Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

And yet another Pederasty related ANI discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review: Consistant misattribution of cited sources And if you look at my talk page, you'll see that both Haiduc and I have been threatened with blocks if we continue our participation in a way that Brenneman consideres unhelpful. It goes without saying that I am shocked to my core that on the ANI discussion I am insinuated as trying to advance a pro-pedophilia agenda. On Haiduc's talk page, Brenneman actually implies that i can be banned for continuing as I have (though I repeat: I feel I have been civil throughout this controversy) My God, people! These are dangerous times to edit controversial articles, or even speak out about them in the discussion threads. Jeffpw (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say I am on an extended Wikibreak from any LGBT topics. Though i shall probably remain editing on Wiki, I will be confining my edits (such as they are) to non-controversial subjects, which pretty much excludes the gamut if LGBT related issues, Jeffpw (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied there about the general mud-slinging going on and am confident that even if it's a prolonged process we'll get that article back to health. As for you, I'll note that you were editing a daytime soap diva-ette and I encourage you to keep editing LGBT and LGBT-friendly articles as we need you! Simply take care of yourself and if it gets too weird or stressful simply take a break. There's some saying about always applying lip gloss before a high heel fight - words to live by! Banjeboi 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that things will resolve themselves in time, and that if anyone engages in bullying behavior there will be consequences. Passions run hot when it comes to same-sex attractions, but we already knew that from experience, did we not? Enjoy the process, don't let anyone push you around, don't push back. Haiduc (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Add text to project tag?

A little further up, the suggestion was made by Crimsone to add a little text to the project tag making it clear that, happy-looking rainbow flag notwithstanding, the tag appearing on an article's talk page does not mean "This article is about something the gays think is awesome." The suggestion had mildly positive response, but didn't go anywhere. I think it's a good idea. Can I add the sentence to the template? It is:

Inclusion of the LGBT wikiproject tag does not imply LGBT support or objection to the subject of an article (per WP:NPOV).

Dybryd (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection. I would not bold it, or emphasize it in any way, merely add it to the end of the current standard text. Aleta ^Sing 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm doing it. Let me know if anyone is horrified. Dybryd (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. No I'm not doing it, as the template is protected and can be edited only by admins. What's up with that? Dybryd (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh gawd... nothing's ever as simple as it should be here is it? Sounds like an Admin would have to be contacted.Crimsone (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:LGBTProject#Add_some_text_for_NPOV Gary King (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already made my objection over at the template talk page. This does seem to me to be a disclaimer, but in any case I think there are problems with making such a statement. What is meant by "LGBT support or objection", exactly? All articles tagged with this banner are "supported" by this project. No article on Wikipedia needs the "support or objection" of a wider group of people. IMO, the current wording of the template already makes it clear that the article simply falls with in the scope of this WikiProject. Perhaps it does need something, though, but I really don't think that such a heavy-handed statement is eithe helpful nor warranted. PC78 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to you there as well. There is the thing - you've actually just fallen foul of one of the exact things that that text is there to explain. All articles under this project are not suported by this project... they are monitored and improved by this project. The project is not an entity capable of supporting or opposing anything. More importantly, this is no an "LGBT project" - it's the "LGBT studies" project. As such, the statement "LGBT support or objection" means precisely that - that the support or objection of the subject of an article by LGBT people or organisations is not inferred by the presense of the project tag, nor support or objection to the subject of the article by from the LGBT studies project. The tag is there only to say that the subject of the article has some manner of connection to LGBT studies, and no value is placed on that (contrary to repeated misconception).

The statement is not heavy handed either... it's a simply stated fact - not disclaimer of any sort... not a negative denial but a positive fact, and demonstrates that inclusion of the tag does not present a Point of view, which inclusion of the tag is commonly accused of. It states that the project has included the tag mecause an article comes under it's remit, and that it has done so in the spirit of WP:NPOV.

Unfortunately, the current wording of the template does not make clear the nature of the tag, as evidenced by it's repeated misinterpretation - the very problem the suggested wording is suggested to solve (see the fuss over eleanor roosefeld, and more recently (still on this talk page) Nambla) Crimsone (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Crimsone) I've not fallen foul of anything. When I say "supported by this project", what I mean is (as you say) "monitored and improved". And that's part of my problem, I suppose; "support" is a word that can be defined any number of ways. In addition, and I mentioned this elsewhere, the template already has an "explanation" parameter for the very thing you are proposing. Why can't you just use this? (I see it was proposed above for the Nambla article.) For the sake of a handfull of problem articles, I don't think this is something that needs to be added to all 9000 or so articles that are tagged for this project. PC78 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not delighted with this process. If the purpose of making the template fully protected was to prevent vandalism, then why are a group of editors having to convince one admin that an edit that is obviously not vandalism should be allowed to be made? Functionally, the effect of template full-protection is to make this single editor the gatekeeper of template content, vandalistic or no.

Dybryd (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The {{editprotect}} is a reasonable way to keep vandalism as well as revert wars minimized. If there isn't a consensus then the change is usually not made until a consensus is reached. Personally I also find the extra wording a bit clunky, unneeded and just a wee bit pre-apologetic. Having stated that I'm open to new wording but unconvinced that any of this will actually prevent the removing of the template in the first place. Banjeboi 05:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles which would seem to cover this. Banjeboi 05:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think it's reasonable for the article to be fully protected. It's not just one editor that can edit the template; it's all administrators, which is more than a thousand editors, so there isn't only one gatekeeper. Gary King (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

There has been some evil behaviour removing LGBT categories from Arthur C. Clarke and locking the article. What can/should be done about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toward500 (talk • contribs)

OK, A quick catch-up for all who missed this a bit ago, Arthur C. Clarke, a popular Sci_Fi writer, and likely gay man, was outed as a child lover of some sorts right before he was to be knighted (1998-2000). Subsequently, as far as those who are working on that article can tell, all charges were found to be baseless and a retraction printed. Many simply assume he was gay but no great source to demonstrate that has appeared. The LGBT tag is on the article talk page, teh pedophile dust up is in the article and the LGBT cats are not allowed to be on there until we have a good source so the material can even get into the article. Also this user may be one of the many socks of User:DavidYork71. Banjeboi 06:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie Griffin RcF

I have opened an RfC at Talk:Stewie Griffin#Categorization: request for comment which is relevant to this project. Any thoughts on the matter at hand would be appreciated. Aleta ^Sing 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we tag...

the article, 2008 Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting? Hatred of liberals and gays are among the reasons given for this shooting. Aleta ^Sing 00:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I'll do it. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Aleta ^Sing 00:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A questions

Would you guys considor hetroflexibility to be a phase or continue into homosexuality more instead of heterosexuality? I just want some feedback and opinions on this issue, if you would kindly. Thanks. --eric (mailbox) 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always seen (and heard) hetroflexibility as having to do with straight people who were bicurious or possibly closeted. In heteronormative cultures everyone is presumed to be straight until proven otherwise. Hetroflexibility speaks to those people who are labeled in some way as heterosexual but that that label may not be completely, or no longer, accurate. Is there a particular article or issue this relates to? Banjeboi 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

category for deletion

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_27#Category:Modern_pederasty. Banjeboi 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin move help needed?

Resolved. Categories moved. Banjeboi 22:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help moving Category:Fictional transgendered people to Category:Fictional transgender people - changing transgendered to simply transgender. Banjeboi 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Remembering Thomas M. Disch

Thomas Disch was a science fiction writer and a poet. He was also gay. He took his own life on July 4th or 5th, 2008 (the reliable sources disagree) at age 68. His lover of some 30 years, Charles Naylor, died in 2005 after a long struggle with cancer. His Manhattan landlord was evicting him because he was not on the lease. This is another example of the lack of equal protection for non heteronormative relationships. Had they been legally married, the apartment would have been a safe haven. Or so it looks to me.

If one wants to read what is considered his best novel, I recommend reading On Wings of Song (1979), which is apparently more gay influenced than the others. I loved it.

Another reason for posting this. Many of the LGBT articles/issues that get listed on this page are because of conflict, where, for example, there are attempts to whitewash a notable person's sexuality. This article is a good example of a bio that treats the sexuality as an intrinsic part of a person's life, but not the most important part. It is also the way Disch treated it himself. I think it's good to look at LGBT articles that are not battlegrounds every once in a while, as an grounding experience. Otherwise, as Pat Benatar sang, Love Is a Battlefield.

— Becksguy (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh sadness! I've read some of his work and had no clue he was gay. Thanks for the note, Becksguy. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk article being targeted for People's Temple content

I've finally opened a ANI thread on a persistent editor who has been trying to insert several paragraphs, now trimmed a bit, but still a whole section on the Jim Jones cult People's Temple into Harvey Milk. The RfC has shown little support for this content with WP:UNDUE being the biggest concern. I would appreciate other input on the RfC and eyes on the article as I've already removed the content several times. Banjeboi 05:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And the drama continues. So, in summary, this editor installed several paragraphs which i reverted and converted to several sentences - still a bit undue but better - but they continue to reinsert an entire section. I've now asked for full protection as I'm unwilling to waste time trying to add content while this, what I see as fringe-ish, content is in dispute. Banjeboi 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

William III of England FAR

William III of England has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. – Ilse@ 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Openly gay wikilink confusing?

I'm not a member of this project (by which I mean I've never contributed here before) I but ran into something I'm not knowledgeable about so I'm passing it to those editors here. I got into a rather odd (and extremely minor) little reversion exchange on the article for Neil Patrick Harris as an editor felt it important to link the phrase "openly gay" to the article Closeted. To my mind the terms are essentially opposites so I reverted a couple of times, but seems if there's any confusion it's on the part of wikipedia.

The editor brought to my attention that both openly and openly gay automatically redirect to the Closeted article since there is no current article specifically on openness in regards to sexuality (and Closeted at least has an explanation of related terminology). My concern is in misuse and misunderstanding of the wikilink in articles since the word on the screen points to an article title that is a direct antonym.

