DarknessGoth777

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wicked (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked (film series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BOVINEBOY2008 17:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) All-plot articles are not allowed per WP:NOTPLOT and the article needs to significantly incorporate independent perspectives (reviews, analyses, etc.) (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Book cover of Ripples and Waves 2019.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Geniac. Your recent edit(s) to the page Sriti Jha appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Paula Poundstone. Thank you. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Niki Massey, you may be blocked from editing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi DarknessGoth777, I just want to make you aware of Wikipedia’s BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (often abbreviated as WP:BRD—do take a read!) Generally, you are encouraged to edit boldy, but if someone reverts your edit you shouldn’t just revert them back, but instead take to the talk page to discuss the changes you think should be made. This BRD principle is the best method we have to avoid edit-warring.

Chocmilk03, I and others would be happy to discuss whether Keri Hulme was an LGBT person on that article’s talk page (Talk:Keri Hulme), but it isn’t appropriate to continue to make the same changes back and forth. Either way, I do want to wish you well in editing Wikipedia! — HTGS (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK I would love to discuss to. I left my reasoning on the talk page for the article. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, DarknessGoth777. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Doniago. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Shining (film) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hi DarknessGoth777! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Horror film several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Horror film, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Super Size Me, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, DarknessGoth777. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Philip Wiegratz, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Bullied (2005 film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Bullied2005poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently made some good faith edits to Aromanticism that have been reverted.

Please note that the list of identities as it stands on the article is a summary of the most common ones that are independently cited by multiple sources. You added some more novel new emerging terms that are not yet widely used (as acknowledged by the listing on AUREA), so I have added a sentence to that effect that the list is not exhaustive, but the link to the full reference does exist and per the WP:NOTEVERYTHING guidelines, Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete exhaustive listing. Also the edit on the flag stripe definitions was reverted, as per the original creator of the flag, the current definition that is on the article is the cited one of the creator and other sourced secondary references.

Also on a small side note, I noticed that you marked all your edits as minor edits - Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for a minor edit as outlined in the linked article. Raladic (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi again,

you again recently made another unsourced change - the sources referenced in the section all refer to it as Lithromantic - if you want to make a change, please cite reliable sources that back up the change. Raladic (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Now this user is doing the same thing on two polyamorous pages, saying they don't fall under LGBTQ... sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Asexuality, you may be blocked from editing. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hi DarknessGoth777! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  You appear to be marking everything except page creation as minor edits. Substantive changes in content like this one or this edit should not be marked as minor. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls 2010 poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Superstraight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super straight. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.----Licks-rocks (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with this warning. You can't just impose your views on here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, DarknessGoth777. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bullied (2005 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Sungodtemple. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to White Aryan Resistance have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Needs a source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines.

Please only include the most-specific relevant category, not less-specific categories that are parents of the more-specific one. For example, Category:Transphobia subcategory of Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment, so if an article is in "Transphobia" it should not also be in "Anti-LGBT sentiment". I see a bunch of your recent edits do not follow this guideline. Please take a moment to look at them and undo the incorrect ones. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Carrie (novel), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Donald Albury 13:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:HarryDracoDrarry.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, DarknessGoth777. In this edit at List of gender identities, you removed content from the list, giving as an explanation that Gender non conforming is not a gender identity its a gender expression they are not the same thing. However, the problem is that the content you removed had two citations, both of which support its inclusion. Simply adding your opinion to an edit summary is not sufficient grounds to remove sourced material. The missing content was restored shortly thereafter. However, now you have doubled down, removing it again in this edit, using the identical edit summary. I'm sorry, that's simply not good enough, and verges on edit-warring. I have restored the cited material once again. Please do not remove or replace sourced information based solely on your own opinion about something. If you believe that both of these sources are wrong, your next option is to go to the article Talk page and make your case for removal there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know what the motivation is for your crusade to remove the "old guard leather" community from the history of gay people, but it's distinctly annoying by now, since the gay male "leathermen" were rather well organized at a time when many other aspects of gay and lesbian life in the U.S. were rather disorganized, and when many other groups or identities which are featured on Wikipedia LGBTQ symbols articles and templates were then extremely obscure at best. I would appreciate it if you would take your historical revisionist efforts to some other venue than Wikipedia -- and I doubt that I'm the only one... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to remove it from gay history. I'm trying to remove the leather flag from LGBT articles because having a leather fetish isn't inherently LGBT. Fetishes aren't LGBT. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to explain it more clearly in words of one syllable or fewer. THE OLD GUARD LEATHER OR GAY MALE "LEATHERMEN" WERE RATHER WELL ORGANIZED IN THE 1960S when The Mattachine Society and such groups were somewhat fledgeling. You may sneer and despise them as mere "fetishists", and hate their guts for that reason, but to remove their symbols from the Wikipedia LGBTQ symbols articles and templates, while leaving those of groups and identities which were almost completely unknown in the 1960s would be a general travesty, not to mention historical revisionism of the worst type. Now that you know there are well-founded objections to your attempted revisions, for you to continue down your current path might smack of disruptive editing... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What caught my eye was the n+1'th time you have been making inappropriate categorization, despite many warnings here and also noted a while ago at WP:AN. And it builds on a pattern of many types of disruption others have noted. Therefore, I have forced a stop to the problem and emphasize how serious we are about your need to follow our guidelines for content and editorial behavior. DMacks (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your next block is probably coming very soon if you continue these behaviors. It will probably be of indefite length, meaning your permission to edit this website will be revoked for good. We don't need your disruption. DMacks (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

