Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/T-V

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/T-V
As on the "A" and "W-Z" sections of this list (see the FLC discussions that passed: A, W-Z), I and WP:LGBT have completed working on "T-V". There should not be any LGBT person with a Wikipedia article whose surname begins with T-V that isn't on here, though of course articles are being added all the time. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if they are men or women, unless they have a western name. In this case gender is relevant IMO. Maybe they could be color-coded? Kappa 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Color coding by itself is a bad way to represent information, due to accessibility concerns. --Golbez 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well currently the gender is inaccessible to everyone. Kappa 12:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognize that the issue of gender is important to some people and the info might be welcome, but I should point out that the issue of gender with respect to the LGBT community is somewhat .. touchy. Specifically, categorizing people on the list in a binary (male/female) way would be problematic at best for some of the entries. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The only two things that bother me are 1) that there's so many red-links in the references (I know it's ok to have some, but in the in-line citations?) and 2) the caption for Alan Turing is a little POV, and he's known for a million other things besides the German enigma, so you might not want to mention anything at all, or at least mention something with it's own article (such as Turing test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewcifer3000 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. I didn't even look at the captions :)  I've un-POV'd Turing and removed about half the red wikilinks in the refs - either spelling errors or websites that are unlikely to get their own articles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Support The few issues I had have been addressed. Well done! Drewcifer 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good. --Golbez 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak oppose Support There are two versions of citing access dates; one version has "(retrieved on 2007-mm-dd)"while the other has "Retrieved on 2007-mm-dd". That's inconsistent and unprofessional. Just pick one version, although I'd recommend the second one since it's more common here. -- Crzycheetah 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's more the problem of the citation templates than it is the list. All references on the page use the templates, but some use cite web, some cite book, some citation. The last one is the one with "(retrieved on 2007-mm-dd)" IIRC. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you convert all citation templates to cite web since it just cites webpages only?-- Crzycheetah 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation is used for web sites, book, news articles, etc. Cleaning that up would be a relatively time-consuming job.  I have, however, left a request on the citation template to standardize the "retrieved on" format.  I've also cleaned up some of the 2007-mm-dd dates per the above comment so that they'll at least display per the user's date preferences. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * citation's format is changed. I give my full support now. -- Crzycheetah 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)