Category talk:LGBT people

message: I have this odd desire to make a category "straight people." Roscelese (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't be the first to try. But don't bother, unless you have a hankering to create something that will get speedy deleted before you can blink. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Winston Churchill and Isaac Newton would fall into the same historical debate area, it might be a good idea to see how those articles are dealt with. Tfz    19:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 

message: Keep to a guideline-compliant category definition, awaiting further discussion that may or may not lead to deviance of the guideline, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, my version also "clearly" defined the category, in my opinion, but you reverted it. Thus, you are not pressing to clearly define the category, you are pressing for YOUR version of clearly defining, which doesn't actually capture the way the category is used. The status quo should stay pending broader consensus as per BRD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Clearly define the category]] 

message: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Inclusion_criteria_for_Category:LGBT_people_category has been archived without attracting any additional contributors.
"significant part of the public life or notability" would probably work better than "significant part of the public life and notability" (e.g. Gerard Mortier). Maybe add "and subcategories" to the category definition. I see no other problems with this version A rationale for divergence from existing policy and guidelines has not been shown. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate discussion venue archived

message: Maybe adding something in this vein to the category definition:might provide additional clarity? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Indetermination

message: I'm thinking about starting :Category:LGBT people in and around the Bloomsbury Group:
* There's definitely literature about them, e.g. Virginia Woolf: Paper Darts: the Illustrated Letters (1991) by Frances Spalding; Deceived with Kindness (1984) by Angelica Garnett;  So, useful cross-section category.
* The category could be placed in :Category:Bloomsbury Group and :Category:LGBT people from England
* Could solve a lot of the ackward categorizations for the people listed above.
Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely literature about them as individual people. There's not much literary analysis, however, of what makes LGBT Bloomsburyites as a class a distinct topic from non-LGBT Bloomsburyites — which is the criterion that needs to be met to justify a category for this. See also WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, which militates against categories for "and around" association with a notable topic — if a person isn't properly categorized as having been in the Bloomsbury Group, then they don't get to be in any form of "indirectly associated with the Bloomsbury Group" category either. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied to these concerns at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_13#Category:LGBT_people_in_and_around_the_Bloomsbury_Group. (in short: these concerns should be checked but in truth are not causing any problems here, in fact the category I proposed above diminishes e.g. WP:OC#ASSOCIATED concerns that were existing for :Category:Bloomsbury Group. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't. OC#ASSOCIATED doesn't militate against filing people directly in  on the basis of an indirect association; indeed they shouldn't be, but OC#ASSOCIATED isn't the reason why. What OC#ASSOCIATED says that you can't do is create a separate category intended for "people indirectly associated with X". Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Francis, discussions about categorizations of an individual should happen on the individual's talk page. Very few editors watch this page. That said, i agree with Bearcat, you are attempting to enforce an understanding of LGBT + X categories which is unique to you and you alone, and does not match standard practice in any way. Also I'm confused as to your statement on whether  should be diffusing - I think you mean to say whether it should diffuse to it's subcats, and for that the answer is, yes absolutely, this should contain few, if any, biographies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re. "this should contain few, if any, biographies": agree, per the catdiffuse template. That's why I am still trying to find a suitable solution for Nicolson. Until there is,  should be no problem though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Category:LGBT people from England OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: → question moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#LGBT critics categorization? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: WP:COP#N is that part of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people guideline that talks about categorizing biographies along lines of notability and definingness.
Several changes to this part of the WP:COP guideline have been proposed, having, for instance, . Input welcome! 
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N
--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change proposals to WP:COP#N relating to LGBT categorizations 

message: Francis made a set of bold edits to the lede. Instead of reverting I tweaked the wording somewhat, but he undid that change. I suggest we discuss the changes I proposed here:
1) using Catmain in the normal way for the lists of people
2) removing the word 'significant' as that is not what BLPCAT says. Instead the word is 'relevant'
--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits were discussed at length, see above. No need to start yet another talk page thread on the same topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, and your edits gained no consensus Francis. I was attempting to find a compromise position. If you reject my compromise we will revert to the version pre-dispute and wait for others to weigh in. Your choice - what do you prefer?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated lede 

message: Afaics (all) Radical Faeries consider themselves part of LGBT(Q). The same can not be said about non-binary people, as explained above. For genderqueer, I suppose people identifying as such would usually identify as Queer, so I see no need to mention them separately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Faeries 

message: There is currently a discussion related to this category at WT:CAT/EGRS#Issues with LGBT, LGBT people, and Queer categories. Please feel free to join the conversation. EvergreenFir (talk) Please  01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion related to this category

message: See recent edit history of this category page. Since :Category:LGBT has :Category:Human sexuality as a parent, :Category:LGBT people should have :Category:People by sexuality as a parent, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Parent category