Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mathglot (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 5 February 2018 (→‎Peppermint (drag queen): Also list the active BLPN discussion as well.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconLGBT studies Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Core topics talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Recognized content
Portals we help maintain
LGBT portal
Transgender portal
edit · changes

Categorization of TV programs and series that include LGBT characters

Example: The Legend of Korra teased same-sex attraction between Korra and Asami (both females). The series ended with them as a couple. On 17:13, December 12, 2017, an editor removed Category:Lesbian-related television programmes from the page and gave "Bisexual not lesbian" as the summary. When I provided two sources supporting the "lesbian" about it, the same editor again deleted the category plus sources.
Arrow (TV series) has lesbian characters Nyssa al Ghul (recurring) and Sara Lance (killed off). The category was also deleted from it.
There is currently a debate in the Game of Thrones talk page (Game of Thrones is not LGBT-related) about acknowledging the existence of LGBT themes and characters in the main article.
What's the point of this WikiProject if those supposedly interested in improving the coverage of LGBT subjects in Wikipedia ignore these situations? Pyxis Solitary talk 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Looking at the GoT issue, it appears to be purely a question of categorization, and not one of improving the article content. Whether consensus ends up categorizing it as "LGBT-related" (a wishy-washy term; how do you measure that, anyway?) enough to be listed in that category, isn't going to affect the quality of the article itself or the number of eyeballs it gets. If you would like to promote LGBT interests, why not concentrate on doing so in the article text itself, or even better: find some other articles more directly related to LGBT issues that need attention? For example: here's a list of LGBT topics that need articles written about them, and here's a list of LGBT people that need biographical articles written about them. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re GoT: simplistic solution deserves simplistic reply: I don't watch GoT. Since I don't watch GoT, I cannot contribute content based on some measure of familiarity with the series that supports what I have seen transpire in it. And since I haven't seen what has transpired in it ... I cannot contribute content based on the accuracy of sources I would use (in the discussion, The Advocate -- was dismissed as unreliable).
And let me remind you of the first sentence of my post: I contributed content to the The Legend of Korra ... and it was immediately deleted. Because the editor insists that a "same-sex relationship" between two females is not a lesbian relationship unless the "Lesbian" about it can be confirmed (and that's what the source I provided did). What we have here, is crafty editing trickery at its best.
Re categories: they exist to locate articles under a subject heading where articles involving such a subject can be found. Exclude a category about the involvement of LGBT theme and character/s in a television series -- remove the category about the involvement of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender themes and character/s in a television series -- and you will not see such article when a reader or editor looks at a category to find the Wikipedia articles that contain LGBT themes and characters.
Look the other way while editors who are ignorant about LGBT themes and character/s in a television series (or they're just plain' ol' homophobic and have a personal agenda) ... and the chip-chip-chip may have an irreversible result.
As for those articles that at some point an editor red-linked them so that they can be created: (1) they should be created by the editors that red-linked them, since they're the ones who knew about them to begin with; (2) if I'm not familiar with a subject ... I don't pull rabbits out of hats about them; (3) improving what exists and retaining information that exists about LGBT subjects takes precedence over creating more LGBT articles that may be no more than stubs. Pyxis Solitary talk 18:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try this formula, be prepared for it to take up to six weeks:
  1. Go to the article talk page, ping the reverter/deleter and ask for their reasons. Respond as factually as possible.
  2. If there is no resolution, turn the issue into a proposed change, encouraging other views.
  3. If there is hardly any engagement, or the level of interaction on the talk page was always so low as to be unrealistic to expect a spontaneous consensus, create a RFC to force a consensus. There's nothing to stop us having RFC after RFC about different LGBT+ articles, it might even show up some interesting patterns...
  4. If the consensus goes your way, be bold and implement it, and if reverts and deletes continue, carefully avoid falling foul of WP:3RR and ask for independent help. If the consensus goes against you, move on and take the page off your watchlist, there's plenty of other stuff to improve.
Oh, lastly, if someone is being a drag, or is expressing ridiculous views, it never hurts to wait an extra day before writing a reply. Wear them out, don't wear yourself out. --Fæ (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I'm exhausted from the experience that can result with an RfC. I'm sounding the alarm. But if other LGBT Wikipedians don't give a damn, sometimes it's best to just let the LGBT barn burn down. A taste of "you don't know what you've got till it's gone" is the best medication for inertia. Pyxis Solitary talk 20:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are some amazingly nasty shitty and bigoted Wikipedians about who know how to game the system. Walking away is fine, and occasionally we have the satisfaction of seeing one of them being fed enough rope to hang themselves. I've been around these projects too long to expect any meaningful "official" action to actually work and make this project a LGBT+ safe space, so I understand your feeling that letting the barn burn down would be a good option. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding this edit by Sandstein and this and this edit by JDDJS. When two women are in a same-sex relationship (as in a relationship that is romantic and/or sexual), it is indeed called a lesbian relationship. The academic literature is clear on this. It is not called a bisexual relationship. What would a bisexual relationship mean? The term lesbian can refer to those who are exclusively homosexual, to those who identify as lesbian, and to any two women who are in a romantic/sexual relationship with each other (regardless of if one or both identify as bisexual). The term covers sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior.

