks, with animals given as a paragon of what is and is not "natural." Now that the contention that animal sexuality excludes homosexuality has been conclusively refuted, the polemic has shifted and the animal model is again being used for political purposes by those who claim that it may well be natural but that does not make it good. That of course is besides the point, what is important for those of us who are interested in this topic being addressed honestly in the Wikipedia is that we see to it that those species where such behavior has been documented are represented as such, and in sufficient detail so as to . It seems to me that animal sexuality should not be politicized, that censorship of the topic is inherently POV, and that we need to pay attention to prevent that from happening since unfortunately this material often seems to go against what people intuitively accept as valid in animal articles - with the result that it is watered down, distorted or deleted. Haiduc 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Joining and participation interest

I would like to add to this WikiProject but I am unsure how exactly to do that other than contributing. I am a graduate student and queer with a focus on butch-femme communities. I would like to help on that topic and others where I can be of assistance.--Mic 05:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep a close watch on Queer related articles and fact-check using your university's resources, I would say. CaveatLectorTalk 18:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I just joined

I just joined and I want to stick to areas that are easy for me to fact check. Having graduated from a college a year ago I only have the internet as a readily available source. I plan on working on fixing grammar and spelling errors and expanding some movie items. Will this be enough? Or should I have a larger agenda? It might help noting that I am rather new to editing and I don't want to be too big for my breeches. --Mr Vain 22:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Grammar and spelling is a great way to start - and if you get interested in an article, feel free to get involved in researching and expanding :) And don't worry about an agenda - the Queer one covers all of us... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:LGBT television series on CfD

Hi, folks. You may already know about this, but Category:LGBT television series is up at CfD. It was originally placed there as part of a proposed renaming, but has attracted a large number of "delete" votes. I thought that some people here who might not normally keep track of CfD might be interested. (I only came upon the CfD when someone questioned the category's inclusion in Torchwood.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I figure this might be related hopefully not seen as an advertisment or the sort.

Would it be ok to provide info regarding LGBT - actor, actress, artist, musician, writers, professionals or even famous historic figures and stuffs etc. As a way to educate or just to show that LGBT people are every where and comes in all size and shape, so to speak.

I saw a public program on KPBS call "In the Life" which shows a lot of documentry and LGBT people all over America about their coming out stories and issues also general LGBT issues. The last one I saw was this one gay man talking about how after 911, he wanted to help and serve in the army, so he joined in, however had to hide his gay identity, he talked about life in Iraq war front and how later the offical founded out that he's gay from a blog journal he posted and discharged him just like that.

I think it's a great progrem surviving only from people's donation I believe but I'm not sure if it would be helpful to add to this LGBT project. They have a website www.inthelifetv.org if any one what to see if it is what this project is about and related to be add on here.Yajaec 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, never mind, I just found a link of Category:LGBT-related television programs. Thank anyway. cUser:Yajaec|Yajaec]] 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could any one tell me how to add on to the LGBT film or tv page?Yajaec 18:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

An LGBT barnstar has been proposed here. Thankyou Ouro. Other thoughts would be welcome. Dev920 (Please vote here) 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Civil unions in Brazil

Hi. I was trying to improve this article, but turns out it´s quite hard to completely understand the situation of same-sex civil unions in Brazil (so many different and contradicting court decisions, it´s hard to know what each one means and what we really should therefore write in the article) and it looks like this will need A LOT of research for the article to cover the topic well and to become good enough. I´s sure there are more Brazilians (I´m Brazilian) and people from other Portuguese-speaking contries here, and maybe they wanna help. There are almost no sources in English, but English-speaking people could help a lot, making the writing of the article better and telling us what are the proper law terms in English. Also, I would like to know what should I look for... There are a lot of discussions on the House and Senate available online, and a lot of court rulings on the subject (as you can see, I´m not and don´t pretend to be a specialist in Law, but I find it hard even an specialist would presume this task to be easy).

