Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia

Source of basic LGBT information

There should probably be something about Wikipedia as a source of basic LGBT information for those in communities where this information is marginalized, a somewhat unusual example being Abby Stein . Pharos (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if there's enough sources about that part of the topic. In any case, I'd say this BBC article should definitely be added into the main article, as what Stein has to say shows the importance of this site:

"My first search was whether a boy could turn into a girl - in Hebrew, I didn't speak English at the time - and on the first or second page of the results, there was the Wikipedia page about transgender people. That was the first time I learned the term and realised there were other people who felt like me."

Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Subsection re: usage of preferred gender pronouns

Do we think there's enough coverage about preferred gender pronouns to warrant a subsection under "Coverage"?

Also, here's another source to consider adding:

• The Atlantic: "For more than 15 years, Wikipedia discussed what to call the third child of Ernest Hemingway, a doctor who was born and wrote books as Gregory, later lived as Gloria after undergoing gender-affirming surgery, and, when arrested for public disorderliness late in life, used a third name, Vanessa. Last year, editors on the site finally settled the question: The Gregory Hemingway article was deleted, and its contents were moved to a new one for Gloria Hemingway. This would be her name going forward, and she/her would be her pronouns."

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be fine with adding a subsection on that topic. I mean, the links and sentence I added about Ina Fried could go there. Reading the whole deletion discussion of her page is a bit distressing, as the page was luckily brought back after that. Historyday01 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there guidance on Wikipedia that can be pointed to?

Sorry to show my ignorance, but where exactly is the Wikipedia policy about using preferred gender pronouns? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates See MOS:IDENTITY / MOS:NB ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Another Believer. I don't know why I could not find that before, but am glad to have it now. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia guideline(s)?

The article says, "Articles about transgender and non-binary individuals are often subject to vandals who edit the article to misgender the subject, despite Wikipedia's guideline that articles should use the gender corresponding with the subject's most recently stated gender."

I assume this guideline is specific to English Wikipedia? Should the text clarify?

Also, are there other LGBT-related policies or guidelines (English Wikipedia or otherwise) worth mentioning? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd think that guideline (the ones you mentioned before, MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:NB) is specific to English Wikipedia, so I think it would be worth mentioning. Historyday01 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Editor demographics

I don't have the links to hand, but WMF has done a couple of surveys of editors demographics that touch on aspects on LGBT identity, particularly with regard to gender identity. Pharos (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that would be a good idea to include that. Historyday01 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Source might (?) mention WikiProject LGBT studies

• https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05947-8

Can't view the text, but Google suggests mention of WikiProject LGBT studies. Or, any other sources we could use to mention the WikiProject for LGBT studies at English Wikipedia? What about similar projects at other Wikipedias? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Still figuring out how to review that, but this similar article in The Guardian does mention LGBTQ articles. Maher is the CEO of Wikimedia.

The hard work here is done by Wikimedia’s community partners around the world, rather than by [Katherine] Maher’s team directly. She cites the example of Argentina, where Wikimedia’s local affiliates have served as a “powerhouse” for advancing women’s and LGBT rights.

That article links to a OHCHR press release about an editathon, jointly organized by Wikimedia and OHCHR, carried out in Argentina:

Gianluca participated in the first-ever edition marathon jointly organized by UN Human Rights and Wikimedia, carried out in July in Argentina’s capital city. The subject: women’s and LGBTI people’s rights.

That press release links to a Spanish-language one, the Spanish-language version of the OHCHR website, stating, when translated into English:

Held at the Diagonal Norte headquarters of the Universidad Nacional de San Martín, the day – known as the “editatón” – focused on content related to women's rights and sexual diversity, with a view not only to creating new content but also to to optimize the existing ones in “the free encyclopedia”.

Historyday01 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Thoughts on whether or not this entry meets Good article criteria? Do either of you have any interest in nominating, or co-nominating? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Goodness, I completely forgot about this, thank you for reminding me about it. Upon a quick glance, I think it's certainly in good condition. I'm not sure what the coverage requirements would be, but it certainly seems to touch on the important points and make use of a wide range of sources. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ping for @Another Believer MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, its just that I've never been part of a good article criteria nomination before, so I don't know how it works, exactly. Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I am happy to initiate the nomination, per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. If you are interested, I am happy to include you as a co-nominator, which just means you'd want to keep the article on your watchlist and help address any concerns which may come up during the review. Are you interested in collaborating? @MyCatIsAChonk: Just to confirm, would you be interested in being listed as a co-nom, too? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. Historyday01 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! I'll submit a nomination once MyCatIsAChonk confirms if interested. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer, absolutely! Please clarify somewhere that you get credit for the article and I'm just addressing concerns. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01@MyCatIsAChonk I've nominated the article for Good status, with the three of us as co-nominators. I think this shows a united interest in the topic and willingness to address any concerns which may arise. Looking forward to collaborating, and by all means please feel free to continue improving the article ahead of the review! Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Welp, looks like the article was failed before we even had time to address any concerns. Bummer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That really is a bummer. I may write a response to their comments, which are pretty harsh, to be honest.Historyday01 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I very much welcome replies in the GA review + article improvements based on feedback. We can always re-nominate when we're ready for another review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was so quick I didn't even get the chance to see the review. How disappointing- the GA backlog drive was great for cutting down the number of noms, but it also resulted in many bad-faith quickfails, which is an attitude that apparently carried on. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk I hope you'll join us in replying to the editor's concerns. Whether or not they revisit the discussion, I'm hopeful we can re-nominate for GA status when the three of us are ready. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Will be giving it another look soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to the page. And I do also hope that we can re-nominate the page for GA status sometime in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: Can you confirm when you're done making changes to the article based on the GA review? I'm happy to re-nominate when the time is right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've made changes to the article based on the GA review already. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! @Bluerasberry, FULBERT, RachelWex, Varnent, and Zblace: Pinging a few people who might have some familiarity or specific suggestions for improving this article, if you're interested. Sure, there are COIs at play here (myself included) but I welcome comments here on the talk page you're able to identify any inaccuracies or content gaps. There are plans to re-nominate this entry for GA status, so any feedback would be helpful sooner than later. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer I don't have much else to add- might add a bit more from the journal article, but I think that's it. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll wait to see if any other folks leave comments, then re-nominate soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Another Believer Thanks for the ping. Some ideas -- I wonder if more inclusion of the LGBT+ User Group as an approved affiliate and its activisites, inclusion of more about the LGBT Portal, the various QW events, and where issues around the world (in other Wikipedias) have dealt with issues of harassment or mis/dis-information may be useful for this article? Likewise, additional publication about the overlap as well me be useful such as from this one in the NYTimes. FULBERT (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wexelbaum, Rachel; Herzog, Katie; Rasberry, Lane (1 January 2015). Queering Wikipedia. Sacramento, CA.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Some additional early history is in this source. As often is the case with these things, I feel that the current article reflects the available sources, while I also regret that there are so few sources at all. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Need this one too:

• Wexelbaum, Rachel (May 2019). "Chapter 5 Coming Out of the Closet: Librarian Advocacy to Advance LGBTQ+ Wikipedia Engagement". Advances in Librarianship. 45: 115–139. doi:10.1108/S0065-283020190000045011.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Found a readable copy here: https://sci-hub[.]se/10.1108/s0065-283020190000045011 (remove the period and brackets in the URL as Wikipedia put this site on a blacklist, which I get after reading Sci-Hub). The link you provided is great, but it link leads to a paywall... sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Last one, that I think is worth citing, I can find in academic literature

• Park, Chan Young; Yan, Xinru; Field, Anjalie; Tsvetkov, Yulia (22 May 2021). "Multilingual Contextual Affective Analysis of LGBT People Portrayals in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 15: 479–490. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18077.

Bluerasberry (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just tested and this link (from the link you provided) sends you to the PDF of the article, which is 12 pages long: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/18077/17880 Historyday01 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the sources, these are very useful! @Another Believer, would it be worth adding an efn to clarify the various abbreviations used other than LGBT? A number of the quotes don't use "LGBT", so it may be worth clarifying. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we could either include a note, or link to LGBT#Variants as needed. I generally see "LGBT" used across Wikipedia, but sometimes variants are helpful or necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Added MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedian

Wikimedian of the Year says "Temple-Wood had created nearly 400 articles and improved hundreds more, many of which are about women scientists and LGBT and women's health." I can't tell which source confirms "LGBT", but assuming we can verify, should LGBT and Wikipedia mention Emily Temple-Wood's LGBT-related work? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Historyday01 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 Here are the four sources used for her over at Wikimedian of the Year: source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4. Do you see confirmation of work on LGBT content? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing anything in the translation of source 1, while sources 2, 3, and 4 are about Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight. I think the line "many of which are about women scientists and LGBT and women's health" was just conjecture from the biographies she was written about, sadly. I found some other articles on her in Nature, It Web, Wikimedia here, here and here, Reader's Digest, Smithsonian Magazine, MIT and Wired. However, her X/Twitter profile (archived here, even though the archived version falsely says she hasn't posted) says she is "queer" and announced she was a "queer physician" in October 2020 (it is also archived here). So, the latter counts for something...

Otherwise, it is confirmed that Jess Wade has written "biographies of women, people of color and LGBTQ+ scientists" Wikimedia, with The Advocate writing "Last year, Dr. Jess Wade of Imperial College London made it her mission to help balance out the content on Wikipedia. Every day in 2018, she wrote at least one Wikipedia page dedicated to a woman, person of color, or LGBTQ individual in science in the hopes to combat the lack of diversity seen on the site, which is especially poor in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)." And she is relatively supportive of LGBTQ people, as clear from a perusing of her social media, and possibly implied here. The sources from the last sentence probably can't be used, but I thought they were interesting.

Also, one article on Wikimedia mentioned Pax Ahimsa Gethen, i.e. @User:Funcrunch, noting that "Pax contributes photographs to Wikimedia Commons with a focus on LGBTIQ+ subjects, events, and social justice rallies. Active in WikiProject LGBT Studies, Pax has collaborated with other Wikimedians to counter anti-trans vandalism and improve guidelines for respectfully discussing trans subjects on Wikimedia projects." So, that's worth mentioning! Not sure if any of the others listed on the Wikimedian of the Year page are queer, though, but I don't believe so, after skimming through their profiles. Historyday01 (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I'd support adding mention of Jess Wade's LGBT-related work. I don't have a problem with Pax Ahimsa Gethen being mentioned, too, though I should note Pax does not have a standalone Wikipedia entry like Jess Wade.