DarknessGoth has just, once again, added a category unsupported by an article's content here. I would have left them a gentle notice about that until I saw their extensive Talk page history (including warnings I've left them myself). DonIago (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hansel and Gretel (opera), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rice porridge. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Template:WP LGBTQIA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 24 § Template:WP LGBTQIA until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I had to revert your recent changes to the Template:Aromanticism topics and Template:Asexuality topics as they broke WP:ACCESSIBILITY of link color MOS:CONTRAST, so I had to revert them. Also note that in general, bottom WP:NAVBOXes don't usually have custom color, so we should avoid it here too. Raladic (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Transgender, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Funcrunch (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! lizthegrey (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § (LGBT identity) fiction on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Web-julio (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

With this edit at Alex Kazemi you added two categories identifying this person as LGBTQ, yet nowhere in the article does it state this person is LGBTQ.

You were blocked earlier this year by User:DMacks for "making inappropriate categorization". Please explain yourself. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The asexual spectrum is LGBT so if someone is asexual then they’re LGBT. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like he’s demisexual which means he’s on the asexual spectrum and like I said the asexual spectrum and the aromantic spectrum are inherently LGBT so he’s part of the LGBT community. Saying that someone on the asexual spectrum or the aromantic spectrum isn’t inherently LGBT is acephobic and arophobic. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The A in LGBTQIA is for the asexual and aromantic spectrums. If you type in LGBTQIA on the iPhone you get these emojis recommended: 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️⚧️ which shows that LGBTQIA is a commonly used acronym for the community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just chiming in here to support what @DarknessGoth777 said as correct. It's sourced in the article and as you can see from the categorization tree, the article was already part of the Category:LGBTQ people by virtue of being in Category:Asexual men, so the additional categories are appropriate non-diffusing additions. Raladic (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

At this point it’s generally accepted that the asexual and aromantic spectrums are inherently LGBT and that being on any of those spectrums make one LGBT. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heya, consensus is to include asexual people into LGBT categories only if they personally identify as part of the LGBT(+) umbrella. The last time I remember you brought this discussion up was at Talk:Keri Hulme#Asexual people are LGBTQ+ and I thought you walked away agreeing with that?

Obviously it's a little different to compare someone being discussed in Out Magazine as demisexual compared to someone who was openly asexual but most active in the 20th century, but I feel we should at least start from similar standards. — HTGS (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this has been re-litigated more recently than 2022 and the A in LGBTQIA+ stands for asexual, aromatic and agender and our Wikipedia understanding is that anyone under the LGBTQ banner and related Category:LGBTQ people is included under it, including the I and A's.

Relevant for your reference: User_talk:Bohemian_Baltimore#Aromanticism_and_Asexuality_are_the_A_of_LGBTQIA+_and_Intersex_is_the_I_and_is_inherently_an_LGBTQIA+_identity, which led to affirming by the community in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_7#Category:LGBT_asexual_people that we explicitly consider Aromantic, Asexual and the sibling Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_27#Category:Intersex_transgender_people Intersex to be considered within the LGBTQ+ community and as such in the categorization tree. Raladic (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Like on other articles on LGBT people I don’t see that rule being enforced really. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Raladic: This is a mistake, and would lead to people who do identify as asexual, but do not identify as LGBTQ being categorised wrongly, and against WP:BLP policy. According to WP:CATLGBTQ:

Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person are subject to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists and navigation templates: such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question, according to reliable published sources.

The misunderstanding here arises from the conflation of LGBTQIA2+, a social label for communities and movements, with a clinical or statistical label, for which you would use something like “gender and sexual minorities”. — HTGS (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven’t seen that rule applied to other articles about people in the LGBT community. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply