Talk:LGBT history in Georgia

Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

LGBT history in Georgia → LGBTQ in Georgia

Moved from Talk:LGBT rights in Georgia § Proposed merge of LGBT history in Georgia into LGBT rights in Georgia

Following the suggestion by Bungle, and basing what I did in LGBT in Korea, merge both and rename to LGBT in Georgia (or LGBTQ in Georgia, per WP:CONSUB of LGBTQ). --MikutoH ^talk! 01:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, and WikiProject History have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose procedurally, this is a DAB page. You should raise any such requests on the respective pages of the state or country. Raladic (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Why would I request a DAB be merged with the state or country articles? I couldn't understand your concern. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you're proposing to merge two DAB pages that discuss separate concepts.

  History and rights are separate articles respectively.

  Looking at the respective articles of the actual countries that the DAB page points to, they are both distinct and large, so I don't quite understand why we would want to merge this DAB page as it makes things less precise and in general, we prefer WP:PRECISION in article titles, not uncertainty. so this proposal seems counter to our article titling policies. Raladic (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal would amplify its scope. Did you notice it's also a rename request? And did you look at LGBTQ in Korea, the example I gave? --MikutoH ^talk! 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Also, if we keep it as is, we should create LGBT in Georgia for disambiguating the two dabs. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I added {{Redirect}} there for these reason, in case this results in keep. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw what you did at the Korea page and I'm not entirely convinced, and I think the relevant discussion to look at was Talk:LGBTQ_in_the_United_States_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_19_June_2024.

  In general having all these "LGBTQ in Foo" without a noun after LGBTQ to WP:precisefy what exactly to expect there is undesired.

  For the US pages, this was also re-affirmed in the Redirect for discussion that happened just a week or so ago Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_26#LGBT_in_the_USA, where we contiued to redirect those to the LGBTQ people in the United States with the other existing DAB page being LGBTQ in the United States (disambiguation), which was only created earlier this year, but again, it is questionable whether we need a disambiguation page for distinct article concepts, a broad concept article is generally preferred.

  So I think rather than having this splinter discussions now or diverging results for different countries, this should possibly be an RFC discussed directly at the WT:LGBTQ+ WikiProject to come up with something, as we have a varying degree of pages for various countries, some have a LGBTQ culture in X, some have LGBTQ people in X, some have LGBTQ rights in X and some have LGBTQ history in X.

  We don't however have the idea of a preferred WP:BROADCONCEPT article that ties all together (in some cases the LGBTQ people or LGBTQ culture in X act as them, but it might be worthwhile to discuss centrally if we should strive for having broad concept articles for each country, rather than a collection of DAB-pages that are titled "LGBTQ in X". We already have Categories for that instead such as Category:LGBTQ in Georgia (country), so there's no need to create duplicative and manually update-requiring "DAB" pages that just list different concept article pages of a country. Raladic (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that categories are for that, but this DAB are for two completely distinct places, different from most of "LGBTQ in Foo", so Category:LGBTQ in Georgia/Category:LGBT in Georgia can't exist.

  I agree that an RFC would be useful, but a concensus can come before it. I personally don't like these DABs, but since the LGBT in Russia discussion, I found they are necessary in some cases. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT in Poland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT in Israel show that WP:2DABS apply to these cases, except for Georgia. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) and WikiProject Georgia (country) have been notified of this discussion. --MikutoH ^talk! 02:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the LGBTQ in foo constructions are helpful, and we should be moving away from them rather than creating more. There are currently two dabs to disambiguate two separate ambiguous titles; no more is needed.--Trystan (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Move to LGBTQ history in Georgia to match the title of the disambiguated articles, per the recent consensus for the those moves to add the "Q". I weakly oppose the merge and move as proposed; while combined dab pages for similar terms are certainly a thing, I am not sure it makes sense in this case. We have separate articles for "rights" and "history" so best to have the disambiguation pages separated analogously. I think LGBT in Georgia (and LGBTQ in Georgia can simply redirect to LGBT rights in Georgia as it does currently, and the two dab pages can be linked to each other via see also sections (not via a hatnote). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. One of the two linked articles isn't specifically about history, so this is a more general DAB page. And contrary to what's written above, there is no reason to add a qualifier at all. "LGBTQ in Georgia" is concise and grammatical.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - both nom LGBTQ in Georgia and the merge, oppose the move if the merge is not also conducted - if we are going to merge the dab topics, I think this is a good place to start, and I also agree that an RFC would be pertinent. Fewer dabs referring to the same topic seems like a win to me - our readers will benefit from seeing all the articles we have on the topic on a single page instead of having to hunt around for them, and I agree that the proposed title is suitably concise. ASUKITE 15:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)