@Rosiestep, Fuzheado, and SuperHamster: Might any of you be aware of any coverage about Emily Temple-Wood's LGBT-related work? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of media that mentions Emily's LGBT-related work. IMO, this is an oversight by the media. (As another example of the media's oversight, I've created hundreds of new EN-WP women's biographies as translations from ES-WP and FR-WP, but the media never mentions my translation work.) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosiestep Thanks for replying. Seems like we'll be unable to add mention of Temple-Wood here, and unfortunately, I think we'll need to remove mention of "LGBT" from her entry at Wikimedian of the Year. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it is unfortunate. Maybe one day her LGBT-related work will be covered...somewhere. I couldn't find anything from some searches this morning, sadly. @User:Keilana, if you would like to add anything else to this discussion, feel free.Historyday01 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentions, but FWIW I don't think I should be included on this page until and unless I become notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia entry. Funcrunch (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

+1, with much appreciation to User:Funcrunch for their contributions to the movement! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, in any case, thanks for your contributions on here! It is greatly appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Jess Wade

I've added a bit of content about Jess Wade's LGBT-related work. Feel free to trim, edit, expand appropriately. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's a positive at least. Thanks for doing that. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No sexual assault in 2023 Wikimania toilet

Restroom or trap?

The Wikimedia community offered a unisex public toilet at Wikimania 2023 in Singapore by converting a single gender toilet with gender neutral signs posted over the permanent installed signage. Local media reported speculation that this toilet might be a trap that sex offenders use to attack restroom visitors. I am one of the Wikimedia LGBT+ organizers. Our defense of the toilet was successful as no one reported harm in using it.

This is a notable milestone in Wikimedia history because it shows that Wikimedia events can introduce conversations about diversity into places which otherwise have had no exposure to the ideas. While this event needs more interpretation, we do have these sources documenting what happened.

• Lam, Nicole (18 August 2023). "Temporary designation of Suntec toilets as 'gender-neutral' sparks hostile online reaction; others see move as positive". TODAY.
• Kewei, Lim (18 August 2023). "'So do I sit or stand?' Netizens divided by gender-neutral toilet at Suntec City". AsiaOne.
• Yee, Julia (18 August 2023). "Suntec Convention Centre gender-neutral toilet for event on Aug 16-19". mothership.sg.
• Dass, Camillia (18 August 2023). "Suntec City's brand sentiments plummet due to gender-neutral toilets". Marketing-Interactive.

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry Thanks. I can't tell if the last source is reliable, but I've updated the article a bit based on the first two sources. Wording adjustments/feedback welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I just say I'm incredibly surprised this made the news (my local sports centre has always had a unisex bathroom, as it only had space for one bathroom, and nobody thought twice about having their kids in swimsuits use it in the 90s – only recently have bathrooms become a concern for TERFs and their kin), nor do I think unisex bathrooms relate to the LGBTQI+ community specifically – nor do I like the conflation that such spaces are more likely to generate sexual assault. For these reasons, I would be opposed to including it as just simply out of scope. But we are dictated by coverage, so while this may be more appropriate at an article about gender in Singapore, if there is enough relation to the Wikimedia LGBT+ group in the sources (not just Wikimania, not just 'a convention'), then I suppose it's fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

LGBTIQ+ and Wikimedia

More generalized approach would add more sources and would be more inclusive in naming from the start. I am no fan of sticking to LGBT as the norm since about 15 years, so I hope we can agree to move on. Meanwhile quite a few Wikidata papers have been published recently. Zblace (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zblace, we use "LGBT" across the encyclopedia, including in the Wikiproject dedicated to the subject. The discrepancy between acronyms is clarified by footnote a. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the continued use of the acronym instead of more inclusive ones, but it is the consensus currently, and I'd say it should be respected, at least until a consensus proves it otherwise. Historyday01 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support broader discussion. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity there are 100 discussions about managing transgender pronouns. In my view, almost all of those discussions are differences of opinion from trans-rights activists and the LGBT+ community itself, so even among stakeholders we often find ourselves with conflicting interests. I expect that similarly, a group could find and list 100 on-wiki discussions about which letters of the alphabet to use. If we collected all those discussions, perhaps totaling the equivalent of 1000 pages of original prose, then we could use that as a foundation for what to do next. I take this topic seriously and I think it would be worth developing a Wikipedia-specific guideline for this because the issue is not going to resolve itself, and because so many other media organizations look to Wikipedia with no hope of addressing this without us. I expect we could find very strong arguments for several possible options, but till now, no one has yet attempted to centralize discussion. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Bluerasberry, would opening an RfC to add "LGBT" (or otherwise) to the table of standard acronyms at MOS:ABBR be the next step? I can open it- adding this acronym to the table would standardize it across the Wiki. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  My argument pro is as people are too often lazy to write + and elaborate, so it ends up being far less inclusive then it could be. In most of EU even the institutions switched to LGBTI long ago and activist and academics perceive LGBT as old-fashioned and dated.

  Aside from this I think extending the scope of page from Wikipedia to Wikimedia should also be considered. Zblace (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, that RFC has been open for a pair of weeks by now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that discussion? Historyday01 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? It strikes me as curious, given a) the debate amongst intersex people over whether they should be included in the acronym, and b) the variety of languages spoken in the EU, so non-English speakers would use a different acronym or term for this community. Funcrunch (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I can agree. However "Wikimedia" is a sub-division of Wikipedia, at least as far as I understand it, so Wikimedia is implied. Historyday01 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around. Funcrunch (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, then the title should be changed from "Wikipedia" to "Wikimedia" then. Historyday01 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

WIKIMOVE podcast on harassment and trans issues

Not sure if it's a usable source for this page, but @Tamzin and I were interviewed for a WIKIMOVE podcast just published today that covers harassment and related issues facing trans editors. Funcrunch (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it forward- I'll take a listen soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding deadnaming

