Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Alerts Showcase

Article needed: AIDS Emergency Fund (San Francisco, 1982-2016)

The AIDS Emergency Fund (AEF) was a San Francisco nonprofit that provided emergency financial assistance to people with AIDS from 1982 until its 2016 merger with Positive Resource Center. The organization originated within San Francisco's leather community and was co-founded by Rick Booth and Alan Selby (founder of Mr. S Leather). It continues to operate as PRC's Emergency Financial Assistance (EFA) program.

Significant independent secondary coverage exists in the Bay Area Reporter across four decades, the San Francisco Chronicle (2016), the San Francisco Planning Department's 2021 SF Eagle Landmark Designation Report, a 2023 University of Nebraska academic thesis, and the Leather Hall of Fame. The GLBT Historical Society holds 13 linear feet of AEF records (1985-2019), and the Smithsonian Institution holds AEF's 20th Anniversary Awards Gala materials.

I have prepared a fully drafted article with infobox, all sections, and a complete references list, available here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p1sni86wjwgl2wwc1ejwy/AEF_Wikipedia_Submission_Package_052526.docx?rlkey=bvdl7d4hmroeibf30toenonhc&st=a4wjps1p&dl=0

I have a conflict of interest as a former Chief Development Officer at PRC (December 2016 to August 2018), which is why I am not submitting the article myself. I am offering the draft and source research to any uninvolved editor who would like to publish it under their own name with full editorial discretion.

Happy to answer factual questions on my talk page.

Gaylesf (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Gaylesf – I would recommend creating a draft article at Draft:AIDS Emergency Fund and submitting it through the articles for creation process. Just make sure you declare your COI on the submission, per WP:EDITCOI this is the preferred way of creating an article with a COI. Best of luck! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gaylesf: I looked at the draft in your box and it seems ready to submit. The article seems like someone drafted Wikipedia markup and you shared the published output. For publishing and to further check it, it would be best if you posted the original code to draftspace as suggested. It is hard to review in the form you shared. This seems like an excellent and timely article to publish for Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/2026. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both. I created Draft:AIDS Emergency Fund, posted the draft in source markup, disclosed my COI on the draft talk page, and submitted it through Articles for Creation. I appreciate the guidance. Gaylesf (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Roberta Angela Dee

Dee was an African-American trans fiction writer and columnist. I don't know that we can add an article on her yet (not enough secondary sources?), but I wanted to draw attention to the work recently published by Bethany Karsten on The Transfeminine Review (Link), which is a fantastic compilation of Dee's known work so far. Figured I'd share here in case anyone was interested in helping Karsten further her research, especially in regards to researching the LGBTQ/Trans literary scene in the 1970s and 1980s. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AfD: Proposal to merge "Lesbian bar" to "Gay bar"

Hello! There is an AfD Merge request regarding a subject relevant to this Wikiproject. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 19:18, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: AfD resolved due to WP:SNOW votes for keep. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 20:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

New article: LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers

Hello all and happy pride! Bit of a depressing topic, but I thought it was pretty important to have an article about this, especially since there's an article for LGBTQ refugees and asylum seekers in Canada. (The page was a WikiEd project and university assignment, so I assume that's the reason the main contributor limited its scope.)

The article is a bit of stub right now, but I'm working on it and I've put a list of links to academic papers and news sources on the talk page for anyone who'd like to contribute. Please let me know on the article talk page if you have more suggestions for improvement. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 14:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Now I feel a bit silly, because I just happened upon LGBTQ migration, which essentially covers the same topics and is much more substantial, and overall it seems well-sourced despite the LLM tag. Trout etc. Felinaex ^{(purr / pawprints)} 14:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I created LGBT refugee as a redirect to migration. More new redirects might be helpful too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this! I've been meaning to get around to this for a while. I'd recommend touching on Rainbow Railroad and Trans Rescue (unfortunately not many RS for the latter) somewhere in the article, if possible. Stay safe! pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 17:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Assistance on draft article: QW Magazine

Hello! I just finished a first draft of Draft:QW Magazine. I saw this article suggested somewhere else so I decided to start, though is lacking in areas like major articles, impact, and staff. Help and suggestions of where to find other references would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!:) Relatively Anonymous (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hi. I recently tweaked the article on intersex infanticide and was wondering what I could do to get it to B-Class if it isn't suitable for B-Class yet. Thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Terminology for out vs openly

Hi! I don't know if this is the right talk page for this topic, or if it maybe already exists in another space, but I was wondering where to propose a discussion about the terminology of "openly gay" vs "out gay", for instance "first openly gay elected representative" vs "first out gay elected representative." This is an ongoing discussion with both advocacy groups like GLAAD or some style guides such as the NLGJA, The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists, considering "openly" to be a more outdated term. In the words of GLAAD's media reference guide, the use of "openly" can have a connotation that "implies a confessional aspect to publicly acknowledging one’s sexual orientation or gender identity". I'm not suggested an overnight change to WP policy but I think it could be worth discussing since it is a proposed change in terminology elsewhere as well. Elfangor9 (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good place to have the conversation.

My instincts are not with their stance, because

1. I don't see the differentiation between the two terms that they claim
2. The differentiation I do see between the two terms: "out" could be used where someone tried to conceal their orientation, but "openly" speaks (positively) to their own public choices. In other words, one could be "outted", but no one ever got "openlied".
3. My instinct is to avoid specialist language where it's not needed. "Out" is LGBTQIA+ specific. We have dozens of articles describing someone as "openly atheist" but none use "out atheist" in that way.

