Talk:Agender

October 2025

Has enough attention to be an article. For example registering for the Queering Wikipedia Conference 2025 has agender listed as one of 6 options, seperate to non-binary. Showing there is some consensus among wikipedians that it should be seperated Pencilceaser123 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: I have read the sources and most of the details are overlapping. I suggest for adding it in a related page as a section if not there already or keeping it, if detailed research directly on the subject is available. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 12:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Note to AFC Reviewers: This draft is for a title that was previously an article, but was then cut down to a redirect. If this draft is accepted, the history should be preserved. Do not tag the redirect for G6.
  If you find that this draft should be accepted, and do not have the Page Mover privilege, please request assistance in moving the redirect to preserve the history.
  Reviewers should check the history and verify whether there was a consensus to cut the article down to a redirect, or whether the action was taken boldly without discussion. If there was a consensus for the cutdown, do not accept this draft without verifying that the draft improves the article or that consensus has changed. If in doubt, please discuss.
  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 05:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a former mayor, a particle physicist, and a video game character are among those who have no gender?

• Source: see article, will probably need to find some

• • Reviewed: Dreamer Isioma and WCPN
  • Comment: For the upcoming transgender day of remembrance thematic set. I know this is a few days over, but I think this important enough to include that I'll burn a QPQ for a chance at an exemption. Open to alternative hook suggestions :)

Moved to mainspace by CycoMa2 (talk), Pencilceaser123 (talk), and Rusalkii (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 77 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:15, 7 November 2025 (UTC).

•  Working, I'll review this. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - The sentence "However, it is believed[by whom?] the term as referring to a gender identity appeared in the early 2000s." is not sourced, nor are most of the persons listed in the 'Notable agender people' section.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article was moved to mainspace 28 October 2025 and nominated 7 November 2025. I'm exercising discretion on newness per WP:DYKNEW. @Theleekycauldron: we need some sourcing for the sentence I identified above and for each person who is listed as agender in the section 'Notable agender people', particularly the ones mentioned in the hook. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• @TarnishedPath: Thanks for the speedy review and the leniency on the date! I've added citations and removed stuff that fails verification; invoking PLOTSOURCE for the fictional characters. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: there's a little bit of a conflict between WP:PLOTSOURCE and WP:DYKCRIT, with the latter demanding that "[t]he hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in". Given that the hook states a claim about one of those fictional characters, we need a citation at the very least for that character. Although, per WP:DYKFICTION it may be a good idea to leave the fictional character out of the hook and replace it with a real person. TarnishedPath^talk 05:42, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath: I would argue that PLOTSOURCE controls; it's guideline, and it doesn't say that plot doesn't need to be verified as much as it says that you can treat it as cited to the work, even if the citation isn't actually written down. As for DYKFICTION, i think it's interesting enough that agender people are starting to exist in the collective awareness of the video game world, which I think is something the average reader could reasonably glean from the hook. plus, it's a nice invocation of the rule of three; two real-world examples and then an unexpected third to finish. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I think I spent a bit longer than I meant to trying to cite the wrong line; added a secondary citation for Guilty Gear's Testament and it should check out now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

approved. Ps, I couldn't think of any other hooks when I was reading it before. Others might and if they propose anything, ping me and I'll review any alt hooks. TarnishedPath^talk 06:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Genderless people

Moved from user talk:Organhaver § Removal of Genderless people

"Hello!

I disagree with your (User:Organhaver)removal of genderless people from the agender page, genderless does not have its own page, with agender covering that, so agender people should go in that category in my opinion. I also included the public universal friend based on that same idea, as an early genderless person they could be included in that section.

Thank you!"

Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't especially see the need to move this discussion, but sure.

For the Public Universal Friend section, I really do not think it is necessary. PUB, yes, is genderless, but not strongly influential to the label of agender at all. They didn't have any part in popularizing the term. I just don't think they deserve a section based on all of this.

For the other people removed, they were both referred to as "non-binary" in sources. I do think that a genderless section could be added, since it's a synonym, but as of now there would only be one entry (PUB). I'll move them back into the main list, though, since I removed them before. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Ill have to double check the sources, as im sure I found some of them referring to them as genderless. I only moved it here just so other editors could see this discussion.

edit: regarding the PUB, the history section is not just about the origin of the term, but the history of agender people in general, so I dont see why the friend couldnt be in that sectionPencilceaser123 (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, are you still using that {{Under construction}} tag? 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Not editing right now, but I might do some major edits over the coming days or whatever. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, probably just add that template before you do so. Or, whatever works...

Also, I don't know if it actually went through, but I removed the see also template since it is primarily about fictional non-binary characters, not agender ones. I mean, I don't especially want readers to have to check through the entire list... if you think there's a good enough reason I can also see it being added back. Again, whatever works. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 04:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well its see also, not further information, its a related article that I think is relevant, and also for reasons of plotsource rules includes a bunch of agender characters that cant be included in this article. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agender/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pencilceaser123 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 15:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Failed good article nomination on June 21, 2026

Upon its review on June 21, 2026, this good article nomination was quick-failed because:

it contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags that are still valid,

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:26, 21 June 2026 (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.

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Agender/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pencilceaser123 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 15:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Excited to do this one. I will ping the nominator with the results after my initial review. Jishara (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pencilceaser123: First, thanks for nominating this article, it's very interesting. Just a few comments below - mostly in 1, 2, 3 - I put it on hold for updates. Let me know when you've gotten a chance to fix. Jishara (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Fixed everything and added some other stuff! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pencilceaser123: Great work. love the article. a followup spotcheck resulted in no spotted errors. it's approved. Jishara (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some repeats here - both Identity and Related Identities discuss demiagender and neutrois. Also, "indifferent towards their own gender identity, and may have no feelings toward one's gender identity" is also a bit repetitive, so please reword or shorten if possible. Tweaked a few of the smaller things such as capitalization, spelling... but please fix these bigger ones.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There are uncited line items (including Jazmin Bean), as well as an uncited chunk (The term agender also covers several related gender identities. Identities that fall under the agender label include demiagender and libragender, as well as identities similar to agender such as neutrois, among others.) (i'm not entirely sure if the source at the end of the subsequent sentence backs it up as I can't access that -if you can add an additional source at the end of the sentence). Spot check of 10 of the sources (5, 33, 35, 41, 13, 42, 2, 16, 19, 14) reveals no problems. Some sources are weaker, but all are being used for uses appropriate to their strength (for example, social media posts by someone for their stated identity, etc). No signs of copyvio and a check both by earwig and by me gives no copyvio signs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to not discuss libragender at all, despite it being listed as a subcategory of agender - perhaps adding a sentence or two in Related Identities or other sections?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Factual, encyclopedic, and neutral - no problems here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems reasonably stable - some minor edit discussions but nothing sufficient to jeopardize stability.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are all effective, used with relevant captions in relevant places, and have usable status.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold

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.