Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Good article reassessment for Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Curious why you're posting about the assessment of a straight cis woman's article in this WikiProject? (I'm a queer trans resident of Pelosi's district FWIW.) Funcrunch (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the point of your question, but it's customary to notify WikiProjects when an article within scope is listed for GAR. Her article is included in the project (presumably because of her work on LGBT-related legislation). Urve (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I know about the customs regarding notifying WikiProjects (having done so numerous times myself); I was just curious why this particular article was considered in scope. Quite a few politicians have worked on LGBT-related legislation, but I suppose Pelosi is one of the more prominent ones. Funcrunch (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting question that might be worth further discussion by the project at some point. I think there's a place for Pelosi, Kylie Minogue, Cher, and other similarly-situated people within the ambit of "LGBTQ+ Studies", but it does sometimes result in notifications regarding non-LGBT people. Our alerts page, for instance, notifies us of a discussion re sexual anomaly and a nomination about the blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles, and we routinely get notified about drag. Whether that is actually desirable or not may be worth revisiting at some point. Urve (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know much about Kylie, but I could see a stronger case for a notice about Cher since she's considered a gay icon and has a trans son. Funcrunch (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing articles to confirm they match our expectations for scope is definitely a good thing. I regularly review the newly assessed articles at WP:LGBTQ+/Quality, and articles with little to no LGBTQ+ content get added near-daily. Generally what I look for is at least a paragraph of content clearly on-topic, though of course that is a standard we could discuss. WP:LGBTQ+/Scope has more detail.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on Juno Dawson's deadname prominence

I removed Juno Dawson's deadname from the lead and infobox of her biography the other day, due to what I thought was WP:UNDUE prominence, and my edit was reverted overnight. I've reopened the appropriate thread on her Talk: page on the subject and people here might have thoughts that you could usefully contribute.

(A reminder that the policy on gendered terms and deadnames in biography articles is summarised at MOS:DEADNAME and some best practices information can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. A talk: page discussion is not the appropriate place to propose significant changes to policy and the the discussion will likely be more constructive if people have re-read the policy before commenting.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Juno published one of her most notable works under her deadname, and the privacy element is undermined by the fact that Juno has since published works post-transition commenting on her deadname and using that name in the process. The name seems notable to me as a simple former name inclusion, the article respect's Juno's most recent primary identification through the pronouns and name used throughout the article. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Move discussion at Miss Star International

of interest to this project is taking place here. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors

Category:LGBTQ Roman emperors was systematically emptied on May 8. An editor attempted to revert the emptying on May 19, but by then the category had already been deleted due to being empty. I believe the appropriate process would have been for the category to be taken to WP:CFD so the merits could be properly discussed, rather than manually blanking it. Does anyone know if there is a way to pursue that now that it has been deleted, or is too late?--Trystan (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sexual diversity#Requested move 23 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual diversity#Requested move 23 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. LIrala (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Raegan Revord 2

Recently added they/them on her confirmed instagram account.[1] Because of that, should we remove Wikipedia:WikiProject Women from Talk:Raegan Revord? If you have an opinion, please join the discussion at Talk:Raegan_Revord#Gendered_categories_and_wikiprojects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Possibly incorrect information about intersex rights in Africa

Hello, I've been working on an article for the Spanish Wikipedia and I've come across two possible mistakes about legislation.

Kenya

In Intersex rights in Kenya it states that intersex people have no protection against discrimination. However, there is a [bill https://www.knchr.org/Portals/0/Intersex%20Persons%20Bill%2C%20January%202024%20.pdf] that I feel does protect them, but I have no idea how to check if it's in force.

Uganda

In Intersex rights in Uganda I'm pretty sure I found a serious mistake or very ambiguous writing.

It says: The Registration of Persons Act 2015 allows for the registration of a child born a "hermaphrodite", and for change of name and change of sex classification.

However, the pertinent law doesnt permit to register a child as a third gender called hermaphrodite, it just allows to quickly change the gender of a baby after their body has been non-consensually altered by a doctor.

However since I'm not an expert in law and English is not my first language, I'm requesting a second opinion before doing any changes. Wikidasher (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: Kenya, did the bill pass? A quick search does not reveal anything to me. If it did, we may still need a secondary source to confirm that your interpretation is correct. (If you haven't come across it, WP:OR may be useful reading for editing in legal subjects.)

