Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject

LGBTQ+ studies
Home HomeTalk TalkCollaboration CollaborationEditing EditingAlerts AlertsShowcase Showcase

    LGBTQ symbols

    Hi. On the LGBTQ symbols article, there’s fetish flags for rubber and pony. Those are not part of the LGBTQIA community. Regardless of whether or not it has history I’m not sure if it does I know leather does, it doesn’t need to be put under LGBTQIA pride flags on the article. Just because something has history with something doesn’t mean it’s inherently part of the thing it has history with. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I hear what you are saying. However, the "Pony" flag cites two sources, one from The Advocate, saying, in part: "Carrie P created the Pony Pride flag in 2007 using the color black in solidarity with the leather community at large. Pony play is a distinct fetish where people are treated like horses by wearing hooves, ears, and saddles and pulling carts" and another from Marie Claire, saying: "Another fetish flag, the pony play flag was designed in 2007 by Carrie P., and includes black to express unity with the larger leather community."
    The "rubber" flag cites two sources as well, first The Advocate, saying: "The Rubber Pride flag, also known as the Latex Pride flag, was created by Peter Tolos and Scott Moats in 1995. The pair said they designed the flag to identify “like-minded men” and that the design “reflects the sensory, sensual, and mental passion we have for rubber." They said the black color represents "our lust for the look and feel for shiny black rubber," the red symbolizes "our blood passion for rubber and rubbermen," while yellow highlights "our drive for intense rubber play and fantasies." And just in case you needed another hint, the Rubber Pride flag features a literal kink in its stripes. Get it?" Also cite is Marie Claire, saying: "Members of the rubber/latex fetish community have a flag to express their preferences and passion. Peter Tolos and Scott Moats created it in 1995 and say that black represents "our lust for the look and feel for shiny black rubber," red "our blood passion for rubber and rubbermen," and yellow "our drive for intense rubber play and fantasies." Also, there's a kink in it—which totally makes sense, actually."
    I'd say those sources support the inclusion of those flags on the LGBTQ symbols page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But none of those sources say it’s LGBTQIA. Like I said, fetishes are LGBTQIA. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean, they aren't LGBTQIA? Your comment contradicts itself. Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The polyamory and leather flags should be removed also. Since yes they have history with the LGBTQIA but putting them under LGBTQ pride flags on a LGBTQ symbols article implies they are inherently part of the community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree. If they have a history with LGBTQIA, they deserve to be part of the page, full stop. Debating if something is an inherent part of the community, or not, that could get real dicey, and fast. Historyday01 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think the leather subculture article should be put under LGBTQ studies yes it has history but the flag shouldn’t be put under LGBTQ pride flags since having leather fetish isn’t inherently part of the LGBTQIA community as anyone can have a leather fetish but not everyone could be LGBTQIA. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree. Even if what you say is true, leather subculture has a long LGBTQ history, so it deserves to be on the page. So that there isn't duplication, can we continue this discussion at the discussion you started here? I think that would help.Historyday01 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Imane Khelif

    Imane Khelif was mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as not being tagged by this group. If you want to, you're allowed to per WP:SCOPEWAR. If you don't want to, you're allowed not to. The articles this group supports is 100% up to this group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiny correction, the discussion this was mentioned in was at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Contentious wikiproject tags. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that there was a prior discussion about this @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Archive 79#Imane Khelif. Some1 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RM: CeCe McDonald case

    Following an undiscussed move of CeCe McDonald, there is a requested move discussion of relevance to this project. Funcrunch (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:LGBTQ symbols

    You are all invited to join a discussion at Talk:LGBTQ symbols#Fetish flags, as to whether the Rubber or Pony flags should be included, with the assertion that "fetishes are not LGBTQIA they're not sexual minorities anybody can do them regardless or gender or sexuality." Your input would be deeply appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Drag Race episodes at AfD

    In case any project members are interested in weighing in.

    ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    And now a related discussion at WikiProject Television:

    Just noticed that Trans* and Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States have been nominated for deletion. Thought I'd share in case any project members would like to weigh in. Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 16:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help with repeated image reversion

    Hello. I'm concerned because I have noticed repeated image removal for the articles Shou Arai and Titica by user Nikkimaria. I left a message on the user's talk page asking for a reason for the repeated image removals because Nikki would just put "rm cartoon" (bare in mind, these were decently detailed pieces, not cartoony.) The image for Titica is also used on Portuguese, French, and Spanish versions of that page, so I fail to see how it would be uniquely unsuited for the English version.

    Soon after I left the message in Nikki's talk page (like, right after, within 20 minutes) another user, Moxy, claimed both of the images are AI generated despite both images being uploaded to Wikicommons by their original artists with no mention or visible sign of AI generation. Moxy also took down both images at the exact same time down to the minute (17:00 exactly) so Moxy couldn't have incidentally happened to stumble upon both pages.