But that's just a first reaction, and others may well see problems in "openly" that I don't. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with "openly" in some but not all contexts. "Openly" makes sense in contexts where there is/was an expectation of secrecy and thus the openness is itself exceptional or noteworthy. This would make sense when writing about times or places where being LGBT was/is illegal or was likely to lead to serious adverse consequences. It makes no sense to use it in contexts where there is less at stake. If, say, a western pop star is gay now we can just say "is gay". "Openly" is not required because it is not exceptional for a pop star to be gay and not to hide it. Maybe there are other music genres, like Christian Rock, where it might still be appropriate to say "openly". When speaking of a pop star of, say, the 1960s then we might well want to say "was openly gay", if that was the case, because that was exceptional for gay pop stars of the time. My thought is to avoid using "openly" by default, as part of a hackneyed stock phrase, but to use it when it is actually saying something.

I don't like "out" as an adverb. It seems clunky, is less likely to be understood by all readers and it has all the same issues as "openly" anyway. There might be some specific situations where it is justifiable but, even then, I prefer phrases like "came out as gay". It certainly shouldn't be used routinely. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just for convenience, the relevant entries in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide – 11th Edition:

Openly Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender This phrase is now dated. Please see Out below. “Openly gay” has been used to describe people who self-identify as gay in their personal, public, and/or professional lives. Also openly lesbian, openly bisexual, openly transgender, openly queer. While technically accurate, the phrase implies a confessional aspect to publicly acknowledging one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It is now better to avoid this phrase.
Out A person who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer and/or transgender in their personal, public, and/or professional lives. For example: Ricky Martin is an out gay pop star from Puerto Rico. Preferred to openly gay.

Umimmak (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is definitely a good place to raise this discussion. Personally, I don't see a huge difference, though there may be subtleties. I'm not sure I really pick up on the word choice when I encounter it. I see what GLAAD is saying but I'm not sure I agree. At least, I don't think that is always the connotation. In my mind I sometimes make a distinction where out is something of a spectrum and open is one extreme, along the lines of "100% out". For example a public figure might be out to friends and family and even more distant associates but not open about their identity or orientation in their public life. But I'm not always (or even usually) making that distinction in my own usage and I don't read others that way unless something to that effect is more clearly implied (or stated explicitly). I think we can treat them as interchangeable and should not specify a preference for one or the other. That said, maybe these are "words to watch". —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking as an "openly" queer trans editor :-) , I think "openly" is still good to use for trans folks. Unlike cis gays, lesbians, and bisexuals, trans folks aren't generally encouraged by the LGBTQ community to "come out"; many prefer to be stealth, not just for safety but because many binary trans folks just want to be seen as men or women without the "trans" qualifier. So those who have voluntarily disclosed their trans identity are "open" about it, in my view. I don't see the term "openly" as "confessional" in the negative way that GLAAD describes it. Funcrunch (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I did a Google search of Them.us, Queerty, and PinkNews for the phrase "openly gay". Not that their usage would be definitive for our purposes but I wondered whether they observe GLAAD's recommendations. The first hits at both Them (May 23, 2024) and PinkNews (January 8, 2024) were articles about Andrew Scott (actor)'s negative feelings about the phrase "openly gay". Both articles discuss similar or opposite sentiments that other public figures have expressed. For example, Ncuti Gatwa and Ariana DeBose are both quoted as describing themselves as "openly queer".[1][2] All three websites had recently published articles that used the phrase "openly gay", sometimes interchangeably with "out", for example this January 2026 article. When the subject of an article has stated an explicit preference, we should do our best to adhere to that in our articles. A mere example of a subject using particular phrasing—"out" vs. "open(ly)"—is probably not sufficient evidence that they object to the other phrasing. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

While the first result that I get from The Advocate is a 2021 opinion piece pushing that "openly" is offensive, the second is usage from last month that includes the term in the editorial text of the article ("when few national politicians were openly gay"), as well as in a quote from the president of the Human Rights Campaign ("At a time when being openly gay in public service"). (I will note that while the headline is "Barney Frank, trailblazing gay former congressman, has died at 86", and an archive of that page from the day it was posted shows that as well, the Google search result claimed the headline was "Barney Frank, first openly gay member of Congress, dies"; whether this is an example of Google having caught a headline before it was changed, or whether it's an example of Google's AI rewriting headlines as has been noticed to have happened, I don't know.) So while there is obviously some controversy arising about "openly", it hasn't reached the point where it is being avoided in some prime places. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I also looked at Outsports and usage there is similar, too. I understand the argument GLAAD and others are making but it is far from a consensus view among LGBTQ+ people and publications. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

For reference, here are some other style guides:

• The Association of LGBTQ+ Journalists (NLGJA) Stylebook on LGBTQ+ Terminology:

  out, outing, openly
  As a verb, out means revealing the sexual orientation or gender identity of someone against their will. Derived from out of the closet. As an adjective or adverb, outrefers to others’ knowledge of a person’s sexual orientation. Use out instead of the outdated openly when relevant, such as in references to public figures that allow for the possibility of closeted predecessors.

  Example: Tammy Baldwin was the first out lesbian member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

  Avoid outing someone without consent or clear public relevance. Avoid words like acknowledged, avowed, admitted, confessed or practicing because of their inaccuracy or negative connotations. See Sexual Orientation section.