Since I am the specific deadnamed editor referred to in the cited article I will refrain from reverting, but I feel this edit, along with the edit summary rationalizing it, is spurious at best. Funcrunch (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agreed before I even saw it was made by a notoriously transphobic editor. The source refers to your case, but also makes general points, so the edit is unwarranted. If 1RR is still in place on gender topics, you should be able to revert and still discuss it here. Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif Funcrunch has said they would prefer not to revert because of their COI. If you agree, could you revert then? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consenus is against the proposed title, no prejudice against alternative suggestions. (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

---

LGBT and Wikipedia → LGBT people and WikipediaLGBT people and Wikipedia – Grammar: the article is not about the constituent identities in the LGBT acronym, it is about the people who hold those identities. Puts article in line with LGBT people and Islam, Chick-fil-A and LGBT people — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is not about how Wikipedia as an organisation/body treats LGBT+ people, it is about how LGBT+ issues are dealt with on Wikipedia and in how society uses/perceives Wikipedia. The subject matter is not similar or comparable to those presented in the opening statement, and accuracy is preferred over arbitrary consistency. By changing the title to mimic articles with a different focus, we would only mislead readers. A somewhat generic title is also preferred for this article due to a reasonably broad scope. Kingsif (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Like Kingsif said, this article isn't about how Wikipedia as an organization or body treats LGBTQ+ people, but how issues relating to those people are dealt with on here, and how society uses and perceives Wikipedia for that. Misleading readers is the last thing we want to do here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kingsif's comment. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's about much more than just the people, but also how topics relating to LGBTQIA+ issues are treated on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of what the subject of the article is, "LGBT and Wikipedia" is not grammatically correct. LGBT people may not be the correct scope, but the article title needs to change. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're welcome to offer suggestions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

  As said, RMs are closed in scope to keep discussion/!votes on track. Feel free to open another RM with this comment as your reasoning. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia in French and transidentity

During the last weeks, there is a strange atmosphere in Wikipedia in French. A poll about the opportunity to mention the deadname of trans people in the introductory part of an article has divided the community.

Many French medias have related the controversy. See for instance, Le Monde (https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2024/03/08/sur-wikipedia-la-communaute-francophone-se-dechire-autour-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans_6220937_4408996.html) and Next Inpact (https://next.ink/131199/la-neutralite-sur-wikipedia-la-question-du-deadname-des-personnes-trans-relance-le-debat/). See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Suggestion_by_PAC2_(2024-03-25).

PAC2 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Article title

The article title is ungrammatical and nonsensical. LGBTQ is an adjective that must modify a noun. We would never title an article Lesbian and Wikipedia or Queer and Wikipedia. I was going to propose a move to LGBTQ people and Wikipedia but this was rejected in 2023 per Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia#Requested move 20 November 2023 (with LGBT proposed at the time). Multiple editors objected on the grounds that this article is about LGBTQ issues and topics broadly and not about the way Wikipedia as an organization treats LGBTQ people. In RMs and other discussions elsewhere, some editors have objected to the phrase LGBTQ issues on various grounds. Other alternatives I considered are LGBTQ topics and Wikipedia or (the) LGBTQ community and Wikipedia but those don't sound quite right, either.

It's quite unacceptable that we maintain a title that violates standard English usage. Since I don't have a firm proposal beside the one that was previously rejected, I am raising this here rather than launching an RM. If we arrive at consensus for a different title we can change it or if opinions are split we can proceed to RM to evaluate one or more proposals. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with "topics"? It seems to solve the problem without changing or limiting the scope of the article. Maybe it would be slightly better as Wikipedia and LGBTQ topics, rather than the other way round, but I think that either one would be an improvement? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"Topics" would be tricky because it would seem to refer specifically to articles about LGBTQ things, which is only part of what this article seems to cover. "Issues" or "concerns" makes it sound like it's only about problems. I'm tempting to say "LGBTQ editing on Wikipedia" just because the opening phrase can be seen as referring to either editing about such things or editing by such people, but it's not really going to be seen as both at once. But listing them separately, "LGBTQ topics and editors on Wikipedia" just gets too clunky. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. "Topics" suggests this article is only about how LGBTQ topics are covered on Wikipedia. This article combines two subjects, LGBTQ people and Wikipedia (e.g., editor experience) and LGBTQ topics and Wikipedia. I think there is enough overlap and interrelationship between these that a single article is OK but it complicates selecting a concise yet inclusive title. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Currently the article describes both Wikipedia coverage of LGBTQ topics and LGBTQ Wikipedia contributors, so "topics" is arguably narrowing.

The other redirects like Donald Trump and Wikipedia (into Wikipedia coverage of Donald Trump) indicates that the correct title here might be LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 01:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

A key difference is that Donald Trump does not edit Wikipedia (that we know of) whereas this article substantially covers LGBTQ Wikipedia contributors, as you noted. I see "coverage" as a more substantial narrowing than "topics". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ coverage in Wikipedia? Dudzcar (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I agree with the grammar issue. I don't really understand the opposition to the use of 'people' back in 2023, as everything about the concept of 'LGBTQ' centrally comes back to people. 'LGBTQ issues' and 'LGBTQ topics' are always about people. I feel as though the way it is now, as well as the use of 'topics' or 'issues', paints 'LGBTQ' as some sort of amorphous blob rather than something which does centrally have people at its centre. Based on that reasoning, I don't think the use of 'people' in the title precludes anything already in this article from being there. Beejamjam (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I largely agree. Even the section LGBTQ and Wikipedia § LGBTQ coverage is substantially framed around people—hiring efforts at WMF, LGBTQ peoples' experience finding content, issues and incidents related to coverage of individual trans subjects, etc. I can sorta see where "people" feels a bit narrow but for the most part I do not understand the objections. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with LGBTQ people and Wikipedia (or Wikipedia and LGBTQ people which I just think sounds nicer); I agree that "topics" is narrowing in scope, but I think "people" is fine. A lot of the coverage of LGBTQ topics on Wikipedia is of LGBTQ people (with very limited exceptions such as Homosexual behavior in animals which isn't the subject of this article anyway), so that still fits in my opinion. Another option which might be appropriately nonspecific is LGBTQ treatment on Wikipedia (covers treatment of LGBTQ people and topics while technically being grammatical) but I don't like this because I find it somewhat convoluted and it might get confused with medical treatment. Perhaps a better option is LGBTQ matters on Wikipedia (basically "issues" but without the connotations). lp0 on fire () 17:38, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If we do go in that direction, I'd prefer an "and" to the "on" (LGBTQ matters and Wikipedia or Wikipedia and LGBTQ matters, simply because with "on" it sounds like a declarative statement (bumper sticker: "LGBTQ matters on Wikipedia!") which, while it's actually a true statement, is not what we're going for here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That's fair; I'd be fine with that as well. lp0 on fire () 17:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "matters" though I can't quite put my finger on what I dislike about it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Likewise. An alternative would be "affairs" but that's even worse in ny opinion. lp0 on fire () 23:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

"LGBTQ matters" is ambiguous - matters could be a verb (so then we're back to the grammar problem). I don't hate "affairs." Heterochromia (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I had that thought, too. Also that both matters and affairs could be read as a double entendre, or simply misread. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What about LGBTQ people on Wikipedia? It's a little unorthodox but would encompass both LGBTQ contributors and coverage of LBGTQ people, and by extension coverage of other LGBTQ topics. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

My feeling is that it doesn't spread well; not all the relevant articles are about people, they're about laws... and I expect you'll say that those laws are about people, but that takes it a genuine level of abstraction away. Plus, it's like the problem I had with the "editing" option above; we're using two definitions of "on Wikipedia" to make this work, and that's clever rather than reasonable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've still not seen anything better than LGBTQ people and Wikipedia, which now has more support here than any of the alternatives proposed so far. I find and better than on but the primary objection is similar—that the coverage of LGBTQ topics on Wikipedia is too far removed from "people". If the subjects are too disparate to come up with a cohesive, grammatical title then perhaps these should be split. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I do not have an answer. I have another request though. There is also Wikipedia in India, which I think is the only comparable article for "interaction between Wikipedia and a demographic", and Health information on Wikipedia, which is comparable to this LGBT+ article for topical focus. There is Category:Wikipedia by country which is not currently populated, but I think we have arrived at the point where "Wikipedia x demographic" passes WP:N for 20 countries and maybe 10 cultural groups. It probably is premature to rename this article to conform to a class of articles which do not yet exist, but is there a title framing where India, LGBTQ, and medicine could be put into a single category? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe? Categorization is fundamentally about content and not titles. Some categories lend themselves naturally to a consistent article title format (Foo in Country) and some do not so easily. And some articles with similar title formats do not belong in the same categories. Any category we might find will surely be populated by article titles consisting of nouns, modified nouns, and noun phrases, and not dangling adjectives as we use here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What about The LGBTQ community and Wikipedia? Gets at both the people aspect (LGBTQ community members who edit Wikipedia) and the topic aspect (how Wikipedia treats the LGBTQ community). Heterochromia (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not completely sold but something along these lines could work. This would seem to cover both coverage of and experiences of (members of ) the community, though folks who oppose LGBTQ people may see this as having the same problems. I have some mixed feeling about using LGBTQ community in Wikivoice. I don't usually object to it personally but I sometimes find it a little 'off' (cringe, even) when I encounter it in the wild, depending on context. It also runs afoul of WP:THE. There may be an argument that the subtly changes the connotation as opposed to LGBTQ community and Wikipedia, which doesn't sound quite right. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

That last issue can be resolved by reordering to Wikipedia and the LGBTQ community, but I agree we probably don't want to lump all LGBTQ people into a community. lp0 on fire () 16:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm much in line with you on cringing at "community" in such uses; one can be perfectly LGBTQ in isolation, part of LGBTQ populace without being in any community. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

The biggest concern of having a noun phrase here is because it limits its scope to either things or beings (inanimate vs animate). If we decide into something other than LGBTQ people, LGBTQ (disambiguation) should be moved to LGBTQLGBTQ or retarget LGBTQLGBTQ somewhere else. Dudzcar (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

What to do with these other pages is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I disagree with this analysis. Multiple things can be true:

1. In standard English, LGBTQ is an adjective and in following standard conventions, it must modify something whenever it appears in our articles, including in titles.
2. It is common shorthand and in informal, unedited writing and speech to use LGBTQ to mean LGBTQ people. The same would be true if we mixed up there/their/they're or used an ⟨'s⟩ to mark a plural,
3. An adjective can have a primary topic, even if that adjective can in principle modify many things, and it follows from (2) that LGBTQ people is the primary topic for LGBTQ.