Not sure how to "fix" this, and for that matter I'm not sure if this needs fixing necessarily, but strikes me that editors here may have some thoughts or ideas. Possibly it's as simple as redirecting those terms to a more appropriate article (or perhaps just leaving it alone as is). Hope I'm not cluttering up your space with this. -Markeer 05:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent observation. It would make more sense if those redirected to coming out, wouldn't it? I modified them to do that. Thanks for bringing this up. Queerudite (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. That may seem intuitive but closeted is the better target article, IMHO, it speaks to the difference between being ope and closeted whereas coming out is about the process. We're to serve the readers and just as anti-discrimination takes you to discrimination sometimes wikilinks take you where the subject is best addressed. This could change, of course. Banjeboi 07:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really?? To me "Coming out" seems closer to "Being out" (openly gay) than "Being in" (closeted). Linking to closeted seems super counter-intuitive to me. For instance, out's disambiguation page doesn't link to closeted, it links to coming out. Queerudite (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we do have consensus that this is confusing. Lol! That wikilinks do or don't exist is actually a side issue; for instance I'm presently changing all wikilinks, and eventually instances of "transgendered" to the correct "transgender". Hundreds of wikilinks as well as templates, lists, etc all are being updated. I think coming out approaches the political and social aspects as well as the process of coming out whereas closeted addresses what it means to not be open and those implications. Itmay be that both these articles need refocusing? Banjeboi 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's tough because they are so interrelated. I think that you are right that the articles might need refocusing, because if closeted is going to be the redirect for the state of being "openly gay", it should actually contain some more detailed discussion of "outness". For instance, coming out's "current viewpoints" section is really about the state (being out) rather than the process (coming out) and would be more appropriate under closeted by your scheme. I still would prefer if "coming out" where about both the process and state, and "closeted" were just about "being in". Mostly because, to me, the process and state are synonyms: the process is a continual one that implies a state and vice versa (the state implies a continual process). But I guess it doesn't matter as long as the articles themselves are consistent about their own topic. Queerudite (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well let's sort it out and fix it; what's logical and serves our readers best? Banjeboi 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like my last post explained what I think would make the most sense to readers. What do other editors think? Consensus anyone? Queerudite (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In the many biographical articles I've been working on, I've always linked "openly" to "coming out", and gay to gay. So one might say "So-and-so is an openly gay conductor who lives in New York". In my mind, Queerudite said it best - being "out" is closer to coming out than it is to it's opposite - closeted. But I've also felt that neither explains clearly the concept of "open"/"out". Perhaps it's time to actually write the article on being out? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Need a quick queentionary

Can someone tell me what a "flame queen" and a "scare queen" is? --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Wikiproject template inclusion statement

(Copied from Moni3's sandbox, where I was playing around) The removal of WP:LGBT from talk pages has to be taken care of somehow. What I propose is a statement that explains why the article is tagged and what function the tag serves for WP:LGBT. This is a draft of what can be used as a reference in future disputes over the removal of WP:LGBT templates on talk pages. I'm not sure where it should be placed for now. Suggestions regarding that can be given below.

Statement

The WP:LGBT studies project is interested only in improving accuracy in articles concerning LGBTI people, culture, history, and related subjects. Intersex people are also included as many issues concerning intersex people, who are gender minorities, also concern LGBT issues. Our project aims to serve as a resource for any aspect of LGBT culture, history, and academia on any article but the following guidelines are applicable for those that are tagged with the project's template. If unsure please message on the project's talk page for assistance.

Criteria for adding the WP:LGBT template on talk pages consists of one or a combination of the following:

1. The subject concerns sexual identity and/or gender identity minorities and various manifestations, or issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) and intersex people.
2. The subject is an individual who self-identifies as LGBTI - or is known to have same-sex romantic or sexual relationships; as noted with a reliable source.
3. The subject is the topic of historical documentation that gives evidence to a reliable source, that has suggested the subject was, or likely was, LGBTI.
4. The subject is a work of art, or part of a work of art that depicts LGBTI people, culture, history, and related subjects.
5. The subject is an individual, event, or organization that has impacted LGBTI people; as noted by a reliable source.
6. The subject is a public figure of whom rumors have spread by a reliable source, suggesting they are LGBTI.
7. The subject is a public figure who is believed to be LGBTI, and the information is not considered controversial, despite a reliable source having yet to be introduced to verify adding content. For instance, a person who is believed to be gay but content has not yet been placed in the article. If the LGBTI identity of the subject becomes controversial, especially in regards to WP:BLP articles, suggestions for what action to take should be sought from the WP:LGBT.
8. The subject is of academic interest or significance in the field of LGBT studies.

In all cases, the focus needs to stay on improving articles.

Functions of the WP:LGBT templates on talk pages:

1. Article assessment
2. Vigilance in accuracy
3. Assisting with article cleanup, wikification, sourcing, and expansion
4. Alerts for Articles for Deletion

Discussion

Please feel free to strike through, add, or change language in what's above.

sneaking around in yer sandbox...What about placing this at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/talkpage template inclusion criteria? Or can I add some pennies here? Keeper ǀ 76 19:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Add all you would like. I'm thinking of putting this at WP:TGBT talk, and I explored it with a veteran of talk page template wars, Benjiboi, who does not seem to have an optimistic outlook that it would be effective. --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've actually changed my mind a little bit on that. I do think it will still be removed by those who over-react or otherwise are just "special" about LGBTIQ, etc issues but if we do come up with a non-apologetic set of guidelines that we then link to in our template more reasonable editors may actually look at it and see it for what it is. A project template that covers a lot of articles for a project.

Target? Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Project template inclusion criteria Banjeboi 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the template goes to answer some of the questions that arose on the Crist talk page about why we would have an interest in tagging someone dealing with rumors. I think there will always be editors who are hard-nosed about templates in general, who feel like removing things just because, and then editors who feel like removing LGBT templates because they don't think our tagging is valid. Benji, you were described as a "rogue editor", I think, in one discussion on the Crist talk page. So, this would explain that, no, the entire project agrees with the talk page tagging according to the above statement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording regarding the rumors is worth including. I'm not sure who removed it, but that will go to answer many of the questions about why an LGBT template is on a subject's talk page who has simply been the subject of rumors. I think the editors who have contended the LGBT template did not belong were assuming the project as insisting that if there were rumors, Crist must be gay. However, I was trying to state (I don't know how successful I was) that we are as interested in accuracy to ensure that sexual orientation is not used as political leverage. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the insistence that everything about LGBTI people must be RD'd. On many bios this isn't a big deal. I know we're writing to address some of the more contentious cases but it takes just one goofball to start removing dozens of tags because so many articles have no sources at all - but neither does anyone disagree Like Arthur C. Clarke, our tag is rightly there as everyone thinks he was gay, but no content is yet in the article because no RS. According to the above we'd have to remove the tag even though we're there to help. Banjeboi 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking on this. I know how hard it is to find this information, but I'm also a stickler for reliable sources, and no arguing about policy will ever solve what a reliable source will. I think I'm leaning toward keeping the reliable source language in. I admit though, I don't know how to solve this yet. --Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the reliable source bit should be there especially for the ones that are considered "contentious". A reliable source doesn't have to conferm sexual identity or orientation, it merely has to confirm that there are rumors or controversies regarding the subjects identity or orientation. Big difference really. I can't go add a tag to an article "because I heard somewhere that he might be gay", anymore than I would remove it from a tagged article because "I heard somewhere that "he isn't" and its all a ploy to get juicier roles". I agree Moni that the RS needs to be there, especially for the last criterion. Keeper ǀ 76 01:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- Moni as far as your sentence I think the editors who have contended the LGBT template did not belong were assuming the project as insisting that if there were rumors, Crist must be gay. However, I was trying to state (I don't know how successful I was) that we are as interested in accuracy to ensure that sexual orientation is not used as political leverage goes, you've at the very least convinced me. So, you were successful. The criteria will help, I'm feeling very positive about all this. Keeper ǀ 76 01:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A good idea, and most of the language seems like it will work well. I am a little concerned though by (currently) Number 7: The subject is a public figure who is believed to be LGBTI, and the information is not considered controversial, despite a reliable source having yet to be introduced to verify adding content. For instance, a person who is believed to be gay but content has not yet been placed in the article. If the LGBTI identity of the subject becomes controversial, especially in regards to WP:BLP articles, consensus for what action to take should be sought from the project. First, a question: only "public" figures? Second, a suggestion: perhaps it should read, "If the LGBTI identity of the subject becomes controversial, especially in regards to WP:BLP articles, consensus for what action to take suggestions on what action(s) might be appropriate should be sought from the project." instead to avoid implying that the wikiproject's concensus and/or opinion on course of action is the be all end all of discussion. ZueJay (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur, to a point, we are most often in this case fighting to simply keep our tag on an article; if this project comes to consensus that our tag belng s then i see no reason not to respect that consensus. Same as any other project. Banjeboi 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(re to Zuejay). I see what you're saying about "only 'public' figures". I'm not liking that wording, as it can be construed to mean "public officials" (which in the US at least means government and elected persons). What about changing it to be "notable persons" ? It takes out the ambiguity, because after all, if they ain't notable, they ain't on Wikipedia (or or shouldn't be for long), public figures or not, WP:LGBTI talkpage template or not. Thoughts? Keeper ǀ 76 17:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Public figure" to me means anyone who's notable: politicians and movie stars, etc. Notable persons or Public figures to me are the same, so I don't really mind what wording is used there. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This topic has now been placed at the Village Pump.

I think "public" is more helpful as "notable" implies thay have an article when many notable don't as of yet. Also I find posting at the Village Pump a bit premature until we think we have it sorted out and explore the issues - but I guess it's too late for that concern. Banjeboi 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the VP post was perhaps premature (I was surprised to see it there myself and would've liked to see the "criteria" more hammered out and concrete), I still disagree about the use of the term "public", if only for the reason (trying to play devil's advocate) that someone might say "well, just because someone is an actress doesn't mean she's "public", or some such. Many "known" individuals, be they actors, directors, painters, etc, while offering their "work" to the public via whatever medium they are using (camera, paintbrush...), consider themselves (and their personal lives) "private". If we use the term "notable", it actually frees the restraints of someone being "public" or not, in that the LGBT(IQ) tag can be added to any Wiki-bio, because every Wiki-bio, unless deleted via consensns, has by defintion, notability. Does that make sense? Keeper ǀ 76 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps "known" would be safer ground. I see notable is accurate for those that have an article about them but we also cover those who are only, as of yet, mentioned in other articles. Like Danny, the gay gay from Real World who had a closeted Army boyfriend. I'd rather be generous in who we could cover instead of hashing out semantics during a discussion that should focus on policy. I believe BLP generally covers all living people mentioned in any article as a course of doing no harm. I'd like to see language that bypasses the muddying of issues as whether they're notable, public etc. and instead focus on whatever we put has to keep in line with policy. Banjeboi 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your post! "Known" is better than "notable", in the sense that the project is willing, able, and ready to defend/make accurate any bio article. Question, though, does "Danny" from "the Real world" have an article? If so, does his talk page have the WP:LGBT tag? If Danny doesn't have an article, isn't this moot? My only point is, in order to add the LGBT tag to an article, there has to be an article in the first place. (tone clarification: I'm using italics for emphasis, not in any way am I angry or frustrated). Are you suggesting, that, to use your example, because "danny" is "gay gay", the LGBT project should tag "real world?" That may be fine, and I think we are agreeing more than we're disagreeing, but I'm hitting a roadblock in your logic. My logic: Notable=article. Not-notable=no article. Individual person that is not-notable, but perhaps part of a notable group ("danny?") = why bother tagging with a WP tag? Keeper ǀ 76 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. The tag could, and has, gone on articles about a TV show or reality show with LGBT characters and subtext. generally I feel we should be a resource so if Danny had his own page then certainly; if it was to the Real World series for that year then probably also so as it was major news and a major storyline. At the end of the day it's about can we be called in to help explain LGBT culture, history, dynamics, etc. to improve the article. Banjeboi 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Next question is do you see how this could possibly be seen "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon?" Meaning of course, if I hit "random page" 100 times, I'm pretty sure I could find, if I looked hard enough, 100 articles that could conceivably be added to WP:LGBT. Is that in the best interests of WP:LGBT? I hardly think so. Where's the line? A gay person is on a reality TV show. Dime a dozen these days, IMO. I'm mostly, and admittedly, most concerned with BLP bio articles, frankly. Whatever the "real world" article has/doesn't have on its talkpage is important, certainly, and needs to be accurate of which WP's are "watching/improving" it. Are you saying that the WP:LGBT group is actively and purposefully monitoring/improving the "Real World" article, simply because one of the (myriads of) participants happens to be openly gay? Honest question. Keeper ǀ 76 00:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

<----------> Maybe these statements aare supposed to only be about the project tag, but number 7 does not read that way to me: If the LGBTI identity of the subject becomes controversial, especially in regards to WP:BLP articles, consensus for what action to take should be sought from the project. To me, this says if the identity of the article subject is controversially LGBT(I), then ask us what to do and we'll tell you where to sti- uh, get the idea? If these statements are supposed to be about the TAG, perhaps it can read: "If the article subject's association with LGBTI becomes controversial, especially in regards to WP:BLP articles, consensus for proper placement of the wikiproject tag should be sought from the project." ZueJay (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts, one related to Jay's comment: #7 seems to read "presume that all articles that might be tagged should be tagged unless otherwise determined." A lot of the concerns about project tagging in general seem to focus on over-tagging of articles. The default status for any project, in my opinion, should always be "do not tag." If it is obvious or there is consensus to do so, then go for it. This came up on WP:MED a while back, when someone was suggesting tagging all possible related articles. The consensus was that topics in biology and chemistry that were applicable to medicine were nevertheless outside the scope of the project. The paleontology people already grumble that they can't write a decent article about protostomes because certain anatomical features are written as medical articles. SDY (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well over-tagging for many wikiprojects may certainly be a determining issue. My perspective is that all manner of content about sexuality and gender - particularly in context of LGBT issues - is vandalized, repeatedly, predictably. This doesn't even include ___ is a homo, she's soooo gay, etc. So our tag is a way to help track articles to ensure clean-up occurs as well as more serious deleting of articles. WikiProject Europe, for example, likely doesn't worry that their articles are deleted on the same scale and likely they aren't as much as a vandal target as many of ours are. Banjeboi 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of transgender specific articles?

I've been away for a few days and I've come back to find that the new criteria (above) for articles being tagged for this project systematically excludes the articles that I've done the most work on, because they are about aspects of transgender presentation. I'm talking about things like cleavage enhancement, hip and buttock padding and buttock augmentation. Yes, these articles are, to some extent, applicable to non-transgender people, but we are the people to whom these are most relevant. I've created some articles simply because TG people asked me in forums etc where they could find the information and it didn't exist in wikipedia. Have we now decided that this project is not interested in articles that are directly relevant to the people that we are nominally supposed to be representing? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Alice, doesn't #1 cover it? Articles where "[t]he subject concerns .. issues facing .. transgender .. people" should just about cover the ones you mentioned, right?

BTW, didn't we have long discussions about whether intersex is covered by the project, and decide not? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that trans issues would seem to be covered but if something should change - what? And no, we had a lengthy and somewhat contentious discussion on should the project add "I" to be LGBTI. The result was no consensus to do so. I think "Intersex people are also included as many issues concerning intersex people, who are gender minorities, also concern LGBT issues." Is helpful enough to explain why some article overlap occurs. Banjeboi 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that perhaps it's just a little bit of vagueness in the wording of #1. I'm yet to work out exactly what needs to change, though. Perhaps "issues facing" isn't inclusive enough. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On bots

Without SatyrTN's bot, it's more difficult to recognize when templates are being removed from articles. Benjiboi suggested someone should take up the bot slack by learning how to run one to watch for template removal, article assessment, etc. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We have to do this. From the main project page we seem to have a bot running to find potential articles for the project. But as should be evident to regular viewers here our articles regularly get deleted. What we don't know is which ones are deleted that we never hear about. Which articles have {{prod}} and speedy delete tags. Another area is when our categories and templates are removed or vandalized. i will look into unless someone else is inspired to take this task on. Banjeboi 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know jack crap about bots and I'm afraid if I tried to run one I'd end up deleting all of English Wikipedia. I think my talents are better used elsewhere. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm back. But the bot's going to be offline for a little while - I have some major re-writing to do for it. The alternative (which is a good one) is to review the log the WP1.0 folks make every couple days. That should help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Satyr!!! Whoop! Just a shout out - OUT! Hehe ;) Party on the big boat! ZueJay (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom to from Great Britain

I think it's better to have LGBT people from Great Britain as this is the name of a country which includes the home nations. On the whole it is kless political, otherwise for Germany, you can separate them into gay people from Bavaria etc. Kramer John (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. I'd either create separate categories for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or keep the one for the UK.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. (w/ Kramer John). The United Kingdom is a nation/state, England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are countries which make up the sovereign state of the UK. Great Britain is just an island. Other categories on Wikipedia are sorted under Category:United Kingdom or Category:England etc. There's no parent category Category:Great Britain. If you wanted to change it, it would have to go through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion anyway, but I can't see it happening.--BelovedFreak 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:LGBT people from Great Britain is being discussed at CFD now.--BelovedFreak 08:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain, and so N Irish gays would have no home PiTalk - Contribs 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too, for the reasons the other folk gave. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Guidelines on "outing" an individual

(I originally wrote this on a user's talk page. Somebody other than that user suggested I ask here.)

Can somebody point me to the LGBT Guidelines for stating whether or not an individual was gay/bisexual? I'm writing a biography of an individual who died in the early sixties. I haven't located any reliable third party sources about his sexuality. In one book he wrote, he claimed to be homosexual. That book was published under a pseudonym that was used only for that book. In the material he published under his usual pseudonyms, his only statements about homosexuality, are extremely hostile and negative. jonathon (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of this project, so... take these comments with a grain of salt. Wikipedia shouldn't be "outing" anyone, that would be original research. If you can't find it in reliable third party sources, you can't put it in the article. You can, however, report the claim in the book-under-pseudonym, so long as you report it in that context and give it proper WP:WEIGHT. If the person were generally considered hetero and only a WP:FRINGE group of people thought of him as otherwise, I'd have substantial doubts about including it in the article at all. SDY (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You should never specify the individual as LGBT unless they have stated they are in their own words. For this particular individual, I would devote a section of the prose to "themes" within his work and then discuss the implications/responses to his depiction of homosexuality without stating that he was homosexual as if it were a statement of fact. Limit the inclusion to the critical analysis of his writing which deals with homosexuality and if there are any critics or reviews which commented on his sexual orientation, use them and point out the author, publisher and how it impacted his life/career. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines that we've discussed a bit here and there, but have never really consensed on (but also haven't had any major disagreements on) run like this:

1. A person identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, regardless of relationships or apparent gender, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.
2. A person has had documented, notable relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.
3. Reliable sources allege the person to be, or have been, in relationships with their same sex or with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey.

By those guidelines, your individual would probably not be labeled as LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. When I finish the article I'll put it up, without covering that aspect. (I have no illusions that the sexual aspects will be added by somebody else, and that it will be categorized in it won't get tagged as LGBT.) jonathon (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Namsadang

Does Namsadang fit into the purview of our project? User:Caspian blue is arguing on my talk page that it does. But the article says nothing about sexuality at all. Please review it and my talk page and let me know if I'm just being pigheaded? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The two links Caspian blue posted on your talk page certainly suggest that this is a subject within our scope; however, I would agree that the relevant content needs to be added to the article. PC78 (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a line based upon the Murray books Caspian links. The content needs to be filled in more though. Aleta ^Sing 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion to remove LGBT tag from Talk:Larry Craig

FYI, initiated by the same editor who removed the tag from Talk:Charlie Crist Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Please see: User talk:Jeffpw#My brother Jeff right away. Aleta ^Sing 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't seen it, this is very sad news indeed, and it is looking legitimate. :( I am feeling the need to do something, but I don't know what. Aleta ^Sing 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My heart is absolutely broken. I don't have words, but I'm leaving Wikipedia for the time being. My heart is broken. Keeper ǀ 76 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I know what you mean. I'm not leaving, but I understand the sentiment. I want to do something, damn it, but I think the only thing that would satisfy me is the impossible - the return of a healthy Jeff. Aleta ^Sing 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I probably will edit tomorrow. Dammit. But my heart is broken. Aleta, the fact that you were willing and able to talk to Jeff on the phone will forever speak volumes to me about your character and humanity. Keeper ǀ 76 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would that it had been more... :/ Aleta ^Sing 00:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont' do that to yourself. Just don't. As someone experienced, unfortunately in this IRL (and never have even dreamed that I'd be experiencing this on-wiki, which has been my escape hatch), don't do that to yourself.... You have been a saint amongst demons to Jeff, and he would never allow you to utter such nonsense. Keeper ǀ 76 00:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right that "coulda/shoulda/woulda" is a bad idea. I have been there IRL too. I just wish things had gone differently, but then, we all do. Aleta ^Sing 00:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone take on watching James Robert Baker, and something has to be done with the {{maintained}} template on the talk page. I can't bring myself to remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Baker should be submitted to WP:TFA/R for October 18. I can't do that either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you need it just removed, or replaced? I've never read James Robert Baker, and I can't replace Jeff's name with mine. There may be other members here who are familiar with him willing to maintain his article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a good solution would be the addition of a name, rather than the deletion of Jeff's name. I think that template can handle more than one name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added my name. I'm no expert on the individual, but I'll keep an eye on the article and if additional sources are needs I can check out a book from my college library or look up info on one of several online databases for students. I notice it was promoted back in 2006- Sandy, are you sure it is still FA? I only ask because if it is going to be one of Today's Featured Articles it should be as polished as possible. If everyone agrees, I'll nominate it myself. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is FA; see WP:FA. In case anyone wonders, the definitive answer to "is something is something not an FA" is not to be found on the article talk page, rather by checking whether Raul or I have added it to FA, or Marskell of Joelr31 or Raul have deleted it from there. I don't know if it will be TFA, but its best shot is on Baker's birthday, and you can try to nominate it a month before at WP:TFA/R. Thank you for taking over maintenance, Bookeeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Gone too soon, he always seemed like such a warm, gentle person, even on wikipedia. Certainly a person I would have liked to have meet in real life. — Realist² 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Category redux. Again.

If anyone is interested, I'd like to try attacking the LGBT category structure again. Please join me at WT:LGBT/CAT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review: Stonewall riots

I rewrote the article for Stonewall riots and I'm asking for a Wiki-wide PR. I would like this article to go to FA to appear on the main page June 28, 2009 - the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. So - bring it on, kids. Scrutiny about POV, citations, prose, etc.

I hope you guys enjoy it. I was thinking about this wikiproject the entire time I wrote it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Moni, congrats on a great looking article, your hard work there shows. I don't have the time to look it over in depth but a couple of quick suggestions: put the Stonewall Inn picture at the top of the article to give readers a visual reference. Cool maps, btw. Oh also you might think about mentioning the Compton's Cafeteria riot as a precursor to what happened at Stonewall. Keep up the good work.  :-) Textorus (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for another image, that I hope comes through. I need permission to use it however. If I am without any other image, I'll move the 1969 Stonewall image up to the top and do something else near the bottom. I'll reference the Compton's Cafeteria riot. --Moni3 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, can't wait to see it as FA. Textorus (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible upcoming Village Pump thread about the LGBT project tag

In response to the discussion and attempted removal of the LGBT project on Talk:Larry Craig, I've suggested starting a Village Pump thread about this new interpretation of WP:BLP. While the LGBT project tag has been the subject of numerous Village Pump threads, I don't think any of them really got to the heart of the matter in what exactly it implies when an editors says that any project tag on an article's talk page is a BLP violation. I'm not sure if Protonk will take up my suggestion but if he doesn't, someone else may want to because this does seem to be a recurring issue that needs some concrete community consensus. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Was the tag moved on Larry Craig? Why does that make me so fucking angry? Nothing so far on Wikipedia has angered me more than people who are not a part of this project moving the tag for very poor reasons. I wish I wouldn't get so freakin' mad about that, but god damn. How retarded is that? Not part of the project? DON'T MOVE THE GODDAMN TEMPLATE. JESUS! Moni needs to take a pill. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

There's a rather lengthy debate going on on Homosexuality (which appears to be undergoing a complete overhaul) about almost all sections of the article. This has recently resulted in a large portion of the information being moved to a new article titled Homosexual orientation, in an effort to reduce the bloating. This strikes me as utterly bizarre and unnecessary. Notice that there are no Heterosexual orientation or Bisexual orientation articles, yet we already have an article on Sexual orientation as well as one on Sexual identity. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey! - agendas galore! Take it step by step and try to put our reader's needs first. The article split was likely a good idea but agree tat Homosexual orientation sounds odd. Banjeboi 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can explain the difference, please do (and, while you're at it, the reason why we need separate articles on all of homosexuality, homosexual orientation, and sexual orientation). At present, both articles seem to be using exactly the same definition. Also, now one of the contributors is pushing for a heterosexual orientation article (in addition to the existing heterosexuality article). What's next? Pansexual orientation? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Feminism

Portal:Feminism has had a lot of changes and work recently and is currently up for portal peer review. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Feminism/archive1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Same-sex unions

Howdy all, I've just rewritten and expanded the Same-sex marriage in New Mexico article, adding numerous source references. (More could be written there, but I don't have time to research the whole history of the issue in that state.) While it's true that NM marriage statutes neither condone nor prohibit same-sex marriage, I've been unable to find any source that says an SSM obtained in another place has been officially recognized in New Mexico.

Thus, I feel the template is incorrect, and NM should be removed from the section "Foreign Marriages Recognized." Seems as if no one has yet gotten hitched out of state and come back to challenge it there.

