Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 12 February 2007

• WPT:LGBT

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 79 Archive 80

Template:LGBT Navigation

Category:HIV/AIDS

Question... Should Category:HIV/AIDS be placed under Category:LGBT? Personally, I feel like it should, but I realize HIV/AIDS isn't solely an LGBT issue, and I realize some people have strong feelings on the subject. So is there any opposition to doing that? Or any suggestions? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As it has much significance to the community and was originally known as the "Gay Plague", I'd say include it. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are other categories that it can be claced into as well. It's not as if including it in the LGBT cat means that's the only place it can be. :) Aleta 03:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be included somewhere in our project. It had an enormous impact on the LGBT community, not only as a society in generally,but also as an instrument of political re-awakening. Jeffpw 08:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this a huge issue either way. But I would note that our practice has previously been not to include articles on HIV/AIDS and related topics within the LGBT project. My personal view is that although articles which specifically cover the incidence and effect of HIV/AIDS on the gay Community are within the scope of the project, those articles etc. on the illness itself are not. WJBscribe 10:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So to clarify, WJBscribe, you're saying that we should make our own AIDS category, and only include articles like Gay Men's Health Crisis and ACTUP, and that AZT would not be included in the category? If so, that makes sense, to me. Jeffpw 11:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much yes. And I was wondering if there were particular articles on the Gay plague or HIV and the gay community which seem like topics we should cover. I'd rather we had coverage of LGBT issues of HIV/AIDS than simply tagged all HIV/AIDS related articles... WJBscribe 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality and medical science

Gay plague redirects to this bizarre article. At the moment it includes:

1. Is homosexuality genetically caused?
2. HIV/AIDS as "gay disease"
3. Reproduction for same-sex couples

Surely we should have separate articles on the topics rather than connect them because they all involve medicine? WJBscribe 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The article does seem overly broad, and includes items not really relating to the title (eg: hospital visitation). It could do with a rewrite, or a merge of content into appropriate articles, and then a deletion. It also needs citations. It currently has none, which is worrisome for an article that purports to be a scholarly overview of the subject. Jeffpw 11:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems Ed Poor started the article in March 2003, called and about Gay disease and it has since evolved into the present mess... WJBscribe 11:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Following the nomination of this article at AfD, it has been moved to User:John254/Homosexuality and medical science. I suggest that instead of trying to recreate a sourced version of this article, it be split into the following articles:

• Homosexuality and HIV
• Homosexuality and genetics
• Reproduction for same-sex couples

Any thoughts? WJBscribe 04:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have some notes that could help for the potential 'homosexuality and genetics' article. I had to do a revision of the different studies on homosexuality (including genetics) for an oral presentation at my university. I'll have to dig them out (I did it two, almost three years ago), but I think they could be of use. They're referenced and all, which is a biggie right? Cheers Raystorm 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

mainpage and new department

I've rearranged the sections on the mainpage in accordance with Aleta's suggestion above. Anyone is welcome to revert if they don't like.

BTW, I want to propose a new department, that of "Community". It would function rather like other WikiProjects' Outreach departments, so with the newsletter and how to recruit, but also with the quilt and other potential community-building activities (as long as they also contribute to the wiki, we don't want a gay Esperanza on our hands - pink and green clash sooo badly). Also, an IRC channel similar to that of the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject might be an idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the reorganization, Dev!  :) Aleta 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Men's Rights page and Same Sex marriage

Hi, I'm Cailil and I work over on Project Gender Studies. I recently came across a section of the Men's Rights article about same sex marriage which was in my view dubious and unverifiable. The user who posted it claims that Same Sex marriage would be mainly funded by straight men - he is the writer who published this material and therefore claims it is factual. I am being attacked because I questioned its inclusion and verifiability. If any one has any views or would like to comment the dispute is here

Dispute over Polish article.

The Prime Minister of Poland was recently outed as a homosexual - but given that both he and Poland for that matter are deeply anti-gay, it's not surprising that there is a user at Jarosław Kaczyński who really doesn't want me to add the LGBT people from Poland category. I'm getting close to 3RR, so I'm going to stop now, but someone else might want to go reason with him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Another person just undid my edit (edit summary "they are not allegations. The Polish secret service says he's gay, and Lech Wałęsa has mentioned it twice, and janaslaw has never denied it, even though every newspaper makes jokes about it. He's gay!") with ".no, you are". Delightful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a note about personal attacks in my edit summary. But I'm not convinced this one can be tagged or categorised as LGBT. Given the controversial claim, WP:BLP applies and there aren't enough references available. All I can find are from gay media groups. Given the PM's stance one would expect international news sources to have reported on it if it was clear cut. Absent of that, I don't think we're on strong enough ground to decide he's gay. He has been strongly accused of that, which is reported in the article. But I don't think we can say the evidence is conclusive. WJBscribe 15:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WJB, even disregarding whether he is gay or not, his stance on homosexuality, ands the statements he has made about gay rights, is enough to qualify him, as a person of interest for our project. Jeffpw 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right Jeff. He's clearly within the scope of the project. Its the categorising him as an LGBT person which concerns me. WJBscribe 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just voice my opinion here, since the person in question unfortunately comes from my country. I would not, ever, absolutely, categorise him as an LGBT person. His comments aside, he clearly has nothing to do with the movement. --Ouro 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouro, can you pull up some Polish newspaper articles about the controversy surrounding his sexuality? It would be helpful to have Polish sources for that section of the article. Jeffpw 16:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you a bit about myself. I do not trust the polish newspapers and do not read them, I much rather prefer to pull my news from the Polish Press Agency or the BBC. Second, I do not at all dabble in politics, except for my deep belief that all politicians should be murder victims. This issue is quite controversial and it is not an easy thing finding sources that'd be (semi) impartial or objective, but I'll see what I can do.

Dev, regarding your question from my talk page, he's definitely homophobic, the other one I'm not sure and for myself I do not really care, however I will try to look up some sources for you guys. --Ouro 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay and lesbian are pejorative?

Hi there. I got a curious edit in the Same-sex marriage in Spain article. It's edit summary was: ("gays" is unencyclopedic, and every case of it should be deleted. it's like saying "negro" for africans.)

This has me reeling. Is this true? Have I inadvertedly been using a pejorative term throughout the entire article? Should I use 'homosexual associations' instead of 'gay associations', for example? I wanted to ask here before changing the article further or reverting the previous edit, because I'm the first to admit I don't know the full story about how those two terms came to use. Maybe they did had negative connotations at the beginning, but now?

If anyone can shed any light on this, it'd be much appreciated. :) Cheers Raystorm 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Gay is the currently accepted term that is used in the English language. It is in no way pejorative that I have ever heard. Language changes, obviously, but if this has changed, I have not heard of a more acceptable word that is used. And his comparison was strange, too. Africans refers to a person based on their geographic location. Negro refers to a race. Further, doing a major copyedit without discussion is always frowned upon, especially while it is under consideration as a WP:FAC. Jeffpw 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw those edits and I think the editor explained himself very badly. Gay is in no way pejorative, but it is more informal than homosexual. So referring to "a gay" is more informal than "a homosexual". That's what I think he meant when he said encyclopedic and that's why I didn't revert him. Incidentally "gay association" is fine because it's an accepted phrase, but "gays and lesbians adopting" was rightly changed to "homosexuals adopting". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor replied about it on my talk page. Jeffpw 21:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I saw the edits he did and they weren't bad. I was just worried about having to take out the words 'gay and lesbian' from the entire article. 'Informal' I can understand, but when I read that edit summary, I did get concerned. :) Raystorm 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find "a gay" (as a noun) to be totally wrong. But not because it's pejorative (though as Dev says, it is less formal), but because it irks me grammatically. Gay is foremost an adjective - using it as a noun rubs my fur the wrong way. But that's just my $0.02US. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Satyr on this one. I much prefer gay as an adjective e.g. gay or lesbian people oppose this or John Smith is openly gay etc. It is acceptable to use it encyclopedicly because that is the term gay people often use to describe themselves. It doesn't sound right as a noun though e.g. gays and lesbians oppose this or John Smith is a gay. Here homosexuals reads better to me... WJBscribe 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who said that is simply incorrect. The article on "gay" explains that people are taught to say gay and not homosexual because homosexual is too clinical. Gay is the better, simpler word.~Zythe 15:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add — in discussions of marriage and adoption, "same-sex couple" is generally more accurate than "gay couple," "homosexuals, "gays," etc., since it does not indicate sexual orientation (i.e. bisexuals are not homosexual but may have relationships with the same sex). -Emiellaiendiay 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Help! LGBT Template

How do I convert the LGBT template in Same-sex marriage in Spain (you know, the rainbow-coloured one with the links to other same-sex marriage in other countries' articles)? I need to make it horizontal instead of vertical. I have no idea how to do this. I also have to reduce the width in the legislation infobox, and again, I'm at a loss on how to do this.

I swear I'll cover in barnstars to whoever can do these things for me. Really. Please! Raystorm 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created Template:SSMflat, which may help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I love it. THANK YOU! :D Raystorm 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need any help, let me know. I've become something of a not-quite-expert in coding templates :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? Well, I've been asked to reduce the width in the legislation infobox in Same-sex marriage in Spain. If you could do that, I'd be really grateful! :) Raystorm 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Passing along a comment (at my talkpage) from one of my FAC reviewers:

I'm also troubled that the LGBT Project doesn't seem to be up on Wiki guidelines - I started adjusting WP:LAYOUT issues throughout the articles, and grew tired - aesthetics are important, but they don't trump GTL - maybe you can get them to work on those issues? I created the See also template for your article.

Raystorm 17:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Think you could get Sandy to explain a little bit? I totally don't understand... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From his edits, Sandy is objecting to portal-style templates like {{LGBT}} being on the mainpage of articles. I can't find a rule against this in WP:LAYOUT, does anyone know where it says we shouldn't have them. WJBscribe 18:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked Sandy about it and got this back:

"I put your stuff from Raystorm's article into a template, and was going through some of the other articles to add it, and found a lot of layout issues - external links in strange places, lots of See also stuff in infoboxes, etc. My concern is actually more of a general one - that gynormous infoboxes and See also templates are taking over Wiki, contributing to load-time issues - Projects should keep a close eye on that, and keep tight standards about infoboxes. I was surprised that Raystorm had been told to add that info per aesthetics - yes, aesthetics matter, but GTL and other guidelines matter more; See also should stay See also. I'm not sure what standards exist for infoboxes, but I should spend some time investigating - the gynormous ones taking over Wiki are a concern. We focus on how prose size affects load time, but some template creep is getting out of control (more so on other Projects than LGBT). I also found a LGBT portal in one article - there's some instruction somewhere about Wiki meta info belonging on talk pages only - again, I don't know where to find this info, though. I've got to figure out what standards exist, since too many articles are really getting cluttered." Personally, I think this is a matter of personal preferences rather than a guideline issue (which are, after all, only guidelines) and I certainly find those templates most helpful when I'm reading articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, unless Sandy establishes a concensus to support his view, I don't think he should remove them from articles and its inappropriate to hold it against an FA nom. If his view becomes policy- fine. But to my knowledge it is not at the moment. WJBscribe 18:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, I'm not in favor of "see also" type templates on article pages. If the article contains information about something, it'll be a wikilink - if not, it's distracting. As an example, I really dislike having three "see also" templates that clutter Homosexuality. Infoboxes that contain a synopsis of the information that's on the page (like Infobox Biography) I can deal with - it gives me a USA Today view and I can read more if I want to. But then again, I don't go around removing the "see-also" ones from pages. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm somewhere in a middle ground. I like having them to a certain extent, but also think they can get out-of-hand. I completely agree with Satyt about Homosexuality - it's way to cluttered with the boxes. I guess I'd want to limit (as a rule of thumb, not a Rule) them to one on a page, generally. Aleta 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, this discussion has prompted me to go and remove one of the boxes from Homosexuality. I took off the "Sexual Orientation" one, and started a section about "too many boxes" that talk page. Aleta 00:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I got this back:

Raystorm, I checked with someone far more knowledgeable than I on Wiki guidelines, and there is no specific policy against using navigational templates at the top of the article. I still believe the way the article is currently structured is better (infobox at top, navigation of See also article links horizontally at bottom), but that is not the basis for an object, since there is no policy - just wanted to let you know so you could choose. Regards

Raystorm 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Hi gang. I've created articles for ball culture and banjee and have much-expanded the article Imperial Court System. Does anyone want to take a look and rate them? The SatyrBot has listed them all as start class but they are, at least I think, pretty thorough. Thanks. House of Scandal 22:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I upgraded them all to B on the basis of their length, images, and references. I definitely think you should consider going for GA if posssble. Keep up the good work! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Imperial Court article (loved it, by the way), and see the references need expanding. If you have trouble doing it, let me know and I will assist you. I find working on refs....relaxing. Jeffpw 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay - that's just weird. IMNSHO. :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar ribbon

Btw, we now have a Barnstar ribbon, for anyone who uses them: . Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that have too many stripes? What about having it which the usual 6 stripes used for the flag since 1979- perhaps horizonally as well? WJBscribe 12:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Vertically is the standard for barnstar ribbons, and if you really want six stripes, you need to go take it up with Azatoth. Personally, I'm happy with the current one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so pretty, I love it. Don't hit the newbie around here, but what might we use it for? Psicorps 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Barnstars and then Misplaced Pages:Ribbons. Barnstars are "appreciation awards" spontaneously given out from one editor to another for especially helpful work. Some people display their barnstars on their user page, and when someone has a lot of them, they may replace them with ribbons to take up less space. — coelacan talk — 20:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Will have to try and do something worthy of one now! Psicorps 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Affinity

I just created an article on the Sarah Waters novel Affinity; if anyone would like to contribute it would be much appreciated. -Emiellaiendiay 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that people have added templates, images, categories, etc. to the article. I'll assume it was people from here — thank you! I've expanded the text, and now it looks like a real article!

-Emiellaiendiay 02:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FA!!!!

OMG, Same-sex marriage in Spain is a FA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X-D *Crying* My very first FA... Raystorm 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My sincere congratulations, Raystorm. You worked very hard on this article, had a difficult time during the nomination process, and deserve the FA. Jeffpw 11:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto the Congrats, Raystorm! Nice Job!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys/gals! :-) I'm exhausted after mindlessly formatting refs left to right (among other funny mind-numbing chores at FAC), I can't wait to start writing again an article (any article) and doing research for it, which is what I really love doing! Cheers! :-) Raystorm 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And WOW - The Well of Loneliness too!!! Congratulations, Celithemis!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto congrats, Celithemis! :-) Exhausting business, isn't it? But what a reward! Raystorm 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed The Well of Loneliness also made FA. Congratulations to you, too, Celithemis! Ouyr project is really racking up the awards now. And Raystorm, after an article I wrote got an FA, I was too exhausted by the whole business to really enjoy it. I may write another article, but I will leave it to others to nominate it if they wish, and will not take part in the process. I agree that writing and researching is the most enjoyable part. Jeffpw 14:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I must admit a similar thought crossed my mind at one point, writing an article and letting someone else go through the FAC process. :P But I don't know, can it actually get any worse than what I had to hear (or read) at the SSM in Spain one? (Please don't say yes!). :D Cheers Raystorm 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Raystorm and Celithemis!Parammon 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, and congratulations, Raystorm! —Celithemis 23:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Help Please