If there is truly no grammatical title that satisfies some editors and covers the current scope of the article, this raises the question of whether the article has become a WP:COATRACK and should be WP:SPLIT. I think it is reasonably coherent but if the argument against a grammatical title is that this article is about all "things and beings" LGBTQ that cannot be coherently described, that suggests a problem of scope and content. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but If there is truly no grammatical title that satisfies some editors and covers the current scope of the article, this raises the question of whether the article has become a WP:COATRACK and should be WP:SPLIT. doesn't feel quite right to me. The title LGBTQ people and topics on Wikipedia (or LGBTQ editors and coverage on Wikipedia) is grammatical and accurate, but it's unwieldy so we should find a better title if one exists. If the sources cover the two topics together, it could well be appropriate for us to do so as well (if sources don't cover the two topics together, having an article on both is of course WP:SYNTH). lp0 on fire () 20:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Before a split, we might consider making sure this entry is fleshed out to its fullest potential. I think there are quite a few sources shared here on the talk page that have yet to be folded into the article. @Historyday01 and MyCatIsAChonk: I want to make sure this discussion is on your radar, given previous work and in case you are interested in adding more sources shared above. I don't feel strongly about a different article title if editors can come to an agreement, but so far I am not seeing a clear consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus for a specific title, although LGBTQ people and Wikipedia has more support than any other alternative that has been raised, despite being rejected previously. I feel strongly that the current title cannot stand and my hope here is to either (1) get consensus for a change or, more likely (2) identify one or two proposals with at least some support to take to RM. I agree with you and lp0 on fire, we should look at sources and, if needed, update the article to confirm the current scope is appropriate as this will be critical to both the title and split determinations. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if splitting into LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia and LGBTQ community and Wikipedia would yield two appropriate and helpful entries. Perhaps LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#LGBTQ_coverage could be LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia and LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#Wikimedia_movement + LGBTQ_and_Wikipedia#Harassment could be LGBTQ community and Wikipedia? One issue is the Wikimedia movement section is obviously not specific to Wikipedia, so LGBTQ community and the Wikimedia movement, per Wikimedia movement? These would be two relatively shorter articles, but that would address with COATRACK issue and there are many more sources to fold into the mix. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:56, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep circling back to the idea that a split is the right option. And to @Lp0 on fire's earlier point, it's not exactly that the article title is driving that determination, more that the challenge in arriving at a satisfactory title reveals the underlying problem. I do have some WP:PAGEDECIDE concerns about the size of each resulting article as well as some WP:OVERLAP although I think there is a strong case that both topics are notable and sufficiently distinct. It also appears there is a real opportunity to expand one or both subtopics. As for the appropriate titles if we were to split, I prefer LGBTQ topics on Wikipedia over LGBTQ coverage on Wikipedia. Even a longer title like Coverage of LGTQ topics on Wikipedia reads better to me but that reduces to the more concise LGBTQ topics on Wikipedia. I'm not a huge fan of LGBTQ community here and I'm not sure why it is better than people. @Heterochromia proposed a similar title for this article above. And as for the Wikimedia content, it's already in here under the Wikipedia title. On one hand, Wikimedia may be a more accurate/inclusive title. On the other hand, most of the WMF coverage in this article is specific to Wikipedia-focused efforts including edit-a-thons, (Wikipedia) editor recruitment, WikiProjects (which mostly operate on Wikipedia), etc. so I think a Wikipedia title is justified. For the purposes of this article, Wikimedia is a subtopic of Wikipedia. If there is limited coverage of LGBTQ people, topics, or "issues" at the foundation itself or specific sister projects, I think that could reasonably be included as a subtopic or related topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear; I'm not saying we shouldn't split these, just that we shouldn't split them because of title issues, which I now see isn't what you were suggesting. lp0 on fire () 16:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I understood what you meant and realized I had not properly articulated my view. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

LGBTQ contents and Wikipedia would be the wider one, thinking of Category:Contents. People are within Physical objects category. Philosophically, people are managed by abstract entities and, biologically, people belong to sets of bacteria (flesh-and-blood bodies), in data science, these things are referred as items, or elements (observations and its variables) in statistics, subjects that are sometimes grammatical objects in linguistics as well, concepts indirectly tied to lifes and non-living peoples in material world (intradimensional omniverse, tangible or accessible). LGBTQ life would be a nice title affix but there are also deaths. Dudzcar (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't LGBTQ people largely cover this? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Your question reminds me of WP:UMD/WP:ISATERMFOR. LGBTQ topics refer to LGBTQ people; LGBTQ people are described through LGBTQ topics. Dudzcar (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

And of course we have the separate article LGBTQ (term). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• RM started below at Talk:LGBTQ and Wikipedia#Requested move 7 August 2026. The discussion here has gone stale for nearly a month without generating a title that has any more support that LGBTQ people and Wikipedia. Thus, I am moving forward to seek broader community input while leaving open the possibility of finding alternative titles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2026

LGBTQ and Wikipedia → LGBTQ people and Wikipedia – or LGBTQ people on Wikipedia or any reasonable alternative. The current title is ungrammatical and nonsensical. LGBTQ is an adjective that must modify a noun. When used as a noun, it is singular. We would never title an article Lesbian and Wikipedia or Queer and Wikipedia. Usage as a noun is also nonstandard, whether plural or singular. We would not use Blacks (to refer to Black people) or (the) gays in an article title. LGBTQ is also, of course, an abbreviation; the expanded title Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning and Wikipedia is nonsensical. This title was previously rejected in the 2023 RM but in a more recent discussion above at #Article title, LGBTQ people and Wikipedia received more support than any other proposed alternative. Please review the last RM and #Article title discussion for additional background. Even a longer, descriptive grammatical title such as LGBTQ people and topics on Wikipedia would be an improvement over the current non-standard title.

