Talk:List of drag queens

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.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] wrong link

The name Gemma Jones refers to two different people--to a drag performer and to a British actress. Currently, it links to the actress, who is not, in fact. a drag queen.

[edit] Closed deletion listing

This article was listed for deletion on 10 April 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of keep. This article will not be deleted. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List of Drag Queens. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] categories

Hi -- I had changed this list from category:Lists of people to the three cats: "Lists of people by occupation", "...by sexuality" and "...by activity", per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes ("Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article.") and trying to diffuse the unwieldy "Lists of people" category. User:Otto4711 reverted because "removing sexuality cat, not everyone on the list is of the same sexuality."

  1. I don't believe the category suggests that everyone is of the same sexuality (or even what the sexuality would be), but I do think it's "useful to someone reading the article." Many (most?) drag queens are either gay or trans, categories included within "lists of people by sexuality."
  2. Second, if one were to apply the "all members fit" criteria for the category, then "... by occupation" doesn't belong either.

Thoughts? Suggestions for better classification that is more succinct than the three currently listed? I did all three to try to capture the range of reasons/identities, and I think stripping "by occupation" and "by sexuality", and leaving only "by activity" makes this list unnecessarily difficult to find, and is not in keeping with the breadth of the LGBT categories treatment of transgender. Cross-posted on User talk:Otto4711 page. --LQ 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unneccessary

We already have Category:Drag queens - why do we need this. All entries here have wikipedia articles. Further, this list is unsourced and thus arguably violates BLP. A category doesn't have that problem.--Docg 15:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Honestly I'm losing the will to care. Personally I find the list handy and I don't think it hurts anything (which I realize would not be valid arguments at an AFD) but I do get a little weary of every Mom, Chick and Mary adding their local queens to the list only to be reverted. I also don't think it's necessary to have eleventy-hundred footnotes when the sourcing identifying the person as a drag queen is in the linked article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sourcing BLP lists from the linked article is dodgy - and increasingly disapproved. The problem is that the linked article may change or have its claim disputed and no-one will know that the claim is also being published here. Negative or potentially negative claims should have the sourcing right beside them, so that if it isn't there, the claim can be instantly removed. Whereas someone browsing this article can't immediately see if any claim is unreferenced - and they'll not check the linked article unless suspicious. We really can't make claims about people on one article and say "the verification is elsewhere". The huge advantage of categorises is that catagorisation is placed on the article itself - and it's much easier to spot if there's not verification. Plus, the categorisation is noticed by people who tend to know something about the subject and will spot unfairness. That's more unlikely with people reading a list.--Docg 17:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)