Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard/Archive 5

Category:BDSM submissives
Apologies for a few cross-posts here, it is hard to guess just where this should go.

Category:BDSM submissives Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_24 because it contains only one article (Bob Flanagan). This drew my attention to several other BDSM-related categories, at least one of which is, well, weirdly populated. Copying some remarks (mine) from the discussion in question: "It is remarkable that this category is so empty when (I just checked, following a guess) Category:Dominatrices has 12 entries and Category:Bondage models has a whopping 76. [Warning, slightly tasteless humor follows.] Just goes to show what the nerdboys writing articles in this subject area are into, I guess. And at a quick look, 100% of the bondage models listed are female. Don't we have any gay nerdboys into leather here at the 'pedia? Practically worthy of WP:CSB." Anyway, can someone help populate Category:BDSM submissives rather than delete it? And is anyone writing about male bondage models? - Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but I can confirm that we do have at least one gay nerdboy into leather writing here. He just hasn't actually done much porn-related editing other than the occasional reversion of dumb vandalism to Blake Harper and style edits to Gus Mattox. But the problem is he can't think of any gay porn guys who are specifically notable as bondage models or submissives; in gay porn probably a majority of guys have done occasional bondage/BDSM shoots, but very few are exclusive to that scene the way so many het models exclusively do bondage/BDSM stuff. The gay nerdboy into leather whose activity I can attest to can't offhand think of any notable gay porn guys who are obvious candidates for either category. And since said gay nerdboy into leather hasn't gotten laid in years (he ain't pretty enough), he knows his porn. Bearcat, proud GNIL 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Integrate portal box into template?
Just from a design standpoint, the LGBT Portal box looks clumsy as all heck sitting up and to on side of the LGBT project template (see for example Homophobia). Anybody care if I stick the Portal link into the larger box so it's better integrated visually? Seems like the two always go together, so there no real need to have them in separate boxes. Dan B † Dan  D  06:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Time limit?
Can we set a time limit on how long a alert can stay on here? We have articles that were listed in Septemer 2005! Say, three months? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a pretty good policy. Should we keep them in an archive? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why, tbh. They'll all kept in archive in their variosu *fDs, votes etc. so no need to bother, I reckon. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I sorry to say I have been behind in archiving this site, and I'm planning on cleaning things up for the new year. The genereal plan has been to move items from the top of the page to the bottom when they are decided, and move them to an archive page at regular intervals. -- Samuel Wantman 21:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But why archive? What reason is there to look at them? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So, can we please delete these archives and have a more dynamic noticeboard? At the moment it's so cluttered I don't really want to add anything to it. Can we say, we'll move decided issues to the bottom of the page, and remove them after three months from their decision date?
 * Anyone can (and should) move things to the bottom of the page when they have been decided. I was keeping on top of this until recently.  Once things are on the bottom, archiving is not that critical.  I've been limiting the archives for the project page to one per year.  It is really useful to be able to scan the archives when you spot something at xFD and think it has been discussed before, but don't remember exactly when.  The talk pages have been limited by size and do not follow a calendar. -- Samuel Wantman 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned things up and removed many notices of articles with debates and requests for comments. If any of the removed ones still have ongoing issues, please re-add them to the page. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

LGBT interest box
I also have another issue. We currently have a list of people who have the LGBT interest box on their userpage - but it only have about thirty people on it and when I was sending out invites I saw there are well over 300 people in the category. Can we delete the list and keep the userbox on the page? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be okay to add Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues (or the existing Category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community) to the userbox? That way we could delete the list from this page and add a link: See SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  16:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues would be fine by me. I calculated it using What links here, so a cat's fine. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