The article Adam4Adam has been deleted by the decision of a single administrator with no warning, discussion or observation of process. The article was referenced to The Washington Post and asserted its notability well. An avalanche of evidence could have produced to improve it if need be. Being privy to this admin's personal info via a link on his page, his self-appointed role as 1-man judge, jury and executioner of an article with a GLBT topic is particularly bothersome. Please assist. (Backstory: This article has no similarities to previous versions; I didn't even know about them). House of Scandal 18:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded on the deletion review page, and provided two NYTimes articles as sources, for the notability requirement. Jeffpw 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the open tasks template. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that as this site has been mentioned in at least two NYTimes articles, it definitely passes the notability requirement. I don't know many sites that've been mentioned in such a globally notable paper. LuciferMorgan 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The same admin who deleted the article in violation of policy has taken issue with it being included in the LGBT page's "deletion discussion". I don't think he's winning any GLAAD Awards this year. Shaundakulbara 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shaundakulbara, I have to take exception to your most recent comment because you seem to be suggesting that this is some sort of 'Gay' thing instead of a notability thing. I ran a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual BBS for 7 years (1989 through 1996) in Oregon called the Antares Dawn. Your tacit implication that this is a discrimination issue is out of line, and your liberal use of smearing does more to hurt the community than deleting any website advertisement could. Between this and your personal attacks against me you've done yourself and your cause a disservice. I've been civil and polite to you, and you have not responded in kind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict--comment not edited to take into account Chairboy's response): Are you insinuating that the deleting admin did so out of homophobic feelings? I sure hope not. As for his objecting to noting the article's deletion review on this page, while deletion notifications are not exactly against policy (and many WikiProjects have them), they do tend to skew the results of such "votes" in one direction and bring in people who are really not "voting" on policy considerations. _└  / _talk  13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notes and advice: Accusing admins of anything is almost always counterproductive. It's the fastest way to get your problem ignored on WP:AN/I, and the most reliable way of ensuring that other admins will prefer to simply steer clear of you in the future rather then offer help. Flies with honey, and all that. Admins make mistakes, and as with almost every other editor, it's always more helpful to wp:assume good faith as far as the wings of generosity can carry you. There are times and cases when admins do abuse their power. However, such cases are drowned out by the constant deluge of exaggeration and overreaction that is daily directed toward almost every admin who ever touches a controversial article. Because thousands of other editors have cried wolf in the past, accusations now fall on deaf ears. There are even in-jokes about it now, like Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin. If there are real, recurrent problems, wp:dispute resolution can help, as there are formal processes already in place. But a scattershot of complaints on talk pages usually does not help, and often creates more problems for bystanders in the nearby vicinity. Particular to this case, I have seen no evidence that Chairboy acted from any kind of bias. Chairboy handles dozens or hundreds of speedy deletions per week, some are going to be lgbt-related articles, some are going to be wrongly-deleted, and some are going to be both. I believe that a very simple request for restoring the article for further work, either to article-space or user-space, would have been sufficient. I also understand that things get heated and it can seem like one is being unfairly slighted, and with that in mind I want to clarify that the above is not intended as judgment upon any editor, but is rather a piece of advice for everyone for the future. — coelacan talk — 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

The latest edition of the newsletter is ready to go (fuck me, it's long), and I will be sending it out in a few hours. If there is anything you would like added, say quickly, as the deadline's tight! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, Dev! Thanks for putting it together for us. Jeffpw 22:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great work. Parammon 07:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category question

So I'm looking at Category:LGBT political advocacy groups in the United States and wondering if it oughtn't go under Category:LGBT rights organizations and be renamed. Or is there a difference between "political advocacy groups" and "rights organizations"? Almost all the articles listed in the former are "...rights" or "...equality" or such-like. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the two. I looked at the category, and many should be moved to the rights category. There are some PACs listed, and they should stay in the advocacy category. There is a difference between the two. Jeffpw 08:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Shudo

Does anyone know much about Shudo? The category doesn't have a description, and only has 11 articles in it - one of which (Oda Nobunaga) needs major cleanup. So if anyone's knowledgeable about Homosexuality in Japan, could you step up? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer for the articles, but I will write a short intro for the category. Haiduc 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-naked guy

Is that attention getting? Keep your eyes on the main page. I moved the "banjee" DYK hook to the DYK next update and it will appear on the main page in a few hours. Unless someone puts the kibosh on it the half-naked guy photo that HoS took will be on the main page too. I get undue perverse amusement from this and just wanted to share! Shaundakulbara 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

<giggle> Yes, that got my attention :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Eedo Bee

I'm working on Billy Tipton for Jumpaclass, and encountered Eedo Bee, who is removing the WikiProject tag on the grounds that everyone knows that Tipton was straight. I checked her contributions, and she seems to be removing WikiProject LGBT studies tags from quite a few articles. She has a userbox that says "This user is against LGBT issues and Queer Theory," so I think that she may be influenced by some personal bias. Anyone want to help clean up after her? -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll spend a little time doing it. I have an hour or so before I have to go to work. May I suggest leaving a message on her talk page,and also possibly reporting this on WP:ANI? Jeffpw 11:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a male. Thank you for assuming my gender, FisherQueen and Jeffpw. How ironic eh? I am not against you for personal bias, and I would appreciate you not to label attacks at me. What I am against is the blatantly liberal way in which the LGBT Banner is posted on top of many articles which bear no relevance to LGBT issues. Members of the Greek Divine Pantheon were on the list of LGBT for goodness' sake! They have no relevance to LGBT issues, even if they had relationships with members of the same sex. There should be a greater amount of dicretion on the part of LGBT Project members to avoid further mistakes regarding labelling of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

I have reported this at WP:ANI. Jeffpw 12:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"They have no relevance to LGBT issues, even if they had relationships with members of the same sex." If they had relationships with the same sex, then they are covered by us. They don't have to be LGBT activists to be under our banner. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I wonder if Eedo Bee misunderstands what project tagging means? I've left a note on his talk page explaining that project tagging doesn't mean people own articles and to explain the rationale behind project tagging. Maybe that will calm things down in future. WJBscribe 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be right. I tried to explain it to him when we were talking about the problem on my talk page, but I'm not sure that he got it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So you did. I hadn't seen that bit of discussion. Oh well, another try won't hurt. The problem seems to be that he assumes we make articles we edit pro-LGBT, which isn't true. And is actually a pretty strong accusation given the number of people about whom he's assuming bad faith. WJBscribe 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. 91 and counting! We'll be in triple figures this month I reckon. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, WP:BIOGRAPHY has 200,081 articles - statistically speaking, that means there are 12,005 LGBT people out there that I expect us to tag. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ma'am, yes ma'am! Right away! :) Raystorm 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Update. User:Eedo Bee decided to delete the various bits of advice on his talkpage and tag the article Pedophilia as within this project's scope. I warned him against continuing in this vain but he chose to disregard my warning. He has now been blocked by Gwernol... WJBscribe 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen his comments about Pedophilia and the LGBT project at his talk page (and a few of his other contribs). *Shakes head* Do you think he'll do as advised and stay away from those articles (i.e, LGBTproject-related) in which he is clearly unable to stay NPOV once he returns from the block? Raystorm 12:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say this guy is being blocked, does that mean he is being denied access to edit the wiki? --Clay 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A block prevents a user from editing any page on Misplaced Pages except their own talkpage. In this case, the block was for one week. WjBscribe 07:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a week long prohibition against this guy really long enough? --Clay 11:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a very new user who apparently didn't understand how Misplaced Pages works. The admin who gave him the block emphasised that if he disrupts again the block will be extended indefinitely. I, at least, am assuming good faith on the part of EedoBee.Jeffpw 11:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. I think this guy has the ability to learn to be a useful editor, and the potential to be useful, if he uses this week to lurk a bit and read some policy. I kind of hope he'll come back and contribute productively. If he doesn't, of course, he can always be permablocked. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read the Admin's rebuke on Eedo Bee's talk page and I couldn't help but detect that he still has a strong sense of belligerence in his response to the rebuke. To me he is another person who doesn't understand or even cares to broaden his understanding of LGBT issues. I have seen his type before and most them are collected in the more fundamentalist wings of Christianity, where lies the strongest opposition to LGBT's receiving the same rights as everyone else. In the hopes of shedding some light and truth as to what the Bible really says about homosexuality I created this user subpage; I thought about maybe directing his attention here, but decided such an attempt would be futile. --Clay 15:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to convert Eedo Bee to my way of thinking, on this or any other question. Sure, I'd like it if there were fewer homophobes in the world, but he doesn't have to join PFLAG to edit Misplaced Pages, or even change his beliefs on the subject of gay people. He just has to follow the rules, like the rest of us. I have equally passionate antipathy for Exodus International, but I follow the rules and don't put my rage in the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the mixed reactions, ranging from patronising to assuming religious beliefs. Firstly, I would like to add that the link regarding Bible and the Homosexuality really is a manipulation on the Bible. Despite being a Catholic, I'm ready to admit that lots of people manipulate the bible; most done by well meaning Christians! This is just a more transparent effort, though I must say, it was a good try. Secondly, I do not need to be converted or whatnot, as I'm not a homophobe as such. I would just like to outline that I have a distaste for LGBT Culture and its propagation. I have no issue with people who are homosexuals, though I will admit I find the homosexual aspect to be physically unappealing, to say the least. My distaste for LGBT culture has nothing to do with my Religious beliefs, but rather stems from my abhor for promiscuity (Like it or not, the sexual revolution and LGBT emergence go hand in hand). Thirdly, I am willing to concede that I erred on the issue of deleting banners relating to LGBT, though I do think that it is innappropriatly displayed on a number of articles, and there are a number of articles that ought have the banner. Eedo Bee 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Assuming religious beliefs"? You have Catholic userboxes on your userpage and a sentence that says you are against "LGBT issues". There seem little assumptions to be made. I don't appreciate the promiscuity that accompanies much of LGBT culture, but you have a clear abhorrence for all things LGBT, not just our alleged sexual liberation. Having said that, I appreciate your confessing to your mistake and hope we can all work productively together in the future. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You assumed my distaste for LGBT culture because of religion, which another user called "the more fundamentalist wings of Christianity". The Catholic Church is not a fundimentalist wing of Christianity! Excluding the esoteric Christian churches, it is perhaps one of the least Fundimental Churches, if not religions, in the world.

