Portal talk:LGBTQ/Categories (box)

Some thoughts to start with

In looking over the list of cats, here are some things we might consider:

There certainly needs to be consistancy in the naming. There are a number of instances where gays and lesbians are seperated into their own categories. I see little point to separating them and I think it would be worthwhile to group them all into an "LGBT" category. Indeed, also under LGBT rights, a number of categories are referred to as "Gay rights", should these be renamed.
Is it advantageous to group bisexuals into their own category? Certainly things related only to bisexuals should have a category, but why separate bisexual people?
Should the Category:LGBT history be divided by country?
Category:Transgender may be miss-named. The term "transgender" is an adjective...so Category:Transgender law makes sense, but Category:Transgender in film and Category:Transgender in non-western cultures do not.
Should a guideline be developed as to how LGBT people are identified and categorized? I have noticed people included in these categories that have not specifically identified themselves as being LGBT. Certainly historical figures may be indentified as such (though not stating it outright) if possible evidence, though controversial (see Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln), exists, but we enter dangerous ground in such cases with living people.

Just some thoughts to begin with. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 18:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list regarding categories that I felt needed to be changed:

And for outright deletion:

Category:LGBT music in Canada - delete
Category:Bisexual speakers - delete
Category:Homosexuality in India - delete
Category:Greenwich Village scene - delete

Gay rights, to me, is just the generic term used for LGBT rights. I certainly have no problem with my rights being termed "gay" - it's just how most people recognise it. I also like being able to view bisexual people - it's a distinct category in its own right and I've looked through it many times looking for bisexual people. Regarding transgender though, I have no idea, so we need to ask Alice about that. I'll leave a note on her talkpage.

On the sexuality of certain figures, I suggest the same guideline I proposed for categorising bisexuals:

"We must be able to verify three circumstances:

That person identifies as bisexual, regardless of relationships, ie Billie Joe Armstrong.

A person has had documented, notable relationships with both sexes, such as Marlon Brando.

A person has been alleged, with evidence, by reliable sources to be, or have been, in a relationship with both sexes, ie Lord Byron and Alfred Kinsey."

Obbviously, this needs to be adapted, but I felt it was comprehensive. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a list! I agree with all of those changes and I'm willing to support and/or help you on CFD. Let me know! I'll also place a note on the noticeboard and project discussion pages to let people know this page is here. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree in general though I think Category:Bisexual British actors is big enough to be kept. What's the objection to Category:LGBT tourism? Presumably once we've agreed on changes will have to suggest them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion... WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would need renaming to Category:Bisexual actors from the United Kingdom though. LGBT tourism just doesn't seem like a justifiable category. It's very small and its parent category has very few articles as it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that some of these categories are unnecessary (Category:Bisexual actors didn't particularly need to be broken down into specific nationality subcats), but I strongly object to the Canada-related topic deletions; I especially object to the fact that only the Canada-specific topic categories were singled out when similar categories exist for Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom as well. There are specific reasons why these categories were created, similar categories can and will be created for any other country when there are enough appropriate articles and subcategories to merit one, and I therefore question why Canada should be singled out as uniquely undeserving. Is there a specific reason why these shouldn't exist? Bearcat 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Canadians are silly? Just Kidding! :) Actually, there are a couple instances of "LGBT persons by profession from New Zealand" that only have a few members, and I'd nominate them for deletion. The Canadian, US, and UK ones should be kept if a) they have enough articles in them (is there a threshold number?) and b) people are then removed from the parent cat. For instance, no need to be in "LGBT writers" and "LGBT writers from the United States". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*laugh* Well, we are kind of silly, but then again, so's everyone else in their own ways. At any rate, there's no official threshold spelled out in policy for how many articles need to be filed in a category; it's not universally agreed upon whether category size should be a deletion criterion or not. But generally my own personal thresholds have been that I'll start creating "LGBT (occupation) from (country)" subcats after the general "LGBT people from (country)" parent gets into the 75-100 people range. I don't expect a minimum size for the subcategory, though; my standard is "when has the parent gotten large enough that these subcategories won't completely vacate it?" (But then again, I'm also iffy at best about the "LGBT actors by nationality" categories, as I don't personally see them as a helpful or useful breakdown — I certainly won't delete one when it gets created, but I also won't create one myself.) Bearcat 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender

It is true that transgender is not primarily a noun. One could easily argue the same for gay, lesbian and bisexual. Common usage may now see all of these other terms used as nouns but they all originated as adjectives. The question is whether usage of the word transgender has reached the same point in common usage progression as the other terms, wherein it becomes equally valid used as a noun or an adjective. I believe that there is a compelling body of usage on the internet to indicate that the word transgender has progressed to be interchangably noun and adjective.

If we wanted to avoid using transgender in a noun-like manner, we would need to determine whether we wanted to use the rather awkward, rarely used and potentially misunderstood term transgenderism or we wanted to use transgender people instead. The problem with using transgender people is that often there may be transgender portrayal without actual transgendered people being involved. For example, Category:Transgender in film could potentially contain articles about transgendered people who are played by non-TG actors, some articles about transgendered people in transgendered roles and some articles about films containing transgendered people playing nominally straight roles. One of the James Bond movies is an example of the latter - a TS played a Bond girl and it wasn't known that she was TS until after the film came out.

I guess that the first thing that we need to do, then, is decide whether common usage of transgender has made it acceptable for use as a noun. --AliceJMarkham 22:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think transgender is OK as a noun. And if transgender people are OK with it, than I guess there's no problem we need to solve. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of Cats?

Dev, at one point you mentioned a number for how many LGBT-related categories there were. Did you by chance make a list? If so, would you email them to me? Thanks!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I was going to anyway. I'll go do it now and email you the result. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mucho! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maruti d bhovi

ಮಾರುತಿ ಡಿ ಭೋವಿ ಕನ್ನಡಿಗ (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT discussions at CFD

There are several discussions going on right now at CFD on gay stuff -- see, e.g., Feb 1 "Various sportspeople" and Feb 1 "Fooian scientists" --lquilter 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Suspected" LGBT people

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

Would it be useful to create a category (and a suitable name would have to be found for it) which would indicate that the sexual orientation of the person has been questioned in some way? --Zefrog 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably going to get more reaction from the main talkpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have copied it there. --Zefrog 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to include LGBT Rights Opposition Page

Hello, Just wanted to ask if someone could either update the Categories page to also include the LGBT Rights Opposition page, or if it has already been done but I just can't find it. Thanks DrCrazy102 (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]