Pyxis Solitary, I also suggest you start an RfC on this and that you alert WP:TV to this issue. I am also willing to start it for you. Let me also state that I've known Sandstein to be LGBT-friendly; so I don't think this is anti-LGBT behavior on his part. After all, you don't see him trying to remove all of the LGBT stuff from the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Sandstein's edit again, I now understand his concern. He was not stating that the two are not in a lesbian relationship. He even stated "that they are in a lesbian relationship." He was arguing that the piece in question implied that the two characters are lesbian instead of bisexual. Per my above comment, I obviously don't see the point in stating "bisexual relationship." Sandstein removed the "Contrary to Farokhmanesh's interpretation of a bisexual relationship" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted to this conversation late. The category I removed from Legend of Korra was not "lesbian relationship" shows it's lesbisn related shows, which is the counter part to bisexual related shows. Clearly it's meant to cover identity and not relationships. I also want to note is that on Arrow, Sara Lance is bisexual, not a lesbian. Nyssa is a lesbian, but she's just a single recurring character. She is not a defining part of the show. LGBT characters are becoming more and more common in the media nowadays. If we include every single show to ever have a LGBT character in these cats, they're going to get ridiculously huge and they won't really be helpful in identifying shows that are actually defined by LGBT content. We have to draw the line somewhere. A logical point to draw the line would be to only include shows where a main character is LGBT, and not just recurring ones (with possible exceptions depending on context).
I'm also upset that it's been implied that I have any sort of anti-LGBT agenda and the accuser didn't even notify me of the discussion and give me a chance to defend myself. It's the exact opposite of the truth. I simply don't want shows that throw in a token LGBT recurring character to be categorized with shows that are actually about an LGBT character. JDDJS (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JDDJS, thanks for joining the discussion and explaining your point of view. Looking at Category:Bisexuality-related television series and Category:Lesbian-related television programmes, the categories do seem to be about identity only. And in that case, I understand your point. But I will note that even female bisexual characters are often called lesbian characters. I see that Pyxis Solitary has edited both of the category pages. How to define those pages might need discussion since they currently focus on whether the character is bisexual or lesbian. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I edited them so that the lead for all four categories are similarly worded, because they're all the same purpose but with one being for L, the other for G, the third for B, and last for T. The most recent based on the change made to the Gay-related category (1, 2, 3). Pyxis Solitary talk 22:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that you edited them in connection to the lesbian vs. bisexual aspect. If you had, they would be different. I did think about clarifying my comment so that no one would think I meant that you edited them with regard to this dispute, but I figured they would see that you did not...either because of how the categories currently are or by checking the edit histories themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. :-) Pyxis Solitary talk 23:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here was that the content I removed implied a contradiction that does not to seem to exist in the sources. It also implies that the series creators disagreed with the previous source's characterization of the characters as bisexual. But these sources do not even support the content added. The link [1] leads to some entirely unrelated article about Chinese naval issues. The link [2] does not contain the word "lesbian" and is generally about the attraction between the characters, without qualifying their relationship, and does not quote the creators. Pyxis Solitary, you need to be more careful when editing and make sure that your sources support what you want to say. Sandstein 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you got link [1], but the source I added on 02:51, December 13, 2017 is http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/legend-korra-korrasami-lesbian-relationship-confirmed-by-show-creator-mike-dimartino-1480762. I'm not the one that needs to be more careful. The second source confirmed 'Korrasami'. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Korrasami Confirmed", Mike DiMartino, mikedimartinostory.com, December 22, 2014, http://mikedimartinostory.com/2014/12/22/korrasami-confirmed {dead link}, ( https://web.archive.org/web/20141223032250/http://mikedimartinostory.com/2014/12/22/korrasami-confirmed ): "For the most part, it seems like the point of the scene was understood and additional commentary wasn’t really needed from Bryan or me...And if, by Korra and Asami being a couple, we are able to help smooth out that ride even a tiny bit for some people, I’m proud to do my part, however small it might be." Pyxis Solitary talk 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had this issue with Pyxis' wide swath of adding any show that just happens to have LGBT characters as a LGBT-related show. (this includes subcats), previously at The Walking Dead (TV series). Yes there are two characters that were openly gay (no OR needed), and individually as characters that should be noted ( eg as it is properly done at Aaron (The Walking Dead)), but it is a drama and horror show about zombies and the human condition, it is not a show predominately about gay themes; no logical categorization would put it there. Similarly, this has now come up at Doctor Who with the same conclusion on its talk page: just having a confirmed lesbian and a bisexual character does not make the entire show LGBT-themed. As a comment to something above, these shows should be considered LGBT-themed if the issues surrounded LGBT characters occur with some reasonable frequence, and not just there as wallpaper or only happen on a handful of episodes. I would say a show like Modern Family, which has an established gay couple in the main cast, and thus dealing with their issues on a semi-frequent basis, is the type of program that sets a minimum bar for what should be considered LGBT-themed.
