Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies
|
Assessment and A-class articles
What is the process for rating an article as A-class? Does it have to go through peer review? Can anyone assign an A-class rating? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I was looking over the higher ends of the assessment this morning and thinking the same thing. I think we need to make sure that all A-class articles have achieved GA status. I know I have misslabeled a few articles as A-class thinking that it was under GA-class. Certainly, there may also be some GA-class articles that could jump up to A-class, though I think they probably should undergo an official peer review with this project before that is changed. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to see Evan Wolfson's assessment increased. --DavidShankBone 18:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have just given Evan Wolfson a glance. The article looks like it wouldn't need much work to nominate as a GA (thus raising its assessment). I'll give it a through once over and make some suggestions on the talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- So silly me didn't realize A was above GA. Doh! So B-class articles should next go through GA nomination to raise them any further. Gotcha! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was in the same boat until yesterday. I think that bottom-oriented infobox discussion has been distracting me the past few days. :-) *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's still a good question here. Assuming that an article is already GA class, in what circumstances do we rate it as A class? Should a project member do that themselves, or do we need an peer review? I would prefer the peer review route. If we're thinking of rating something A we should be thinking about nominating it for FA so it should have a rigorous examination from a number of editors. Once the peer review criticisms are addressed, we rate it A and go for the FA nom...? WjBscribe 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. A "Good Article" is one that the members of the WP community have reviewed and labeled good, while an "A" class would have the WikiProject (presumably "experts" in a subject) reviewing it, and then FA would have the additional review by a broad range of WP editors. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, I feel a guideline coming to fruition here... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does this need to be followed up? WjBscribe 06:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, I feel a guideline coming to fruition here... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. A "Good Article" is one that the members of the WP community have reviewed and labeled good, while an "A" class would have the WikiProject (presumably "experts" in a subject) reviewing it, and then FA would have the additional review by a broad range of WP editors. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's still a good question here. Assuming that an article is already GA class, in what circumstances do we rate it as A class? Should a project member do that themselves, or do we need an peer review? I would prefer the peer review route. If we're thinking of rating something A we should be thinking about nominating it for FA so it should have a rigorous examination from a number of editors. Once the peer review criticisms are addressed, we rate it A and go for the FA nom...? WjBscribe 07:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have just given Evan Wolfson a glance. The article looks like it wouldn't need much work to nominate as a GA (thus raising its assessment). I'll give it a through once over and make some suggestions on the talk page. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
Boring procedural point here, but a lot of talk goes on on this talkpage (which is a good thing). But I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a Bot take over the archiving. The main advantage is that a Bot can easily see which threads haven't had any answers for a certain number of days and archive them, whereas a person usually just works from the top down. I'd like to make a request for EssjayBot II to archive this page. To do so I need an indication of consensus so could people please say 'aye' or 'nay'? I suggest threads inactive for 7 days be moved to archives but feel free to suggest a different timeframe. WjBscribe 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The seven-day period for archiving sounds good to me, and I have no objection to using a bot to do it. I have no opinion on which bot should be used, not having the knowledge from which to form a useful opinion about it. Aleta 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seven days sounds good. This page does get long very quickly. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)- What they said. :-) Raystorm 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As some may have noticed, the Bot is now at work. Remember to comment on threads getting towards the 1 week mark if you want to keep them on this page (though you can of course fish them out of the archive instead). WjBscribe 06:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
LGBT Publications
I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing this, but I would like to put together a small task force of editors who would like to focus their attentions on a particular sub-set of articles in this WikiProject. I've noticed a large number of stubs that are all one or two lines for a variety of LGBT publications that say 'X is a publication in such and such place for the LGBT community' or something to that effect which is a real shame considering the vivid LGBT media landscape that exists not only in the US, but around the world. The reason I think some sort of task force seems approriate is that in doing some work on The Washington Blade recently, I noticed that in sources I and others found, they link several different publications together as though they are all intertwined and it is hard to go through and only edit one publication when really the same source could be used on multiple pubs -- but there are so many that a small group of editors could tackle more effectively than a solo editor. Only reason I think we need to expand these articles (aside from the standard arguments that putting knowledge into the Wiki is a great thing to spread...) is that I noticed in this talk page discussion [1] of Anderson Cooper that the notability and significance of the Blade was called into question because the article was bare bones and lacked any sort of explanation of why this might be a worth while source even though mainstream media relies on it and many other LGBT publications to gain insight into the LGBT community... So does this sound like a reasonable proposition...and there may already be a model to set up a small task force like this, but I couldn't locate anything anywhere about something like this... Let me know your thoughts...and any volunteers to help? jtowns 10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a *fabulous* idea! I'm over-committed so can't volunteer, but I support it wholeheartedly! I found two "task forces" I thought I'd bring to your attention as far as organization goes. The Dutch MilHist Task Force has a great organization and seems to be active. The Bio/Science & Academia TF also has a good organization, though they don't seem to be too active. You may also be interested in WikiProject Media, who don't seem to be active, but may answer questions or provide resources. Good idea! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea to me. If a few editors are interested in participating in this task force / working group we can easily created a suitable project subpage. WjBscribe 14:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Having been prematurely brought back from my Wikibreak for reasons I will explain tomorrow, I'd like to say that I think this is an excellent idea, but we need more than just one person in it. I'd say at least three. Is anybody else interested? If no-one steps up to express their interest in joining this Taskforce, I will put a bullet in the next newsletter to inform everyone and add it to our proposed tasks until we have enough people. That OK with y'all? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Dev! jtowns 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