Wikipedia has very few article titles containing LGBTQ and. Most are proper names or are otherwise grammatical, or are redirects from former titles that have been corrected. The move in a number of recent RMs has been to correct titles that use an 'dangling' LGBTQ that does not modify a noun. For example:

• Talk:2022 Hungarian anti-LGBTQ referendum#Requested move 4 July 2026
• Talk:LGBTQ people in association football#Requested move 26 June 2026
• Talk:Autism and LGBTQ people#Requested move 16 October 2025
• Talk:Modern paganism and LGBTQ people/Archive 1#Requested move 22 January 2025
• See also : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBTQ in Mexico (disambiguation) (not an RM but similar issues were discussed) (added to list 18:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC))

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

•      Ping participants in recent #Article title discussion: @Another Believer @Beejamjam @Bluerasberry @DanielRigal @Dudzcar @Heterochromia @Lp0 on fire @NatGertler. Please ping anyone I may have missed inadvertently! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support either move, with a slight preference for and over on to avoid potentially narrowing the scope even more. There are issues with this move, but we can't just wave our hands and pretend "LGBTQ and Wikipedia" is good English. The brainstorming linked above didn't find anything better than the proposals brought here, so we're stuck with this. lp0 on fire () 17:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
•      RM notices placed at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Discussion also listed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Style discussions elsewhere. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support either move with preference for the and option; similar reasoning to @Lp0 on fire. Beejamjam (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support specifically for and with a major openness to something even better, if it can be found. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support (and). The current title seems ungrammatical. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support a change. Even if "LGBTQ" were treated as a noun, the title would require "LGBTQs". But that's at best casual usage; in writing like ours, "LGBTQ" is an adjective, as amply demonstrated by the article itself (other than one appearance of "LGBTQ-related"). "On" is fuzzy: what does it mean for a person to be "on" Wikipedia? As an editor, I'd say that I'm "on" Wikipedia, but I wouldn't say that Rock Hudson is "on" Wikipedia. "And" seems to me a better fit for this article that covers both Wikipedia participants and biography subjects. But ... doesn't this article also cover non-people articles like Stonewall riots? Stonewall riots is not a person. So I'm not sure "people" is a correct choice. At the moment, though, I'm not coming up with a clearly suitable alternative. "LGBTQ issues and Wikipedia"? That would call for "issues" to be understood to include issues experienced by LGBTQ editors as well as LGBTQ issues in the world. Largoplazo (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, Stonewall riots is not a person, though the Stonewall riots at least involved people. I feel as though using "issues" would exclude LGBTQ things that aren't issues, like a significant amount of the Wikimedia movement section of the article. See my argument in the #Article title conversation! Beejamjam (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Which ends us up in something like Wikipedia and LGBTQ people & issues, which is a mess. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  In prior discussions about this and other titles, some editors have had, well, issues with the word issues. One concern is that it can be synonymous with problems or can otherwise have a negative connotation. Thus it may impart a negative framing to an article and may even exclude seemingly positive developments. Editors have raised some extended concerns related to this, such as feeding into an idea that LGBTQ life is overwhelmingly riddled with discrimination, tragedy, and other issues; or that it implies there is an LGBTQ issue in society that needs solving. I don't personally read it that strongly, and I am not making that case here, but acknowledging a common set of objections. I think the broader issue you raise is right, that issues just doesn't seem quite right when what we mean is people (and topics related to said people). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  My perception is that LGBTQ as a noun here is used in inanimate singular (a concept similar to generic you), because English is not a pro-drop language. But since it’s supposed to be animate, then you’re kind of right, I guess. Dudzcar (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• How about LGBTQ topics and Wikipedia or Wikipedia and LGBTQ topics? It would refer on the meta level to Wikipedia's coverage of LGBTQ topics. The other part of the article's content is about LGBTQ editors, which is also an LGBTQ topic in the same sense as in which it is one of the topics of this article. (I hope this makes sense...) As for the ordering, I actually feel putting Wikipedia first is more natural, compare Christianity and science, Islam and democracy, etc. just to name some random examples. Somehow having the group first and the topic second feels more right to me. This is not a strong preference on my part, though. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Topics doesn't really cover the experience of LGBTQ editors or WMF's efforts to recruit LGBTQ staff and editors. I think people is inclusive of (most) topics but not the other way around. Although as Largoplazo points out above, LGBTQ people may be read as narrowing the scope, which may be more appropriate to the article's current content. I'm open to alternatives but LGBTQ topics has not gained much traction in prior discussions. As for the word order, I don't have a strong preference. WP:AND says we should default to alphabetical order unless there is a good reason to choose a different order. One argument I've seen is that Wikipedia and is more common in article titles, but in reality usage is pretty close between the two. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  My point is that "the experience of LGBTQ editors" and "WMF's efforts to recruit LGBTQ staff and editors" both are wikt:topics. They're not topics of Wikipedia articles, but they are topics in the general sense, topics that are covered in this article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with what you've said above, as stated. The general feeling has been that LGBTQ topics and/on Wikipedia implies something a bit different, but with more participation perhaps a different view will emerge. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  In an attempt to cover something new in relation to this, I'd also like to highlight that articles that mention "LGBTQ topics" in the title are mostly list articles (such as LGBTQ topics in Singapore), save for two articles; Hinduism and LGBTQ topics and Pope Francis and LGBTQ topics. This is in contrast to titles mentioning "LGBTQ people", all of which are not lists. This isn't so much an argument to stick with precedent, but that 'topics' appears to suggest to people that the article would be a dry list rather than a fleshed out article. Beejamjam (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The majority of this article is not about "LGBTQ people on Wikipedia" or "LGBTQ topics on Wikipedia". It is mostly about "LGBTQ communities editing Wikipedia". The current title encompasses both the LGBTQ content and the LGBTQ editorial community which develops the content. LGBTQ is a noun, and it is good enough and better than LGBTQness or LGBTQism. The point of language is to be understood and the current title is understandable, and I prefer clarity over an attempt to conform to grammar rules. If there is a title change, then how about LGBTQ culture and Wikipedia? Bluerasberry (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Communities are composed of people so I don't think we should rule out "people" just for that reason. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And topics and communities and culture are clearly nouns. Maybe some people use LGBTQ as a noun, but it seems at least primarily an adjective. Personally, I don't think I would use it as a noun, and I notice that even the people saying that it could be a noun are not using it as a noun in their comments (except for references to the word as a word). Semi-off-topic comment/question: perhaps one could theoretically say "She is LGBTQ", similar to the way one might say "I am cold" or "His shirt was green", but I think that's different; is that a noun use of cold and green? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Adverb, see wikt:cold#Adverb Dudzcar (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Even for the shirt? There is no wikt:green#Adverb meaning provided. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof it's figurative; the shirt is not green, the shirt is painted with the color green, so you dropped of from "His shirt was of green [color]", if that makes sense.