I will say I am concerned about this being treated as wiping away LGBT interests on WP; in a previous discussion with Pyrix they accused me of being anti-LBGT just because I didn't think The Walking Dead should be classified as a LGBT show. There are rules and processes for when and how use categories, and Pyrix' choice here to consider "LGBT character == LGBT themed show" diluted the effectiveness of categories. That's it. It's not anti-LGBT in any manner, its about making categories work. I have suggested it may be better to have one set of cats for LGBT-themed shows, and shows that have LGBT characters.
Completely separately I think there's a bunch of OR and poor sourcing going into the lists of LGBT characters; the determination should be very explicit, said in show or supported by production, or otherwise has to be super-obvious with no need to be second guessing. For example, one male character from The Walking Dead is on the gay TV character list because he mentioned scorning past boyfriends in passing, which without any further context could mean a dozen things. --Masem (t) 23:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with what you said. LGBT character simply does not mean LGBT themed, and by categorizing them all the same it makes it difficult to find the actual LGBT themed shows in all of the shows that just have a character. I also strongly agree that it is completely unfair to treat this discussion as an attempt by some users trying to wipe away LGBT interests, and in fact, after this edit, I'm going to change the heading of this conversation to something far more neutral and less accusing. JDDJS (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A character who mentioned his past boyfriends? Sounds LGBT. What else can it be taken to mean? If the issue is wondering whether or not he is bisexual, the term gay is sometimes used broadly to cover bisexual males as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could be easily be taken to mean boyfriends of women that he might have seen in the past. There was nowhere near enough context to determine sexuality from that line; it was literally a throwaway line. That's the type of OR/SYNTH we strongly recommend avoiding when working from only primary sources. I'm all for documenting any well-established LGBT character for recognition, but key is that it should readily sourced or patently obvious. --Masem (t) 00:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to know what was stated to know if it's reasonable to think that the character is not LGBT. If it was stated in a way where viewers are going to think the character is gay, which seems to be the case, then I think the writers meant it that way. Otherwise, there was no reason for the statement. Seems to have been a statement meant to identify the character's sexuality. As you know, I also watch The Walking Dead. But I'm currently a few episodes behind. Which character are you referring to? With the attention The Walking Dead gets (although its ratings have recently been on a steady decline), reliable media sources have very likely cited the character as gay. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's Paul "Jesus", now when I first looked at List of LGBT characters in television and radio, it's basically included because of an unsourced statement about boyfriends. Checking again now in sources, the statement is more clear and sources plus the actor agree the character's gay (see [3]). So this specific case is not an issue, but I still want to stress that when we are talking about fictional characters, we cannot engage in OR/SYNTH to make assumptions of their sexuality just by dialog alone (unless it's obviously clear "I'm gay"/etc.) Though if secondary sources make the connection, that's fine. --Masem (t) 06:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that you must mean Jesus since I've heard that he's gay in the comics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a point of concern in the OR assignment of LGBT labeling on characters in adapted works. LGBT in original does not necessarily mean same in the adaption. Basically, a lot of this would be better resolved if that list of characters was better sourced to avoid relying on the primary source alone. --Masem (t) 15:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JDDJS is on a tear deleting LGBT categories from articles. Even when, as in the instance of Scream Queens, season 1 recurring character Sam (aka "Predatory Lez") is lesbian, and there are lesbian subplots. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Pyxis Solitary First of all, your accusational tone is not all helpful or appropriate here. You're assuming bad faith for no reason and are getting close to making a personal attack. Sam is just one single recurring character, who appears in just 8 episodes in just one season. Her character is clearly not a defining character of the show. You yourself edited the category so that it clarifies that a show "consistently and prominently include one or more lesbian characters." to be on the list.