    After I pointed out there was no evidence for AI use Moxy said "simply not a good image" and reverted again. They then linked no "no original research" which I do no see how that is applicable here.

    Normally, I wouldn't reach out for outside help this early, but the situation seems a little fishy. Help please. I don't want to seem like I'm edit warring by having to repeatedly revert.Urchincrawler (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page stalker) :Gross misrepresentation will always be a problem to implement in bios. This vs the actual person? WP:BLPIMAGE - WP:AIGI Moxy🍁 23:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, no proof of AI. I even asked for proof of AI on your talk page and you did not provide any. The facial hair is the same and Arai repeatedly has dyed his hair in the past and draws himself blonde in his manga. That's probably why he's drawn blonde, granted I can see how that can be kind of confusing or WP:synth-ish.
    Regardless, if that was your reason why didn't you say so from the beginning? If you had, that would have been actually reasonable rather than claiming AI with no proof and saying "simply not a good image" when reverting again.
    As for Titica her image looks just like her to the point 3 other languages use her image. I welcome you to google her and check if you don't believe me.
    As for "misrepresentation", users here can easily check the page history of the articles and Nikkimaria's talk page to verify the accuracy of my claims. Urchincrawler (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the claims of AI, your question falls within Wikipedia:Image use policy#Diagrams and other images: "user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized." At least in the case of Titica, I found the original image: [1] It is cropped, so the original uncropped version might be somewhere else. How that satifies WP:DERIVATIVE is another question. But back to the main concern, being included in other Wikipedias is not a reason to include them here; each website is independent from each other and each have their own policies and guidelines. If the subjects do not resemble how they actually look, then the images shouldn't be included. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's a reasonable reason for Shou Arai. If Moxy had actually said that in the first place rather than being vague or claiming AI no proof, then it would not have even been mentioned. As for Titica, it does very much resemble her. We can discuss WP:DERIVATIVE if need be, but again, no reasonable reasons were provided even as I tried to be communicative. Urchincrawler (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked for help. If the help you are asking for is, instead, "help me win an argument", then you can ask elsewhere. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 00:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get where you are getting "help me win an argument" energy? I agreed that the hair color was an issue and reasonable problem for the Shou Arai image. I just wish that had been actually communicated before things progressed this far since as I mentioned I did try to be communicative. If it's a tone issue with my writing, I can try to adjust accordingly. Urchincrawler (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Building an encyclopedia is an academic endeavor - not the place for cartoons/caricature to represent living people...let alone anyone. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY Moxy🍁 23:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:IMAGEQUALITY does not say drawings cannot be used. Sure, photos would he preferrable if available, as it memtions staring biographies with solo photos if possible. However, removing images just because you think artistic depictions aren't ok in academic endeavors is your opinion, and your opinion by itself is not a good reason. In the future, please start off with actual reasons related to Wikipedia policies (images being irrelevant, images violating copyright, etc.) along with an explanation rather than your opinion or claiming AI with no proof. For instance, if you brought up the hair color issue from the start then that would have resolved that matter.Urchincrawler (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Guy Macon/One against many Moxy🍁 00:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is me saying you should communicate more clearly with explanations and wikipedia's policies "one against many"? I literally said that the hair color thing was reasonable and that we could discuss WP: DERIVATIVE (a point you did not mention) on the Titica image. Relevance? Urchincrawler (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Lesbian: good article reassessment

    The GAR was created on 6 January 2026.
    To date, only four editors have participated in the review, and a considerable quantity of material has already been deleted. A notice about it should have been posted here but since it wasn't, I'm doing it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 13:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    New discussion at Talk:LGBTQ symbols

    You are all invited to join a discussion at Talk:LGBTQ symbols#Polyamory and leather flags, as to whether Leather pride flag and two polyamory pride flags should be included among LGBTQ symbols (and at Pride flag#Other flags). Your input would be deeply appreciated. Thanks. Hope to see you there. Historyday01 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture on Gendered associations of pink and blue

    I think the main image should be the restroom sign picture which uses pink and blue for the binary genders. The main image is children in pink and blue clothes which should be moved to the part of the page that goes over clothing. No not all bathroom signs use pink and blue but the image is just an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknessGoth777 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like a conversation to be having at Talk:Gendered associations of pink and blue, rather than here. That way, the people who work on that page can have their say and reaction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I took it here since it’s part of this project. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of 11 projects that it is part of, and not even the one with the most compelling link. If a conversation is needed (and wasianpower is right, this is something one could just try a WP:BOLD on first), it's better to start the discussion at the individual article talk page, and if larger input is needed, point on appropriate project talk pages to that discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced this even requires a talk page discussion. WP:BEBOLD and change it, and if someone objects, then a talk page discussion would be warranted. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:LGBTQ%2B