As for this clear abhorrence to all things LGBT, where did you obtain this information? How do you know my position on ALL things LGBT? What are "all" things LGBT? That's a wide base of things to abhor, you must agree? Accept that the various positions on all things LGBT are not dichotomous! Eedo Bee 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage says "this user is against LGBT issues and queer theory", it does not say "LGBT culture" - you are very clearly trying to get out of being pinned with a label you yourself have put out there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am against Queer Theory. So what? I'll change it so it says theory, issues and culture. It also says I am an ageless immortal, do you believe that? If you want to call me a homophobe, I don't care. Stop using weasal words like "you are very clearly". It is tiresome and overemphatic. If you are going to make accusations, back it up with citations. So have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Go on wikiproject kindness man, give it a go. I really don't care if you are going to call me whatever you think I am. Just don't say it to me. Eedo Bee 12:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am already a member of the Kindness Campaign. Quite frankly, we are holding this discussion on the LGBT talkpage, not your talkpage, and thus you evidently do care about what I am saying or you wouldn't keep coming back. "Well, see if I care" is horribly immature, btw. If you don't want me to "say it to " then leave. Simple. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time we should stop feeding the troll (Comment removed by User:Agne27 as potential PA) and just watch carefully to make sure he doesn't disrupt any more of the LGBT articles (or, for that matter, tagging articles like Pedophilia as within the project's scope). At this point, it's clear that continuing conversation with him will have little to know real effect. CaveatLector 14:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CaveatLector. Let's ignore him, even if it means he'll get the last word here (so what?). We'll just check his contribs so he doesn't pull another Pedophilia stunt, and that's it. Cheers Raystorm 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PS:Dev, remember that imitation is the best kind of flattery hehe. ;) Cheers Raystorm 15:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dev seems like a suitable candidate for the coordinator of this little project you all have going here. I suggest this slanderous attack on myself be archived. Eedo Bee 05:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration experiment.

The Collaboration has changed this month to Bisexuality. As we are working towards (oh so slowly) creating a FA a month from this process, I have put it up for peer review so that editors wishing to contribute can have some ideas to work from if they are stuck. Input to both would be welcome. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist userbox

I never got a rainbowed eye from y'all, so shame on you. :( I've created the watchlist userbox anyway, so here you go. It's {{LGBTWatchlist}}:

This user keeps track of the LGBT Watchlist

Hope you like. I wanted to make it gold and something else like the normal userbox is, but I just couldn't find a colour to match! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans! Nice work,Dev. I'll pop it on my userpage. I'm more of a pink triangle guy anyway, so I'm perfectly at peace with not having a rainbow flag/eye. Thanks for the great work. -- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is seriously cool. I love it. Can we add to the watchlist, if need be? Raystorm 20:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are members allowed to add to the watchlist? I think all of the Lists of Gay, lesbian and bisexual people should be added as they receive frequent attention. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all members are welcome to add to the watchlist, it is only a rough compilation of the most controversial articles at the moment. If you're only putting on something that has been vandalised or unstable for a short while, though, for example if you're having an edit war, do mention that on the page so it can be reviewed at a later date. An unwieldy list is an unhelpful list. ;) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a separate list to include everything LGBT-related? -Emiellaiendiay 03:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Smack me hard if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment contain the 'everything' list? I mean, if you don't mind that it's subcategorized by assessment. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. But I think what Emiellaiendiay was asking for was a watchlist that would comprise every single LGBT project-tagged article.... WJBscribe 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. -Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, and I will get onto Ingrid and ask her to run Watchlistbot to give us a full watchlist. Be warned though, I'm not sure if it would be much help tracking the last 50 changes of over 4000 articles. We're gonna need two userboxes... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I changed the text to "This user keeps track of the LGBT Watchlist? So it matches other userboxen? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to, I certainly don't mind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quilt

And this is my final new section before I prise myself away from Misplaced Pages. Ze quilt zat was proposed has now acquired a form, with some well-timed aid from Coelacan. My suggestion is that we create a square for every active member and allow them to fill it at their leisure - as adding 92 squares is going to be somewhat time-consuming, I place the quilt for your criticism now, so we can change the colours/format it differently/set fire to the entire thing and never speak of it again, before I do anything else. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks wonderful, Dev, and I can't wait to think of something to properly express myself here. Can we start adding to it while it's in the sandbox, or should we wait until you and Coelacan have finished working on it? Jeffpw 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it tricky to figure out where to add an image to it (hope you don't mind my adding to it... I wanted to see how it worked... I'm happy to take my fishie out again if you like). My trouble might be just as strongly related to my general idiocy as to the format, which is groovy (and would look even groovier with lots of patches), and I did work it out after some thought. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it took me a few tries to add an image too, so you're not alone. :) I can take the image out if you want Dev920, I just wanted to test the quilt. I think it's awesome! Raystorm 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, is your sandbox really a featured article candidate? :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks wonderful. Great work, again!-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My "two merged cells" idea works, but it's kludgy, and it does make it difficult to see what one is doing. I think it might be a good idea to add corresponding html comments to the spaces where one would add one's name and patch, and these comments can be replaced by cut out and replaced by contributors. This should make it a lot easier to work with the quilt without breaking it. I've got some work to do on the Commons: and around the house (eep!) tonight, but I can add these comments pretty soon if no one beats me to it. — coelacan talk — 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone seems so enthusiastic about the quilt! If Coelacan would like to add the html comments she mentioned, I'll get to work on our community department and we should have it fully up and running by this weekend.

Btw, has anyone had any more thoughts on starting our own IRC channel? WP:TROP has #wiki-hurricanes and it seemed like a cool idea... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The quilt looks great! But how did you guess my second favourite Oscar Wilde quote? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

quilt ready now

Okay, it's ready to go at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Quilt. I didn't copy over anyone's patches from Dev's sandbox, since I didn't know where anyone would put them on the larger quilt. There's a guide to using the quilt there in the comments, click on "edit" to see it. Improve the guide however you can, and go get started adding your patches! — coelacan talk — 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So anyone just picks the square number they want, or is there some kind of pre-arranged order? Raystorm 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No. If you dot it around, then it'll look more patchwork-like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Just added myself. :) It does look patchwork-like I think. But there are more members than squares, isn't that right? Raystorm 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently. But many members are occasional users. When the quilt fills up, we add another 30 squares to the end. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, does anyone mind if we remove the linked names? I really like the stark contrast between the black and the white. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we return to the eternal debate between form vs. function. I agree the contrast is nice, but on the other hand, it is awfully handy for anyone looking at our puzzleboard (quilt brings up some negative connotations for me) to be able to click on the name and go to the user page. I have no objections no matterhow it ends up, but that is something to consider. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffpw (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Damn that bot is fast! Jeffpw 20:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Black links: Coelacan See? — coelacan talk — 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice! :) Raystorm 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No copyright images please. Fair use does not apply to material used in the quilt, so make sure its all copyright free. Cheers, WJBscribe 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

completely unrelated to this WikiProject...