• Trans Journalists Association Stylebook and Coverage Guide doesn't address this exact issue but the phrases "openly trans", "live(d) openly as trans", and "out trans person/people" appear a few times each. They do have guidance on the difference between coming out as trans and transitioning.
• The Diversity Style Guide:

  openly gay/openly lesbian
  As a modifier, openly is often relevant only when referencing historical figures and to allow for the possibility of previous closeted figures: Harvey Milk was the first openly gaySan Francisco supervisor. Tammy Baldwin was the first openly lesbian member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Mention a subject’s sexual orientation only when relevant. Avoid words like acknowledged, avowed, admitted, confessed or practicing because of their inaccuracy or negative connotations.

  out
  A person who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender in their personal, public, and/or professional lives. For example: Ricky Martin is an out pop star from Puerto Rico. Preferred to openly gay.

—Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a very good conversation to have. I'm in agreement with the other editors who have replied here about not agreeing with GLAAD's and other organisations' stances, and also about context and nuance between the terms mattering. For me personally, the GLAAD stance strikes me as being informed by a generational bias. GLAAD's been around longer than I have. But, in my life as a queer person who only became out and openly queer later, I've never gotten the impression that 'openly' differed so much from 'out' in the way that they claim. Perhaps the understood meaning and usage of the term have changed/evolved over time, but that doesn't equate to 'Oh, we can't use it anymore since it's not the same as we remember.'. However, it feels like that very sentiment is infused into the perception that the term is now out-dated. That seems very premature and narrow, particularly in the current sociopolitical climate of the States, and especially in the larger climate of brazen hostility and violence towards trans and non-binary people.

I also have reservations about US-based organisations trying to speak for queer people at large and claim authority over words for us (and by extension these organisations' stances being used to potentially inform Wikipedia guidelines and policy on a wide scale). US queer experiences, culture, history, and language are not global queer experiences, cultures, histories, and language. Plus, so many queer terms have been slurs, words of oppression and extensions of violence, that have been reclaimed. For a queer organisation to try and broadly and subjectively declare that this word in this queer context should be phased out, it's...I don't think that's quite right.

I think context and self-determination are some of the best tools for determining which term to use (if not both), and when. I can kind of see the thinking about 'openly' having a confessional aspect to it and feeling mis-placed in current times...but that also sounds like a perception rooted in specific circumstances in the past and evidently not widely shared by queer people overall - even then or now. (I could see the same argument being made for 'out', as if 'coming out' is an expected process every queer person goes through to be 'fully realised' as a queer person before they can just exist as a queer person regardless. I'm failing to see how these organisations deciding that one term is fine and one isn't is anything but arbitrary.)

That's just what I'm seeing and thinking about for the moment. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 17:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Well said. I'm not so troubled that org's like these, from the US or elsewhere, put out style guides but I disagree with them on this point and I think you correctly identify at least some of the driving force behind it. I think the continued use of out or openly reflects both present day realities (and preferences) as well as acknowledging that things were much worse in many places not so long ago. This is reflected, for example, in all the recent news coverage about the deaths of Barney Frank and Jason Collins, both of whose openness was considered groundbreaking at the time and is still a rarity in their respective domains. It's also noteworthy that two of the style guides use sitting US Senator Tammy Baldwin as an example (and one uses out while the other uses openly) because there aren't that many lesbians in national office to choose from! As an aside, Baldwin's article led me to (emphasis added): List of first openly LGBTQ politicians in the United States. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

We have some existing guidance for this at WP:OPENLY (pinging contributors @LaffyTaffer: and @Lp0 on fire: for more advice). I think openly is best used in very specific scenarios; For example, Qween Jean is best described as a transgender woman. However, recently she also won a Tony Award, and as the first trans person to win one, I feel it is appropriate to describe her as "the first openly transgender winner of a Tony Award", as her article does now.

In any other scenario the wording seems unnecessary, and as WP:OPENLY points out, the distinction is only made to avoid excluding any closeted trans people who may have won a Tony Award in the past that we do not know of. In any other case, "if they weren't out, then we wouldn't know about it, and it would therefore violate WP:BLP." pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 17:40, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There are very few scenarios under which it's appropriate on Wikipedia to refer to someone as either "out" or "openly" [insert queer phrase]. The only one I have ever encountered is the one you gave of "first X to openly Y", in which case I personally feel that "openly" is preferable to "out" because it feels more like standard English. At a glance, several featured articles seem to agree with me, but that's just by comparing this search with this one and isn't a rigorous assessment. lp0 on fire () 17:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This is about my stance as well. I admittedly don't currently have the time or energy to fully review this discussion past a skim, but I don't personally see a large difference between the terms past grammatical context. I agree with Daniel Rigal that "out LGBTQ+" feels clunky, and I maintain what I've written at WP:OPENLY that either term would be generally unnecessary to use outside of narrow contexts where the subject coming out is particularly notable (first openly gay politician in a country/district, etc). Otherwise, I feel that it comes with an implication that we're merely speculating on other subjects' identities, which we shouldn't be.