changes to New articles related to LGBT and Articles recently tagged as related to LGBT
I've changed[2] the format of these sections. First, I've expanded them to fifteen articles, since they're moving faster now (especially the newly tagged) with all the new members. Second, I've changed New articles so that new articles are added to the bottom, like Articles recently tagged. The two different formats were causing problems, with new articles being added to the bottom and then being taken off in a couple of days when someone else added one to the top. This happened to Alfredo Ormando; it might have happened to other articles but I didn't check the whole recent history. Now that both are going the same direction this should hopefully not be a problem once everyone's used to it. I chose add-to-the-bottom since more users are already familiar with the faster-moving Articles recently tagged. Also, I notice that some articles have been added to the tagged list without having their talk pages tagged. I added a note regarding this. — coelacan talk — 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- That all makes sense to me. I've thought for a while that 10 articles was too few, esp. in the rapidly-moving "recently tagged" list. Aleta 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure - Dev's not gone for long and you jump in and make changes! Just wait til your mother gets home, missy! :) :) :) Honestly, though, sounds good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Righto. What, is Dev on vacation? By the way I went through and tagged the ones that weren't tagged, one of them is likely to be controverial,[3] so fire up your watchlists. — coelacan talk — 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! Yeh - she's on a small WikiDrama Break™ -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yarr, we all need one of those now and again. — coelacan talk — 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! Yeh - she's on a small WikiDrama Break™ -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Righto. What, is Dev on vacation? By the way I went through and tagged the ones that weren't tagged, one of them is likely to be controverial,[3] so fire up your watchlists. — coelacan talk — 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure - Dev's not gone for long and you jump in and make changes! Just wait til your mother gets home, missy! :) :) :) Honestly, though, sounds good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was curious about why Saint George was tagged. I glanced at the article and nothing immediately said "gay". I can't recall ever hearing or reading anything that suggested he "sings in our choir." *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just had another look-see and did see the section about the Coptic tradition and St. George. Still, this section definitely needs expansion, though the source from E. A. Wallis Budge is about as reliable as one can get. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged it since it was within the "recently-tagged" list without a tag. It does need expansion. Ideally every article should have a decent explanation put into the article itself that makes it obvious why it is tagged. However, when I tag non-obvious articles, I use the "explanation" parameter of the project template. See Talk:Saint George; the template includes information on why the article is tagged. — coelacan talk — 16:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just had another look-see and did see the section about the Coptic tradition and St. George. Still, this section definitely needs expansion, though the source from E. A. Wallis Budge is about as reliable as one can get. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, that had been concerning me. Thanks Coelacan! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- =) But of course. — coelacan talk — 18:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I just tagged three Simpsons episodes, and rather than dropping a fifth of the list, I put all three on one line. Is this a good idea, or should I have done three separate entries? Koweja 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Koweja, I think that's a good approach when adding several very closely related articles. — coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Another idea
Instead of doing x number of articles, let's do a certain period of time, say 7 days. Quite often someone will go add numerous articles at once (I just added 8 today), which might mean some articles only get listed for a few hours before they're removed. Koweja 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea - I'm sometimes surprised at the articles that are NOT tagged. I try to be selective on the ones I actually add to the list(s). ZueJaytalk 06:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, although then there's the possibility of the lists getting too long. I'm adding this little yellow attention-grabber to get more input, as this topic is starting to scroll up the page. — coelacan talk — 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if we group related articles (like I have been doing when I tag all LGBT characters/episodes for a tv show) then it'll help cut down on the size. Koweja 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(not my) Bot removal of interwikilinks for Cat:LGBT
Does anyone else think this edit is incorrect? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do. I left a message for the bot operator.[4] — coelacan talk — 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reading through this guy's talkpage his Bot seems quite literally minded, I particularly like the one "I think you are linking this article to articles about Love on other wikis. This is incorrect, Te Aroha is not about Love, it is the name of a mountain." LOL. Hopefully, the issue should be resolved fairly easily. His English seems fine but let me know if you need a French speaker to take up the issue. WjBscribe 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- After further thought I really wonder if it's appropriate at all to have a bot removing interwiki links that humans added. Presumably humans know why they are adding something. — coelacan talk — 05:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Reading through this guy's talkpage his Bot seems quite literally minded, I particularly like the one "I think you are linking this article to articles about Love on other wikis. This is incorrect, Te Aroha is not about Love, it is the name of a mountain." LOL. Hopefully, the issue should be resolved fairly easily. His English seems fine but let me know if you need a French speaker to take up the issue. WjBscribe 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here's the reply:
Hello, The reason was to have consistent sets of interwikis. Some languages have two distinct categories, e.g. fr:Catégorie:Homosexualité and fr:Catégorie:LGBT. If in one languages that have only one you link both, the interwikis cannot be updated by bot. Regards, Vargenau 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC) [5]
I'm not making anything of that yet. I need coffee. If anybody wants to investigate whether the wrong categories were being linked, be my guest. (Obviously the French category was already correct.) — coelacan talk — 18:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have two thought on this:
- Bots do not run the Wikis. Editorial judgment trumps Bot convenience. It is absurd to say that every Wiki must adopt identical categorisation systems to make life easier for Bots. Bots make life easier for us, not vice versa.
- I have confimed that German wikipedia does not have an umbrella LGBT category, it uses de:Kategorie:Homosexualität as its main category. Linking our main category, Category:LGBT, to their main category, de:Kategorie:Homosexualität, seems entirely appropriate.
- Sorry if the Bot doesn't like it but most editors are not Bots and (as far as I know) most users of Wikipedia are not Bots. WjBscribe 16:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Pederasty categories
I've discovered several categories about "pederasty", all falling under the general rubric of Category:Pederasty. Does anyone else find this word pejorative and NPOV, or is it just me?
- Sorry, what wrong with the categories on pederasty? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The word ITSELF is pejorative. I wonder if there's a more neutral word to use. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is no more pejorative than "homosexual" or "gay", which can be pejorative indeed, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In brief, it can either be used descriptively or pejoratively, and here we are obviously using it as a neutral scholarly term, which it most certainly is. Haiduc 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm POVing. I'll shut up now. :) --DrGaellon talkcontribs 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- No prob. It raised my eyebrow the first time I saw it too! But it does seem to be the best word for course of conduct being described. WjBscribe 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm POVing. I'll shut up now. :) --DrGaellon talkcontribs 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is no more pejorative than "homosexual" or "gay", which can be pejorative indeed, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. In brief, it can either be used descriptively or pejoratively, and here we are obviously using it as a neutral scholarly term, which it most certainly is. Haiduc 14:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The word ITSELF is pejorative. I wonder if there's a more neutral word to use. --DrGaellon | Talk 14:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
On a related but different note, does American Boychoir School really belong in Category:Modern pederasty? Category:Pedophilia maybe, but pederasty? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no? — coelacan talk — 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
John Glines
That thing I came off Wikibreak for? Well, I was contacted by a friend of John Glines, who asked me for help with his article. There was a copyright issue, but that has now been resolved and I could do with your help. The article needs referencing, NPOVing and general tidying. If anyone is willing to help me with this, I would be grateful, as Mr. Glines is the founder of the world's oldest gay arts production company and also is very nice. :) Cheers, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Film Infobox Project
I just finished adding the infoboxes to the last 3 LGBT films on the To Do page!!! Good job to everyone who helped with this effort! --DrGaellon | Talk 14:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, may I commend everyone who worked on this! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Newsletter
I've created the next newsletter draft here. Any news I may have missed out? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:GLBT redirect
I've changed the WP:GLBT redirect to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. It seemed odd to me that two shortcuts that were essentially the same thing except for a region variation go to two different pages. I've created WP:LGBT/N and WP:GLBT/N to go to the notice board instead. Koweja 00:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think the noticeboard predates the project page. WP:LGBT used to redirect to it as well. I guess changing the WP:GLBT redirect didn't occur to anyone. WjBscribe 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Stub tag
Wondering about a possible change to the LGBT-stub tag...The text reads:
This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Can we make it something like:
This article about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender related issues is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Or create a second stub for articles related to but not necessarily about LGBT issues? ZueJaytalk 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. Aleta 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Works for me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this a good idea actually. In my opinion stub tags should place an article in the most relavent category or couple of categories. We don't want a list of half a dozen stub tags on articles or the stub tag list will be longer than the article. If the article is not about "lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender issues", I'm not convinced it should have an LGBT stub tag. Tagging the talkpage will already put it an appropriate list of stub-class articles. I don't think a broader stub tag for the article mainpage would be very helpful. WjBscribe 15:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, if you want to start fiddling with stubs, then you have to deal with WikiProject Stub Sorting - and they're called WP:SS for a reason... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, they were. They probably realised what a bad shortcut they were saddled with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- LOL. I see WP:Summary style is now blessed with that shortcut.
If anyone is feeling brave with regards changes to stub categorisation, they should raise the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. WjBscribe 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- LOL. I see WP:Summary style is now blessed with that shortcut.
- Well, they were. They probably realised what a bad shortcut they were saddled with. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Judicious placement of stub tags makes sense...There are many articles that fall under the perview of multiple Wikiprojects, are tagged as stubs, and no one is working to expand them (I know a little bit about everything and nothing about one thing...so please don't remind me that I could expand them ;) so stub tagging seems necessary - but the wikiproject tag (with stub class) by itself makes it show up on our lists as a stub, which I didn't think was true... Ok... So advice for now is: place stub tag in article if about one of those issues, else just place the project tag with stub class... (Of course, I assume all this is "for now" until we get a handle on the primary LGBT articles, then we can move into "related" articles' improvement on a more regular basis.) I always worry about weasel words so I have a tendency to tag many things. ZueJaytalk 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
List of non-tagged articles
If anyone's interested, there's a list of ~1,400 non-tagged articles available. These are articles that are under an LGBT category but do not yet have the {{LGBTProject}} banner.
If you go through the list and find articles tha belong to the category correctly, but don't need the banner (for instance Zoophilia), simply make a note next to the entry on the list, but leave it on the list until I can mark it in my database.
If you work off the list, remove entries as you add the banner. I'll be working off the list, so if you don't remove an article, I'll do it.
Thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Erm, why does Zoophilia belong in an LGBT category!?! WjBscribe 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Sexual orientation and identity, I would imagine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. hadn't thought of that as an LGBT category. WjBscribe 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to hand it over to WikiProject Sexology, but there's too much gay stuff in there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, we could work together with WPSexology... nothing says these have to be either/or things. :) Aleta 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree that the category is one that both groups can work on, I don't think the article Zoophilia is anywhere near our scope :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Umm, we could work together with WPSexology... nothing says these have to be either/or things. :) Aleta 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to hand it over to WikiProject Sexology, but there's too much gay stuff in there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. hadn't thought of that as an LGBT category. WjBscribe 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Sexual orientation and identity, I would imagine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia.
Talk:Queer Eye is currently marked with "This article is part of the "Gay Pride" series on Wikipedia." Is there still a Gay Pride series, or is the tag something that's now outdated since we have the LGBT Project tag? Koweja 16:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I found an old question[6] and response[7] that suggest these are leftovers of a previous attempt at a WikiProject. The template itself seems to have been deleted and wherever you see it subst'd, it can be deleted. — coelacan talk — 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll go ahead and delete them then. Koweja 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Feedback
I've been working on a merge and clean-up of Straight acting and Homomasculinity. The new combined page is on my user page here. I would appreciate some feedback and/or editing if you feel so inclined. Thanks. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 17:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Scope.
I want to bring this up again, because we've recently tagged some articles that I really don't think are covered by us. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? V for Vendetta (film)? Why do we want to add these? Specific Buffy episodes, I can understand, but the entire series? What did all of Buffy have to do with LGBT? So V for Vendetta had two gay people in it, does this warrant our splashing our banner all over it? Are people likely to edit the article specifically for its gay content? No? So why do it?
I think we're getting far too liberal about our banner being placed on articles only tangentially associated with our project. We tag to help people wanting to edit LGBT articles in finding them - I do not see how adding every series with a gay person or storyline ever in it helps in any way other than boosting our stats. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. — Emiellaiendiay 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we're being all that liberal. There are ~334 cats under "LGBT" with ~6,600 articles. That's about 0.4% of Wikipedia. But if a particular article doesn't belong in an LGBT cat and/or doesn't fall under our scope, remove the banner. As for Buffy, I told Dev I believe it belongs not only for the major character who's a lesbian (and a couple minor characters who are LGBT), but also because the way the show dealt with LGBT issues over time, and because of the way the LGBT community responded to the show. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- In that light, should we tag Xena: Warrior Princess? I just checked, and it's not, so far. Aleta 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now it is. :) Aleta 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about these, but please make certain that all non-obvious taggings use the "explanation" parameter of {{LGBTProject}} — coelacan talk — 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that makes sense. I'm glad to have learned about the explanation parameter; I hadn't known of it until seeing it in the St. George tag. The Xena article actually has quite a lengthy discussion about the possible lesbian subtext and related matters; so I didn't think an explanation was needed for that one. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to add one! Aleta 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about these, but please make certain that all non-obvious taggings use the "explanation" parameter of {{LGBTProject}} — coelacan talk — 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, now it is. :) Aleta 03:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- In that light, should we tag Xena: Warrior Princess? I just checked, and it's not, so far. Aleta 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, to comment on the specific examples Dev brought up:
- Buffy the Vampire Slayer. No strong opinion. Ideally I think the main article should have a bit more converage of its pioneer status in portrayal of LGBT people in such a series and any impact wider impact this had, if this is the case, prior to tagging.
- V for Vendetta (film). Definitely within our scope. Number of characters isn't the point. One of the main things the fictional totalitarian regime that runs the UK did was outlaw all homosexual conduct, punishable by death and horrific medical experimentation. Anti-gay laws are a major part of that film.