... and fun! Wikimedia Commons is having a Picture of the Year 2006 contest; the winning picture is selected by community vote. The gallery of candidates is right this way and the actual voting is just over yonder (interwiki links are ugly)! Anyone with 100 or more edits on any Wikimedia project before February 1 can vote. If you don't have a commons account, you might want to make one, or you'll be voting by IP. Anyone who doesn't have 100 edits on Commons will have to post on their Misplaced Pages userspace, "I am the same person as XYZ on Commons" and then link to that diff in order to establish identity and eligibility to vote. Please follow the instructions, pick no more than 5 pictures (that's the hard part), and enjoy the show. — coelacan talk — 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification of AfDs etc

Asking for project imput into deletion discussions is getting controversial and is at the borderline of what is acceptable under WP:CANVAS. On the one hand, members of Wikiprojects may have useful knowledge of the article in question and may be able assist in finding reliable sources to support notability. On the other hand, they are often likely to support keeping articles that are within their project's scope and can be rallied in large numbers. This often leads to allegations of votestacking. I suggest that we clarify amongst ourselves what sort of responses to deletions or XfDs are acceptable and what are not to avoid difficulty in future. My thoughts:

• Adding an AfD (or other XfD) discussion to the noticeboard
• Making a request on a project talkpage (or members' talkpages) for help finding reliable sources to confirm notability or other changes needed for the AfD to be survived
• Asking on a project talkpage (or several members' talkpages) for help in preventing an article being deleted
• Project members contributing to an XfD discussion of which they become aware through the project (and to which a number of project members have already contributed) when they have no new argument to contribute (XfDs are not votes)

The above is erring on the cautious side but seems the best approach to me. What do people think? WJBscribe 18:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good for us to look at this proactively; thanks, WJB, for raising it. My initial responses:

Point #3 seems to be basically the negative version of point #1--I agree with both points as phrased, but wonder if they shouldn't be combined into a single point that just succinctly states the distinction between notifying and asking for help/particular "votes".

Point #2 is a helpful thing that people can and should do for articles whether subject to AFD or not. I'm not sure how to phrase it in a way that handles the canvassing issue. Maybe, it's a sort of "things that can be considered canvassing in the context of an AFD" with suggested neutral / notification / general improvement language ... ?

Point #4 is a sort of general reminder of the point of xFDs.

Hmm. But maybe WJB's initial instinct is right, to just bullet a list of do's and don't's. Mulling .... --lquilter 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Two comments / questions:

1) XfDs are not votes?

2) I think we should stress adding XfDs to the S&g DelSort board, not particularly the noticeboard.

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BenAveling/AFD is not a vote (that's the official line and I'm sticking to it ;-) and yes, the Deletion Sorting board now supercedes the noticeboard. I think the idea of a blatant, colored, bulleted list is spot-on; it's better to be painfully clear than to screw up and start canvassing. Good call, WJBscribe, and thanks for being the one to keep bringing this up until it gets explicitly dealt with. — coelacan talk — 19:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up WJB. I agree with erring on the cautious side. If, worst case sceanario, an article is deleted a new one can always be built and sourced. I'd rather that, than the project get a bad name. And thanks for that link Coelcan, it was very helpful.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see this as a still-open thing to move forward on. Need to try to come to consensus on what to do with this list, if there's anything else to add to it, and then put it somewhere prominent. In my opinion, it should go on all deletion-discussion-related pages and also at the very top of this talk page, since this is another place the problem can arise. — coelacan talk — 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

A Challenge!

I challenge everyone this month to invite five editors to LGBT articles to this project! We only have gained two this February. We need more! There are fabulous editors out there who could contribute loads, go find them! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We have only gained two this February. No guys you haven't fallen asleep and woken up in March. It is still Feb 4th ;-). Dev just has an insatiable appetite for project members it would appear. WJBscribe 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Compared to 50 last month, we're falling waaaay behind... :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait - what two new members? On the WP:LGBT/Members list I only see one new one, an that's just an IP... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what Dev, here's easy one for you- why don't you persuade Coelacan to sign the member list? WJBscribe 02:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, blow me down, how come she escaped getting on the list? I thought I'd contacted everyone who had the userbox but hadn't got on the list. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the band. I'm just a roadie, good for some heavy lifting when you can find me. =D — coelacan talk — 07:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We actually gained 53 members last month, and Haljor and Brianna Austin, who has not yet acquired an account, signed up this month. But I've been pondering this for a while and it seems to me that if we all go to our respective editing areas (because Tigermarc, say, knows far more about who works on gay leather articles than I do) and then find five people throughout February who could potentially make really great contributions and invite them, and 2 of those people actually join (my success rate is 52% atm) and at least 15 members actually did this, we'd gain 30 members, all in marvellously diverse areas who could really add something to the project as we stand! And that's not counting the usual drip of about one member a day from banners (I assume it's banners). That's almost 50 members again! YAY! Hmm, we might want to put this as a challenge in April's newsletter, so everyone who doesn't read this page can see it...

Maybe I'm too evangelical about how fantastic I think this project and the people who form it are? :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

/me whines: That was hard! But I've invited five (and gotten one rejection already). -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Community department is done.

The Community Department is done. I place it here for your criticism before it goes "live" and gets added to the page, template etc. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that my little speech above about consolidation is still my view, and after this department, I intend to keep my ideas to myself this month. Too much too soon is harmful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No-one likes the community department? *pouts* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I dig it. And I've rearranged it a bit. I guess the question now is how to advertise it prominently on the project main page. — coelacan talk — 06:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a little more quilt instruction. I think this talk page section is getting overlooked because the whole page is so busy in general. I would just put the link to the department on the main page and let people start discovering it from there. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Poster

I came up with this in January, so my "keeping my ideas to myself" promise doesn't count. With the help of Ouro, I created an LGBT advertising poster last month, and have only just edited it in response to his criticism. Thus, I present it to you now. I have built us a website to host it, you can find it at http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). I checked the Foundation policy on my usage of a copyrighted image and they freely give permission for anyone to use their logos to promote Misplaced Pages, so I think we're OK. I was thinking we could put it up in LGBT reference libraries, centres and cybercafes, or just normal places which are situated in gay communities (so pretty much anywhere in Provincetown). What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd be more comfortable though if the poster made clear that edits should improve the quality of article in a neutral manner, not advance any particular LGBT agenda. We don't want to be blamed for an influx of LGBT POV-pushers into Misplaced Pages :-). WJBscribe 01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I have edited the poster accordingly. Now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. WJBscribe 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent it to the Foundation Communication Manager, and she was delighted with it. She asked if she could send it on to the core PR team! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator Proposal

Full details at coordinator proposal

This project is nearing 100 members- this is a fantastic achievement. But as the project grows, it becomes increasingly more difficult to ensure that we know who is doing various procedural tasks and that people know who to ask if they have questions and problems. Some WikiProjects have responded to this problem by electing a coordinator as the designated port of call for these issues. As this project continues to grow, I think it important that there be someone to be responsible for the procedural running of the project and to respond to questions from members. You can read full details of what I propose here. This I how I propose to move forward:

1. Nominations will be open for 3 days.
2. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else to be coordinator please do so below.
3. After 3 days there will be an informal election on a subpage. WJBscribe 02:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the proposal itself

Suggestions/objections to the proposal or questions about it

Comment/Question: Does a coordinator also act as a spokesperson for a wikiproject? Raystorm 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. They tend to because they are a likely port of call when someone wants to ask about the project or something the project has done. But that doesn't mean anyone else is unable to speak for the project, just that they're more likely to be asked. I wouldn't express the role as something as formal as spokesperson, and certainly the coordinator shouldn't say "the LGBT project think X". But there prob will be quite a bit of explaining the project and what it is about. WjBscribe 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not say a Co-ordinator could say "WP:LGBT think X" - we don't agree much on anything, as the various discussions below demonstrate. When I give interviews, or talk about the Project, I usually differentiate between what we have done and are doing and what I personally think of it and would like to do next. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominations are now closed. I shall take the emptiness of this section as an endorsement... A brief election (or I guess endorsement as there was only one nomination) will now be held shortly. WjBscribe 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Nominations ended. Result was Dev920 is the sole nominee. WjBscribe 17:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Dev920 (talk · contribs). OK. I'll start the ball rolling. A few months ago this project had very much lost momentum and was virtually dead in the water. Dev920 resurrected it and has kick-started a number of brilliant initiatives. Over 80 people have joined the project since then. The project pages have been updated and the portal is looking pretty good. Dev920 has started a vast number of initiatives to keep people involved and focus efforts. Notable examples include Jumpaclass and Peer review. I cannot even guess how many articles have been tagged since she joined (though someone is bound to tell me shortly). Her enthousiasm for new ideas appears boundless and her guidance has been inspirational. In my opinion she already acts as this project's coordinator and deserves to be recognised as such. WJBscribe 02:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Jeffpw 09:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

About 4300. ;) No, really, I'm deeply honoured. I suppose now would be a good time to tell you that I'm now an official press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation and the "ComCom rep for GLBT magazines". :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