So for the cold; the grammatical person of self (first person) can be cold figuratively or that the body feels cold around the environment, from more than the common evolutive habit. Semantic accuracy is about words and numbers: they never lie, our perception is just limited. Dudzcar (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree; they're adjectives, which is fine because the verb to be takes a subject complement, not an object. lp0 on fire () 18:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I see what that article calls a "predicative adjective", with the example "The lake is tranquil." That seems similar. Perhaps a better example is "I feel cold" rather than "I am cold". Sorry for the distraction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying the first person is a grammatical object instead of grammatical subject after all? Learning about the impersonal in Sumerian makes a difference. Dudzcar (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

These are adjectives. Language is funny, and not entirely consistent, because grammar isn't math. For words like lesbian that commonly function as nouns and adjectives, I find She is lesbian awkward and unencyclopedic even if strictly speaking it can be correct. In speech or informal writing I might notice it but would not dwell on it. On Wikipedia, I would correct it. Contrast with {She is American; She is an American}. These are equivalent and both are commonly used and sound fine. On the other hand, She is a French sounds wrong. Also compare: {She is Black; She is African American; She is a Black; She is an African American}. And again, if we are going to use LGBTQ as a noun, then we have to consider whether it is singular and plural. Here again we might consider words like lesbian or Muslim that can be nouns or adjectives. We would speak of (and write about) Islam and Wikipedia or Muslims and Wikipedia, not Muslim and Wikipedia. To the broader point raised by my nomination and Blueraspberry's response, following standard English conventions and using phrasing that "sounds right" is a service to readers. I find the current title of this article jarring, even if I can make sense of it, and I know I'm not the only one. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support a move. Out of the two names I slightly prefer LGBTQ people and Wikipedia. Neither name seems perfect but clearly either is better than the current one. It might be that we end up moving to an even better name in the future but, unless anybody can suggest that better name now, this is a step in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• I must say I favour LGBTQ community and Wikipedia over LGBTQ people and Wikipedia. But thinking of Simple English and Plain language, people is more recognizable (knowable or understandable) than community. Dudzcar (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I would prefer to avoid LGBTQ community, which we define as "LGBTQ individuals united by a common culture and social movements." That would be a real limitation on the article, as many of the topics being discussed don't rely on communitiness. This article talks about our articles on sexual health, for example, and AIDS does not discriminate on you being a part of a social movement. It talks about harrassment of individuals based on their perceived sexuality or gender, whether or not they are part of a culture or social movements. While there are things that can very much be seen as a matter of community, to put all LGBTQ+-related material in that bucket carries a point-of-view. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's kind of circular reference and internal pedantism. Dudzcar (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I could argue either way but I think it's fair to say that Nat raises issues that are prone to being read into community, whether or not it is universally read that way. Nat's objections are at least partly consistent with your concern that LGBTQ community may be less recognizable, in that it can be read/understood different ways. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  My objection isn't based in how we define community, I just pointed to that as an example that it is not seen to accomodate all LGBTQ individuals. As another editor stated above, "we probably don't want to lump all LGBTQ people into a community". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Is it not already lumping them together by calling them LGBTQ in the first place? If someone identifies as LGBTQ, then surely they also identify as part of the community, since the acronym literally means the combination of all the separate identities? Fofxequals0 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  There's a difference between lumping them together and lumping them into a community, which indicates a relationship. You can be gay and even identify as such without being part of the gay community. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but if someone identifies as gay but not with the gay community, then I would imagine they don't identify with LGBTQ either? Fofxequals0 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  If someone is gay then they are by definition LGBTQ since the G stands for gay. It's still entirely possible that they've never engaged with a community of other queer people. lp0 on fire () 22:14, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  +1. Changing Wikipedia to Wikipedia community would have a similar narrowing effect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't view these as comparable, considering Wikipedia is one entity, whereas LGBTQ is a combination of multiple entities in an acronym. Fofxequals0 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Both indicate a level of cohesion among the people discussed that is narrower than the actual scope of the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  LGBTQ isn't a community, it is a set. You don't need to identify as being LGBTQ it to be part of that set. The LGBTQ community is a subset of that set. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Community may not be the best choice of word; collectivity is better however it’s uncommon in English. Dudzcar (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support LGBTQ people and Wikipedia. Heterochromia (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Lean support: I personally think LGBTQ community and Wikipedia sounds better, although it seems others have concerns. Any of the listed options are probably better than the current title though. Fofxequals0 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)