Category talk:LGBT Wikipedians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] I lol'd

... at the four paragraphs of "don't delete this plz!". – Steel 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding this to my watchlist, just in case :) -- Ned Scott 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said: "The opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what makes the categories and boxes divisive and disruptive.". --Coppertwig (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it could be said better. I've edited it to "The opposition to these descriptions, not the descriptions themselves, is what causes division and disruption." --Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Paragraph

"this category should not be nominated for deletion by itself. It will be seen as an attack on the part of the community" - To me this doesn't seem very civil and pre-assumes bad faith. Apart from anything else it encourages people to respond to a deletion discussion as if it was an attack, which surely is the worst possible way to go about things. Guest9999 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm - that's a pretty good point. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong at all with pre-assuming bad faith considering bad faith is what has gotten all the "gay" cats deleted in the first place each time. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The point, of course, is that is *past* - assuming a person attempting to delete this cat is doing so to hurt the community *in the future* is assuming bad faith. I say let's take out that fourth paragraph, or severely re-word it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, its true anyway. I wouldn't describe it as assuming bad faith, just presaging a reaction that might give others pause (as it would have given me, had I seen it before my own ill-fated nomination). And the reaction wouldn't be undeserved, either, as nominating a single category for deletion when many other similar categories exist appears as though you are singling out that one for special attention for some reason. Avruch ^T 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a similar notice should be put on every other category that divides users in a way that is not obviousy useful for colaboration (by race, nationality, religion, etc.)? Guest9999 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Avruch ^T 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why on this one? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason that this category has the other three paragraphs. It has a specific history that, in my mind, warrants the preamble. I don't think all categories that don't say "Interested in" have that same history or warrant the same preamble. Avruch ^T 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you could put one on the contentious ones if you want - there are some, but not all, that warrant the prompt. I wouldn't just copy it over to all of them, and the reason I haven't done more than this one is that I just... haven't. This is the one I was involved in. Avruch ^T 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)