[4] If you paid attention, I did leave it in Category:American LGBT-related television shows because a main character (Channel #3) is bisexual. I didn't just go on a random tear removing it from articles, I removed it from articles that aren't defined by it, a sentiment that currently has support here, and you yourself seem to support considering thsat you edited all of the categories to say that. JDDJS (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we now to judge how valuable an LGBT character is or has been in a TV series? Your opinion that "Sam is just one single recurring character, who appears in just 8 episodes in just one season." is, basically, OR. When we consider that Sam was a character that was pivotal in the story arc of Chanel#3's sexuality, and received coverage in many published sources, she is not "just" a recurring character. (And for those who are not familiar with the series ... are we now to believe that the personal views of individual Wikipedia editors has more weight than reportage about a series by entertainment media?) Pyxis Solitary talk 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Your opinion that "Sam is just one single recurring character, who appears in just 8 episodes in just one season." is, basically, OR. " Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? Nothing I said in that statement can be considered an opinion or original research. The number of episodes she's in, the fact that she credited as a recurring character and the fact that she's not multiple characters are all verifiable. What is an opinion and not a fact is what you're saying that she's an important part of the show. Like I said before, the easiest way to determine what belongs in these categories is by only counting shows that have a LGBT main character, with some possible exceptions (for example, even though she's only a recurring character, Laverne Cox performance as a trans character on Orange is the New Black has received wide spread media attention and awards, so it should be included in the trans categories). JDDJS (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you, single editor, decide that one recurring character (in one season or more) does not merit a category for the series, it is your opinion. Your OR based on your POV. If the POV rule is used for deletion of categories — it can also be used for addition of categories. Your rationale for the deletion of the Category:Lesbian-related television programmes from Scream Queens is not WP:NEUTRAL. It's personal. You think a character that appears in 8 episodes is not good enough to include the category. However, the inclusion is supported by the plot and the effect of the character on a main character. And if you did a simple web search of "scream queens+lesbian" you will find reliable sources to support the inclusion of information in the main article about the lesbian theme in the series and the lesbian character, or at least in the list of characters article (if it exists).
Why should the recurring character of Sophia played by Laverne Cox have any more weight than a recurring character in another TV series? Whose version of "possible exception" is the more plausible justification for the inclusion of Category:Transgender-related television programs in the OItNB article? Orange Is the New Black has had 5 seasons (65 episodes). Scream Queens had only 2 seasons (23 episodes). Pyxis Solitary talk 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And if you did a simple web search of "scream queens+lesbian" you will find reliable sources to support the inclusion of information in the main article about the lesbian theme in the series" When you do a google news search for "scream queens"+Lesbian only a single on the first page of results is actually about a lesbian on Scream Queens, and there are just over a thousand. "scream+Queens"+lesbian&oq="scream+Queens"+lesbian&gs_l=psy-ab.3...98937.101868.0.102168.13.10.3.0.0.0.191.793.6j2.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0....0.RNcgZT4K1mA If you do a google search for "Scream Queens"+Jeanna Han (the actress who plays Sam) you get less then a 100 results.[5] Laverne Cox has been nominated for two Emmys and numerous other awards for her role on Orange. A google news result for ""Orange is the new Black"+transgender results in over a hundred thousand results and all of the results on the first page are actually about Laverne Cox. Saying that there is not a clear verifiable and neutral difference between the impact of Laverne Cox on OITNB and Sam on Scream Queens is simply false. I am not the only person here who has said that we can't include every show with a single LGBT recurring character in these categories. In fact, other editors have gone even further and suggested that even having a main character who is LGBT is still not enough to include in these categories. JDDJS (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You think playing "my search term is bigger than your search term" changes anything I said? You want to pick and choose search terms? A straightforward >"scream queens" tv series "lesbian"< Google search returned "about 197,000 results". Out of those in the first 5 pages, many were not fan content sites (Variety, The Wrap, Detroit News, Teen Vogue, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, etc.). There's more than searching for a specific LGBT character you already know. There's searching for LGBT themes. An award nomination or win for a recurring character actor/ess is kudos for the series, but it doesn't translate into those series that weren't nominated not also including LGBT characters and LGBT themes, and this fact about them not being important. (P.S. I forgot ... "bisexual" character Audrey Jensen was outed as a lesbian.)
(P.S. The outdent template should have been 2 indents so as to not screw up the flow of the in-between.) Pyxis Solitary talk 00:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


