Category talk:LGBT+ Wikipedians

I lol'd
... at the four paragraphs of "don't delete this plz!". – Steel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding this to my watchlist, just in case :) -- Ned Scott 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said: "The opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what makes the categories and boxes divisive and disruptive.". --Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it could be said better. I've edited it to "The opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what causes division and disruption." --Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fourth Paragraph
"this category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community" - To me this doesn't seem very civil and pre-assumes bad faith. Apart from anything else it encourages people to respond to a deletion discussion as if it was an attack, which surely is the worst possible way to go about things. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm - that's a pretty good point. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong at all with pre-assuming bad faith considering bad faith is what has gotten all the "gay" cats deleted in the first place each time. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The point, of course, is that is *past* - assuming a person attempting to delete this cat is doing so to hurt the community *in the future* is assuming bad faith. I say let's take out that fourth paragraph, or severely re-word it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, its true anyway. I wouldn't describe it as assuming bad faith, just presaging a reaction that might give others pause (as it would have given me, had I seen it before my own ill-fated nomination). And the reaction wouldn't be undeserved, either, as nominating a single category for deletion when many other similar categories exist appears as though you are singling out that one for special attention for some reason. Avruch  T 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think a similar notice should be put on every other category that divides users in a way that is not obviousy useful for colaboration (by race, nationality, religion, etc.)? Guest9999 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Avruch  T 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why on this one? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that this category has the other three paragraphs. It has a specific history that, in my mind, warrants the preamble. I don't think all categories that don't say "Interested in" have that same history or warrant the same preamble. Avruch  T 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could put one on the contentious ones if you want - there are some, but not all, that warrant the prompt. I wouldn't just copy it over to all of them, and the reason I haven't done more than this one is that I just... haven't. This is the one I was involved in. Avruch  T 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Transgender Wikipedians

 * Why was deleted?  I see dozens of categories for individual religious affiliations and even Wikipedians by individual city, how come individual sexual orientations and gender identities do not have their own categories as well?  One's gender and/or sexuality status can have just as influential a bearing on perspective, history, & knowledge for writing encyclopedic articles as geographical or religious status.  Lumping us all together without any respect for the diversity granted to other categories seems discriminatory.  Nicoleta (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Categories for discussion/User/Archive/June 2007. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't quite hold up. Knowing an author's gender can indeed be encyclopedically important, just as knowing their location or religion.  One of the main points of the feminist movement is that until a few decades ago, textbooks and much scientific research was done by white cisgender heterosexual men.  While of course not every person in a majority is narrow-minded or discriminatory, evidence shows that diverse authorship is dramatically different than nondiverse authorship.  Perhaps a great example is in paleoanthropology, it is because of female authors that this field has been turned upside down, casting away gross assumptions made by male authors on paleolithic gender roles.  Each author ideally contributes from their own experiences and resources, which indeed can vary greatly by orientation and identity, same as a Muslim author is more likely to have access to Islamic texts and religious authorities.  I also commented additionally here: User_talk:After_Midnight.  Nicoleta (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I agree, was just pointing out the discussion. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Differences between Queer/LGBT Wikipedians
I'm not sure why Wikipedians with queer-related user boxes are automatically categorised as 'LGBT Wikipedians', for as the article Queer says, '[i]n addition to referring to LGBT-identifying people, it can also encompass: pansexual, pomosexual, intersexual, genderqueer, asexual and autosexual people, and even gender normative heterosexuals whose sexual orientations or activities place them outside the heterosexual-defined mainstream, e.g., BDSM practitioners, or polyamorous persons'. I think some people with queer-related user boxes don't always identify themselves as LGBT Wikipedians, as I don't. How about stopping this automatic categorisation? さえぼー (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

suggested bio for Lucian Childs, author of Dreaming Home,
Can I suggest that someone consider writing an article about author Lucian Childs, who wrote Dreaming Home, a novel about a gay man coming of age. The book has attracted a fair bit of attention. I am a friend of Lucian's so I cannot write the article myself. 206.174.18.75 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)