Worth noting that, while WP:LGBTAVOID as a whole is focused on LGBTQ+ topics, I think WP:OPENLY could apply to descriptions of other demographics (openly atheist/vegan/etc) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 17:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Otherwise, I feel that it comes with an implication that we're merely speculating on other subjects' identities. I don't necessarily read it that way. I understand it more as an acknowledgement that many people have not been and still aren't out or open. Or more simply as a clear and precise statement about what we actually know. It's rare that we can say with total confidence that someone is the first or only [insert queer phrase] to do a particular thing. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also relevant in particular contexts too. When it comes to the historiography of the first gay/lesbian politicians elected to office (which see discussion at Talk: Kathy Kozachenko), it is vitally important to distinguish between those who were elected while openly gay and those who were elected while closeted and later came out (e.g. Nancy Wechsler and Jerry DeGrieck) Katzrockso (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There are very few scenarios under which it's appropriate on Wikipedia to refer to someone as either "out" or "openly" [insert queer phrase]. I agree, and that's how I read WP:OPENLY (which I wasn't aware of until now—great resource!). When it's a salient fact worthy of mention, both are generally acceptable. Perhaps OPENLY could be expanded to explicitly apply to out, without indicating a broad preference for one or the other. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Such a great resource, thank you all in this thread for helping talk this through! I agree there's not a consensus even among LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations and more wanted to bring the discussion to WP attention in case there was a point at which there was a more significant shift in the wider opinion than there currently is. I'm very glad I brought this up because I also wasn't aware of WP:OPENLY and the essay is definitely useful to have as reference and a part of the ongoing discussions. I love this emphasis that openly vs out isn't the main point to consider here, as the main question could be when either term is in fact necessary. Also I appreciate your comment earlier in the thread with other style guides for reference too, as I was familiar with some but not all of those. Elfangor9 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an exhibition for why we don't refer to Qween Jean as a trans woman in the lede! I think it makes sense for these two pages to be linked in a Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies resource page of some kind, for ease of access. pauliesnug ^{(message / contribs)} 17:50, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen or heard of WP:EXHIBITION, which is a relatively new essay by a single editor. Not sure we should be linking to it with the implication that it's an official guideline or policy. Funcrunch (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

With that it's worth noting that, while it aligns with some existing policy, WP:OPENLY (as well as the rest of WP:LGBTAVOID) is an essay started by me that largely consists of my own personal stance on terminology. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) In solidarity 22:22, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. FWIW your essay has a few other contributors at least. Funcrunch (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Our Jason Collins article uses the first publicly gay. Just making note of our usage here, as I came across this in the course of looking at on- and off-wiki usage for this discussion. I don't have any strong feelings about this. For our purposes I think it's usually equivalent to out and openly but of course there are subtleties. It did jump out at me as somewhat awkward but I think that's just because publicly is used twice in the same paragraph and I'm focused on this particular usage question so it looked like a contortion to avoid the more standard terminology but I don't think that is necessarily the editorial intent. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

"Publicly" is an interesting usage to note, yes! It definitely does make me think about those subtleties you mention, since of course many of us are not celebrities so we don't have the same experience as they do regarding coming out, but I absolutely can think of instances where celebrities have discussed being out in their personal lives but not publicly, so their "outness" can be more of a continuum than a simple yes or no. I've heard it colloquially referred to as "soft out" sometimes, for someone is not closeted among people they actually know but has also not come out to the public. The distinction for people who do publicly come out like Jason Collins did is definitely something that could be worded to not feel awkward, but I can see the potential rationale behind it. Thank you again for your replies and these great points. Elfangor9 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this! —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As a queer and trans person, I have been frustrated by this off-base GLAAD guidance since they first added it to their style guide. Based on my own past searching, it seems likely that it was completely based on that one 2021 Advocate op-ed by Richie Jackson that User:NatGertler pointed out above, and like User:Myceteae named, it is very far from a consensus view, particularly among trans people and folks who aren’t in same-sex relationships (i.e., people for whom “coming out” isn’t an uncomplicated one-time event).

The word “out” is not an appropriate replacement for "openly." "Out" does not mean the same thing as "openly." The opposite of "openly" is "privately," but the opposite of "out" is "closeted." People who aren't openly LGBTQ+ are simply privately LGBTQ+; no value judgment there. But when folks talk about LGBTQ+ people who aren't out as LGBTQ+, the presumption is that they are closeted, which carries a whole host of (negative) meanings.

Being out as trans, for a trans woman like Qween Jean, means living her life fully as a woman. She is “out” as a woman. Being closeted would mean she would be still living as a man. Being openly or publicly trans means disclosing her gender history. There have been plenty of people who transitioned and lived their lives as out women and men without being open or public about their trans status. They weren’t closeted or hiding or lying about who they were. Saying Qween Jean is the first openly trans person to win a Tony means we don’t erase any past winners who were either closeted (and thus perceived as the wrong gender by the world) or simply privately trans (and thus perceived as the correct gender by the world).

So although there may not be many occasions to use the adjective phrase "openly gay" instead of "out gay," there are far more occasions to use "openly trans," and it's essential to not create new editorial guidance based on how a very small subset of LGBTQ+ folks (older, gay, U.S., etc.) feel about a particular word.--RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

So, a topically relevant discussion just started here in relation to Q Manivannan (they/them), and somewhat by proxy in relation to Iris Duane (she/her) as well. Another editor there suggested asking here for potential input. I thought that was a good idea; thank you in advance for any participation and guidance anyone is willing to give. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 21:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

COI editing at Vaughan Murrae

I could use some help responding to an editor who says they are Vaughan Murrae, an article I started. See talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Lesbian Visibility Day#Requested move 26 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Lesbian Visibility Day#Requested move 26 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

JJ Pionke article -- Pronouns?

I already posted this on the Talk page for the JJ Pionke article; reposting here so that members of WP:LGBTQ+ may weigh in. This article uses the pronoun "he" to refer to Pionke, but an article published by Pionke refers to the author with the pronoun "their" in the author bio section. How should this be reconciled in this article? Msoul13 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

From what I've been able to find, sources more recent than the article you linked tend to use he/him for JJ Pionke. I've not been able to find anything, self-published or otherwise, that clarifies his pronouns explicitly (such as if he's fine with he/they but has a preference for he, if he used to use they/them more or exclusively but has since changed to he/him, things like that). In this instance, I think it's okay and compatible with MOS:GENDERID guidelines to use he/him as reflected in the majority of recent sources. In the absence of any verifiably sourced clarification, it seems to me that trying to include they/them and an explanation for it could be in WP:OR territory.

