Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Categories

Categorization structure

It's my belief that the current (Aug 2008) LGBT category structure is broken. I'd like to see some consensus building and some modifications made to it, if there's a strong enough interest. If not, I may just be WP:BOLD, but it would be nice to have input from others. If you are interested, please say so here. BTW, if you're interested in the categories we currently have, take a look at WP:LGBT/CAT. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit much to get my head wrapped around. Any changes in particular? Banjeboi 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My belief is that the "People" and "Culture" sections desperately need re-thinking. The major issue in my opinion is that we're breaking categories down in two different ways. For instance, Category:LGBT media splits by geo-location (as in Category:American LGBT magazines) and by gender/sexuality (as in Category:Bisexual magazines).

That happens on the People categories as well - we split by occupation, then by geo-location (Category:LGBT writers from France) and by gender/sexuality (Category:Bisexual writers).

I feel like we (and here I mean WP:LGBT, not you and I specifically) are working That's against WP guidelines. Somewhere around the collection of WP:OCAT#NARROW, Wikipedia:CATGRS#Special subcategories, and Wikipedia:OCAT#Intersection by location we're running in to trouble.

Let me know what you think about all this. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I kinda see the issue but I also see that maybe having article X marked as both a Bi article and a LGBT article from France could benefit our readers looking for this information. Whatever we do I would hope that those looking specifically for bi focussed items or LGBT in France articles, etc. would easily find them. Otto and Bearian seem to do a lot of categorizing. Maybe ask for input as to what is the best ways to start restructuring. My first impression is to go slow and look for the best end results. The top categories do seem a tad confusing so there's certainly room for clarity here. Banjeboi 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get why we have these categories in the first place. Someone's sexuality or gender identity (not sure why T is lumped together with L, G and B anyway) is in most cases not a defining characteristic of the type we normally use to categorize articles. There might be categories for, for example, writers whose work significantly addresses sexuality and gender issues, but having a category for writers who happen to be L/G/B or T seems like both overcategorization and overemphasis.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CATGRS. If it's over-emphasis (and I don't agree that it is), it's to counter the systemic bias against sexuality and gender identity that has historically marginalized the sub-culture. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there it says that "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic", which is basically my point. I'm sure many of the existing LGBT etc. categories don't comply with that. And I'm not sure how creating Wikipedia categories (particularly the lump-them-all-together LGBT ones) can be hoped to counter marginalization of a subculture - particularly since there is more than one subculture involved, and many of the persons put into these categories might not identify or have identified with any of those subcultures. If these are to be culture-based categories then it should be made clear that they are to contain people who have/had particular cultural affiliations, not just people who are known to have been (e.g.) bisexual.--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're free to nominate any of the categories for deletion, if you choose, of course.

My understanding is that many of the occupational categories have been through CfDs, as have many of the location-specific categories. My personal belief is that the location categories benefit from being "lumped together" because the organizations and cultural groups in those locations are often "lumped together". For instance, LGBT community centers are location specific.

On the other hand, the occupation categories probably benefit from being broken out by sexuality/gender identity. Gay writers, for instance, write about different topics than transgender and transsexual writers.

Thanks for bringing up good points - this is exactly the kind of discussion these categories need to have :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say for those looking for information - for instance, LGBT musicians - don't care if those musicians are known for being LGBT as much as they share a defining characteristic that is interesting to the reader. Also categories can be organized differently than just parent-child cats so I can see that there might not be an "easy" fix although an intuitive system would likely help all concerned. Banjeboi 07:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The question though is whether it is a "defining" characteristic in the sense of Wikipedia categorization. Not every possible definable category is created (or the number would be vast) - only characteristics which are considered somehow "essential" to the topic should be used as a basis for categories. For other classes of topics, lists can be created (so there could be a category "Lists of LGBT people", and this would include for example a "List of LGBT musicians"). My feeling is that, while it's arguable that sexuality may be considered an essential characteristic of writers (though even that sounds rather stereotypey), it hardly is for musicians. --Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it certainly is for some but yes, perhaps not all. Banjeboi 10:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT people

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Poke

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think that the proposal regarding categories of LGBT people by location makes sense from the perspective of WP:CAT/GRS ("dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right"). However, there's one thing I couldn't quite figure out: why do the category titles follow the LGBT people from Foo format, as opposed to LGBT Fooians or Fooian LGBT people? "People from" tends to be used in subcategories of Category:People by place rather than Category:People by nationality.