Re: Uganda, my reading of the relevant law is that there is a kind of registration but that 'hermaphrodite' is not a registerable sex. So, I agree with your understanding. Our article should clarify the issue. Urve (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll reword Uganda's sentence. Thanks, Urve and Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. I'll wait to see if someone here is familliar enough with law to know whether Kenya's law is in force. Wikidasher (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Save Our Children

Save Our Children has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Drag pageantry

Drag pageantry could use the attention from some experienced editors. I have been arguing that the page should not include these long lists of unsourced winnders & runners up of pageants. Some have their own articles, so perhaps these lists could go there, but others don't appear notable in themselves. Wikipedia isn't a directory or place to archive the results from these events, and I've tried to create a version that is more aligned with policy. There are two (relatively inexperienced) editors who disagree, and I fear they aren't making valid policy-based arguments, but I don't want to escelate an edit war. Do other's want to chime in at Talk:Drag_pageantry#Unsourced_collection_of_random_results? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act

Please re-assess this. Is it a B-Class yet? Is it high importance? Bearian (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Homosexuality in association football#Requested move 25 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Homosexuality in association football#Requested move 25 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Black Rose (BDSM organization)#equested move 24 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Black Rose (BDSM organization)#equested move 24 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ian McKellen

Ian McKellen has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Dragging the Classics: The Brady Bunch

Dragging the Classics: The Brady Bunch is the Collaboration of the Month for WikiProject Drag Race, if any project members are interested in collaborating. Happy Pride and happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC: Sex Status

There is an RFC about whether we should refer to the Khelif's sex as being uncertain. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

Happy Pride! WikiProject members are invited to join the ongoing Wiki Loves Pride campaign:

• Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2025
• Event:Wiki Loves Pride/2025

Eye roll to a couple comments on the latter's talk page.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review for Bæddel and bædling

I have nominated Bæddel and bædling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of fictional trans characters#Requested move 6 June 2025

Discussion regarding proposed change from List of fictional trans characters → List of fictional transgender characters may be of interest. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Suicide of Charlotte Fosgate

Suicide of Charlotte Fosgate is nominated for deletion, if any projects members are interested in weighing in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Mmm, garlic bread!

Garlic bread

Collaboration welcome at Gays Eating Garlic Bread in the Park!

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

"List of sexualities" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of sexualities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 9 § List of sexualities until a consensus is reached. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: Multiple redirects included in discussion:

• List of sexual orientations → Sexual orientation  (talk · links · history · stats)
• List of sexualities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)
• List of sexualities and gender identities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)
• List of gender and sexual identities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)
• List of genders and sexualities → Outline of LGBTQ topics  (talk · links · history · stats)

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Name change for the National Center for Lesbian Rights

The National Center for Lesbian Rights changed its name today to the National Center for LGBTQ Rights. I'm nervous about doing a page move and would prefer someone else do it; see talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Changing pages with "LGBTQ" in their title to "LGBTQ+

Looking to revisit this discussion, for two reasons. Firstly, to get more responses and secondly because one editor deemed the subject matter to be too soon at the time. Please view the link and give your responses below. Helper201 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it is too soon. I doubt there has been a substantial change in usage in the 6 months since the above discussion, or the <10 months since the series of discussions surrounding the most recent move. I cannot locate Talk:LGBTQ_people#Requested_move_14_August_2024—not sure what happened to the talk page history there. There was follow up discussion here and a move review and I'm sure other discussions. (I did not participate in any of these and became aware of the history more recently while participating in a related RM.) Unless there is evidence of a substantial change in usage or a new set of arguments that have not been properly considered, I'm not sure there will be a different outcome. Ngram is still only updated through 2022 and shows LGBTQ with a substantial lead and trending upwards. I will be surprised if the update with the 2023 corpus shows LGBTQ+ in the lead but it will be a useful data point. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Now located at Talk:LGBTQ (term)/Archive 4#Requested move 14 August 2024. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 23:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Would it make sense to list these here in an FAQ or similar? Although these discussions and decisions occur on and impact other pages, it's a perennial topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, moving them to LGBTQ took a long time, so I would be hesitant for that reason, plus the reasoning that you put forward. Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No need. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible COI editing at sj Miller

This SPA could use more attention from someone with more patience than me. (I started the article FWIW.) Funcrunch (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like an issue for WP:COI/N. I responded to the above editor on their talk page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion on possibly adding polyamorous characters to a LGBTQ animation page

The discussion is at Talk:List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010–2014#Should polyamorous characters be added?. Your comments would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting some help with LGBTQ theatre

Already planning to do some copy-editing for tone and grammar but it's written from a very US-centric perspective. Can definitely see space for discussion of theatre in the Weimar Republic but that's far from all it needs. Carlodivarga-s (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I jumped in and did some copyediting, consolidation of info, and removed some non-relevant examples, but it definitely still needs a lot of work. Good catch on bringing this to folks' attention. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Butch (gay slang)

I started a very rough draft for the term butch as used in gay male subculture. I hope the sources provided thus far are indicative of the article's intended scope, which is different than butch (lesbian slang). I welcome others to chip in. Happy pride! Wracking ^talk! 05:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Adult human female

I think more eyes are needed over there. An editor who is more willing to edit war than those who disagree is removing content as 'unsourced' over a differing interpretation of the existing sources, while rejecting new sources on shaky grounds. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Please keep notices of relevant discussions neutrally worded, in line with WP:CANVASS.--Trystan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

There weren't any sources cited, though that's beeen remedied to a degree and you continue to ignore LFB. But hey, canvas away... Molikog (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You removed a claim from the lead. The sources were in the body. You were shown multiple other sources, as well... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The claim in the lead is not in the body. THe multiple other sources were all inadequate. Molikog (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• To be fair, at least gender essentialism and whether it qualifies as hate speech isn't actually covered outside the lead. The function of the lead in summarizing the body doesn't change depending on whether the subject is controversial. GMG^talk 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Gender essentialism is a different (if related) subject. For this particular term, the second citation (From Dogwhistles to Bullhorns: Unveiling Coded Rhetoric with Language Models) explicitly includes this term in a list of examples of what it repeatedly refers to as 'hate speech'. It also explicitly refers to the term as "transphobic". I did add a more direct reference, but the complaints haven't stopped. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not really saying anything about whether it's verifiable. Just saying it's not covered in the body. GMG^talk 16:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ahh, I misread your comment as being about the sources. However, there's a quote at the end of the 'Adoption by anti-trans movements' subsection that refers to it as "hatred" already. (And I mean, simply having a section on that pretty strongly implies it.)

  FWIW, I'm planning on expanding on these points soon here, as finding sources to support these 'contentious' statements in the lead was trivial, and there's content to be made from those sources that could improve the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's a heavy burden to put on the Liverpool city council. GMG^talk 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  I've no sympathy for them. They accepted the risk when they ran for office.

  In all seriousness, that might not be (anywhere near) the best sourcing for it, but it was in the body, and it was supported by a source on the claim itself. Between those facts, the justification for removal was shaky at best and dishonest at worst.

  I'm actually a big fan of formatting the lead to summarize the body. However, with many shorter articles (such as this one), the lead is the only real place to put certain statements which might be supported by the sourcing but aren't explicit in the body. Indeed, many articles are nothing but lead.

  And when one encounters claims in the lead that aren't reflected in the body, but are supported by sourcing in the body (or are so trivially easy to find sources for as this), removing them from the lead only damages the article. Adding them to the body improves it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think we get to play fast and loose with the lead when it's convenient. What it looks like from here is two sides crossing their arms and and telling the other to fix the issue. GMG^talk 19:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  If that's what you see, you haven't checked the edit history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Rainbow Friday

Dear friends.

I just published a translation from PL into EN of Rainbow Friday article. English is my second language, feel free to look it over and change the language.

Also, I need to add translation template I think?

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Le Madame

Dear Friends.

I just translated an article about the club Le Madame from Polish into English. If somebody could check my English and do other stuff with the article (I dunno how to add a short summary :-( ) I would be grateful.

Best wishes

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at both! I will note that in Le Madame, there is currently no explicit mention of the club as a meeting site for LGBTQ people in the article. Also, the lead (first section) includes information that is not otherwise in the article. More info is available at MOS:INTRO, but essentially the lead should summarize the main points of the article and not include lots of extra information not in the body.

Great work, and happy pride! Wracking ^talk! 01:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hm... it is "just" a translation. Maybe if I will find some free time (honestly, I am more focused now on translating a lot of LGBT articles than improving them) I could look for resources on the Polish Internet (I believe I have a subscription of Wyborcza Classic??? That's a great archive of Polish news), but for now my priorities are kind of different?

Maybe I will try do something about that after the Pride Month is over? If I will not forget, it is...

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Inaczej

Dear Friends.

I translated from Polish Wikipedia article about magazine Inaczej. Please, look at it and do some language and Wikipedia editing, if you could? ;-) English is a second speech for me, you know... :-P ;-)

Best wishes!

-- Kaworu1992 (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 Thanks for creating this new entry! You can always request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Can be very helpful! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Modern Pagan views on LGBT people, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Steuben Hill

I just saved this from being deleted. Please keep an eye out for potential deletions during Pride Month. This one seems to have been an inadvertent proposed deletion; an editor is proposing deletion of many poorly sourced geographical stubs. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)