Good catch and question! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 14:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Here we have only one source, from 2017, and no other indication from other reliable or self-published sources that he uses they/them. His bios from Syracuse, Amazon.com, and this speaker profile from August 2025 all use he. This isn't exhaustive but Poinke presumably has significant input or even total control over what gets written in these bio statements. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This is him apparently writing his own answers to questions, with the initial bio question at least formatted as if it was his response, using "he", in 2022. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Mizuki Akiyama to non-binary character page

There is currently a discussion on whether to add Mizuki Akiyama, a character in the video game Hatsune Miku: Colorful Stage, to the List of fictional non-binary characters (video games section). One IP user has provided sources supporting this addition, but two other editors have disagreed with this assertion. As such, discussion participation here would be welcome. Thanks. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The Eagle (gay bars) at AfD

The Eagle (gay bars) has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in weighing in or making article improvements. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

 Kept --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:59, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (artist) has an RfC (June 2026)

Francis Bacon (artist), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

It has been kindly facilitated by a frantic turtle. Thank you. Taghdtaighde (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of LGBT+ Articles for Deletion by a reviewer

Hi

Can someone take a look at these Initiative Sankofa d'Afrique de l'Ouest , Douglas Kendyson & Improved Sexual Health and Rights Advocacy Initiative.

I need an LGBTIQ reviewers to take a look on this and evaluate if they are truly not notable as said.

Best Obinna Tony (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like a main issue with all three articles in failing to meet notability guidelines lies with the sources used.

Per WP:ORGCRIT:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

All three articles have very few, if any, secondary sources used as references. The bulk of the sources used are directly from the organisations themselves, and/or from people heavily involved with the organisations; in other words, they're primary sources.

As the articles are currently, it looks to me like the questions of notability and nominations for deletion are appropriate.

Other editors may provide insight on things I may not be seeing, but that's what I can tell for the moment. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 17:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, they have articles like this Jonas Benson Okoye Kar' Assaly Kafaru Alabi etc up on the main page. lol. If it's really about sources.

They are just putting LGBT+ projects up e.g Women's Health and Equal Rights Initiative and Country Love too. Obinna Tony (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Another sparsely sourced Catholics articles they created: Paulinus Ezeokafor and from a primary source. Obinna Tony (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying those articles you linked don't also have problems - and you can evaluate them and add notability and/or AfD banners to those too if you wish. If you want to do that, these pages may be helpful to you:

• WP:DEL
• WP:AFD
• Template:Afd notice
• Template:Notability

But you asked about three specific articles in your first message, so I gave you non-exhaustive feedback from what I could see on evaluation of those three specific articles.

It may help to speak with the editor who added the AfD and notability banners to the articles you asked about - they presumably can provide more detailed reasoning. Looking at the article histories, it looks to be @SafariScribe. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 17:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I share Pikkupapupata's assessment, having looked into these some but not enough to offer a formal opinion at the AFDs. WP:INTERVIEW may also be helpful and is relevant to some of these sources. INTERVIEW is an essay, not a policy or guideline, but I have seen other editors cite this at AFD and other discussions or reliable sources and notability. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, according to here, that user said that while they do not use LLMs in writing an articles, they "may have used a machine to paraphrase or rephrase" (this is after someone asked "Did you use an LLM to help you write it, such as ChatGPT?", referring to the article Jazz Moon) which is... worrisome. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

All I can say is that the user is a bit hypocritical to be posting articles with few sources, then nominating other articles with more sources, particularly ones with LGBTQ+ topics/themes, for deletion. Otherwise, as I stated in another comment, that user may be using LLMs to "paraphrase or rephrase" articles. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, although I'm uncomfortable having this discussion here. A report was made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Nomination of LGBT+ Articles for Deletion by a Nigerian reviewer, which should have been on the main WP:AN page and not its talk page. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair point. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

These may interest some of you, AfD of articles in work: Jay Arner and Karsay Dorottya. Web-julio (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

After some thought and a bit of looking more into the articles in question, I think most of the nominations for deletion are premature per WP:BEFORE. I can see the reasonings for them, and those articles do still have issues with sources and questions of meeting notability. But, especially given they're so new, I also think they should first have time allowed for improvement in those areas, along with article talk page discussions. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 01:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of times it seems like people jump right to nominating an article for deletion rather than actually doing the research, again substituting deletion for article cleanup. I found that in one of the AfDs for an articles mentioned in the above discussion, I spent about an hour of research and found a plethora of sources for the topic, but other users were strangely saying "oh, there are no reliable sources" and this person "isn't notable", which, to me, indicated they hadn't really done the proper research before posting their opinions or nominating the article. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it seems quite disoriented to see some members of this community weighing in to the AFDs, trying obviously to save WP:MILLs. I tell you, you cannot overthrow laid down standards in the name of emotions or beliefs or whatsoever. What defines such a community is living the truth, however for the common good, and not funding in fault with other people, and trying to argue Elenchi to the subject matter. The most worrying about it is that most of you have stayed here for years, participated in critical AFDs, and I wonder why you need to act down herein in the name of LGBTQ stuff, otherwise "let us save it". It is wrong and defines illogically. Ofcourse I am waiting for more views on those AFD because the truth can never be outshined, even if it is this time, not forever. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS and refrain from making unconstructive additions to discussions.

