Discussion at Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia § Article title

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia § Article title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, hoping more editors can weigh in here and/or help with article expansion based on the sources shared on the talk page. Nice to see this article getting some attention. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#Requested_move_7_August_2026 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Homosexuality in sports

Hello all. Reviving this topic, which I saw was discussed back in 2014 (Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles). I recently created the Homosexuality in ice hockey page, modeled after pages like:

• Homosexuality in modern sports
• Homosexuality in American football
• Homosexuality in English football
• Homosexuality in basketball

and so on. However, I see that Homosexuality in college sports and Homosexuality in sports in the United States redirect to LGBTQ people in college sports and LGBTQ people in sports in the United States, respectively. I went with Homosexuality in ice hockey instead of LGBTQ people in ice hockey for a few reasons, but I want to check in with the community that this is current best practice.

Pros of calling the page Homosexuality in ice hockey:

• Suggests the page will be about attitudes towards this topic within the sport (which was my goal), whereas LGBTQ people in... sounds like the title of a List page.
• There is a Transgender people in ice hockey page that would be superseded by LGBTQ people in ice hockey. Since the trans community and the LGBQ+ community have different struggles when it comes to acceptance in sports right now (and the trans community certainly deserve their own page), I wouldn't want anyone to use the existence of the new page as a reason to delete the trans-specific one.
• Consistency (though when has that stopped us?).

Cons:

• "Homosexuality" sounds clinical and potentially unaccepting.
• Implicit bisexual erasure, which bothers me... I tried to counteract this by specifically using the terms bisexual, pansexual, and queer when I could.

Thoughts? Heterochromia (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It could be worth considering retitling them to e.g. "Sexuality in ice hockey" or "Sexuality and ice hockey" as the topic of the article is the locus between the two. Katzrockso (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I like this approach. I could see this making sense for these similar topics. I do wonder if it will cause any confusion about other kinds of sexuality, i.e. sexualization of players, ice girls, etc. "Sexual orientation and ice hockey"? Heterochromia (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That could work too. I don't have any preference between the two. Katzrockso (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This issue is currently being discussed at Talk:LGBTQ and association football#Requested move 26 June 2026; the article was previously titled Homosexuality in association football. I have not read these other articles, but a challenge with the association football article is that it is almost entirely about homophobia and attitudes regarding homosexuality in the sport. This includes coverage of homophobic slurs being hurled at players who are not gay and general homophobic attitudes surrounding the sport not specific to actual gay or otherwise LGBTQ+ people. This has led some editors to argue that the scope is broader than homosexual or LGBTQ people. There is also coverage of out athletes, predominantly gay men and to a lesser extent lesbians, but there are a handful of mentions of trans, non-binary, and bisexual players. Note: I do not wish to duplicate the RM discussion. I only raise it here because the issue of scope may be similar in these other articles, and also because other editors in the active RM have indicated that the titles of these other articles should change. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that discussion. It does seem similar. Heterochromia (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I just realized there was a recent failed RM to change the rest of the article titles. It had a low–medium participation level for RM: Talk:Homosexuality in basketball#Requested move 26 June 2026. It was started shortly after the association football RM. The main objection was that WP:AND did not apply and that there was no clear precedent or consistency issue. Depending on the outcome of the association football RM, there may be a repeat RM for the others to bring alignment. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The conclusion of that discussion was a move to LGBTQ people in association football. Do we think there's enough interest to revive that RM to remove all similar topics to LGBTQ people in sports? Heterochromia (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Recently, Discrimination against LGBTQ people in Brazil was created as a translation of pt:Homofobia no Brasil. Is Discrimination against LGBTQ people in association football a better title or too long? ~2026-39948-33 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You'll want to reply on that talk page instead of this one, but I just started a discussion about not focusing on discrimination if we can (open to disagreements of course). Heterochromia (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Moved page from Homosexuality in ice hockey to LGBTQ people in ice hockey now that LGBTQ people in association football has been moved and related discussion has been closed. Propose we make similar moves for other pages. Heterochromia (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Heterochromia I do not personally object to the ice hockey move, but I think in general these moves should be considered potentially controversial and should have formal RM discussions. Talk:LGBTQ people in association football#Requested move 26 June 2026 closed as a WP:BARTENDER/WP:NOGOODOPTIONS move; there was not overwhelming support for the particular move. Also, there were many arguments that were specific to the content of the association football article, such as limited coverage of transgender and bisexual players and substantial coverage of homophobic incidents that did not actually involve any gay/LGBTQ people. Each article probably needs to be evaluated individually to determine the actual scope of coverage and the extent to which similar issues are relevant. For these reasons, I don't think the association football move can be taken as indicating a broad consensus for how this family of articles should be titled. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Noted. I considered it, but due to low engagement on this discussion and the talk page for the article itself, and since I picked the original title in the first place, it made more sense to me to be bold. I won't make unilateral decisions for other pages, however. Heterochromia (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation

I noticed Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation on the list of pages containing too many maintenance templates. It gets a decent number of pageviews. Noting here in case somebody is interested in taking on this project. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's been on my list for a while. I was going to completely rewrite the article but I got sidetracked Katzrockso (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mezzo Forte#Requested move 3 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mezzo Forte#Requested move 3 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-43113-08 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Jaymes Black

I'm pretty frustrated that this page got deleted: Jaymes Black an editor just swooped in and deleted it claiming it was written with AI. I believe that page is more important to have than to not have and am posting here to see if anyone is interested in a) restoring it or b) helping update it. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't deleted; it was moved to your userspace. (Specifically, from the "paper trail" it looks to have been moved to User:JazzyOxygen/Jaymes Black after a discussion on your talk page that appears to have been affected by the outcome of a WP:ANI thread involving LLM use by you.) I don't have an answer for helping improve it, myself--though I'm sure it was userfied because the person who moved it thought it had merit but needed improvement to be mainspace-acceptable--but I wanted to clarify that point just for anyone else reading so they have a more fleshed-out picture than just describing it as swooping in. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

JazzyOxygen, given your comments here and on my user talk page, I think you need to do some research before making assumptions and accusations. Some of the answers to your questions are obvious if you look at the information left on the deleted pages. Are you using a phone on Wikipedia? I'm not sure why you can't see the deleted pink tag information at the top of the deleted pages. It would provide information that would inform you and let you move forward with your plans to improve articles. But I think you must accept that these AI/LLM suspicions will keep coming up so you should have an answer when editors talk about them and your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue I'm frustrated about is the wikipedia polices on deleting very important pages when AI/LLM suspicion arise. It was a valid page with legitimate sources that was deleted. More harm was done by deleting it, than the harm that it was causing. A more nuanced approach should be considered for those types of concerns on those types of topics. JazzyOxygen (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@JazzyOxygen – As @Purplewowies noted above, the page was not deleted. It was moved, which is different, as the content and history is preserved, just in a different location than it was originally created. You can find it at User:JazzyOxygen/Jaymes Black and are welcome to move it to draftspace, move it back, and/or submit it through the articles for creation process after fixing its issues (which is what I would recommend). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It was only moved after I requested it not to be deleted. If I wasn't paying attention or was on holiday, that page would have been deleted automatically. I had to request it to be moved back to the draft space. JazzyOxygen (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

On 18 July you asked that Jaymes Black be userfied instead of deleted , and then weeks later you open a topic here as if it had been deleted when you clearly knew it hadn't. Strange.

LLM use was found to be detrimental to the project, and so WP:NOLLM was adopted by community consensus. The effort asymmetry in cleaning up after LLM users was also found to be detrimental to the project, and so WP:LLMPRV was adopted by community consensus. The userfied pages fit the presumptive removal guideline, and furthermore, you are not even disputing that they are created using an LLM, in fact on one page you rewrote part to not sound like AI .

The next step is actually following the required presumptive removal objection process, this requires that all content and its sources be closely reviewed and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with policies and guidelines. This includes core policies like WP:V, as well as guidelines like WP:NOLLM which necessitate that any generated content be removed. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have said "I'm pretty frustrated that this page almost got deleted..." and I was hoping I could get some help from someone here, but I see that won't happen now. My overall grievance is that the presumptive removal guidelines that were adopted still cause problems where important pages like this just get flagged to be auto-deleted if no one raises their hand to prevent that. Seems contrary to WP:AGF but that's a separate topic. JazzyOxygen (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Rather than trying to untangle AI concerns and have you fretting that the website is absent this page, I have created a WP:STUB at Jaymes Black. It is handcrafted, so it should face LLM concerns. I did use your article to help find some (not all) of the references, and the references should be substantial enough that it will withstand at least any cursory notability concerns. People should feel free (nay, encouraged) to build on it by hand. There is certainly more information in the listed sources and in the other sources listed on the draft article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much Nat! One clarifying question:

“It is handcrafted, so it should face LLM concerns.”