LGBT journalists, Muslims, and Jews

I've made the category, LGBT journalists. It's a bit sad at the moment, with only a handful of pages in it, but if any knows any journalists to add — or would be willing to search around a bit to find some (I've had trouble finding lesbian journalists, for example), it would be much appreciated. There's a page for LGBT people by occupation, and I think it should include some more occupations. I've also made a category for LGBT Muslims, but I think that will be a much harder one to add pages to. I was considering making other categories based on religion, such as LGBT Hindus, but even searching around I can't find anything to start with. The closest is hijras, but I can't tell if they're Hindu. LGBT Jews should be easier, considering there's a list of LGBT Jews to work from. Anyway, I just wanted to let you all know, in case anyone wants to contribute. Thanks! — Emiellaiendiay 03:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality for guidelines on creating new LGBT categories. LGBT categories should be significant, and not simply intersections with other existing categories. Otherwise, they are likely to be deleted. Also, read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT Jews. It was proposed to delete the list and create a category, and after discussion it was decided not to. -- Samuel Wantman 10:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read it through, and I think they're significant. -Emiellaiendiay 02:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the journalist category is significant, but I don't know what other occupations you are considering. The intersections with religion are bound to be controversial, as they have shown to be controversial in the past. My reading of the policy would take it to mean that if someone were classified as being a "LGBT Jew" it would be because they were known for being an LGBT activist in the Jewish community or something similar. If they just happen to be LGBT, and just happen to be Jewish, it would not be a significant intersection. In such cases it would fit the criteria for overcategorization. -- Samuel Wantman 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the scope of the project

Hi all. I've been trying to find a way into working regularly on this without having to be more wikified than I am, which isn't very. So i was reading the various forms of guidance, and ran into something I thought might need discussion and possibly even change:

• This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic relationships, and related societal reactions.

So... the measure of queerness is same-sex relationships? I'm bi, so that obviously is an issue for me, but also... I know I'm bi whether I'm in a relationship or not. I think this definition is a bit excluding (it definitely isn't bi-friendly) - what do others think? White hotel 09:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Getting the wording right can be tricky. Please consider the project's scope to be bi-inclusive until better phrasing is chosen... and adopted retroactively. =) Who's got suggestions? Would "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex or bisexual romantic relationships, and related societal reactions" work okay? — coelacan talk — 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I still missed addressing part of what you're saying, that the "relationship" part is not necessary. I'll wait for other suggestions though, it's late and I'm getting slow. — coelacan talk — 10:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, don't get me wrong, I love this project and I feel included - I was invited following my edits to the pages on biseuality and biphobia, and I have no problem with the project approach, as I understand it... I just think maybe this wording doesn't reflect that. Perhaps something like 'This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of queer gender and sexual identities, and related societal responses'? I know some people have a problem with 'queer' as an inclusive term... maybe use 'LGBTIQ' instead of queer if people feel that might be better? White hotel 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm bisexual, and how are we not included by "same-sex romantic relationships"? If they're not same-sex, they're straight relationships. Those are hardly under the scope of an LGBT project. A much more vague definition is "everything pertaining to LGBT cultural, political, societal and historical issues". You're trying to be too over sensitive. Perhaps if people have a problem with "queer" or "LGBT" as the inclusive term they they have external-identification issues, as they're just words. Should we make the whole thing more friendly to men who have sex with men, too?~Zythe 12:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I think it's pretty straightforward - bi people are bi, and queer, whether we're with a same sex, opposite sex or trans partner. So if this project, or any project, is only interested in bi people as long as we're in same-sex relationships, then it's not particularly inclusive. I'm not gya, but I imagine gay identity doesn't simply disappear if gay people are single or celibate, right? Another question for you- if a bi woman is in a relationship with a bi man, are they in a straight relationship? White hotel 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm bisexual and single, and I still feel included. However, I think this entire thing can be dealt with simply by changing "relationships" to "attractions". Thus: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of transgender status or same-sex romantic attractions, and related societal reactions." Might want to add an "and sexual" in there too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't help. I think it needs to address identity, but it can't *only* address identity since the project covers historical figures to whom the very concept of sexual identity would have seemed extremely strange. It's hard to manage that without getting too wordy, but something like "transgender status or non-heterosexual identities or relationships" might do it. —Celithemis 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't "same sex attractions" cover the historical aspect you mentioned, without getting in to the identity part?

Or we could just go with "queer"... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Attractions" doesn't deal as well with the issues White hotel raised, and honestly it just seems weird to me to center the definition around attraction like that.

I like the word queer well enough, but hestitate to apply it to Alexander the Great.... —Celithemis 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, is this line of the scope definition even needed? It already says "LGBT and queer studies articles" -- that seems clear enough to me. —Celithemis 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with identity. With that sentence to be included in the project, a person has to have same-sex attractions. They don't have to recognise or embrace those attractions, but let's face it, that what makes an LGB person. That's what separates us from everyone else. Why not simply go with it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for you bisexuality is just a set of sexual behaviours, but not for me. And what makes a biseuxal person is engagement that precisely ISN'T single-sex oriented! Bisexuals aren't queer only for the proportion of the time they're in relationships, or feeling attraction to, members of the same sex. Bisexuality is a sexuality like any other, not half of one sexuality and half of another - biphobia thrives on that misconception. White hotel 12:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but we do not need that kind of snide remark on the project. A bisexual identity is based on the fact that we have same-sex attractions - if we didn't, we'd be straight. What is a bisexual identity if not a "manifestation of same-sex romantic attractions"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my comments earlier in this para: I am not being snide, I really value this project and am happy to be part of it. I'm sorry if I offended you - I'm sure you don't need it at the moment!

To answer your question, 'what is a bisexual identity if not a 'manifestation of same-sex romantic attractions' - bisexuality is a manifestation of BOTH-sex romantic attractions; an identity in itself separate from gay identity and subject to biphobia based on the idea that when we're with opposite-sex partners, we're straight. Not the case, and so I believe bisexual people are within the scope of this project whether we are currently in a same-sex, or an opposite-sex (or a trans) relationship. White hotel 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact is we are bisexual because we have same-sex attraction - if we are in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, we don't suddenly switch those attractions off, do we? The sentence as I have suggested it covers us for all time, regardless of who we are dating. To take one example, Lord Alfred Douglas comes under the purview of our project on the basis that he was attracted to men, even though he renounced his "vice" an got married to a woman for the latter half of his life. We are included in that sentence - I just don't see the need to push home the fact that we have heterosexual attractions as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence makes little sense to me - sure, what marks us out as different from the heterosexual norm is same sex attraction, which exposes us to homophobia. but what marks us out as different from the gay norm is opposite-sex atrtraction, which exposes us to biphobia. Neither one is by itself an adequate definition - it's our predisposition to both that defines us. Validating one above another is, then, misleading. White hotel 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really understand what you want changing, but it might be a good time to re-evaluate our scope guidelines - much of it reads like goals rather than areas we cover. For example, what does "collect information for possible high-quality LGBT/Queer studies textbooks for Wikibooks" have to do with our scope? (Though we should totally do that). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Celithemis brought up a point about the word "attractions" that I'd stil like hir to address, but until then, does this work with Dev and WhiteHotel's points listed above?

Comments? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Slight adjustment: "transgender status or sexual/romantic attractions" can be read to mean "transgender status or sexual/romantic attractions". I'm not a grammarian so I don't know what this ambiguity is called, but it disappears with this arrangment: "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of sexual/romantic attractions or transgender status, and related societal reactions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Hmmm - so maybe switch the two? "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of sexual/romantic attractions or transgender status, and related societal reactions." -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still would like something in there about identity (taking on board Celithemis' point about identity being a historical construct) - how about "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of queer and genderqueer attractions, relationships and identities, and related societal responses."? White hotel 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely detest the word queer and oppose its use anywhere in our scope. I have no intention of using a slur to describe myself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind 'queer' when used among fellow LGBTetc people, but I think it's not the right word to use in defining ourselves. As Dev920 says, it's a slur, and though many have reclaimed it for more positive uses, its primary usage is still derogatory. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

scope proposal

"Queer" can be confusing for many straight people, too, who may not be familiar with the scope of the word. L-G-B-T-listing is self-explanatory, for the most part. So anyway, I've tried to synthesize all the different concerns here. The result is exhaustive and grammatically unambiguous, I hope. "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." I expect someone will feel this is unwieldy, and I won't jump to disagree, but I think that's preferable to being inaccurate or making accidental omissions. Thoughts? — coelacan talk — 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) I won't oppose that synthesis, and I don't see a way to make it more wieldy without losing meaning or omitting something/one. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for those I offended by using that term... I'm aware that it isn't to everyone's liking. I like your synthesis, Coelacan, and wouldn't oppose it, but maybe it would be simpler still to say "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of LGBT identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions."