As for the categories of LGBT people by occupation, I think the discussion in the "My take" section covers a lot of the points. While triple-intersections of sexual orientation, nationality, and occupation would constitute OCAT for most occupations (e.g. LGBT businesspeople from Iraq), the triple-intersection could be relevant for jurisdiction-specific occupations (e.g. politicians, rights activists, judges). I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I was asked to comment here, read the discussion, found it interesting, and wanted to try to contribute. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My take

My view is that it really depends on the individual situation. There are cases where the occupation-country subgroup is useful — there is merit, for instance, in having a group for Category:LGBT writers from the United States or Category:LGBT politicians from Canada, but Category:LGBT fashion designers and Category:LGBT radio personalities, conversely, are examples of where there isn't the same value in doing so.

The way I see it, such subgrouping is useful in cases where the national parent serves as a fundamental point of distinction between people (e.g. writers because there are significant cultural differences among different countries' national literatures, politicians because every country's system is very different), but not so useful in cases where the national parent is serving only as a convenience group (i.e. there's not really all that significant a difference between being a fashion designer from Canada and being a fashion designer from Sweden — in such cases, national categories serve less to tell you something important about their context and more to manage an occupational category's size. And if there's no encyclopedic difference between being a fashion designer from one country or the other in the first place, then there's no encyclopedic difference between being a queer fashion designer from one country or the other.)

I don't see a whole lot of value, personally, in insisting on a strict separation in which we can only apply "LGBT people from Country" and "LGBT occupation" as separate categories and never create intersected sets, however, because the intersected sets do serve some useful purposes: size management, cross-referencing to other categories (e.g. the fact that Category:LGBT writers from France is not just a subcategory of its intersected LGBT cats, but also of Category:French writers), and as I noted above there are cases where the intersected set does represent an encyclopedically significant grouping in its own right: LGBT literature from France is a distinct and independently notable subtopic of French literature and a distinct and independently notable subtopic of gay literature.

But again, not all of the possible occupational categories should necessarily exist, and even some that are legitimate shouldn't be subdivided. And I'd also say that an "LGBT X from Country" category should never be subdivided down to even more separate subgroups for Ls, Gs, Bs and Ts the way Category:LGBT actors from the United States, frex, has. That definitely should be reverted — there's just no way in hell that we need it.

My view is that occupation-country subcategories are valid if you could potentially justify a general "LGBT subject in country" overview on WP:CATGRS grounds: "LGBT literature in the United States" would be a valid article and category, so a subcategory for writers is okay, but you'd probably never get away with, say, "LGBT fashion industry in the United States". And it should also be valid in cases where an undifferentiated parent category would exceed the size at which any other category would get subdivided — I don't see a useful reason why we should exclude ourselves from usability concerns.

So here's my take on the occupational set:

• Keep rights activists, visual artists, journalists, military personnel (ask! tell!), musicians, politicians, sportspeople and writers. These categories do have a direct bearing on LGBT cultural and social history. Permit activists, artists, musicians, politicians and writers to be subdivided by nationality for the reasons I noted above, but it's likely not necessary for journalists or sportspeople. It might be valid for military personnel if we had more articles on them, but at present we don't.
• Delete businesspeople, fashion designers, judges, law enforcement workers, models and royalty. These categories don't really serve to identify an encyclopedically significant distinction between LGBTs and non-LGBTs in the same fields; they're much more clearly "hey, look, queer folk do these jobs too!" creations.
• We don't really need separate categories for radio personalities and television personalities, but they could probably be merged into Category:LGBT broadcasters.
• I'm ambivalent about actors (do we really need it at all?) and "ordained or vowed people of faith" (probably valid, but the name is iffy to me).

Anyway, that's my 12 cents at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A reply to your 12 cents (is that Canadian?)