Can you elaborate on that? I’m not sure what you are implying? JazzyOxygen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Mere accident -- I think my brain was picking between "shouldn't face" and "should face no" and found an inappropriate compromise. I meant to indicate that LLM should NOT be a concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to actually review it. JazzyOxygen (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Strange "uncontested technical request"

I was looking through pages this morning and saw that the List of feature films with transgender characters page was boldly changed to "List of feature films featuring gender and sex variant characters and themes" under spurious reasoning with a page mover claiming this change was an "an uncontested technical request". Yet the requested change only had *one* participant, the OP. So, I reversed it this morning. I just thought I'd keep this page on everyone's radar, as the same user may attempt this change again. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Historyday01: The move was performed correctly. If you opposed the moved, then you should have opposed it before the RM was closed. When someone opens a RM, and this is not contested by anyone, the page is moved because the RM becomes an uncontroversial technical request. You should move back to what the consensus (or lack of) states. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 18:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree it was appropriate to close and move the page. Since it was just closed, the proper thing to do is ask the closer to reopen and relist the discussion and then !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I just requested they reopen the discussion here. When that happens, I'll post about it on here. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I literally did NOT know about it until this morning. I will be contesting the move, by going to the page another user suggested.--In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion has now been re-opened. Now I know what to do the next time this happens. Thanks for your comment. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You can object by listing the page at "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" on the RM/TR page Katzrockso (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, now the discussion has been re-opened, but thanks for your comment. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of feature films with transgender characters

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of feature films with transgender characters#Requested move 24 July 2026, which proposes changing the page title to "List of feature films featuring gender and sex variant characters and themes", which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia § Requested move 7 August 2026

An editor has requested that LGBTQ and Wikipedia be moved to LGBTQ people and Wikipedia, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Them magazine

There is a noticeboard discussion about the reliability of Them magazine. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § them (magazine). — Newslinger talk 22:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to centralize transgender sports bans content

Content about transgender sports bans in the USA is currently split across many different articles. Proposal to consolidate it.

A little surprised I can't find an ongoing discussion about this, so please redirect me if there is one.

Requested move at Talk:Zehava (Palestinian transgender woman)#Requested move 30 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zehava (Palestinian transgender woman)#Requested move 30 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Dudzcar (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Discrimination against asexual people#Requested move 9 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Discrimination against asexual people#Requested move 9 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 03:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on removing "Gender" from "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on removing "Gender" from "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability". fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ emojis

I've created a new stub for LGBTQ emojis, if any project members are interested in collaborating! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave some thoughts on the talk page! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

BL and gay men

(I'm User:.nhals8 I'm just too lazy to log in lol) There has been this issue that has been raised for some time in the yaoi and boys' love community regarding the relation between works in this genre and its portrayal or depiction of actual gay men. There's also a mix of what I'd describe as "gatekeeping" or "defense" that yaoi/BL is "for women" only as if gay men don't have the right to complain about content specifically about them 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 whatever i just felt that this deserves an article on its own or a section/subsection in the above articles ~2026-44251-08 (talk) 10:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused, what exactly are you proposing? Criticism of the genres? Seems like a section exists (Boys'_love#Criticism), feel free to be bold and expand it to include criticism by gay men, or criticisms relating to an overwhelming amount of producers and consumers of such content being women. jolielover♥talk 10:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Hmm they might've meant they'd like an article covering this issue for all media depictions of MM romance, regardless of genre/medium? Ifl this might be notable/have vars scholarly sources, as have heard of this for MM romance lit, Heated Rivalry, etc etc, just dunno about scholarly discourse here.

Ps I'm just too lazy to log in lol was *chef's kiss* :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover I mean yeah, there was the 1992-1997 yaoi debate as noted in the Criticism and History sections, but I'm pretty sure that this criticism is now expanding to more generalized boys' love from South Korea (jinx cough cough COUGH) and ABO in general ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 15:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.