New cat in town
I have been thinking about another category, for LGBT people whose papers have been destroyed or have mysteriously disappeared, like Symonds, Burton, Gide, Oscar Browning, Byron, and so on. But I have not come up with a satisfactory title yet. Any ideas? Haiduc 03:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wikiproject
"Wikiproject Alternative Sexuality". These we would take on all those lost and lonely articles that every one defends but no one improves. I'm taking the temperature on it (no need to bend over, just comment:) ). Nina Odell 21:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What articles would it improve that aren't covered by these WikiProjects? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And/or don't they fit in our project? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Butterfly sex position, for example got redirected to missionary position with apparently no talk and no response from the user who did it. This is a bonafide, unique position. There also, frankly, needs to be some hetero-sexising of some articles - like Erotic spanking. I'm not saying it has to be the focus, there just has to be something in there that this is also a heterosexual practice. I could be wrong, but I joined the Sexology Wikiproject and it doesn't seem too active. The main question is - if I build it, who will come? Nina Odell 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the Sexology WikiProject is inactive, you may as well try to revive it, rather than build yet another one. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so does anyone want to help me revive sexuality and sexology? There are currently two active editors. Come on down! This project has numerous editors - someone must want to help out for a minute.NinaOdell | Talk 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to help. I am not very familiar with the purpose of Wikiprojects, so please let me know what I can do!  Joie de Vivre 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have no idea how pleased I am to find the LGBT is no longer "alternative" and has now joined the mainstream. -- Samuel Wantman 07:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It has. I firmly believe that. If that's not true, then I choose it as my reality. NinaOdell | Talk 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LGB certainly has. Unfortunately, pretty much all forms of transgender have quite some way to go by comparison. :( --AliceJMarkham 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping categories
I've noticed that we have some overlapping categories in Category:LGBT writers. The issue is that there are categories by sex (Gay writers and Lesbian writers) plus Bisexual and Transgendered writers but we also break these down by nationality, BUT in that case they are grouped together. Therefore, a gay American writer such as Edward Albee falls into two categories (Category:Gay writers and Category:LGBT writers from the United States). It seems a bit much to place him and other writers into two sepaerate categories for simply being LGBT writers. I'm not quite sure of how to sort this out. Suggestions? *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been tagging LGBT writers recently and had noticed the same thing. My off-the-cuff suggestion is to break down "LGBT writers" into "LGBT writers by nationality", and then (if a particular nationality has a *bunch* of writers) break it down by LGB & T.  That way, Portuguese writers would be in "LGBT writers from Portugal", but those from the US would be in "Lesbian writers from the United States".  Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (PS: Would you like to join the WikiProject?)
 * I think that's the best way to handle them, but the bigger question is if the categories Gay writers, Lesbian writers, Bisexual writers and Transgendered writers should be done away with. I went ahead and joined the project. Thanks for the invite! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather see writers broken down by language than by nationality. I read writers who write in English, not who come from just one country.  Writers in English hail from many places. -- Samuel Wantman 21:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do I put a request for an article?
Is there a place to put up requests for articles? Dfeuer 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. =) — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy King Day


"'For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions' - Coretta Scott King"


 * NinaOdell | Talk 13:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
Can I make a proposal? That we get rid of the noticeboard, and the to-do list and create an open tasks and notices template instead. This page is massive and unwieldly, and I for one rarely bother to check it because I can't tell at a glance what's new. Let's use this page to archive past *fds etc., but use the template as our main port of call. It'll raise the profile of our to-do list a swlel, which has been largely stagnant for months. What do you reckon? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support!!!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's really hard to find things around here. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: How about one of these things? They're easy to use, at least for AFD's (CFD's and TFD's still have to be manually entered). See WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam for an example of a lively one in action. (Click on "edit" and see how little work is actually involved). — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, I know that only handles a portion of the problem; not everything on the noticeboard is deletion discussions. Anyway, a completely separate suggestion... there are categories like Category:Start-Class LGBT articles that only categorize Talk pages. What about a Category:LGBT articles tagged for maintainance, also just applied to talk pages? It would be a process of manual application, but there doesn't have to be a big hurry to run out and find all those articles and tag their talk pages. It could just be something one does when one runs across an article in the LGBT scope that has maintainance tags (verification, pov, sourcing needed, whatever); add it to the category. Whether this is preferable to another system, I couldn't guess. — coe l acan t a lk  — 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. Maybe we should create a category for several maintenance tags (Expert attention, Wikify, NPOV, Verify, Translation, and generic cleanup for anything else) and then get a bot to go through every LGBT tagged article and add it to the appropriate category if it finds a cleanup tag. We can then add the category links to the template like MILHIST do, and we'll have an automatically updated cleanup list. It would save a lot of effort.