• "...in a previous discussion with Pyrix they accused me of being anti-LBGT just because I didn't think The Walking Dead should be classified as a LGBT show."
I searched my log going back to 04:45, October 19, 2016. I searched your talk page history from 6 September 2016 – 00:29, 7 December 2017. There has been no discussion between us in them.
I checked the talk page history for The Walking Dead from 22:04, December 4, 2013‎ – 04:44, November 27, 2017‎. I posted the following general statement in the talk page on: 06:22, 26 November 2017.
The following Gay-category edits and concurrent summaries took place in the main article:
Exactly where did I [accuse you] of being anti-LGBT? Provide the link. Otherwise, stop making false accusations. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[6] "You have personal problems with this matter". --Masem (t) 02:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heck. How did I miss that in my own talk page? Anyway, I think you have a discomfort with attaching your favorite articles to LGBT, but I did not accuse you of being anti-LGBT. However, your coming here to say that "I have had this issue with Pyxis' wide swath of adding any show that just happens to have LGBT characters as a LGBT-related show.", and going to the Doctor Who talk page to say "I had issues before with Pyrix's mass tagging of TV programs claiming that just because there was a LGBT character that that made the show about LBGT themes which is absolutely not universally true." (1) when the discussion was about the edit made by another editor suggests that you have a personal problem with me. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is not with you, nor anything LGBT related. It is your pattern of assigning any show that happens to have characters that are LGBT as an LGBT show, coupled with a very assumption of bad faith by the tone you're taking with those contesting it as an anti-LGBT activity (eg as this thread was originally titles). That's poor editing behavior. All most ppl in this discussion seem concerned about is the watering down of categories against our guidelines about how categories should be used. As the Doctor Who talk page points out, it would be the same problem to call a show a black/Africian-American themed show just because there was a character of that race on it. --Masem (t) 06:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you claimed that I accused you of being anti-LGBT. You came here to say it and to complain about my addition of L/G/B/T categories to articles. You decided that a discussion in the talk page of a TV series article about an edit made by another editor (based on my adding a category) was fertile territory to complain about me. So, yes, I do think you have a problem with me.
    You have absolutely no idea of what my basis is for adding these categories to an article. My "pattern" is to research if LGBT characters and/or themes are included in a television series that is not specifically known for being an LGBT series (such as: Orange is the New Black, Transparent, and Looking). I use a tool called "web search engine". I'll play around with phrasing (for example: "The Walking Dead tv series+gay", then it's +lesbian, then +bisexual, then +transgender; I did it for Game of Thrones; I do the same for other tv series; I also use general terms such as "television series+gays", etc.). I see the results. I read through them. Is there reportage about LGBT themes or characters where one or more are or have been essential in the plot of the series or a season or development of a main character. Did the inclusion of an LGBT character result in a decisive factor (for example: an important character realizing he or she is attracted to the same sex). If yes: I include an L/G/B/T category. If not: I don't. (Even if an LGBT character was eventually subjected to the "Bury Your Gays" trope, which is, for example, what happened to the character of Sam/Praedatory Lez in Scream Queens.) I conduct research first — category follows. I don't pass judgement on whether having one LGBT character is important enough to include a category. What matters is if that inclusion had an impact on the plot or development of an important character.
    If a television series has a main and recurring character that is Lesbian or Gay or Bisexual or Transgender it absolutely should have one or more LGBT categories (example: LGBT by country, L/G/B/T by orientation). The purpose of categories is to navigate and find. If a reader or editor wants to see which and how many television series contain, say, Lesbian themes and characters, the "Lesbian" category is the file you look under.
    As for the categories themselves: the umbrella Category:LGBT-related television programs was created in 2006 — 11 years ago — when the television landscape for LGBT themes and characters in television was nowhere near what it is now. The subcategories are due for an update (I've suggested substituting "-related" with "-inclusive" in another discussion) that reflects LGBT in television today, not yesterday.
    Floor the brakes on the Pyxis this and Pyxis that and you might have credibility when you say "My problem is not with you". Pyxis Solitary talk 20:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Pyxis Solitary What Masem is trying to say that he has nothing personally against you or LGBT issues, just that he disagrees with your edits. You are taking everything about this debate way too personally. I understand that this is a topic that you deeply care about. However, your tone is making have a calm reasonable debate on this very hard. From the very start of this conversation you unfairly accused me having anti LGBT agenda (if you had bother looking at my userpage, you would see that I have one userbox condemning homophobia and another supporting same-sex marriage on the top of my page) and you did not even alert me to the conversation and give me a chance to defend myself. That is not at all fair. This debate is simply about categorization. It has nothing to do with having an anti-LGBT (or even pro-LGBT) agenda or about you personally. Every point has been about your edits and not you personally. The only editor here who has done anything close to a personal attack is you. I don't fault for being personally close to this subject; however, if you can distinguish disagreements with your edits from personal attacks or attacks against LGBT, maybe you should recuse yourself from this discussion. Nobody would think less of you for doing so. I myself have had to avoid participating in some discussions on here because I was getting too emotional about it. JDDJS (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're a mind reader? You know what Masem was trying to say? "Emotional"? Why stop there? Is "hysterical" waiting in the wings? And I don't care what user boxes someone has on their profile page. I have user boxes in my profile page, too. User boxes are just eyeliners, lipsticks, and face powders. What you do as an editor is all I see. And when an editor says "so and so has accused me of being this and that" ... it is personal. And maybe when it comes to interpreting what other editors mean by what they say, you should mind your own business. Pyxis Solitary talk 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I'd like to comment on something you said above, Pyxis Solitary, about GoT: Since I don't watch GoT, I cannot contribute content based on some measure of familiarity with the series that supports what I have seen transpire in it. Actually, you can; unfamiliarity with a show (like GoT) can actually be a net plus when writing about it for an article, because it obliges you to use reliable sources, rather than your own memory. One could argue that, especially with screen media that is long, un-"paged" and untranscribed, that one's famliarity with a show can be an OR- and POV-trap and a potential source of too much reliance on primary material, and a reliance on personal memory of the show, which would be pure original research if it made it into the article. In fact, I'd probably trust your writings on GoT to be more impartial and more likely to be based on reliable, secondary sources precisely because you're not a fan, than someone who watches it religiously and reads or participates in online forums all the time discussing it. So, if it's only unfamiliarity with the show that's holding you back, I say, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I haven't thought about adding content regarding the inclusion of L/G/B/T themes and characters in GoT. But editing that article is stepping into a hornets' nest. The pushback from editors who absolutely don't want to have it included is a Thunderdome. The Advocate and Pink News are not reliable sources? Really? Oh, hell, no. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that when I wrote my reply, my stream of consciousness (maybe "steam" is a better description) left out two words: without + it. As in, I cannot contribute content without it based on some measure of familiarity with the series.... Pyxis Solitary talk 02:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's very, very tiresome to yet again see LGBT+ press being treated as a walled garden, while (crazily) right wing defamation platforms are routinely quoted as fact. That argument can get bent for good in my book. Pink News, Gay Times, The Advocate, Attitude and many more widely read queer organs are perfectly good sources, especially for interviews of notable people on LGBT+ issues of the moment. --Fæ (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate the "friends" of LGBT, but if you haven't walked in the shoes of an LGBT person ... you will never, ever know the shit we go through and the myriad obstacles we, personally, constantly face and deal with. The personal is political has evolved to mean different causes to different groups, but it's the driving force behind the existence of WikiProject LGBT studies. Pyxis Solitary talk 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no offense intended toward television programs or the dedicated editors who curate articles about them (been there, done that), I can't help wondering if this is a good hill to die on. We have a vast number of articles on topics that are unquestionably, unarguably LGBT-related, many of them dealing with matters of grave concern. A number of them are in terrible shape and are frequently targeted by agenda-driven homophobic or transphobic new users, IPs, sleepers, and socks, and they're not at all well watched. One of my year-end resolutions is to clear some of the fluff off my watchlist and start looking after more articles dealing with serious topics. I definitely am not trying to cast any shade here—we're all volunteers, and we all need respite from real-world issues sometimes—but I was looking at the length of this thread and considering some of the alarmist wording used, and I couldn't help wondering about priorities. If the "LBGT barn" ever does burn down, I rather suppose the fateful spark will be from an incendiary device, not a television drama. RivertorchFIREWATER 06:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People are passionate about their fictional characters. But good points, River. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said before, there really are some nasty shitty bigots out there. It's also far to easy when engaged in long LGBT+ related discussions to make a single comment which can be later plucked from edit histories to start the tangent-bomb of "did you call be a homophobe?" argument/allegations. We have to stick to our guns, pointing out that someone has a problem being ranty, unpleasant, argumentative, lobbying or even hounding on LGBT+ topics, is not the same thing as calling them a homophobe, transphobic, bigot, mentally ill or anti-LGBT, and these sorts of reverse allegations are eagerly jumped on by others, all too often officious administrators, to marginalize an LGBT+ interested contributor, label them an LGBT+ "activist" or accuse them of creating their own "victimhood". Though we can't tell those guys to f**k-off, we should have a robust way of calling it without derailing the original discussion, or giving ammunition to those that seem terribly keen to intervene and shoot us down for sport. --Fæ (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with Rivertorch and picking our battles, but I get Flyer's point about passion and volunteerism, too. So, River, if you dust off your watchlist and you think any of them might not be on mine ;-) please feel free to add them to the lists of requested articles here or here (is anyone maintaining those?), or what the heck make a new list here as a subpage or somewhere of new or existing articles needing attention, and spread the word, and I'll try and help. Pyxis, I hear you. Work on whatever gives you satisfaction, and don't stress out; enjoy the holidays. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
River and I converse via email. Not only am I familiar with how he feels per that and what he stated above, but also because I also watch and/or edit some of the articles he's talking about. You also edit and watch some contentious LGBT or LGBT-related articles, Mathglot. From what I've seen, though, LGBT topics tend to be contentious anyway, and that goes for ones concerning fictional characters as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem like this, but believe me, it's closer to that ... only in pants. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is for the record:
Category:Gay-related television programs is on my watchlist. Between 04:01 November 25 – 22:01 December 18, 2017, the category was removed from the following articles:
Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Supernatural (U.S. TV series), The Sopranos, My Family, The Walking Dead (TV series), The Archers, Superstore (TV series), Hill Street Blues, The Simpsons, Game of Thrones, The Game Awards 2017, Superstore (TV series), How I Met Your Mother, In Living Color, The L Word, My Name Is Earl, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Casualty (TV series), Orange Is the New Black, Doctor Who, Lost (TV series), The Vicar of Dibley, Arrow (TV series), The Legend of Korra, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, The Flash (2014 TV series), The Colbert Report, Mike & Molly, Parks and Recreation, Reaper (TV series), A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series), The Tracey Ullman Show, Trailer Park Boys, 13 Reasons Why, 24: Legacy, 96 (number), The 100 (TV series), The A Word, American Horror Story: Murder House, American Horror Story: Cult, The Andromeda Strain (miniseries), Awkward (TV series), Bad Girls (TV series), Barracuda (TV series), Beaver Falls (TV series), Beggars and Choosers (TV series), Being Human (UK TV series), Benidorm (TV series), Black Sails (TV series), The Book Group, The Boondocks (TV series), The Borgias (2011 TV series), The Brittas Empire.
How many of these series had a main or recurring character that was a Gay male? How many of them had a theme of male homosexuality included in the plot? Are these deletions being done by editors who know the series well enough to remove the category? If not, are these editors doing any background research about the series before they remove the category? Are these neutral edits? Pyxis Solitary talk 03:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove all of them, but I removed some of them. For the ones I knew, I just removed it based on my own knowledge. For others, I ctrl-f'ed for relevant words on the main article or character page. If gay men and homosexuality were not a significant theme, I removed it - indeed, for some of the ones I'm familiar with I couldn't even name a "main or recurring" gay character for you, much less [[WP:DEFINING}defining]] gay content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You removed The Vicar of Dibley, Lost (TV series), Doctor Who, Orange Is the New Black, Casualty (TV series), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, My Name Is Earl, The L Word, In Living Color, How I Met Your Mother. I'm going to pick The Vicar of Dibley, Lost, Casualty, My Name is Earl, and In Living Color out of the hat as examples:
The argument of a category "defining" a television series needs to be addressed in Wikipedia. Why are sub-categories of Category:Television series by country of shooting location allowed to be attached to a TV series article when they do not define a series? Why, for example, is Category:Incest in television acceptable if it does not define a series? Why are these categories okay, but not the L/G/B/T categories? The individual LGBT categories have nothing to do with definition of a series. They are used to highlight series that include LGBT characters (and by virtue of same, LGBT themes). They are no different than the categories about shooting locations because the purpose for the existence of categories is to navigate searching by subject. If a reader or researcher wants to find out how many TV articles include a particular subject or are located in a particular area, they find it with the categories attached to those articles. The reasoning being given by editors who want to remove the Gay-related category (or Lesbian-related, Bisexual-related, Transgender-related) is that "gay" doesn't appear in the article. These are accidental, ignorant, or deliberate omissions. If gay themes are included in a TV series -- it needs to be included in the article for them. You didn't even bother to do some background homework about it before deleting the categories. I'm sorry, but when it comes to editing gay-related content ... you don't know what you're doing. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I question the legitimacy of the two categories you mentioned as well, no category should be added to an article unless it is defining.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are two competing criteria that determine how effective a category is for a user: precision and recall. Recall asks "Will this category include all of the articles I am looking for?", and is increased by being applying the category to as many topics as possible. Precision asks "What portion of the articles in this category are what I am looking for?", and is increased by being more selective about how to apply the category. The WP:CATDEF defining requirement (and a similar requirement in all subject classification work) helps to improve precision. While some readers might want every single TV show depicting an LGBT character (however briefly), others might be looking for ones in which gay themes are dealt with in more depth (LGBT main characters, LGBT-focused plots, etc.), and not have to sort through a much broader category. There is no bright line between the two, so discussion and consensus-building are appropriate to strike the right balance.
List articles, like Lists of television programs with LGBT characters, are better-suited to serving a high-recall, low-precision function than categories, because they can provide context to help the reader find what they are looking for.
Categories need to be based on verifiable content within the article, not only to meet WP:V, but to make it useful for the reader. It's not useful to direct someone looking for LGBT-themed TV shows to an article that doesn't mention LGBT themes at all. I think Roscelese's approach is reasonable.--Trystan (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Otherwise, by including a particular program in the category, we'll be sending readers on a wild goose chase. For instance, Pyxis Solitary, you mentioned The Vicar of Dibley. Frank Pickle's coming out really didn't make it a gay-related program. It was the basis for a gag (Frank very publicly takes a momentous step in his personal life, no one notices) that never recurred or even was alluded to again in any other episode. It's conceivable that such incidental content might be highly noteworthy in television programs of an earlier era, but by the '90s it certainly was not a defining aspect of a program. As openly LGBT characters become more and more common, it makes sense that the standard for inclusion in such categories should be more stringent. Otherwise, we'll eventually wind up with thousands of articles categorized thus. How will that help our readers find anything? RivertorchFIREWATER 16:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cosigning both of these comments. Remembering the functional aspect of categories is key! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"While some readers might want every single TV show depicting an LGBT character (however briefly), others might be looking for ones in which gay themes are dealt with in more depth (LGBT main characters, LGBT-focused plots, etc.), and not have to sort through a much broader category."
It's not for us, the individual editor, to decide how to tailor a search for those looking for "more depth" about LGBT themes in a television series, unless "Category:Television programs with Gay themes, ...Lesbian themes, ...Bisexual themes, ...Transgender themes" are created.
"Categories need to be based on verifiable content within the article, not only to meet WP:V, but to make it useful for the reader." What is to be done about television series where the same reader has seen LGBT themes and characters in it, but when she/he reads the Wikipedia article about the series the LGBT themes and characters are not included -- and there is back up media coverage about it? (The Game of Thrones talk page discussion provides an example of how the inclusion of LGBT themes is resisted by many editors, even with media coverage proving that there are LGBT themes in the series.)
This is the WikiProject for LGBT studies. There needs to be a methodology in place for contributing accurate content about LGBT subjects -- and editing LGBT subjects. This project exists to provide better coverage of LGBT subjects in Wikipedia. Ignoring the deletion of categories that assist in the provision of LGBT coverage represents a reversal of the reason for this project.
I suggested in the debate that took place in the nomination for deletion of Category:Gay-related television programs, that it was time for the title of the category to be changed. "Gay-related" (and any category with "-related") implies that a television series is specifically about Gay men and Gay male themes. But a television series that includes Gay male characters and Gay male themes is a "Gay-inclusive" series. The LGBT-related category that was created when LGBT themes and characters in television programming was an exception in the television landscape needs to be updated. The categories that exist for articles about television series that include LGBT are outdated tools. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The categories that exist for articles about television series that include LGBT are outdated tools." - We do not have categories for series that "include" LGBT. We are not going to create them and we are not going to rework our existing category system to this end. This would be useless to both editors and readers. People have already told you this several times. I do not see the point of continuing this conversation, and I see that you've already been editing list articles, which are better suited to your editing interests. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"We do not have categories for series that "include" LGBT. We are not going to create them and we are not going to rework our existing category system to this end." Who died and left you queen? Every category in Wikipedia was invented by an editor. And since Wikipedia is always evolving, many categories are periodically renamed and new ones are invented. LGBT categories are not cemented. They, too, can be adjusted.
"I see that you've already been editing list articles, which are better suited to your editing interests." Pull your plug out, Betty. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I commend you for your attempts to swim upstream on that page. The arguments for excluding any mention of LGBT in the programme has exposed a hostility that is nothing short of bigotry. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I did not reply sooner. I removed LGBTSTUD from my watchlist and did not receive a ping or email about your comment. Thank you for your kind compliment. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soap operas