Personally, since fictions are mostly for the entertainment of its creators / readers, I seldom expect them to be anything close to honest depictions of reality. Kind of like how 60% male-oriented girl's love content is patent nonsense (realism-wise). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 11:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

bl doesn't have a responsibility to do so as a largely fictional genre, but it does affect how people perceive them, and even more so to 1) the straight audience towards real gay people (i've had straight women trying to fetishize my relationship with my bf himself) and 2) the remainder of the straight population, given the sheer imposition of hetslop and masc-fem trope domination over bl. this applies to every other demographic that you're trying to portray in fiction as well

overall i think that criticism of this should be expanded to larger bl instead of the yaoi debate, as jolie made above, and im still looking for some newer sources that aren't exclusively focusing on yaoi ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 15:52, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I've seen chatter about this online. Mostly surrounding Heated Rivalry but it's clear that this is not a new discussion. If there are independent, reliable, secondary sources discussing the phenomenon then content could be added somewhere. I don't know that there's standalone article potential here. Is this type of criticism of these genres independently notable? Is there enough to say about it to sustain a separate article? Is this a broadly discussed as a single, coherent topic or are there different bits of criticism specific to yaoi, BL, MM romance novels, and specific works within these and other genres? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

We do have fujoshi, currently a redirect to Boys' love fandom § Fujoshi and fudanshi. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction. Dudzcar (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

isn't that largely the proship vs antiship thingy ⠀⠀⠀⠀ .n the homo 07:13, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Homosexuality in English football § Requested move 16 August 2026

An editor has requested that Homosexuality in English football be moved to LGBTQ people in English football, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Heterochromia (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Mass additions to project scope

Hi @TAnthony:, over the past couple days, you have added thousands of articles, categories, and files to the WikiProject’s scope. The majority of additions are constructive, but some appear to have little or no relevant content. The pace and scope of the additions makes it very challenging to review the additions in any comprehensive way (and has overloaded the Assessment Report that can normally be used to review additions and removals from the project scope). Can you provide some insight into your methodology and how you are selecting these articles?--Trystan (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I was dubious about that editor's addition of Category talk:American Godzilla films to this project, until I realized that Godzilla is a Lizard God Breaking Tokyo Quickly. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. There are a vast amount of files and articles in LGBTQ-related categories that have not been tagged into the project. My initial run was film posters and book covers, and now I've moved on to film, TV and character articles. There have been some subcategories that have turned out to be a little broad in scope and I've tried to revert bad edits and refine the scope. I did revert the Godzilla edit you referenced (and several others) when I realized my AWB run had gone off the rails. Can you let me know about any other specific issues you've seen? I think my latest run has been dialed down to strictly LGBTQ categories but I appreciate the input. I certainly don't want to be disruptive. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 06:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thousands w/ only a few mistakes? Wicked good work then :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we know what the daily limit is that won't crash the Assessment Report? Or, perhaps more importantly, that is manageable for those who monitor and review new additions? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the limit is, but the report seems to have recovered, and is now showing the addition of 4,114 articles on August 22 and 1,209 articles on August 23. (It just shows those two days, but earlier dates can still be viewed in the history.)

As the articles are being added based on category, it might be worth considering whether, as a long-term project, a systematic review of those categories should be undertaken. There are a lot of LGBTQ-related categories that have been applied very broadly, so could use a review of their contents to determine if both the category (per WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF) and the WikiProject tag (per WP:LGBTQ+/Scope) are warranted.

In some cases, we may want to consider whether the category has sufficient inherent connection to the WikiProject scope to warrant automatic inclusion. For example, Douglas Coupland is a gay author, but does that make all articles on his novels in-scope, if those articles themselves have no LGBTQ+ content? Similarly, Duck Soup (1927 film) is in Category:Cross-dressing in American films, but I would not consider the article in-scope for the WikiProject.--Trystan (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point, and not something I'd thought much about before. It makes sense that the parent article Cross-dressing and various cross-dressing categories themselves are in-scope but I would think a good number of the articles within these categories are not. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Dolly Parton as a gay icon

I've started Dolly Parton as a gay icon, if any project members are interested in collaborating. Happy editing ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Victimization of bisexual women

I've nominated Victimization of bisexual women for renaming to Discrimination against bisexual women. Discussion here. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2026 (UTC)