I think we have to trust that project members have a good reason for tagging articles and discuss it with them if we are unconvinced. WjBscribe 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Buffy should be included. It had at lest two entire seasons with major gay characters and LGBT topics, such as coming out and showing a lesbian relationship in a positive way on prime time. It's not The L Word, granted, but I think that at the time it was the closest thing anyone could ask for. V for Vendetta, I have more reserves. The lesbian character was important for the plot (it was quite a beautiful story), but... Raystorm 16:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think V probably qualifies - asWjB points out, the discussion of homosexuality, etc. in the film goes beyond "there's a lesbian in it" -although, admittedly, LGBT issues are much more prominent in the graphic novel than in the movie. Carom 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree. :-) It's much more light in the movie. Still, it could be included. Raystorm 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Gay young adult novels
First I was working on Annie on My Mind for JAC. Then I thought I might as well add Lesbian teen fiction. Then I discovered Gay young adult novels, which is close enough so I added it to my list of current projects. I soon realized that it really needs work. Let's put it this way: If you thought that the article LGBT stereotypes in the early versions was a mess, you should see Gay young adult novels. So if anyone would like to pitch in, and make this article decent enough for Wikipedia's quality standards, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, — Emiellaiendiay 06:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Homosexuality and ..." articles
Article titles such as Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Wicca, Homosexuality and Christianity, etc. are starting really to bother me as they imply only the LG of LGBT(QI...). I'd like us to consider revising the names, and where needed, the content to match, to something along the order of "Sexual orientation and...", "Sexuality and...", or similar. I raise the issue in reference to the religion articles because those are the ones that started bugging me, but I don't mean it to be exclusive to those. In some cases, e.g. Homosexuality and Wicca, the title is quite a misnomer given the amount of discussion of, in that case bisexuality. In others, the title may more accurately reflect the content that is there, but not necessarily where we need it to go to be inclusive of all LGBT. What do you all think? --Aleta 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Sexual orientation and..." sounds right. "Sexuality and..." would probably unnecessarily expand the scope of the articles to include things like masturbation, fertility, puberty, birth control, etc. Fireplace 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Concur with Fireplace. Sexual orientation and... broadens the term enough to be inclusive without making the scope of the articles too large. Koweja 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does that leave out the "T"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The articles don't cover the T. I suggest "Transexuality and religion" be separate as a lot of those articles are long enough already WjBscribe 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- While the Homosexuality and Christianity article doesn't specifically cover T, there are verses in the bible that are often considered to apply to T, discussion of those verses could be added. The only problem though is that such discussion could be considered POV, just as it is POV that the bible condemns homosexuality. --CC Proctor 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The articles don't cover the T. I suggest "Transexuality and religion" be separate as a lot of those articles are long enough already WjBscribe 11:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does that leave out the "T"? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Concur with Fireplace. Sexual orientation and... broadens the term enough to be inclusive without making the scope of the articles too large. Koweja 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that it is necessary to expand the articles to "sexual orientation." It's really not about sexual orientation as a whole — religions generally don't discuss "orientations"; it's more about actions. Besides, what religions condemn heterosexuality? The topic discussed is homosexuality. I would think the only need to call it "sexual orientation and..." would be to include bisexuality. However, since the articles only address the same-sex aspect, the "Homosexuality and..." titles seem apt. — Emiellaiendiay 03:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- As I pointed out initially, it's not true in all of these articles that only the same-sex aspect is addressed; bisexuality is discussed in at least one of them. Also, while it may be usually true (?), it is not always the case that behavior only is at issue. The orientation itself may be at issue (whether in approving or disapproving fashion). Aleta 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to wholesale change article names. Where it's appropriate like the mentioned Homosexuality and Wicca, I say go for it. I haven't combed through them recently but Homosexuality and religion, Homosexuality and Christianity look pretty specific in their scope. If they start addressing the rest of the LGBT community then we should discuss it then. Just my $.02 --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Bot tagging
Hi, I just wanted to let you know a bot tagged film Talk:Boys Life 2 with your WP template. That's only part of a series of 5 articles, so you might want to tag the rest as well. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Hoverfish! The tagging is a manual process assisted by the bot, and I got tired last night so didn't finish the Boys Life movies. But I'll get to them :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Resources list
I have created a resources list for people wanting to write LGBT articles - I would be grateful is everyone could add to it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting Involved page
A while back, I suggested we create a Getting Involved page similar to the one that WP:COMICS has. Well, I finally finished it, here it is. I've tried to pitch it to someone who has a vague notion of what Wikipedia is about (as well as shamelessly plagiarised WP:COMICS]] but not much more. Thoughts? Anyone is welcome to edit it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's brilliant, by the way. If I think of anything I'll add it to the page. — coelacan talk — 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Newsletter
The newsletter will be going out in approximately ten minutes. Can I congratulate us all on another good month - we've beaten our recuitment record for the fourth time in a row, elected a coordinator, built another department, designed a recruitment poster etc. Can I ask next month that we get a few more FAs in? They've slacked off a bit recently. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- ...And there is no way I am ever sending out that newsletter by hand again. *flops into bed* Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps SatyrBot can be recruited in future...? WjBscribe 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the great work Dev920! --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps SatyrBot can be recruited in future...? WjBscribe 00:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks Dev! :-) And I can't believe you sent all those newsletters manually... Raystorm 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I like to catch up with what everyone's up to, but I think that's just too impractical now, regrettably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, thanks Dev! :-) And I can't believe you sent all those newsletters manually... Raystorm 18:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Added LGBT Portal to Seattle Men's Chorus
This is the largest LGBT community chorus in the world; I was surprised that the LGBT portal was not already on it. --Allyn 13:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- That article was a word-for-word copy violation. It even said at the bottom: "Taken from the Seattle Men's Chorus Homepage http://www.flyinghouse.org/about". If this is an important article, maybe someone would like to start it again from scratch? WjBscribe 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Current events - Trans city manager being fired
Yksin has been doing a great job with the Steve Stanton article. I'm posting here because I'd like to get more eyes and fingers on it right now. CNN Headline News is covering this story every half hour today, confirming that he is being fired for being trans. It's probably safe to expect that the article will be getting some hits. There might be a "Did You Know" in there somewhere, too. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a little self-tooting my horn
I know this isn't the place, and I have no problem with somebody removing this message, but I was allowed to stand with the obnoxious paparazzi ("Who do you photograph for?" "Wikipedia." "Oh, Wikipedia...do you have some kind of card or anything?" "Not really...." "Okay, sure, go ahead.") and photograph Angela Bassett and her husband Courtney Vance - I am pretty happy about the results, and had to share them. Check out their pages. Dave --DavidShankBone 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Great pics, David! You are just a gem, the way you go around taking pics and automatically sharing them on Wikipedia. You have so improved the encyclopedia with your numerous photographic contributions. A great big thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jeffpw 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
NAMBLA (cringe)
I have removed the LGBT WikiProject tag from the NAMBLA article. Both due to the discussion on that article's talk page, in the RfC on the matter, and the unfortunate phrasing that made the tag format to something like "NAMBLA is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies" (eek). I also saw that a member left the project today over the impression that this WikiProject "supports NAMBLA". Does anyone have any thoughts on this? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- This comes up all the time and everyone goes 'cringe', myself included. Unfortunately, it does come under the remit of WikiProject LGBT studies. At least in that way it can be monitored closely and studied for POV/vandalism - Alison<talk> 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- May I ask who left today over this issue? Jeffpw 06:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- That would be User:Avazina. See here - Alison<talk> 06:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree the article should be monitored. But if that means having a template on the NAMBLA article that says, "This article is supported by WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia." I just can't be part of the WikiProject, either. Isn't there a way of monitoring them without including them? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose removing the tag. While I'm not a big NAMBLA supporter (and likewise cringe), it is part of our history, and totally within the scope of our project. I would totally agree to adding something to the explanation= tag, or even adding a "faux" tag that words things better and still keeps it in our watchlist. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It seems that we're in a quandry, because if our project removes the tag from that article out of Political considerations, I would consider leaving the project, myself. I'm sorry you are unconfortable with the tag on the article, but it is most definitely a LGBT issue. Jeffpw 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I have always supported tagging the talk page, because I believe the article is within the project's scope. But, this WikiProject needs active members much more than it needs strict tagging guidelines. The editorial dispute over whether or not the article should be in Category:LGBT organizations, Category:LGBT history, or neither, is a general content dispute that involves the larger Wikipedia community, and in my opinion shouldn't be anything that would drive anyone away from this WikiProject. (Take it up with WP:RFC, not WP:LGBT, you know?) But the WikiProject tag? That's LGBTProject-oriented, and that's optional, and if tagging the article is going to result in the loss of productive editors from this project, then the tag should be dropped. The project has an active editor who is not a member, and that arrangement seems to suit everyone fine. Similarly, the project can have an article that is actively monitored without being tagged. It doesn't mean the article isn't a concern of this project. — coelacan talk — 07:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at Avazina's edit summary. What bothers me is the misunderstanding of "LGBT[Project]'s DE FACTO approval". If a member of this project can have this misunderstanding, many more non-members will certainly believe the same. Project scope I don't disagree with. But the project should not appear to be in support of something it doesn't support. If it's misleading, then it's harmful, no matter which article is in question. The mere fact that this tagging is being misunderstood by several editors should be troubling. — coelacan talk — 07:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Coelacan, I'm a little surprised that there's such confusion. Perhaps we need to consider rewording the tag if that's a legit option? It seems the tag wording is the problem. Or generate a special tag for it similar to the one used for Saint...shoot, I can't recall who, but we added an explanation as to why the tag was on his article. Either that, or can we develop a "reduced" LGBT tag that simply says we monitor the article (I could see placing something like that on V for Vendetta (film) instead of the full project tag). There are many options here. Removing it for now while we discuss the matter might be ok, as long as we come up with some alternative to add back later. ZueJay (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a case of editors not reading carefully. The tag clearly reads "This article is supported by the LGBT Project", not "This organization is supported by the LGBT project". There's a crucial difference here, and it's not particularly subtle, either. And I do not support removing the tag while discussions are ongoing. Jeffpw 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a little surprised by the confusion, but I can grasp it by trying to imagine that I don't know how the project works. And most people don't. There shouldn't be confusion. And I'm tempted to say, "well that's not what the tag means so those people are wrong and they should get over it". But there is such confusion. And I expect it will remain as long as that template, especially with its icon, is up there. There's just a strong psychological correlation that results from that visual. I wonder if the talk page needs to be tagged in any way? There must be ways of monitoring the article that don't involve tagging. — coelacan talk — 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a case of editors not reading carefully. The tag clearly reads "This article is supported by the LGBT Project", not "This organization is supported by the LGBT project". There's a crucial difference here, and it's not particularly subtle, either. And I do not support removing the tag while discussions are ongoing. Jeffpw 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Coelacan, I'm a little surprised that there's such confusion. Perhaps we need to consider rewording the tag if that's a legit option? It seems the tag wording is the problem. Or generate a special tag for it similar to the one used for Saint...shoot, I can't recall who, but we added an explanation as to why the tag was on his article. Either that, or can we develop a "reduced" LGBT tag that simply says we monitor the article (I could see placing something like that on V for Vendetta (film) instead of the full project tag). There are many options here. Removing it for now while we discuss the matter might be ok, as long as we come up with some alternative to add back later. ZueJay (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the consensus of [RfC on the matter] indicates that we should not imply that NAMBLA is an accepted part of the LGBT community. If the tag is not removed from the article, it seriously needs to be reworded. I disagree with Jeff and think that the tag should be removed while this is being discussed. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, kathryn, the LGBT Project does not take a position on NAMBLA. Individual members have in dividual opinions, though I believe the vast majority oppose the organization and what it stands for. That said, NAMBLA is part of LGBT history, just as Naziism is part of German history. The article on Nazism is supported by Wiki project Germany--do you think they are advocating that country's return to a fascist, murderous dictatorship? The principle here is exactly the same. Jeffpw 07:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, I believe you are arguing in a perfect world. The fact that people should not misunderstand does not stop people from misunderstanding. I for one know what exactly what the tag means, and I think we should dispense with it because many other people do not. People don't seem to be making the mistake of believing that WikiProject Germany supports Nazism. But for whatever reason, several editors both inside and outside of the project made the mistake of thinking that this project supported NAMBLA. We can't fault people for misunderstanding, and we can't fault Kathryn or anyone for not wanting to be associated with that misunderstanding. — coelacan talk — 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Intersting choice - Nazism. Just went there and then to Holocaust to see how the various projects word their templates - they do not use the word "support" they simply say it falls within the scope. We have a tendency to read quickly online and not fully understand text all the time and that is what appears has happened here. Just as a I said "might" consider removing while we discuss, not "remove" alone. ZueJay (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Satyr, is it possible to make a template, perhaps {{WPLGBT-monitored}}, that just drops the class-category without adding any other visual? — coelacan talk — 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps: "This article is monitored by WikiProject LGBT studies. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page." plus the rating. No rainbow flag, just text? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a project member, but it is hard for me to see how NAMBLA would not within the scope of the project given how many sources and critics of the gay-rights movement among others attempt to connect BAMBLA to the movement (I think it does also raise interesting issues about the nature of consent and related things that I'm not convinced most of the gay-rights movement is willing to really discuss, but that's my own POV). Regardless, the use of the language "support" is problematic. Why not have the template in all cases just say something like "This article is edit by the LGBT project" or soemthing like that? JoshuaZ 08:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like the idea of using the explanation option on the template to give a little note as to why it's there, just like on Talk:Saint George (as SatyrTN suggested). Either that, or change the tag to read "This article falls within the scope of...", but don't remove it. This article obviously qualifies as one this project should be working on. —Mira 08:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is within project scope. The nature of this particular article's subject is such that it impedes calm decision-making processes for many people. I do not expect the "explanation" parameter is obvious enough for this case. The primary reason for the template is to assist in tracking. That can be accomplished by simply adding Category:B-Class LGBT articles, without the graphic or anything else to provoke misunderstanding. — coelacan talk — 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two words: Neville Chamberlain. Jeffpw 08:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's got to be some corollary of Godwin's Law. Seriously, what do you want that Category:B-Class LGBT articles doesn't accomplish? — coelacan talk — 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How could it possibly be a "LGBT B class article" if it is not part of the LGBT project? And the next demand will be that it is removed from that category as well. Jeffpw 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neither I nor Kathryn are suggesting that the article should be removed from the project. Only that the template is misleading in this case, unnecessarily so. — coelacan talk — 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Coelacan, perhaps Kathryn should answer that for herself. If that is indeed so, then it looks like sleight of hand to me, done solely for image purposes to improve our PR. I don't mean to be combative here, but I truly feel it is wrong to remove the project tag. maybe I should make a little list of all the articles this project covers that offend me, and which I feel give this project a bad name. For instance, do we as a project really support the idea of deliberately infecting ourselves with AIDS? That article certainly presents us in a wonderful light. Shouldn't we remove the tag from that, too? Jeffpw 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe she did.[8] And keep in mind that these concerns are coming from outside the project as well. Non-members, self-identifying as straight, have complained on that talk page about the project tag. For whatever reason, nobody's making the mistake of thinking that the template means the LGBT project supports bugchasing. Yet that mistake is being made here, repeatedly. I can't explain it. But I think that rather than acknowledging that this misunderstanding is a problem, you are simply saying that it shouldn't be a problem. I agree. That doesn't alleviate it though. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually in her second comment on this page, I interpret it to mean she wants the article completely out of the Project. The diff you provided showed a modification of Alison's comment made by Kathryn. In any event, please see the new tag. Comments? Jeffpw 09:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe she did.[8] And keep in mind that these concerns are coming from outside the project as well. Non-members, self-identifying as straight, have complained on that talk page about the project tag. For whatever reason, nobody's making the mistake of thinking that the template means the LGBT project supports bugchasing. Yet that mistake is being made here, repeatedly. I can't explain it. But I think that rather than acknowledging that this misunderstanding is a problem, you are simply saying that it shouldn't be a problem. I agree. That doesn't alleviate it though. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Coelacan, perhaps Kathryn should answer that for herself. If that is indeed so, then it looks like sleight of hand to me, done solely for image purposes to improve our PR. I don't mean to be combative here, but I truly feel it is wrong to remove the project tag. maybe I should make a little list of all the articles this project covers that offend me, and which I feel give this project a bad name. For instance, do we as a project really support the idea of deliberately infecting ourselves with AIDS? That article certainly presents us in a wonderful light. Shouldn't we remove the tag from that, too? Jeffpw 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neither I nor Kathryn are suggesting that the article should be removed from the project. Only that the template is misleading in this case, unnecessarily so. — coelacan talk — 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How could it possibly be a "LGBT B class article" if it is not part of the LGBT project? And the next demand will be that it is removed from that category as well. Jeffpw 09:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's got to be some corollary of Godwin's Law. Seriously, what do you want that Category:B-Class LGBT articles doesn't accomplish? — coelacan talk — 08:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Two words: Neville Chamberlain. Jeffpw 08:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is within project scope. The nature of this particular article's subject is such that it impedes calm decision-making processes for many people. I do not expect the "explanation" parameter is obvious enough for this case. The primary reason for the template is to assist in tracking. That can be accomplished by simply adding Category:B-Class LGBT articles, without the graphic or anything else to provoke misunderstanding. — coelacan talk — 08:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) The diff I linked was her most recent word on the subject. Anyway, I've changed the template to read "within the scope of" and added emphasis to your changes on the Talk:NAMBLA page. As I said earlier, I don't think the explanation parameter is going to be quite enough; the flag itself carries particular connotations and is very powerful psychologically as a visual cue. I still think that dropping the category alone is the best route. But I'd rather let this one sit while others chime in. I think America is going to bed now. Let's pick this up later. I'm going to go work on Steve Stanton for a while. — coelacan talk — 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- While America sleeps others awake. I think the template (for ALL articles) should be carefully worded to preclude the possibility of it being seen either as an endorsement or a condemnation. The problem is not with this or that article, it is with an overly effusive template. Haiduc 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- This American is just getting started on hir day and may not have had enough coffee yet to really be a part of this discussion. But... I'm opposed to just adding the "B-class LGBT articles" category and removing the tag. For one thing, I don't know if that would still keep the article on the LGBT Watchlist. However, I do support putting a text-only banner on NAMBLA that states that we watch and edit the article. Though I do wonder at Jeff's comment about where this will lead - Bugchasing is one thing, but personally I find Log Cabin Republicans offensive - would we use this banner there, too?
- So lets compromise a little. It's no big deal to add a parameter to the template like
image=nothat would suppress the image. That combined with a thorough review of the wording (per the comment by Haiduc and others) should address most concerns, no? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)- We have to be very careful about creating a two-tier classification with our template: "things we like and things we do not like about LGBT culture." We all have our betes noires, I am sure. Who shall we cast out farther? The NAMBLA rapists or the Bugchasing and Barebacking murderers? I suggest caution here. Haiduc 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Haiduc, for your take on the situation. I agree that this article is being handled differently because it makes people uncomfortable, and not because it is so difficult to classify. After giving this some thought, I think that if people are not comfortable participating due to articles falling under the scope of our project, they are free to leave. But to say that certain articles must be deleted if individual participants are to remain is both a form of censorship as well as an invitation to chaos. Jeffpw 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with both statements Haiduc made above. We have to be careful of creating a two-class system and the template is/was overly effusive. The current version is better. A text only version would suit me, afterall many articles also have the LGBT template/footer - we don't have to have the flag on everything. It signals a tacit endorsement. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Haiduc, for your take on the situation. I agree that this article is being handled differently because it makes people uncomfortable, and not because it is so difficult to classify. After giving this some thought, I think that if people are not comfortable participating due to articles falling under the scope of our project, they are free to leave. But to say that certain articles must be deleted if individual participants are to remain is both a form of censorship as well as an invitation to chaos. Jeffpw 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- We have to be very careful about creating a two-tier classification with our template: "things we like and things we do not like about LGBT culture." We all have our betes noires, I am sure. Who shall we cast out farther? The NAMBLA rapists or the Bugchasing and Barebacking murderers? I suggest caution here. Haiduc 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Crossgender impersonators in film/theatre
Hi all. I have been working on a number of articles related to crossgender impersonators in Japanese performance. In Kabuki, as in Shakespearean theatre and other forms, all the roles are played by men, and some men play only women's roles. Similarly, the Takarazuka Revue features all-female troupes and casts, in which some women specialize in only male roles. This phenomenon extends beyond just these two forms, and beyond just Japan, of course. But I can't seem to find any extensive articles on the subject (just a small section under Transvestism), and no categories for actors who professionally specialize in impersonating the opposite sex.
You all likely know as well as I do that people who crossdress professionally in this way are not necessarily gay. So I apologize somewhat for bringing this somewhat out-of-scope topic up here. Any thoughts or suggestions - if you know where to find these articles & categories, and I'm just looking in the wrong places - would be most appreciated. Thanks. LordAmeth 13:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, LordAmeth! I ran in to a couple of similar situations when reviewing the articles in Category:Drag kings and Category:Drag queens. Some of the articles in those cats (though not many) aren't LGBT. Though some might argue that drag in general falls under "T". I don't believe there's a category for Category:Performers who cross-dress, which might include Eddie Murphy and Robin Williams. But equating Kabuki players with Drag queens does seem out of place. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think I should create something? Category:Female impersonators and Category:Male impersonators, or something like that? A man like Taichi Saotome (not a kabuki actor) or Tamasaburo (who is), playing the role of a woman in a play is not the same as Eddie Izzard playing himself - a man - in drag. Though I do see your point about Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Monty Python actually playing women's roles. LordAmeth 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
... are on the main page this morning in the DYK section. They're a prime target for vandalism so please add to your watchlist! - Alison<talk> 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)