Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories

message: I have some thoughts on the "People" categories and I'd like some feedback:
=== By location ===
The category of LGBT people by country is useful specifically for the location, for reasons of culture, laws, history, etc.  In other words, categorizing "LGBT people from Transylvannia" is useful; while the category "Bisexuals from Transylvannia" is less useful.  The only reason to break up the "LGBT people by country" category would be if there were too many articles, and even that is not necessarily a sufficient reason.
=== By occupation ===
Sexuality and occupation often intersect in interesting ways.  Gay politicians, for example, have specific hurdles to overcome.  The sexuality of lesbian writers often shapes some of their writing.  Likewise, bisexual musicians may make reference to their sexuality in their music.
How a person's location and their sexuality intersect is covered in the previous section ("By location"), so if an occupational category needs to be broken into smaller components, it makes sense to break it down by sexuality and gender.  For example, the category "LGBT widget makers" should be broken into "Gay widget makers" and not "LGBT widget makers from Transylvannia".
=== Comments ===
Thoughts? Comments? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I've said above (and as the guideline you cited seems to say), I don't think sexuality or gender identity should be used as a defining characteristic for categories where it isn't relevant to the topic. On that basis, I would not use any of the LGBT location categories; however I agree with you about the occupation categories (but only for those occupations where, like the ones you mention, sexuality is likely to be a relevant factor). Just my opinion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexuality *is* relevant to location, due to specific laws, LGBT resources, "gay villages", institutionalized homophobia, etc.  Though I'm not really questioning any specific category in this - I'm trying to get an over-arching framework that individual categories can fit in. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with your proposals above (and think LGBT people categories are useful). --Alynna (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I basically agree and want to note that we do have the possibility to list, for instance, Jane Smith as both an LGBT people from Scotland as well as Bisexual people from Europe, this would help appease my concerns of bisexual erasure and as each category grows they can birth new children. Banjeboi 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose they could, though my 'druther would be to have Jane in "LGBT people from Scotland" as well as "Bisexual writers".  Subcategorizing by sexuality and location, IMO, is not helpful and really should be discouraged.  FWIW, I feel the same way about LG and T, so there's no bias about that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you're saying - my concern is that we don't further the marginalization of non-"gay" identified communities - and there are a lot - and one way is to ensure that we have them in a general LGBT category (unsure which one makes the most sense) as well a s a more definitive l, g, b , t, i category so those looking for such information can have a chance of finding it. Banjeboi 07:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I would contact Bearian, Otto and a few other LGBT friendly folks who know the way through CfD and LGBTI issues. We're not in a rush but I'm also not thinking of any parallel wikip[edia examples that quite fit that we have a variety of ways of seeing the various and overlapping LGBTI communities. I think there is rough concensus that LGBT is the parent and that occupation and location as well as a L, G, B, T and I cat for those that fit into them are helpful - and I would say pretty important. Beyond that I'm not seeing some intuitive system as of yet. My hunch is that once we do start reorganizing we should create a "LGBT category" mainspace banner of sorts so that those who actually look at any of the LGBT cat pages can follow a link to  page that gives a simplified rationale and direction for adding people to cats. "Per _____ policy 'cats should be clearly supported by content' and per ____ policy 'content about sexual minorities must be reliably sourced'. Below are some guidelines to help determine which if any categories are appropriate and how they are organized." Banjeboi 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bearian, and Otto were invited to participate a few weeks ago.  Perhaps you could nudge them?  They may be tired of hearing from me :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my ... well then lets start some initial proposals - I suggest do the obvious first but not sure what you feel is obvious to do - and see where it goes. Let's piece through it and keep plugging away at things that don't seem too revolutionary and then call in troups when we need more input. Doing a cat banner thingy was my brainspurt - should i work something up? Banjeboi 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be excellent!  I'll review the cats and see where upmerges and/or splits are needed and will see what might be easiest to do first. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT people 

message: Thoughts? Comments? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I've said above (and as the guideline you cited seems to say), I don't think sexuality or gender identity should be used as a defining characteristic for categories where it isn't relevant to the topic. On that basis, I would not use any of the LGBT location categories; however I agree with you about the occupation categories (but only for those occupations where, like the ones you mention, sexuality is likely to be a relevant factor). Just my opinion.--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexuality *is* relevant to location, due to specific laws, LGBT resources, "gay villages", institutionalized homophobia, etc.  Though I'm not really questioning any specific category in this - I'm trying to get an over-arching framework that individual categories can fit in. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with your proposals above (and think LGBT people categories are useful). --Alynna (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I basically agree and want to note that we do have the possibility to list, for instance, Jane Smith as both an LGBT people from Scotland as well as Bisexual people from Europe, this would help appease my concerns of bisexual erasure and as each category grows they can birth new children. Banjeboi 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose they could, though my 'druther would be to have Jane in "LGBT people from Scotland" as well as "Bisexual writers".  Subcategorizing by sexuality and location, IMO, is not helpful and really should be discouraged.  FWIW, I feel the same way about LG and T, so there's no bias about that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you're saying - my concern is that we don't further the marginalization of non-"gay" identified communities - and there are a lot - and one way is to ensure that we have them in a general LGBT category (unsure which one makes the most sense) as well a s a more definitive l, g, b , t, i category so those looking for such information can have a chance of finding it. Banjeboi 07:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: How can we go about getting more opinions on this whole category structure?  Or should I compile a list of "what needs to happen"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would contact Bearian, Otto and a few other LGBT friendly folks who know the way through CfD and LGBTI issues. We're not in a rush but I'm also not thinking of any parallel wikip[edia examples that quite fit that we have a variety of ways of seeing the various and overlapping LGBTI communities. I think there is rough concensus that LGBT is the parent and that occupation and location as well as a L, G, B, T and I cat for those that fit into them are helpful - and I would say pretty important. Beyond that I'm not seeing some intuitive system as of yet. My hunch is that once we do start reorganizing we should create a "LGBT category" mainspace banner of sorts so that those who actually look at any of the LGBT cat pages can follow a link to  page that gives a simplified rationale and direction for adding people to cats. "Per _____ policy 'cats should be clearly supported by content' and per ____ policy 'content about sexual minorities must be reliably sourced'. Below are some guidelines to help determine which if any categories are appropriate and how they are organized." Banjeboi 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bearian, and Otto were invited to participate a few weeks ago.  Perhaps you could nudge them?  They may be tired of hearing from me :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my ... well then lets start some initial proposals - I suggest do the obvious first but not sure what you feel is obvious to do - and see where it goes. Let's piece through it and keep plugging away at things that don't seem too revolutionary and then call in troups when we need more input. Doing a cat banner thingy was my brainspurt - should i work something up? Banjeboi 05:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be excellent!  I'll review the cats and see where upmerges and/or splits are needed and will see what might be easiest to do first. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poke 

message: Clinton Kelly has on his website an "interview" that he gives himself (that is, he asks the questions then answers them himself). He asks if he is gay, answers by saying it's no one's business, etc., acting as if he won't answer, then he says in reference to the question "duh". A number of us feel that is confirmation enough to state that he is openly gay. Some, however, do not, and every so often someone deletes the paragraph/category from the article, and perhaps even the talk page discussion. What do you all think? (Feel free to move this if you think it would be better on the main project talk page.) Aleta Sing 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's doesn't deny it, and the "duh" *can* be taken to mean he's gay.  But since that can be considered WP:SYNTH, having the Washington Blade ref with it makes sense. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, duh! ;-) I was forgetting we had that other reference. Someone is trying to delete the information even with the Blade reference there. Aleta Sing 18:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a specific case: [[Clinton Kelly (TV personality)]] 

message: Is :Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) an appropriate group-subject subcategory, as defined by Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Special subcategories. I can understand the use of a category for LGBT Republicans and LGBT anarchists (in view of some of the publications listed here), but "LGBT Democrats" does not seem to be a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". Thoughts? –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We sort of discussed that on the project talk page, and came to the conclusion the democratic one, at least, is not a good cat.  But no one's done anything about it. :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <whistles innocently>. :) –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a category for LGBT Democrats, just as there should be one for LGBT Republicans. Otherwise, that's discrimination against Log Cabin Republicans and others.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:LGBT Democrats (United States) 

message: I think perhaps another issue to consider in this category reorganization is congruence of categories in other language Wikipedias. For instance, in English :Category:LGBT actors is currently only a super-category composed of "from Country" categories and "Gay Actors," "Lesbian Actors," "Bisexual Actors," and "Transgender and transsexual actors."  However, if you check out the cross-language wiki links, in four other languages there is an analogous category which is directly populated without subcategories.  It's a little surprising that there aren't even more such categories. There doesn't seem to be such a category in German Wikipedia - there is sort of a catch-all category, :de:Kategorie:Homosexualität in der Kunst (Person), and a similar catch-all in Spanish, :es:Categoría:Cultura LGBT and French, :fr:Catégorie:Thème de l'homosexualité dans les arts.--Larrybob (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that no other language Wikipedia has more than a fraction as many articles as en: does; they can get away with less developed categories than we can because there just aren't as many articles to deal with. An unsubcatted catchall for all LGBT people would be absolutely unmanageable on en:, because we have exponentially more articles to categorize than any other language project does. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International category links 

message: While looking around at the profession categories I also noticed that :Category:LGBT-related media does not include :Category:LGBT-related_films, which is instead a child of :Category:LGBT portrayals in media, which is a child of :Category:Sexual orientation and society], which is a child of :Category:LGBT.  The film category also has siblings :Category:LGBT-related plays, :Category:LGBT-related television episodes, and :Category:LGBT-related television programs.  Now, both categories have links to each other; the Portrayals category says Portrayals of LGBT issues or themes in mainstream and non-LGBT media but includes this film category which has plenty of films made by LGBT filmmakers.  At the very least, I think that the film category should be added as a subcat of LGBT-related media.--Larrybob (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT Media-related categories

message: Hi, I created the LGBT mayors and LGBT politicians by country categories under the LGBT politicians category. An issue has been raised regarding the two categories' purposes insofar as what the LGBT WikiProject is concerned. So per User:SatyrTN, I offer my efforts on these and related articles and categories to the disposal and consideration of this WikiProject. --Toussaint (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi, on politician subcategories 

message: Category:LGBT civil rights has been changed to Category:LGBT rights. There was next to no discussion here. Is anyone aware of any recent discussion anywhere else about this change? Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category change 

message: Currently, categories such as :Category:LGBT members of the United States Congress or :Category:LGBT state legislators of the United States include all sorts of people who I don't think should be in there. In particular, they include people who came out after having held the office in question. Mark Foley, for example, came out after resigning from Congress in 2006 but has been added to the LGBT state legislators category because he served one term in the Florida House (1990–92) and two years in the Florida Senate (1992–94). Same goes for Barbara Jordan or Robert Bauman, neither of whom was openly LGBT when they served in the Texas and Maryland Senates, respectively.
I therefore propose that the LGBT politicians by office categories be reserved exclusively for people who were openly LGBT for at least part of the time that they held the office in question. I think it would be useful to agree on a guideline that could then be included on the cat pages in question. Any thoughts/suggested changes/objections? — Lincolnite (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with being less inclusive on that. I would still want them in the category so those looking can find that indeed those people are LGBT and indeed had political careers as well. Also you may be treading into ares of designer closets, although those folks may not have been publicly fully out they indeed may have been out to colleagues and family / friends, etc.  -- Banjeboi 12:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Also disagree — the category is actually less useful if there's no way to link it to prominent politicians who were closeted during their time in office but came out or were outed by reference sources later on. That model was the norm for LGBT politicians until quite recently, so the proposal would actually distort the context and usefulness of the category by making a large number of legitimately relevant entries uncategorizable. And I don't think there would be any value in having a separate category for "LGBT politicians who were closeted during their time in office", which would be the necessary complement to excluding them from this one. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about an "Openly LGBT politicians  in office" subcategory? For the minority of LGBT politicians who served at least part of their term as openly LGBT?--Tim Thomason 03:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT politicians by office