In addition to ongoing general discussion, I'd also like to suggest that we remove all soap operas from these categories. While soaps may have had more significant gay storylines than some of these other shows (say, Vicar of Dibley), Eastenders has been going for over thirty years and has had stories about everything by now, and I would argue that LGBT themes are not defining of any soap opera, as far as I know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Grice Young

Your comments welcome on the AfD discussion for Marie Grice Young, one of the LGBTQ passengers on the RMS Titanic. = paul2520 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this discussion has been closed, and the article will not be deleted :-) = paul2520 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cotton ceiling

The article Cotton ceiling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NEO because this is recent slang restricted to a small minority within the transgender population, and per WP:RS since all citations are opinion pieces by individual bloggers and not from reliable secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has been de-prodded. Has about 20 non-RS references added, and one possibly good ref. Should be Afd'd. Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Transsexual to Transgender

Over at Talk:Transgender#Merge transsexual into transgender, we're having a discussion about whether or not the Transsexual article should be merged into the Transgender article. Come join the discussion! Mell0nite (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed uniform table of rights for transgender articles

Right to change legal name Right to change legal gender Right to access medical treatment Right to marry Military service Anti-discrimination laws Hate speech/hate crime laws

Please can any thoughts on this be made, here. I hope to be able to begin implementing this soon. Intersex rights and Sexual orientation rights are a lot fuller than the equivalent for Transgender rights, including a lack of simple table. Sport and politics (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding, this is only proposed for transgender rights, not intersx rights, and not LGBT rights by country or territory. Uniformity refers to uniformity across transgender rights articles. Sport and politics (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Hilliard

Your comments welcome on the AfD discussion for Arden Hilliard, one of the gay members of the Hypocrites' Club, and most likely the reason why it was shut down. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new articles: Raymond Broshears and Lavender Panthers

After I read this Newsweek article "The most dangerous gay man in America fought violence with violence" about Raymond Broshears, I started articles on Broshears and the organization he founded, the Lavender Panthers. Perhaps someone will be able to expand the articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Category additions by IP

New IP editor 109.65.43.137 (talk · contribs) has been making numerous good faith contributions to LGBT articles to add Categories to the articles. Unfortunately, some of these fail to conform to category guidelines, and there may be a long list of them to look over for possible removal. If you'd like to help review IP's changes, please be familiar with Category guidelines regarding defining characteristics, and have a look at section #LGBT categories on their Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint (drag queen)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Peppermint (drag queen)#Birth name concerning a question about birth name of the subject of this article.
    The discussion formerly here has been moved to a more appropriate location per WP:TPO point 4.

In addition, there is an active discussion at WP:BLPN#Peppermint (drag_queen) about birth names of trans individuals, more generally. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Spofford Morgan

Your comments welcome on the AfD discussion for John Spofford Morgan --Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting LGB and T and renaming LGB and Sexual Orientation rights

With the increasing use of separate Transgender Rights and Intersex rights articles, is it time completely split the topics in to the distinct areas. There is increasing divergence in Sexual Orientation, Transgender and Intersex rights. The issues are increasingly distinct as moves forwards. LGBT rights tables already list Transgender and Sexual Orientation rights as distinct, and this is only going to continue. They do not currently list intersex rights. To have LGBT incorporate I would begin to make articles unwieldy. There is also considerable debate about the use of LGBT as an all encompassing acronym. The best way forward may well be to move beyond the acronym. Sport and politics (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and politics, this is not the place to try to change naming conventions. We follow what WP:Article titles states and that means, in part, adhering to WP:Common name. Although some people do not like it, "LGBT" is standard and usually covers exactly what the acronym stands for. It usually does not include intersex issues, but it can. Such aspects (including objections) are addressed the LGBT article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not the place to have the conversation then where is it? I also dispute common name and article title still apply in the same way it did in 2002. Also the use of the acronym is now becoming less relevant with the split in sexual orientation rights from gender identity rights and intersex rights. Sport and politics (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects current language usage about the topics. There have always been tensions about LGBT+, part of why the term exists is that back in the '80s there was a strong move that "Gay" did not represent lesbians, even though most people at that time used the word gay as fully inclusive of men and women (this is my memory of events anyway). At the moment, no, there is not enough evidence in reliable sources that the new common English usage is to replace LGBT or LGBT+ with other terms that separate gender from sexuality. --Fæ (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sport and politics, the WP:Article titles talk page is the place. A WikiProject cannot change or circumvent Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It would merely be a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS without any weight. As for disputing "LGBT," unless you have solid evidence that it is no longer the common name/standard, editors outside of this WikiProject are unlikely to go along with what you are stating. We already get editors wanting to change the "LGBT" article title, but we don't because it's still the common name. As for "split in sexual orientation rights from gender identity rights and intersex rights," what are you referring to? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have restarted this discussion here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs) 00:35, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

A mysterious reference in Passing (gender)

This article says "passing refers to a person's ability to be regarded at a glance to be either a cisgender man or a cisgender woman.". The only reference of this sentence is Whipping Girl.

But I can't find this sentence in Whipping Girl --TGpower (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence or the concept? A quick Google Books search indicates that the concept (including the word) is discussed in the book. Sentences from copyrighted works aren't generally supposed to be inserted into Wikipedia articles—certainly not unless it's made clear that a direct quote is being made. A couple other things: it's the lead sentence of the article, and as such it normally shouldn't require a citation because it's supposed to summarize sourced content from the body of the article. Also, there is parallel usage of the word "passing" in many contexts, and the general meaning (without regard to gender) is in most major dictionaries. (For future reference, there is a template for instances where a reference doesn't support a passage in an article: {{failed verification}}. If you ever use it, you should be prepared to discuss it on the article's talk page.) RivertorchFIREWATER 16:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertorch: We need the information that which page of Whipping Girl defined passing. This article does not cotain it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TGpower (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies&oldid=824054821"