White hotel 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

White hotel, I believe that the breakdown that uses "same-sex ... relationships (etc.)" is worded that way to indisputably include Alexander the Great and Sappho, et al. LGBT terminology did not exist then as it does now and the exact natures of their relationships were quite different from modern understandings and so may not be encompassed by the scope of these terms, but "same-sex relationships" they defintely were. Haiduc is much better at explaining this than I am, but trust me on this one ;-) — coelacan talk — 07:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Any still outstanding objections, then? "This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of same-sex, bisexual, or transgender identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions." — coelacan talk — 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote stacking

The deletion debate regarding the article Adam4Adam contained a statement which several people regarded as an allegation of vote stacking by members of this project. At Chairboy's suggestion, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been established to discuss this allegation and related issues. Shaundakulbara 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the charges in the RfC. The allegation is disturbing and disapointing, but I hope that my response on the page will help answer any concerns. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Both CaveatLector and I have submitted statements regarding the alleged votestacking. I can only offer one small crumb of cheer from this: three months ago no-one knew we existed, now they talk about us everywhere! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not the sort of publicity I would have wished for frankly. And the issue of WikiProjects, XfDs and votestacking is now well on the agenda.... WJBscribe 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It was on the agenda well before, certainly back in my Islam days. What's more annoying is that we didn't actually votestack at all, but Chairboy's convinced everyone that we did. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do sort of see Chairboy's point actually. This post to this board is in very strong terms and looks like a rallying cry. He then sees a number of project members voice opinions- some without adding much to the debate. Its bound to look like votestacking to him in those circumstances. WJBscribe 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks

I would really, really, like to someday establish an LGBT presence on Wikibooks. The nearest we come at the moment is someone is writing a textbook on the work of Michel Foucault. What I would really like to do right now, though, is write a wikibook on LGBT history. I turn to your expertise and ask, if you were writing such a book, what would you put in it? Here is my table of contents thus far:

Prehistory

Archeological evidence of homosexuality

Antiquity

The Egyptians

Homosexuality in Japan

The Greeks

The Romans

Homosexuality and Christianity

The Age of Empire

Homosexuality and the Victorians

Oscar Wilde, Robbie Ross and the aesthetic movement

Modern times

Slow decriminalisation of homosexuality

Gay rights movements

The AIDS epidemic

Same-sex marriage

The Future

You may have noticed there are massive gaps. Fill them in! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a history book with information on homosexuality in the Rennaissance. It being not exactly antiquity, I don't know which category it would fit into. Also, this list seems slightly Eurocentric. Perhaps if you separated it by time period, and then subdivided each into culture-specific time periods (e.g. Age of Empire, Victorian, Renaissance, Qing Dynasty, etc.) A WikiBook is an excellent idea. — Emiellaiendiay 04:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would hardly have said Egypt, Japan and Greece were in Europe, but I do agree with you. I used LGBT history as a basis, but that is horribly eurocentric, thus my turning to y'all for help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Lesbianism-related films

Is this a real category? It has a limited number of films in it, but would it be best to dump this category for the Category:LGBT films? Or maybe rename it to something more encyclapedic? Like Lesbian-related films? Or Lesbian-themed films? Is there a significant distinction between Lesbianism and Lesbian for this particular category? I don't know...Seems a little weird. Thoughts? --Zuejay 05:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC) PS - I'll do the footwork if we can change this. Some others have complained about this particular cat title on the cat's discussion page.--Zuejay 05:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a reallyweird cat name, IMNSHO. But even "Lesbian-related films" sounds weird to me. As a counterpoint, Category:Bisexuality-related films has 33 articles to this ones' 51. I don't know - I guess "Lesbian-related films" works okay. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

Oh yeah, I remember the CFD on that. It was originally "lesbian films", and people argued that this was not an appropriate category title because movies do not have a gender. I thought that was bizarre, pointed out that "lesbian film" and "lesbian novel" are terms found in academic papers, and wondered if they wanted to rename gay bar (perhaps to "gay-related edifice where alcohol-related beverages are served"), but I came to the discussion late and I'm not sure anyone else was still paying attention. I don't know what the protocol is on changing category names that have already been through CFD. —Celithemis 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No particular separate protocol. Just take them back through CFD again. — coelacan talk — 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can this be a speedy rename or does anyone think it needs significant discussion? There has been no outpouring of discourse here. -Zuejay 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the hassle of moving categories (making the new one, deleting the old one, changing all the links), bots do all the work. The only way I know of to get it tagged for bot work, however, is to put it through the standard CFD process. You can ask for a speedy close, but the bot won't be along for a few days anyway. — coelacan talk — 04:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify. "Speedy" is actually a policy classification, and it allows certain changes under certain limited circumstances. I do not think this fits any of the speedy circumstances, so even if no one opposes the renaming, it won't be speedied. Sorry, I just thought of that after I wrote my last reply. — coelacan talk — 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

All good to know. I'm still learning. I don't think there's really much rush on this particular rename anyway. -Zuejay 20:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just nominated Category:Lesbianism-related films for renaming to Category:Lesbian-related films according to WP:CFD. Hope folks drop a quick line in support (or not). Thanks! Zue 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the change is fine. It doesn't seem like a huge issue though. — Emiellaiendiay 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing focus on lists.

I've decided that my optimism about completing List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E sometime this year was somewhat displaced, so what I'm going to do is work on converting all the other lists to the same table format. That way we'll at least be able to cross-reference List of bisexual people, List of LGBT Jews, List of LGBT sportspeople etc. to create a really comprehensive set of lists that we can then feed all of our biographies into. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite possible to finish this list before the end of the year. Of course, this list will never be "finished" per se, but we can work it up to a very high level. I think now that since everything has been table-fied, refernces and images added, there are a few more tasks needed to bring this up to FA level. I know this may be laborious, but I think we should hand check every reference and make sure that it is 1)reliable (I don't doubt many of your references, but some have been dubiously added by others) and 2)properly cited per WP:CITE (I've noticed lots of references from glbtq.com which is a great resource, but most articles name the authors, which should be reflected in the citation). Additionally, I'd like to see the question marks in reference to dates filled in. I think with some of these people, a simple web search should provide us with the information. I'll begin work on this immediately. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to check the talkpages- I removed vast numbers of uncited names a couple of months ago and listed them on the relevant talkpage so they could be restored once references had been found. If people can go through these lists and find a ref or two every now and again, it shouldn't take too long to have everything fully sourced.

P.S. To clarify IMDB and NNDB are not acceptable sources. WJBscribe 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the list is never going to be stable, I don't know that it's possible to go for FA status. But probobly GA is attainable. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In my definition of "stable" it's stable right now with the exception of additions. An article only becomes unstable when there are disputes, edit warring and the like. Granted, it's always a list that may grow, but I think we've becgun to do a great deal in raising it to a stable level. I did just realize that this could never be a FA as it is a list. In addition, there is not a "Good List" section. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPOKEN

Just to let you know, I signed up to WP:SPOKEN a while back, but had dreadful problems with my microphone. Having now dealt with that (I had to buy another computer!), once I'm done with my featured articles, I intend to set to on the LGBT FAs. If anyoen would like to join me in this, or would rather I didn't record an article you worked on, please let me know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bugchasing

I expressed some concern on the talk page of this article about the lack of reliable sources, as many of its sources have been actively discredited, leaving a lone documentary with no DVD release (making it difficult to use as a source) as the source for this alleged sexual practice. Could some people have a look at it before I start trying to deal with the somewhat sketchy verification of this? Phil Sandifer 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to Sissy page

I found a BBC article on homophobia and sissys. Cleara --Allyn 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be this diff for those who are wondering. — coelacan talk — 06:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New tag format?