I´ve been searching on the Internet, and there is a lot of information out there, but I´m not sure what´s relevant and what´s not, and I can´t really grasp all the judicial (is this the proper word?) concepts involved. When I can, I don´t know how to properly translate it. I just started to work on this article, and even if no one helps and it takes a lot of time (I don´t have much free time), I hope one day the article to be worthy of its name. I hope I´m not being too confusing and you understand me! (Sorry for the English mistakes, I´ll be glad if someone point them out so I can learn more) A.Z. 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the problem - the article seems clear enough that a couple may register a same-sex partnership and be given the same rights as married couples. Am I missing something? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are. To begin with, it is just not true that same-sex couples have the same right than different-sex couples: they can´t get married, they can´t adopt children, etc. The article doesn´t cite sources at all. The article is not updated, it is very badly written. Well, those problems are more than enough to say ir needs a lot of work!
One more problem: it doesn´t say anywhere in the article that "a couple may register a same-sex partnership and be given the same rights as married couples". The fact that by reading the article that´s what you understood is yet another good evidence that the article isn´t good.A.Z. 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, A.Z.- I see you have rewritten the article on the talk page, but aren't confident enough to make the edits on the article itself. I am happy to lend a hand with that tomorrow (it's almost midnight here now). Do you have reference sources we can include? Let me know on my talk page, and I look forward to collaborating with you on this. Jeffpw 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. It takes a beady eye to note what rights have not been earned, as opposed to what has. I will copyedit some time later, when you have made the revisions intended above. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 22:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Our first FA

It gives me great pleasure to tell you that an article I wrote, James Robert Baker, has now been made a FA. If I am not mistaken, this is the first FA for the LGBT project group. My thanks to Dev for her support of the article through the candidacy process. Jeffpw 12:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jeff! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Though I should point out that, if Jake Gyllenhaal ever gets round to coming out, I actually got the first unofficial one. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's kickstart this project, shall we?

Screw my RE essay!

Our priorities, as I see it, are to gain more members, develop the project, and write better articles. I will add WP:LGBTSTUD to the Community portal to get a bit of advertising, and if anyone is interested in working out some sort of newsletter to send out (which we can do by hand right now), we can keep our current members a bit more active.

The Portal needs improvement - at the moment despite Davodd's efforts it's static. Can we agree some kind of internal guideline as to when to change it, how it should look etc.? When we gain new members, it would be good if we could develop several taskforces - I was thinking LGBT History, LGBT Rights, and LGBT Culture, with a possible option of Biographies later. Though this is a moot point if we do not gain more members! I also think that a Collaboration of the Fortnight is something we really ought to get off the ground - it'll improve Wikipedia and get member participation going.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Well, I can think of loads more, but I'm racked with guilt over not doing my work. ;) Does anyone else have any ideas? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rearranged the portal a bit, and updated it. I should go work now... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A week later, and no-one has replied! Sacre bleu! Well, now I have AWB, I'm going to put together a newsletter, and send it out to everyone. It would be nice if I had something to send... Come on, guys, any ideas for improving LGBT articles? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So how about 1) start an LGBT Article of the Week? I don't know how those work, but I suspect it's a "nominate - discuss - vote" procedure. And if I can help writing a newsletter, I'd be glad to. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think given our low membership it would be a better Collaboration of the Fortnight - and there's no point having a voting procedure until we have a critical mass of people who want to nominate articles. Maybe we should nominate articles one by one down the members' list? Or is that not right?
I think a newsletter is a great idea, but as we don't have that much to say in it, I think we might need more a "Newsnote"! We certainly need to inform people about the barnstar, and the new goings on with the portal, so it's worth having one now, I think. I think it might be worth going to Kirill Lokshin and asking him how MILHIST started, to get some idea of how we should grow the wikiproject. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've created the newsletter here. Do you have any other ideas before I send it out? I've contacted Kirill, so I'm waiting on him. Is there anything else we can do to get the ball rolling in a small way? Are tehre any templates that need creating, for example? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've sent out the newsletter. I hope that's ok. Kirill replied and suggested that we implement articles assessments and banner tagging. As I was planning to implement this anyway, I think it should be moved to the top of our priorities. Is anyone interested in helping me with this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is "banner tagging" adding a "this article is part of wikiproject:LGBT" to article talk pages? Count me in for that. I don't know anything about assessing articles, but I'm willing to learn! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I want to tweak the banner a bit maybe, and then we can get on with it. The 1.0 assessment have an automated assessment thing, so if we join that, that'll save us a great deal of time as well. I've never assessed before either, so I'll guess we'lll just have to try and see what happens! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done assessments through the wiki biography project, and will be happy to help out here. For those who have not done it before, this link can help. It might also be useful for somebody to go to LGBT related articles, check the history for positive editors, and invite them to our project. I should add that while I am happy to participate here, and plan on making this project my focus at Wiki, I am also extremely busy with my humdrum work and a book I am writing. As such, my time on wiki is limited. Jeffpw 09:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Transgender