 * So, on a template would be: Current discussions, *fDs, prods, cleanup categories, FAC/Rs, and possibly Requested articles. This sound cool? If yes, someone needs to write a bot or we need to make a bot request. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds right. I don't know how to make a bot but I bet someone around here does. Yea or nay on the Deletion Sorting? — coe l acan t a lk  — 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pretty good about bots - even have my own . Or Dev has AWB.  Either way. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you might offer. :) I like the idea of deletion sorting. So, as I see it, we need a bot to go through LGBT tagged pages and add or remove them to various cleanup categories depending on their tags, update a static list, a random ten articles from each category of which can be added to the template. We also need it to add deletion discussion links, which will have been added to the deletion sorting page, to the template, and add requested articles. And we have to do the FAC/Rs and prods ourselves. This sound cool? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably need a bit of clarification on parts of that... I get the moving to cleanup categories. I get the static list and random articles. I still have no clue about the deletion sorting and what that means. But I'm willing to take a stab at these :)  Do we have the cleanup categories and tags defined? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletion sorting is basically that we set up an LGBT subpage at WikiProject Deletion sorting, and someone (or all of us) regularly goes through the list of AfDs and adds them to our subpage, so everyone can follow and contribute to LGBT AfDs without having to wade through the entire list. See WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam for how it works.

On the categories, I feel that there should be cats for Expert attention, Wikify, NPOV, Verify, and Translation for those specific tags. Then have generic Cleanup Category for anything else. This was just based on me going through one list of maintenance templates though, so there may be other important ones that I may have missed. Maybe one for OR and Copyvio? Does anyone else think there should be more? Or less? I suppose the categories themselves would be called "LGBT articles needing Expert Attention, Wikification, NPOV, Verification and Translation". Does this sound OK? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds to me like it would be a good thing! Aleta 10:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To make sure I understand correctly, for Deletion Sorting, a bot could go through the AfD list daily and, if an article is both up for AfD and tagged with our LGBT Project, it would be added to our sorting page? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the gist of it. Might want to wait until the deletion sorting page is up and running before you lay out the logic for this. I've put in a request with one of the admins who's involved in the Deletion Sorting Wikiproject, so this should be pretty soon. — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the wub has pointed out to me that there is already a WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender. There is, as far as I can see, no reason why the LGBT Wikiproject cannot use that deletion sorting board. Indeed, it would be best 1) not to have the appearance of trying to "own" any particular deletion sorting board, and 2) to use this as a shared place alongside other projects like Wikiproject Gender Studies, etc. Any objections to simply using that board? I'm pretty sure there's nothing that the LGBT studies project covers that couldn't conceivably fit on that deletion sorting list. Thoughts? — coe l acan t a lk  — 08:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy to use it on a trial basis, just to ensure that it's coverage meshes with ours. It could potentially lead to some helpful collaboration between WikiProjects. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to reinvent the wheel. We can always go a different route in the future if we need to do so, but let's go with what's in place.  (We might even find new folks interested in this project as crossover.) Aleta 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the deletion discussions over to that board now. This was just one step in reducing or eliminating usage of the noticeboard, however. — coe l acan t a lk  — 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created an open tasks template here. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In my browser (one of the Mozes) the width of the template would jump to fill the whole area when I clicked on "show". So I added width:100% to the whole template so that it just starts that large. If this is not what's desired, it might work if both instances of width:100% were removed from the template (it's also in the expander section). But on MSIE, it was already showing up as fully wide before I changed it. I suspect the behavior is uniform across browsers now. — coe l acan t a lk  — 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)`
 * I have rearranged and updated the noticeboard in view of current events. I think it needs more work, but it's a start. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Image fair use disputed
I'm posting this here since there isn't a relevant category on the main page. (Should there be?) I've disputed the fair use of Image:SerBac.jpg, which depicts Saints Sergius and Bacchus (in that article and History of Christianity and homosexuality). I've disputed it because there is another image (Image:Sergebac7thcentury.jpg) which is in the public domain, and it is being used alongside this one in the same articles. Since the subjects are the maybe gay couple/ maybe not, I thought members of our project might want to make comments (or take action if you feel confident to do so). Aleta 09:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there is a problem, Aleta. The image is used to illustrate the subject of the article. Yes, there are public domain images, but a guideline for articles is also appropriate visual content. If the image is deleted from the History article, then a large chunk of the article suddenly has no visual appeal. Just my opinion, but I would prefer the image stays. Jeffpw 09:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification here, Aleta. I believe the image now fulfills the fair use criteria, and I have responded at Image talk:SerBac.jpg. — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Random entertainment provided on my talk page: User talk:Coelacan. Probably no need to bother feeding that fire any more than I already have... just thought I'd share the warmth. — coe l acan t a lk  — 10:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, While they may be no longer producing the image to sell, it's still being sold "until the inventory is depeleted". See Trinity Stores. Interesting, I thought. Aleta 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tags removed
With the work you've done, Coelacan and WJBscribe, in both expanding the FU rationale and discussing the artwork itself in the articles, my objections have been satisfied. I've removed the dispute tags. Good work, y'all! :) Aleta 17:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Category discussion
Discussion of LGBT categories has begun on Portal talk:LGBT/Categories. Please join in the discussion. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

LGBT health
I came across an LGBT health category today, which contained only one article on an LGBT health organization in Scotland. I deleted the original for incorrect capitalization (it was "LGBT Health" rather than the proper "LGBT health"), but I thought it should be raised for discussion here before I recreated it. It certainly has potential to be a useful category, but it also has potential to be a very complicated one, so I wanted to raise it for discussion before recreating it at the correct spelling:


 * 1) If we decide to go ahead with such a category, how should we organize it? Should it be primarily for LGBT health organizations, or for LGBT health issues? Or should those be separate subcategories?
 * 2) What kinds of topics would we include in it? Are there very many genuinely encyclopedic health topics that are unique to LGBTs, or are our issues just specialized aspects of more general health topics? Should it, for example, include Category:HIV/AIDS (certainly a major component of LGBT health, but not at all unique to our community) as a subcategory? How about drug-related articles such as Methamphetamine and sex or Party and Play? Are there other articles that could potentially be filed there?
 * 3) Are there any other aspects of this that we should discuss?

Just want to solicit some opinions about whether we should do it or not, and how to do it right if we go ahead with it. Bearcat 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed that same situation a while back and never got around to it. There's also a WP:AIDS, which may have some information to pull in.  And we have a couple people on the membership page that are involved in healthcare.
 * As to your questions, I would say 1) both, 2) yes to all of those, if they are related to LGBT people and the articles have content to support being within our spectrum/whatever. And 3) Not that I can think of :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question re LGBT designation
Per the discussion re Turtle Creek Chorale at this URL, can an organization articled in Wikipedia opt not to be tagged as LGBT, even if it IS an LGBT organization? Is so, what would stop it from being tagged again in future? MusicMen 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What the board think is utterly irrelevant. I'm sure Ted Haggard wouldn't like being tagged as "sex scandal" if he knew, or the Pet Shop Boys like being labelled "LGBT musical group" (actually, from what teh article actuallys says it looks likely they shouldn;t be labelled that). What I am more interested in how a Men's chorus fits the category, because there's nothing in their article to indicate they are LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should spell out GALA - Gay and Lesbian Association. That makes it pretty clear.  Aleta 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't let organizations or individuals have final say in what their articles contain for obvious reasons. If the board feels that strongly about it they can discuss it on the talk page or contact the Mediawiki Foundation directly. Koweja 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Active Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues"?
It's not clear to me that the list of Active Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues serves any purpose, given the LGBT Project membership list. Also, "Active" is a misnomer, as no one maintains the list by removing inactive accounts. I'll scratch it unless someone objects... Fireplace 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Gay vs. homosexual
There's a user who insists on changing the reference to Rick Mercer's sexuality from "gay" to "homosexual". I know we don't view this as acceptable, but I'm wondering if there's an actual policy statement I can refer to in this matter. I can't simply revert it back to "gay" again as I'm in danger of overstepping 3RR on this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Bearcat 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, found the policy. Bearcat 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the policy? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (identity). Bearcat 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that refers to his sexuality as "gay"? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The section in question has three sources already in it. Bearcat 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