What do y'all think of this version of a talk-page tag? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinda dull, and not very complete. Our tag gives a lot more info about the article. Ours is prettier, too. Jeffpw 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I bring it up because some pages have an absolute glut of wikiproject tags, which clutters the talk page and makes it difficult to wade through. This version would still have all our stuff (and prettiness) in it (click the "show" link). And it would still "tag" the article with the project name. We might even work in either the flag or the ribbon-barnstar that Dev came up with — a small image, anyway. There's a template development group that's coming up with ways to unclutter multiple wikiproject banners, and this is one of the results. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a streamlined, narrower tag a lot- some pages are very tagcluttered and tags like these would sure make the talk pages neater. I'd love to have a tiny rainbow flag on ours, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, after seeing the show link, which I missed in my comatose state this morning, it seems ok to me. But like FQ said, I would sincerely like our flag on the template. Jeffpw 15:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't like it. MILHIST need a smaller banner because theirs are massive with a bajillon different options: ours don't. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way for those pages with a glut of banners, there always {{skiptotoc}}. That's what I do when I see that sort of mess on a talk page. Jeffpw 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And I certainly didn't propose and implement the small parameter for nothing. :) Just convert them all to small templates if it's getting too large. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, MILHIST needs a clue. FILM is another one - they have this checklist of "things to do to make this article a <next>-class article" that shows up for each one, depending on what class it is. And it's usually a list of five or ten things. But the point with them is that we can't go in and re-design their banner - we can only reduce the clutter with our banner. Going weth "small" isn't always an option, since not all projects have implemented that option. Anyway, this is one of the things being kicked around. I think, if we put in the flag, it's not a bad option. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)

Abraham Lincoln

You are invited to the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln and Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln to discuss the issues. Wjhonson 07:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks the dispute stem from the fact this article needs a bit of work on the NPOV front, with a suggestion that the combination of sourced information may be OR. Jimbo has expressed a view here for those interested. Those with past issues with Knowpedia might wish to tread carefully. WjBscribe 18:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Members

We broke 100! YAY! But, I'm noticing only SatyrTN has risen to my challenge and invited five members. Come on, more people do it! *prods every member who hasn't done it* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried... and gave up. How do you find users to invite? I've browsed history pages of LGBT-related articles, but to no avail. — Emiellaiendiay 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I did - I picked a couple articles, scoured their history for editors in the past year or so, reviewed their user and talk pages, and maybe edit histories, and then made the invitation. It's rather time-consuming! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys are making me feel bad, not doing more than "keeping my eye on ya". hehehe. Let me know when 104 signs up, I'll be 105. Not before then - evens are unlucky numbers for me. ;) ZueJay 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit, it is more difficult than it used to be - unfortunately I seem to have recruited most of the major contributors. :) But I'm still finding people, so I'm not giving up yet... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You can say that again! It took me forty minutes to find three eligible editors that I could invite to join us... I would typically find the perfect contributor and see you'd already invited him/her (Wuzzy comes to mind). :) Cheers Raystorm 23:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I invited five yesterday, so good editors who haven't yet been invited are definitely still out there. And it's a shame Wuzzy stopped editing back in April. I'd email them, but they haven't got it enabled. I don't think there's an LGBT article they haven't edited.... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchall list

Ok, Ingrid created one at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Articles. I've created another userbox for it:

This user tries to monitor the LGBT Watchall list.

All Ok? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, thank you, Ingrid, for making it! — Emiellaiendiay 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Add to To do list

Is the list automated? Or when we've got articles we'd like help on, do we just add 'em on? In particular, I started an article on Claire of the Moon which I've actually never seen. little man will have to be next (which I've also never seen - gee, think I get out much?), and then the bio for Nicole Conn needs work. So, anyhoo, help on these'd be great; and info on how to add to the "To-do list". Thanks, ZueJay 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's automated by Satyrbot. To activate it, make sure the article is tagged both with our banner and a suitable cleanup banner. Satyrbot should then add it to the to-do list when it runs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Suspected" LGBT people

(cross-posted from Portal talk:LGBT/Categories) While we are all eager to claim back our own, it seems that some people are not so keen to let us to so. I have come across several biographical articles where there has been "allegations" of homosexual relationships or intrest but with little proof available, the resolution of the question being subject to interpretation. I am thinking for example about Anne of Great Britain, Jarosław Kaczyński or Caravaggio (see discussion pages) or even Winston Churchill.

Would it be useful to create a category (and a suitable name would have to be found for it like "People with disputed sexual orientation" for example) which would indicate that the sexual orientation of the person has been questioned in some way?--Zefrog 22:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there anybody whose sexuality has not at some point been questioned in some way? WjBscribe 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A Saint of the Sisters - you're probably right, Dev! Definitely a hero in my book :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Zefrog, I'm sure that whatever the good intentions behind such a category, it would be abused thoroughly by all manner of POV-pushers and scattershot vandals. I think I can say with confidence that the category would not survive its first WP:CFD. The much more important thing than having a person in a particular wikipedia category is to have all the relevent sourcees in the article with a NPOV summary of their contents. — coelacan talk — 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox film.

WikiProject Film is on a drive to add infoboxes to every film articles. I have used AWB to create a list of LGBT films that need the infobox. Some also need general cleanup, separating of film and play, and assessing. The list is here - it's not linked because I have been working on this list for THREE HOURS and do not want to do any more. Please help me in fixing all these boxes, remove articles when they have infoboxes and are tagged with our banner. I'm going to have dinner and lie quietly in this corner now... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've linked the list. I'll try to help with the infoboxes. Cheers and enjoy your dinner :-) Raystorm 22:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the infobox to be added is this:

{{Infobox Film | name = | image = | image_size = | caption = | director = | producer = | writer = | narrator = | starring = | music = | cinematography = | editing = | distributor = | released = | runtime = | country = | language = | budget = | preceded_by = | followed_by = | website = | amg_id = | imdb_id = }}

Each should be on a separate line, as you can see if you edit this Talk page.

— Emiellaiendiay 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is going to sound like such a newbie question...I run across a user that asked why the LGBT template goes in a talkpage instead of on top of the article in question, 'so everyone can see it better'. I told him that's the way it's done, and offered some kind of lame explanation. Does anyone know exactly which policy says that templates should go on talkpages? Cheers Raystorm 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the project tags are about the article rather than about the subject, they're put on the talk page. Any article that has our tag on the talk page should already have some indication in the article itself, so the tag would just be clutter to the average reader. But I haven't done any research in the WikiProjects docs to back that up. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject and by extension banners, are an internal wikiprocess and meant to be used only by people working "behind the scenes". They have nothing to do with an actual encyclopedia entry, thus it would be as inappropriate to put our banners on the main page as it would be to hold a conversation on it. The templates which are placed on the talkpage, such as NPOV or cleanup templates, are there to warn a reader that the article is in some way flawed or unhelpful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That really helps! :-) Cheers Raystorm 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinator Elections

Voting now open on election subpage

After a brief delay, the subpage for voting on the first Coordinator for WikiProject LGBT (see above here if you have no idea what I'm talking about. In the nature of true democracy there is only candidate. Who appears to have been nominated by the user officiating over the election...

Anyway, if you want to show your appreciation for Dev920's work for this project and to endorse her acting as our coordinator in future. Please do so at: the election page. Yipee! If you would like to express contrary views, that is also the page to it. Happy voting- I've kept it to 5 days 7 days (per later discussion) as we have only one candidate and there seems little reason to draw it out. WjBscribe 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is just an endorsement, and not really an election, but maybe we shouldn't have such a short time limit for voting. I think it'd be better to give a real chance for all the members of the project to vote here. I mean, we're 100+ members. Getting more than 50% support from all of us will be the best endorsement Dev can get, and I'm not sure if just 5 days is time enough for it. I know it is not necessary for Dev to get more than 50% (right?), but I think it'd help to validate her position. :-) You know, so no one can complain about the democratic process (which you wittily pointed out) later. Does it make sense? I'm aware it can be a bit bothersome to draw out a bit the election period for everyone involved (especially Dev), so it's just a suggestion. Cheers Raystorm 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, um, could we have simple approval voting, without opposes or neutrals? Like MILHIST do? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess we should- but not sure how that works with only one candidate... How long do people think the election should last? Should I make it a week? Longer? WjBscribe 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If we don't get a bot to notify all members (as we've discussed elsewhere), I suggest about 10 days. Cheers Raystorm 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Then I guess 7 days should be enough. :-) Cheers Raystorm 02:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we let it go five days as planned and see what proportion have voted? We can easily extend it if it seems necessary... WjBscribe 02:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie. I was just thinking that some members may log on only on weekends when I proposed 7 days, but you're right, let's see how it goes now that everyone has got a notice... Raystorm 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PS:The notice says 7 days. Raystorm 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll make it 7 for consistency (easier to change it here than on everyone's talkpages). WjBscribe 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD attention

I very much urge project members to engage in this discussion and contribute their thoughts.~Zythe 18:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already on the open tasks template and WP:DSSG. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists