Talk:Lesbian bar

LGBT Bars

LGBT Bars get more harassment than heterosexual bars. Jojoanderson727 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Georgies

Should I add Georgies in Asbury Park if it is a general LGBTQ bar that has lots of non-lesbians but also a very very robust lesbian clientele? During weeknights especially? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bhdshoes2, from what I can find online about Georgies it seems to be more a gay bar that has lesbians among its clientele than an actual lesbian bar. You'd have to find reliable sources calling it a lesbian bar in order to include it. ABF992 (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it is not a lesbian bar per se, how an establishment like this is added to the article is as another sentence in the paragraph at the end of the Asbury Park subsection. Something to the effect of: Although not a lesbian bar, Georgie's is frequented by lesbians.<reliable source> Don't use words like robust and other hyperbolic expressions (see MOS:WTW). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

trim the list to notable?

The list is bloated and seems difficult to even use because of being ordered by city. I'd like to trim to those that have articles (or plausibly should) and then maybe make it into a sortable table? Valereee (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the more historical bars don't have articles, but they seem important to have, in the context of the history of lesbian bars, which this article discusses. I'd hate to see them disappear completely. ABF992 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

ABF, I think the way to go is, in the case of a bar you think plausibly should have an article, find at least one instance of sigcov, cite that, and redlink it. There were at one time hundreds of lesbian bars, and we aren't a WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The history is important, but if a particular bar was, well, just a bar, it's really just trivia. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No. And the list is not "bloated". Lesbian bars have always been marginalized establishments. We don't need to "trim" any bars from this article. The purpose of this article is to provide as much information about them to the general public. It makes sense to have information about individual lesbians bars, past and present, in different parts of the world. Lesbian bar is a subject structured as an article -- not a listicle. Have you viewed the Gay bar article, and do you have a desire to also trim it? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

PS, I know you know that's an OSE argument, c'mon. But FWIW, the list at gay bar includes only bars that have an article. Also only lesbian bars that have an article. I'm suggesting we trim this list to those that have or should have an article. And please assume good faith, I am here to improve this article -- I got here because I'd seen a story in the NYT about two new lesbian bars that had opened in LA, and I expanded the article with that story. That is how I ended up here, that is how I noticed the article needed work. And I shouldn't have to provide evidence that I'm not anti-recognition for lesbians and related topics, but the very first article I ever wrote was Valerie Taylor (novelist), also wrote The Girls in 3-B and Women's Barracks and multiple articles about notable lesbians. Literally have a google alert set up for Ann Bannon because I'll be damned if she dies without going on the ITN ticker. I am not trying to marginalize lesbian bars.

I'm fine with the section structured as prose rather than a list, though I do think a sortable table would be more useful for this particular info. I just think it doesn't provide the reader any information to know there were short-lived lesbian bars called Tabou, Klytz, G-Spot and Magnolia in Montreal without even a citation for that. That provides the reader with literally no more information than if we had made the name up. In fact someone could have just made those up, for all we know from the article. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

"Tabou, Klytz, G-Spot and Magnolia in Montreal without even a citation for that." Have you bothered to search for any sources that mention those establishments? Have you web searched within Canada? The {{Citation needed}} template exists in Wikipedia so that editors can seek and find sources for content that is not supported with them: "The addition of this tag is a request for an inline citation to support the tagged statement. If you are able to provide a citation to support the claim, then please do so. Except for contentious claims about living people, which should be immediately removed if not cited, there is no specific deadline for providing citations." Aside from WP:BLP, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that discourages the addition of content that is not readily accompanied by citations, nor subjects that do not currently have a Wikipedia article. This article has 127 cited sources, so far — this is not a weakly-sourced article. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 05:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a weakly sourced article. It's this one section I'm concerned about, and I am going to work on it. I hope you'd want to work with me. I'm not going to get into an argument over whether content generally needs sources; the assertion it doesn't actually kind of astounds me coming from someone with 20K edits over 15 years. Valereee (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"the assertion it doesn't actually kind of astounds me coming from someone with 20K edits over 15 years." The "math" is easy to do: if Wikipedia absolutely requires that sources must always be included at the same time that content is added to an article, then {{Citation needed}} would not exist in this project. It doesn't get any clearer than this: "there is no specific deadline for providing citations." Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 07:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll chip in again here, since I originally added some of these bars, especially the ones not in the U.S. My intent in doing that was to give a more global perspective of what lesbian bars are and have been. The 120- year- old New Moon cabaret in Place Pigalle in Paris was very different from say, Shanghai, which didn't open a lesbian bar until 2014. I like that we can get a sense of that from the breakdown by country that we now have in the article. It gives historians and scholars an opportunity to learn something about lesbian bar culture in that country. I've looked at the list you are creating and I'm not sure how you are organizing the bars and whether that sense of geography and global significance might not get lost with the way you are doing it. I'm not completely opposed to your list idea, just trying to figure out the best way to go forward. I am adding some refs as I find them, which you can transfer to your list if you want. I also see that you are already running into problems keeping some of the redlinked bars in your new list.

Another point: when we have a paragraph listing the various bars in San Francisco for example, as we do in this article, the reader really gets a sense of the number and diversity of bars that existed in specific time periods. Remove those paragraphs, remove the 'insignificant' "non-notable" bars, and you lose all that, and just end up with a list of names in a separate article.

ABF992 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I do want to make sure we maintain a global perspective. If a bar is the only one in a region or country or even just city, I think we can defend mentioning it as 'plausible claim to notability' even if we can't find much sigcov. But a lengthy list of non-notable bars in a town that had many seems like trivia to me. The reader is just as well-served by knowing there were more than a dozen in SF in the 90s, including [links to notable ones], as by seeing all the names listed.

I do think paras are the way to go here, since we now have the list of article. But for me this section is actually not formatted as paragraphs. It's sort of a combination -- formatted in lists of bulleted paras by city -- which makes it difficult to read. The reason the redlinks are causing pushback is that I basically transferred every bar in this article to that list, with the available refs, and many of them aren't very good refs. That list should be pared down, and it was part of my original plan: assume notability, and check, which is why I and others are checking the redlinked articles there and removing the ones that have neither RS sigcov nor a plausible claim. (You may have also noticed there's a personal element to the pushback, but that's irrelevant, as the other editor isn't ill-intentioned.) Valereee (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

ref type

@Pyxis Solitary, not sure what you mean by not using the same ref format. I'm using the one in Vis, and it seems to be formatted the exact same way all the others in this article are formatted. Vis Ed doesn't allow you to name the ref. I agree with you that it would be better if it did, I wish it had that field, I requested it long ago on phab, but the difference doesn't change anything for the reader. The only way I know to give a semantic name to the ref is to toggle back and forth between the two editors the second time you cite a particular ref. And could you please, please, please stop assuming bad faith? This edit summary is now the fourth time you've done that with me. I am here to improve the article, full stop. I've said that before, and that is exactly what I've been doing. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see the problem. You're using Visual Editor. Visual Editor was created to attract editors who were intimidated by wikitext and disinclined to contribute to Wikipedia because of it. But VE has many problems that are not encountered with Source editing. Ref names in this article use semantic value as instructed in Template:Refname rules > "Names should have semantic value, so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors who are looking at the wikitext. This means that ref names like "Nguyen 2010" are preferred to names like ":31337"." (examples of ref names used in this article: <ref name=Ingram1997>, <ref name=Schoppmann>, <ref name="Wolf">, <ref name=Serrano>, etc.). If you edited in Source and used the Source editor toolbar when citing sources (templates located under "Cite") you would be able to use semantic ref names automatically. I do not edit in the Visual screen precisely because of the built-in problems VE comes with. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Vis Ed is actually quite handy. I edited in source for well over a decade, but the benefits of Vis are pretty big. As I said, I wish VisEd allowed me to name refs, and I've asked for that long ago on phab. Valereee (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The solution to not being able to name refs because you're editing with VE is to go back into the article in Source screen and manually change ref numbers to names, as I have done. I know that many people like the easiness of Visual Editor; I compare VE to a 100 piece puzzle, while Source is a 1,000 one. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, go ahead. It's not something I think is the best use of my own time (it's fiddly, I end up introducing ref errors, have to find and fix them, etc.), but I certainly don't have an objection if you want to. Valereee (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lesbian_bar#List_of_lesbian_bars

I propose to trim Lesbian_bar#List_of_lesbian_bars to only those currently operatiing, and add rest to List_of_lesbian_bars.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• With an exception:
  bars that were the first "lesbian bar" in a city or region, or were groundbreaking (e.g. first bar owned and operated by a lesbian; first bar independent from Mafia connections), or that were important to the lesbian community, need to remain in the article to provide a historical perspective.
  However, based on your recent edits (1 2 3), I think you need to first learn how to edit correctly by observing how the text of an established article is written and formatted, and how sources in it are cited. WP:BOLD says everyone is encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia, but it also says that contributors need to be careful in how they edit articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 20:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Pyxis Solitary. In reworking this article, care must be taken so that the global and historical perspective provided by the current list does not get erased. One option would be to move some of the historical info, especially about other countries besides the US, to the main section. ABF992 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)