I'm transgendered and I joined this wikiproject because it is supposed to working to improve LGBT content. That T stands for transgender.

I've spent almost all of the time since I joined considering removing myself from the project. I've also seriously considered tagging the project page {{toofewopinions}} because of its systemic bias against transgendered people and issues. The content of the project page leaves me feeling more out of place than the world outside! What hope do we have of countering systemic bias in wikipedia articles when the project page itself is systemically biased against some of those that it seeks to represent? --AliceJMarkham 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm not really sure what you mean. The only thing on the project page I can find is that could be considered biased against Transgender is the to-do list. Everything else specifically adds the T, where possible. Where do you feel discriminated aginst? And how can we fix that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, I think if there is any bias, it is certainly unconscious. Please, Alice, if you see something in this project that you think needs fixing, either speak up, or be bold and make the change yourself. My feeling is that all of us, either L,G, B or T need to support one another, both in the real world and on Wiki. Most of us face enough discrimination already, without discriminating against each other. Jeffpw 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Another approach is to assume that we are all unconsciously biased and one of the things we can do here is to cut through each other's biases. Please contribute as you see fit, leave emotions at the door. Regards, Haiduc 12:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

It was agreed above to go into article assessment. To this end, I have created the categories neccessary for automatic updating at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team: we now have a Category:LGBT articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality log, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality statistics, all of which you may peruse at your leisure. Although I suspect there is some forms of automation I have not yet discovered about this thing (like I swear there's an automatic process for stubs, but can't for the life of me find it), but it gives us a good starting point. As you may see in the chart below, we only have 104 articles tagged with our banner: we need to severely ramp that number up. The banner is {{Template:LGBTProject|class=?}} - either insert an appropriate rating of the article in class, or if you're unsure, just remove it. I'm going to create a separate assessment page and blatently steal some information from other Wikiprojects. Then we can get to work. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ studies pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 104
FL 38
GA 602
B 1,848
C 5,288
Start 12,620
Stub 5,137
List 672
Category 7,866
Disambig 34
File 330
Portal 58
Project 81
Redirect 2,014
Template 401
NA 17
Assessed 37,110
Unassessed 4
Total 37,114
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 121,815 Ω = 4.76


  • Dev, go to the Biography project assessment talk page, and they can give you the info there about the automatic stub/start information. They use ti there to cope with the sheer volume of articles needing assessment. Hope that helps. Jeffpw 23:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It's looks like they're assessing by hand, but bulk tagging with AWB. Looks like we're going to have to do this all by hand. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Assessent page has been created at the frighteningly orginal Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How often does the statistics page refresh? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to refresh automatically every day at 3:00am UTC - but I'm generally running it myself (I just updated it) from here, because I can't wait :). Btw, MILHIST has over 26,000 articles tagged - I expect us to beat that. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You still think love can beat war?! Haiduc 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tagging articles

Are there guidelines for when to add the WP:LGBT banner to articles? I was scolded once for adding the WP:NH banner to too many articles, since I was Googling any article that had the words "New Hampshire" in it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be safe to say that it it has an LGBT category on the main page, you can tag it. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You might want to download AWB to help you tag if you just want to mass tag without assessing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Flag

Argument going down at Template:LGBT sidebar - Matt Crypto and another editor insist the rainbow flag is POV and should not be included in the template; I say it's bollocks, because it's THE LGBT symbol. You may wish to give your thoughts. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

new template

I have created a bisexuality template at Template:Bisexuality topics sidebar. Your thoughts would be welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Our kickstarting so far

We've drawn in another 3 members since we began our kickstarting, which isn't bad. I'll create another newsletter next week to let everyone know about our new assessing scheme, and then send it out monthly, I think. I want to create a welcome template, but I'm not sure if we have enough stuff to talk about on it: what does everyone else think? Oh, and WP:COMICS runs a collaboration of the month rather than of the fortnight - do you think this might be better, given our small membership? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I used this invitation box (briefly). Don't know if that will help as a place to start, but there ya go :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I will fiddle with that - unless of course, you want to create the template. I seem to be charging in and changing everything myself. If anyone wants to do anything themselves, please go ahead. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure - I'll do that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome template — comments, please! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you mind if I edit it a bit? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all! Please feel free! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok then. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few minor changes. If everyone's cool with that, I think we should move it to the mainpage, as SatyrTN has done a fabulous job. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Collaboration of the month sounds like a good idea. Haiduc 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. How would you choose the articles? A voting system? Simple nomination by members? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Coin toss? Really, nominate and see what happens. Haiduc 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
K. Will set that one up soon. What would you like to be the first article? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The kitchen sink. I mean the Homosexuality article itself. Material needs to be spun off since it is way oversize - more than 100k last I looked. Basically we need to take entire sections, abstract them, and spin them off into new articles. Haiduc 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe we should then do bisexuality and trangender. Ooh, three months covered already! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Err...make that four months, Dev. The Lesbian article needs some major attention, too, at least as far as referencing goes. Anyway, I think the way we are approaching this is excellent. First, the broad, overarching articles, then the more esoteric ones. I'm more of a follower than a leader, so I'll leave the organizing to others. Just set up some sort of task list (preferably specific), and I'll start diligently working my way down the list. Jeffpw 13:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Location of main entry in project directory

This project has a main listing in two pages of the Project Directory, under WP:PROJDIR/H#Sociology and under WP:PROJDIR/S#Sexology and Sexuality. Generally, we prefer only one "main" entry, with the other one or more linked to it. Which entry would the members of this project prefer as being the "main" entry for this project? Badbilltucker 19:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... My opinion is in the Sexuality section. Others? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Same. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a difficult one in some ways because transgendered people spend their entire lives trying to explain that it's nothing to do with sex, but for LGB folk, it is, isn't it? :) I guess the question is which one is relevant to all of us, and to me that would be sociology. --AliceJMarkham 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Acknowledging the disagreement above, it seems to me that the 3 to 1 vote indicates that sexuality seems to be the preferred choice. I would also note that "Gender Studies" falls under the same heading, so I hope it is realized that "sexuality" in the heading is at least intended to be seen in the broadest possible light. Also, that heading places the project closer to the above referenced "Gender Studies", which is probably the most closely related project we have out there. On the basis of the above, I will place the main heading there provisionally. If, in time, the members of the project decide to change the position of the "main" listing, they are free to do so. However, for the sake of the keeping the individual pages of the directory as short as possible, we will still request that it have only one "main" entry at that time as well. Badbilltucker 15:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing that out, Badbilltucker. You beat me to it by about 2 minutes. I was just reading the article about Human sexuality, and it makes that point very clear. I would also like to add that sexuality encompasses more than simply sex, so I think it is appropriate for us top be listed there, in all aspects of our LGBT identities. Sociology is also a good choice, but not as clearly linked, in my mind. Jeffpw 16:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Especially since this is a clerical matter, the nominator should feel free to make the move anyway. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person → Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Person – As far as I know, none of the WikiProjects with task forces use that title "Task forces" in this way, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military or Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo, but also, there is a possibility to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Person task force, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force or Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/My Chemical Romance task force. The current title is maybe creating a problem with the Class-categories with the {{Category class}} template (e.g. how it looks -> Category:GA-Class WikiProject LGBT studies - person articles; who it should looks -> Category:GA-Class LGBT articles). I will request the categories to be moved to a proper name at CFD as well. Relisted. —Darkwind (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irene Dubois

Irene Dubois has been nominated for deletion, if any project members want to take a look and/or participate in the AfD discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sugar and Spice

New article: Sugar and Spice (drag queens) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBTQ%2B_studies/Archive_1&oldid=1249344936"