umm . . . how do you get an article onto the "Articles with Merge/Split issues" list?
We need to put Bisexual erasure onto it. Thnx CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article has a merge tag on it and has the project banner on it, the bot will pick it up and put it on the full list. It may or may not show up on the project talk page - that's a random subset of the full list. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It has the bisexual tag on the article and the project banner on the discussion page. Will it still be picked up? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be - in about four hours from now... The bot only runs once a day :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ramakrishna
In this article on an Indian mystic, there is a dispute between myself and another editor about how much room should be given to coverage of the reception of a recent book on Ramakrishna's sexuality. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Queer studies
Resolved. Category:Queer studies has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. There is a very spirited discussion taking place. Cgingold (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

umm help someone who knows what they are doing should take a look two "peculiar" LGBT articles I just stumbled across
they are


 * Conversion therapy
 * Mixed-orientation marriage

both primarily written by Joshuajohanson who from what little I looked at may have an undisclosed affiliation with both articles which might, shall we say, have a tendency to "colour" the contents and objectivity CyntWorkStuff (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They look fine to me. Remember that having these articles about controversial subjects is absolutely fine, as long as they are written objectively, which these seem to be. : ) L'Aquatique [talk  ]  00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey CyntWorkStuff, thanks for the heads-up. Regarding the Conversion Therapy article, it looked fine to me at first (as it does to L'Aquatique), but some of the claims are not reflective of their supposed sources and when one digs deeper, there is some questionable material.  There seems to be a couple of editors who are well intentioned but somewhat biased and have ownership issues.  They are not keen on others' edits and are deeply invested in the topic.  Almost anyone who edits the page gets their changes reverted by one of the two editors; in fact I have never made a successful edit.  Many of us have made genuine efforts as well as errors and have been met with a bit of a rough reception, including edit warring.  Compromise is hard/impossible to work out.  Feel free to message me on my talk page about anything specific that I can help with on the issue.  I'll check out the other article also. Cheers,  GeneralBelly (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Male prostitution
Hey WP-LGBT members. I would really appreciate it if some project member(s) might take a look at the Male prostitution page and try to bring it up to snuff by adding sources and references, if possible. You could also check out Talk:Male_prostitution to see some issues that one editor has about sexual orientation vs sexual behavior and, hopefully, address those concerns. Thanks - NYArtsnWords (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Male Prostituion" is unduly sexist in my opinion as it implies that prostitute = female by default. - Davodd (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite WP:Be Bold, I am not sure a sudden page move of Male prostitute to Gigolo without discussion was a good idea. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Please use Requested moves in the future for controversial moves. - NYArtsnWords (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

List of drag queens
The article List of drag queens, which has existed since 2005, was deleted after three hours at AFD. I have opened a DRV and am notifying you as an associated Wikiproject. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * &lt;grumble&gt; I'm not happy with the way that AfD went, nor the Drv. If I were you, I'd simply put it back as it was. There's no reason to need a ref for each entry of that list, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Cable Positive
I stumbled across a red link to this article about an AIDS-awareness organization sponsored by the cable TV industry; it was deleted months ago. A quick Google News archive search turned up more than 1000 mentions:
 * http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=cable+positive&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_user_ldate=&as_user_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=

I restored the article but I don't have time to expand it.

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)