I'm posting this on the LGBT Project talk page because the talk page for the template seems to be little used. Can anyone verify by reputable source(s) whether NM has ever officially honored an out-of-state same-sex marriage? If not, let's fix that template. Textorus (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually that template talk page is well-watched so I would repost this over there and ask for help as they seem to be specialists. Banjeboi 05:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Textorus (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci peer review

Any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leonardo da Vinci/archive3 would be most appreciated. It's a vital article, so it would be nice to get as many views as possible. Thanks. Papa November (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rename

There is an ongoing discussion about renaming homosexuality and bisexuality in animals to homosexual behavior in animals. Please feel free to offer your comments! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

John Nathan-Turner

The article on John Nathan-Turner, the late former Doctor Who producer is labelled as part of this project, which, AIUI is set up to cover LGBT issues. Although JNT made no secret of his sexuality, neither did he publicise it, nor was it a relevant part of his work in television. I am proposing therefore to remove the banner as I do not believe he comes within the scope of this project. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would object to that action. Can you explain a little further why you think the article about a successful gay man shouldn't be a part of the LGBT project? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is because his sexuality wasn't relevant to his success. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But as far as I'm aware, that's not what a wikiproject tag indicates. It just shows that we, as a project, have an interest in the subject of the article and highlights the article as something that current and future members might like to edit. Bill Gates is neither successful nor notable *because* he comes from Seattle, but there doesn't seem to be any controversy with his inclusion in that wikiproject. 87.112.3.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: there was a similar discussion (about Scientology, which is just as bad as the LGBT project for tagging everything related, no matter how minor) on the WikiProject Council talk page: see here. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"just as bad as the LGBT project for tagging everything related" - seems rather judgmental to both projects. I would hope that projects would be supported in their work and not disparaged for improving wikipedia. In part, I'm excited to see where we determine if a user is editing on behalf of a certain project or not, as that seems to wrapped up in this odd attempt to turf battle over whether project tags have to meet criteria to be included or remain. Good luck on determining why I an edit a certain article. Banjeboi 23:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

His long-term partner is mentioned in the article which also has a relevant LGBT category. The project tag should stay. Aleta ^Sing 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Transgender

The Transgender portal needs some content added. There's some there now, but not as much as there should be.

(Cross-posted to the Gender Studies wikiproject.) --Alynna (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification guidelines

Since we periodically have a discussion like the one on outing above, and since our "guidelines" on identification / categorization have been brought up several times and been massaged a bit, I thought it might be time to actually add them to the WP:LGBT Guidelines. They are now on the front page of the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines, which can be edited on it's subpage: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines. If you have any issues on that to discuss, we might want to do it here, though, since that's a bit hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatyrTN (talk • contribs) 2008 August 18

New Category?

Hi! I'm curious what others think about the new Category:LGBT topics in the San Francisco Bay Area. This may be the first of its kind, and I'm wondering if it's wise? A bit broad? Long overdue? What are others' thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah i created it since i noticed that for example there were categories linking gay villages ("gay villages") and LGBT people and books, but not articles by geography or by region, i thought this would be a good idea to link them and picked a title i thought was fitting and followed the category jargon. perhaps general category needs to be created: Articles on LGBT topics, then LGBT topics by Country, State/Provice, then region. what do you think? Honestly i was just trying to improve and pattern upon the many ...in/of the San Francisco Bay Area categories.^MY♥_INchile 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a subcategory of "Category:Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area," it would seem to make sense; though perhaps only for places like SF where there is a very large LGBT population. It does raise the question in my mind, though: What is the point and purpose of categories, anyway? I'm sure the answer is in a wikipolicy somewhere.....but I'm too lazy to go searching for it. Textorus (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the category is a good idea...but like Textorus said, only for places with large LGBT populations. Also, Textorus, I think categories help to link all related topics easily. So someone can find out easily articles related to LGBT in San Fran. Ctjf83Talk 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CAT:

• Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies
• Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions.

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Would Category:LGBT culture in the San Francisco Bay Area be a better title, since we have Category:LGBT culture? Also, I think instead of Category:Articles on LGBT topics we have Category:LGBT. --Alynna (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, Alynna. With the first category, we can put tag LGBT people from the Bay area, and other articles not necessarily related to culture. Ctjf83Talk 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess my first thouht is that we don't have any other categories like this one. We *do* have all the "LGBT in Continent" cats (ex: Category:LGBT in Africa), and the "LGBT something in Country" cats (ex: Category:LGBT culture in France or Category:LGBT events in Germany). The concept of supercats that combine, say, "culture", "events", "people", "media", "history", etc, into "LGBT topics in Country" appeals to me.

The other thought, though, is that we're jumping way down the list. We have several categories by Continent and by Country, but nothing smaller. Jumping down to city level, even for Mecca San Francisco seems like we're getting ahead of ourselves. Or at least singling that one out. I can't be sure, but I don't know what other city-specific categories could be populated like SF.

Just my 2 cents. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, Satyr. Apart from SF, which is the gay capital of the planet a special case, and a bare handful of other cities around the world, there might not be enough relevant articles to populate city categories with enough articles to make them useful categories. Although no doubt someone out there in gaywikiland is just itching to use Category: LGBT Culture in Peoria, Illinois or Category: LGBT Culture in Albany, Georgia, lol. Textorus (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Textorus...ya, we need to limit this to huge cities, like NYC or Chicago...not sure of major gay cities in other countries...perhaps like Montreal and Paris, etc Ctjf83Talk 05:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)