First, you're probably right about businesspeople, judges, law enforcement workers, and models. I would argue that LGBT people practically built fashion, so fashion designers is valid. I can't think of WP:RS to back that up, but I'm betting they exist. And royalty should stay simply because volumes have been written about Edward II and Alexander the Great, just to name two examples. The encyclopedic value of that cat is fairly strong.

Second, I have a fairly strong concern on WP:OVERCAT. To explain, take the example that many screenwriters are actors, so there's a good chance we'd have the following list on a single person (and I can't pick one out, but I've seen this or something very similar):

• Category:LGBT people from Canada
• Category:LGBT writers from Canada
• Category:LGBT actors from Canada
• Category:Lesbian actors
• Category:Lesbian writers

That's the major reason I don't like splitting the "LGBT widget-makers" by country. Throw in the fact that writers (or actors) are often "LGBT activists" and/or musicians and you get a mishmash of 8 or more LGBT categories, which (IMO) dilutes the system and makes it useless.

Furthermore, I recommend that the "LGBT subject in country" test be *very* strict. While Category:LGBT literature in Canada is probably encyclopedic and okay for a category, the act of writing (whether you're gay or straight) is not all that different in Vancouver compared to Key West (barring temperature). Likewise making music or art.

That being said, politics *and* politicians in England are very different from politics and politicians in Australia. Those subcats (based on occupation and location) are probably valid and encyclopedic.

Specifically, I'd like to recommend:

• Keep actors, broadcasters, rights activists, visual artists, journalists, military personnel, musicians, politicians, sportspeople, writers, royalty, and fashion designers.
• Delete businesspeople, judges, law enforcement workers, and models.
• Allow splitting the "LGBT occupation" category by sexual orientation/identity AND by country for activists and politicians.
• For all other occupational categories, allow splitting by sexual orientation/identity, but not country UNLESS size becomes a factor - so Category:Bisexual musicians from the United States is an option if the US overwhelms Category:Bisexual musicians.

Thanks for participating in the discussion! You and Benji have brought up points I hadn't thought of :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not really seeing the problem here. I think categories are for convenience in finding articles, and splitting a large category into subcategories can make it easier to find related more articles. Articles that fit in some intersection (such as LGBT X in Y) are at least somewhat more related than those in a parent cat (such as LGBT X). I don't see this furthering marginalization, but instead making larger categories more manageable. Aleta ^Sing 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Aleta, categories are indeed for convenience, and WP guidelines have been created towards that aim. It's my contention that the categories that combine *three* elements (sexual orientation/identity) && (occupation) && (country) violates WP guidelines. It's too narrow an intersection to be useful. If I'm looking at actors, I (naturally) want to find gay actors. And/or actors in Australia. But gay actors in Australia is too narrow an intersection. See WP:OC#NARROW for the guideline. Also note that if Jim Smith is a gay actor in Australia, we'll end up putting a bunch of categories on his article, - gay people, gay actor, gay people from australia, gay actors from australia, etc. That runs up against WP:Over Categorization. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to writers, the way I look at it is that the value of an LGBT literature category is significantly diminished if there isn't an accompanying way to categorize or identify the writers associated with it. As for fashion designers, while it's probably true that LGBTs largely invented the fashion industry, the problem is still that there isn't a fundamental difference between being a gay fashion designer and being a straight one — they're just two traits that happen to coexist but don't have a direct bearing upon each other. While an article on the history of fashion design would inevitably have a fair bit of LGBT-related content, you couldn't really write an article specifically on gay fashion design as a distinct topic from the non-gay kind — it's a field where queer sexuality is so tightly intertwined with the general aspects of the topic that you can't easily tease out a distinction between fashion designers on the basis of their sexuality.