The articles you nominated for deletion may currently have questions of notability, but that does not automatically mean they are WP:MILLS. Further, the AfD discussions for each of those articles have facilitated discussion about the newness of the articles, the fact there that are more sources available in many cases, and that alternatives to deletion or even nomination for deletion should be considered first.

Additionally, the editor who started this discussion was told that they could post here, and has responded in good faith to fair criticism from other users in their attempts to get help and navigate these AfDs.

I don't think anyone is denying that the articles in question do have issues. What does seem to be the trend is editors taking the time to evaluate each article and supporting merges, draftification, or time for improvements to be made over outright deletion.

All of this very much seems to me to be compatible with current policies and guidelines. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 14:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Pikkupapupata, I didn't expect you to write and even for your misinterpretation of my words above as aspersions (obvious there aren't). By the way, do you need me to remind you of your comments for keeping those articles? Of course you won't. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This is an open discussion I've already been a participant in; I'm not seeing why I wouldn't reply.

Also, I'm not sure what you're implying. Would you clarify what you mean? Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 15:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Your response is relatively hostile here, as I noted in a comment on another recent AfD and your comments about "living the truth" and "the truth" are just outright bizarre. I also have no idea what in the world you are talking about when commenters such as myself have participated in those AfDs and are even noting faults in the articles, but not agreeing with you on deletion. I ask you to keep in mind other editors on here and elsewhere, especially coming from someone who seems to have said (on your talk page) that you used LLMs in the past for "paraphrase or rephrase" words in articles, which is very bad. Did you, by chance, use an LLM to compose your comments here? I completely agree with Pikkuapapupata here, and feel that your comments here are completely, and fully unconstructive. People have every right to reply to your comments on here. By the way, my comment was not in reference to an article you had nominated for deletion, but an article someone else nominated for deletion.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Pikkupapupata and Historyday01. Your comments come off as hostile to this project and the editors here. Regardless of your intent, you are on notice as to the impact. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae why wouldn't you have to agree? After all that's with the same emotion, allegedly, that you use in voting specifically in those AFD. I am leaving this discussion since I see people here arguing from a non neutral aspect rather from a biased view of saving a so-called community they are probably affiliated with—LGBTQ. If you like, fault my writings, that I do not care, or even to add me to your notices, same I repeat. But the fact is this: you all need to re-read WP:AFD and WP:ATD since, sorry to say, most of you have been here a long time and may have actually forgotten the purpose of AFDs, and that they are for the good of the Wikipedia community and not a vengeful disposition to delete articles. Again, when you argue for WP:ATD, let it be at least reasonable to a great extent, as well as to come with a purpose and reason, such like, with concrete evidence(s) such as reliable sources to back up whatever claim you have in mind. Looking at all of your (you people) contribs herein, including that of @Historyday01, @Pikkupapupata, you all need to read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The funny part about this comment is that most of my responses in the AfDs were relatively moderate. The most work I put into an AfD listed above was for a page you didn't even nominate. Your hostility toward the editors here, and this project as a whole, is totally uncalled for. Also, just because someone is an editor for this project does NOT necessarily mean they are part of the LGBTQ+ community (which you seem to act like it doesn't exist, which is obviously does exist by any quantifiable measure).

To say that views of editors, like myself, on here is biased but seemingly not applying that logic to yourself is strange. I've seen many terrible AfDs over the years and yours are up there among some of the most unnecessary efforts. Please thoroughly read the rules on here before trying to school other people about how the rules work. And yes, I have argued for alternatives to deletion, but you clearly have not been following that with your AfD, and have been unreasonable, to be perfectly honest. In theory AfDs are for "the good of the Wikipedia community" and not a "vengeful disposition to delete articles" but in practice, that theory can fall down. I do wonder if your AfDs are actually to the good of Wikipedia or not.

I do find it telling you ignored my question from my above comment ("Did you, by chance, use an LLM to compose your comments here?"), which says a lot about your responses on here. I've done my best to be polite to you on here and the way you have approached the discussion on here has been unhelpful and unconstructive in more ways than one. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, @Historyday01 let me act stupid and reply you anyway: I am a human, and neither am I a robot nor its user. I hope this helps? SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, and will say again, your hostility toward the editors here, and this project as a whole, is uncalled for and not appreciated. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I keep wondering what you meant by hostility. Go and see what you and others were saying in an AFD discussion. It is uncalled for. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Just read your own comments. If you don't see what you have written as hostile, well that's only a problem you can solve on your own. To act like what me, and other editors, have said is "uncalled for" is not only absurd but blatantly incorrect. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Same here. I have made fairly modest contributions to just one of the AFDs here (Lean keep or possibly merge). Editors here have warned the OP against casting aspersions or reaching broad conclusions about your motivations based on your identity or the community you belong to. We have made other recommendations to the OP to moderate their town and interact constructively and have not piled on or provided blanked agreement with the OP's assessment of the individual articles or the totality of your nominations. Your accusations and characterizations of our actions and motivations are uncalled for and wholly unsupported by the actual facts. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of non-neutrality and bias without evidence is an example of casting an aspersion, which is in the scope of making personal attacks. Your comments towards other editors, including towards me, have been uncivil at best and blatantly hostile otherwise.

You are the one who needs to take the time to read what others have actually said - here and at the various AfD discussions highlighted here. You are also the one who needs to read up on policies and guidelines. These deletion nominations are premature, and plenty of editors in addition to myself have contributed to the AfD discussions with solid suggestions for alternatives to deletion that are entirely within the scope of the overall AfD process.

Here are some helpful quotes if you need them:

• Per WP:ATD
  • If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
  • Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input.
• Per WP:NOTCLEANUP:
  • A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.
• Per WP:BEFORE
  • Everything; I have also linked to this in each of my initial comments at the five AfDs in which I have participated.

You have not sufficiently demonstrated that deletion of the articles is the only proper solution, nor have you demonstrated that these nominations were made in line with policies and guidelines to begin with. WP:DILIGENCE is specified as something to carry out before AfD nomination. You yourself have continued to both demand that other editors do the labour of searching for more sources, and ignore when other editors have done exactly that and shared what they've found at the discussions. If they found them, you could have found them. You could have used clean-up tags, you could have started discussions at the article talk pages. Jumping to AfD is drastic for these five articles. They have issues that are clearly acknowledged and can be fixed.

Nothing about this situation requires as much contention and hostility as have been shown. Make additions that are collaborative and focus on improving the encyclopaedia, and stop attacking other editors. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 18:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

A very good comment. I totally agree with all of this. It is per ATD and NOTCLEANUP that I usually in AfDs (when I participate, which honestly isn't that much anymore) side with Redirect, Weak Keep, or Keep, depending on the circumstances of each AfD. I've been through some rough AfDs myself over time, even having my own article on an animated series which never came to be, deleted some time ago, although luckily that was only one time. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking for assistance on recently created article

Hi. I recented created the article Fetishization of LGBTQ people and I'd appreciate if other editors could look through it. Someone mentioned a concern with POV such as what does and doesn't count as "fetishization." I tried to lay it out in the Scope section but I'd appreciate if someone could let me know if further elaboration is needed there. Also a couple editors have removed images without elaborating so idk if there's an issue with them or something? I thought I placed them in relevant subsections that provide context for their inclusion, but if they aren't suitable I could search more for something that is.

Oh and thanks in advance for your feedback ^_^

Urchincrawler (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Specifically for the Scope section: I think it is important to try to have a really solid definition of 'fetishisation' in the article's context. In its current form, I had to re-read the section multiple times, and compare it with what's in the cited sources, before I understood what it was trying to say. Right now, it's very confusing to use words like 'attraction' and 'attractive' so many times all together.

One of the cited sources for that section explicitly stated that fetishisation is a reduction of a person, and I think that is a key element that needs to be clearly stated - either to clarify the type of attraction or to replace the word 'attraction' entirely. Some of the other sources listed in the References section - particularly a couple of studies from journals that I skimmed - specified that fetishisation is linked to and/or is a specific type of dehumanisation.

I think spending some time to re-work the definition would be beneficial, and using more sources that are not limited opinion pieces to help form the definition is necessary for neutrality and avoiding the realm of original research. If you're not already aware of it, WP:RSPS is an amazing resource for checking and vetting potential sources - I use the list and the search box for the noticeboard archives very often if I'm trying to evaluate sources. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is also another good resource. (If you already know about these things, great!)

I'm not familiar enough with policies and guidelines around images in articles (aside from the obvious like avoiding copyright violations), so I'll hold off on saying anything about that.

The article is clearly quite new and a work in progress. In the absence of any other potential issues I might not be seeing, I'm sure it can continue to be improved over time. Hopefully this is enough to start. Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 19:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll specify the scope section more. Urchincrawler (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oki doke scope has been expanded. Urchincrawler (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I added in a bunch of categories for the page with recent edits here and here. I hope that helps. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. Thanks! Urchincrawler (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Regarding images, perhaps start a discussion on the article talk page and ping the editor(s) who removed them. Either focus on a specific image or start a discussion about image use broadly within the article. I've not reviewed the history to see which images were removed or what reasoning, if any, was provided in edit summaries, so this is a general recommendation and opinion, not based on specifics. Image use is typically highly context-dependent and involves considerations of individual images as well as the totality of image use. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Article Request: Gary Zebrun (Author and Journalist)

HI, I am writing to request the creation of a biographical article for author and journalist Gary Zebrun. Please be aware that I am Gary Zebrun, so I have a Conflict of Interest (COI) and can not edit the article myself. I am hoping a volunteer editor from this project might find the subject notable enough to create a draft.

Gary Zebrun is an American fiction writer, poet, and former editor at The Providence Journal. He is a graduate of the Brown Graduate Writing Program and a recipient of fellowships from Yaddo, MacDowell, and Bread Loaf. He has published three novels: Someone You Know (2004), Only the Lonely (2008), and Hart Island (2024), the latter published by the University of Wisconsin Press. His work has been recognized by the Ferro-Grumley Award, The Joseph Hansen Award from the Publishing Triangle and the Lambda Literary Awards.

I have gathered independent, secondary sources below to help establish his encyclopedic notability:

Independent Book Reviews & Coverage:

• Kirkus Reviews review of Someone You Know (2004): https://kirkusreviews.com
• Kirkus Reviews review of Only the Lonely (2008): https://kirkusreviews.com
• Buffalo Spree Magazine features and archives on his regional background and literature: https://buffalospree.com
• Ocean State Review feature and review of Hart Island (2024): https://oceanstatereview.org

Literary Awards & Fellowships (Verification):

• Finalist/nominee recognition data for the Ferro-Grumley Award The Joseph Hansen Award,the Publishing Triangle and Lambda Literary Award for Mystery.
• Verification of residency fellowships at the MacDowell Colony, Yaddo, and Bread Loaf Writers' Conference.

Selected Journalism & Essays:

• Essays and opinion pieces published in The New York Times (such as "The Russian Winters of Lackawanna, NY", 1982).
• Literary contributions to The Gay & Lesbian Review (https://glreview.org) and The Common.

Gary Zebrun (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping and spamming this everywhere, there is zero indication of your passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:Gay icon

Y'all! I was stunned to learn that Category:Gay icon contains just 11 entries! I discovered this a few months back and was recently reminded of it. Lesbian icons are especially underrepresented!

Now this is fairly low on the scale of important topic areas that need attention. But for many of these divas and other icons it is just a matter of creating a redirect to an existing article section or placing an anchor where the icon status is already discussed. For example, I did a text search for "gay icon" at Kylie Minogue and easily found existing coverage. I'll be creating Kylie Minogue as a gay icon as a redirect shortly and adding it to the category. For others, it requires finding adequate sourcing and adding adding content (while considering WP:DUE and other relevant guidelines). —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The category name should probably be plural; I've opened a CfD to get some input from others. Also, I'm not sure creating redirects for "X as a gay icon" is necessary; linking directly to the article should suffice. Toast of Fate ♡ talk to me! 13:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd say it's necessary. If we just allow articles, the category will become a mess of people. Don't get me wrong, some people (such as saint sebastian and lady gaga) are very much obviously gay icons, but what about other people? I especially worry that this will be bloated with every single famous gay celebrity in existence. I think the redirects are fine right now, we don't want this to be super bloated after all. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a search on here, and the word "gay icon" comes up with 538 results, so you are right that it could become bloated. Perhaps the first paragraph from the gay icon page could be added to the category as well. After all as Myceyteae said, for other gay icons, "it requires finding adequate sourcing and adding adding content (while considering WP:DUE and other relevant guidelines)." In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

(This is a reply to all of the above editors.) My first thought was along the lines of Toast of Fate's. Adding Kylie Minogue to the category seemed like an obvious thing to do but I went ahead and created the redirect, following the approach others had used. I then found the template {{Gay icon}} where the approach has been to use these redirect to point directly to the relevant section of each article. This isn't necessarily the approach I would have come up with, and I don't think we have to stick with it. I do think it makes a certain amount of sense to point readers directly to where this is covered when possible. In cases where there is a standalone article, like Janet Jackson as a gay icon, would it be excessive to also include the main article (i.e., Janet Jackson) in the category? I don't think there's a ceiling on how many articles should be added to the category but, per my initial statement, there should be reasonable verification and coverage in the article. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, it should not be limited to people who have articles named, "X as gay icon". Bette Midler and Josephine Baker should certainly be included. Others to consider, antedating Bette: Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Mae West; and outside Anglo culture, Carmen Miranda, Dalida, Sara Montiel, and Frida Kahlo. Mathglot (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm broadly supportive of adding more pages to the category. I think there should be at least some rough inclusion criteria but it's not a strictly defined category IRL so it doesn't need to be here, either, but if there are disputes or too many stretch inclusions, we may need to revisit the matter. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Requesting an editor for a draft: Openhouse (SF LGBTQ senior housing nonprofit)

I’ve prepared a draft article on Openhouse, a San Francisco nonprofit that provides housing, services, and community programs for LGBTQ older adults. Founded in 1998 by Marcy Adelman and Jeanette Gurevitch, it operates a four-building campus on Laguna Street, including two affordable senior housing buildings, and has a third building planned for 1939 Market Street. It also co-operates an adult day program with On Lok and supported California's 2017 LGBT Seniors Long-Term Care Bill of Rights (SB 219), which the state Supreme Court upheld in November 2025.

Notability is well established through independent secondary sources spanning more than two decades, including the Bay Area Reporter, The Frisc, Affordable Housing Finance, EDGE Media Network, PBS NewsHour, AARP, a 2025 peer-reviewed scoping review in The Gerontologist, and California court records. The draft attributes contested superlatives rather than stating them in Wikipedia's voice, and it covers the organization's challenges (a developer bankruptcy, leadership turnover, funding setbacks, and tenancy questions) alongside its milestones.

I have a conflict of interest: I worked at Openhouse from mid-2015 to mid-2016. For that reason I am not creating the article myself and am offering the draft and sourcing to any uninvolved editor willing to take it on, with full editorial discretion.

The draft is here: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8tp7dr29z2bj8dtx0yivh/Openhouse_Wikipedia_Submission_061826.txt?rlkey=ocprhey3lns1fngbml415md17&st=m0rs8jss&dl=0

Happy to answer factual questions on my talk page. Gaylesf (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to review if you move that draft to Wikipedia. See the Article Wizard to make it a draft. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 19:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. This would facilitate collaboration including direct edits and discussion on the draft's talk page. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yukio Mishima

Recently, the "fascist" categories have been removed from Yukio Mishima's article. Relevant information can be found in the article edit summaries, my talk page and the article talk page – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Saw earlier that some discussions have been started, which is a good direction to go. ANI or ANEW are always there too, but hopefully the current discussions will be enough to get it all sorted. Good luck! Pikkupapupata ^💌 🌷 17:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Post-merge cleanup help needed at Asexuality#Microlabels

Requesting assistance cleaning up Asexuality#Microlabels after completing the initial merge steps.

Several of you participated in these discussions, but for reference the RM and subsequent AFD that led to this merger are linked below and are worth reading for background:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asexual identities
• Talk:List of asexual identities#Requested move 29 May 2026 (this concluded prior to the AFD and was the reason for the AFD nomination)

To keep things "clean" and to make the history most accessible, please discuss issues with the cleanup at Talk:Asexuality and ping me if starting a new discussion. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"Gay black men" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gay black men has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 24 § Gay black men until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see the discussion, which lists multiple redirects. I looked through the various targets suggested and I'm at a loss. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Slihght corruption, the discussion heading is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 24#Bisexual Black people although the link above also works. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)