You also asked me about the Canadian city categories on my talk page. The way I see it is that large cities which have particularly prominent LGBT scenes (I've only created the three major Canadian ones, but places like New York, San Francisco and London, for example, would certainly qualify as well) do merit dedicated LGBT culture subcategories — not because "LGBT culture in country" necessarily needs the subdivision, but because the "Culture in city" parents do. When it comes to these categories, my views aren't restricted to the LGBT category tree itself — I'm at least as significantly concerned with how best to represent the intersections that LGBT categories have with non-LGBT ones such as Category:Canadian writers or Category:Culture of New York City. We obviously want to keep the LGBT category tree manageable and logical, but trimming it down too far essentially isolates it from other related topics. Bearcat (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we both agree that Category:Gay writers is fine. Are you suggesting Category:Gay writers from Australia to go with Category:LGBT literature in Australia? Or Category:LGBT writers from Australia? I'm having a hard time agreeing with either of those (though the last one already exists). Again, I dislike the intersection of three - sexual orientation / identity && occupation && location - that seems waay too narrow for me. And leads to over categorization.

As for fashion design, I did a quick test - "gay fashion designer" = 2,620 gHits; "straight fashion designer" = 150. I don't think there is such a thing as straight fashion design. And this is similar to your writers point - if fashion design is gay (which it arguably is), there's a need to find the people associated with it. Though maybe I see your point - Category:Fashion designers = 49 articles, Category:LGBT fashion designers = 33. Perhaps redundant? But now I see Category:Jewish fashion designers - is there a distinction there that I'm missing?

My worry about the cities cats is that there's no difference between the LGBT culture in Montreal and the LGBT culture in Vancouver. Magazines, bars, events - the same things in each. I'm against the Category:Gay villages in Massachusetts, too, but I think I'm getting overruled on that discussion. I'd really like to keep the culture cats by country and not city - it's cleaner that way, IMO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Occupational categories, take 2

I think I have pondered this long enough to come up with a better discussion of where I see this going.

For the record, I'll be using "SO/I" to stand for "Sexual orientation/identity", and by that I mean subdividing a category "Foo" into "Lesbian Foo", "Bisexual Foo", "Gay Foo", and "Transgender and transsexual Foo".

I have no problem with categorizing people by "SO/I occuption", as in "Category:Lesbian writers" and "Category:Gay sportspeople".

I don't believe, however, that collectively grouping an occupation makes sense. The Category:LGBT politicians, for example, is forced. Lesbian politicians are going to approach their jobs in a much different way than Gay politicians. My feeling is that the collective cat should simply be a holder for the SO/I cats. Then, if a specific SO/I occupation gets to be too large or there is a significant population by country, that category can be split - for example, Category:Gay actors from the United States.

How does that sit with y'all? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, there may be sometimes when we don't know which of the smaller categories is most appropriate (is she lesbian or bi? is he gay or bi?) Aleta ^Sing 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My concern is similar to Aleta's - splitting by SO/I first could cause problems when it's not clear which of L/G/B/T is appropriate. --Alynna (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem. Per WP:BLP and our own guidelines, we can't put a person in a category unless they self-identify or we have a WP:RS that states which cat they go in. So we can't put Jodie Foster in Category:Lesbian actors OR in Category:Bisexual actors until she let's us know which she goes in :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, if we had "LGBT actors" > "Lesbian actors" > "Lesbian actors from the United States" (and similar for other SO/I), she'd have to stay in the top-level one?

Also, similar question for people who identify as queer, or anything else that's obviously included in LGBT but isn't one of the letters. --Alynna (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to *not* have "LGBT actors". To *only* have the SO/I ones. Jodie can't be put in any of them until she tells us which one it is. It's against WP:BLP to put her in "LGBT actors" without her coming out as L, B, G, or T - at which point she can be put in the appropriate SO/I. As for queer, we'd have to discuss individually - I don't know. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Any of the existing LGBT subcategories can be subdivided into SO/I anytime somebody is willing to put in the effort to do so. Some of them have been LGBT-ized instead of SO/I-ized, just for the record, because the size of the category wasn't actually large enough to justify four separate SO/Is rather than one LGBT at the time the category was created. It's not ideal, sure — but categorization is a work in progress and we can always convert a merged-LGBT into four SO/Is anytime we want. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

a specific case: Clinton Kelly (TV personality)

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)

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)

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)

Category:LGBT Democrats (United States)

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)

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)

<whistles innocently>. :) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

International category links

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)

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)

LGBT Media-related categories

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)

Hi, on politician subcategories

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)

Category change

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)

LGBT politicians by office

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)

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)

I disagree as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)