Wikivoyage talk:LGBT Expedition

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposal for a new LGBT Expedition[edit]

I propose an LGBT Expedition.

Like other types of travelers, many LGBT travelers have unique practical interests and concerns. As part of Wikivoyage's overarching goal of serving the traveler, the LGBT Expedition would help contribute and maintain content that fulfills LGBT travelers' needs in particular.

To be clear, some examples of these needs are as follows:

  • Which accommodations are LGBT-friendly?
  • Which restaurants, bars, etc., cater to LGBT people, or are otherwise welcoming?
  • Which attractions (monuments, museums, historical sites, etc.) are of particular interest to LGBT travelers and travelers who take interest in LGBT issues?
  • How welcoming are the locals? What precautions, if any, are advised?
  • Do LGBT travelers face special legal problems?

I'm aware that this topic has slippery-slope potential. My hope is that the LGBT Expedition will follow all of the Wikivoyage community's guidelines and do its part in making the project great. I appreciate any specific suggestions on how this expedition can get off on the right foot and best assist Wikivoyage's goals. Athelwulf (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, all we have so far is Wikivoyage:Information for gay and lesbian travellers which says that gay or inclusive venues are listed in the same manner as any others (so gay bars are, like any other bar, listed in "Drink" with just a brief mention as LGBT or whatever as part of the description). Certainly, if a destination is de facto or de jure problematic for gay or lesbian visitors, that's something we'd list under "stay safe". K7L (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some existing pages separate out gay bars into subsections of 'Drink': for instance, Westminster. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K7L, the LGBT Expedition's role here (at least in my mind's eye), as a team of editors, would be to ensure everything you mention actually gets done. Someone has to list the gay bars under the "Drink" section. Someone has to add information on which destinations are problematic for LGBT travelers. It's true that anyone can do it, and it may eventually get done regardless of whether a specific team of editors is working on the task. However, I feel having this kind of team, developing this content as a coordinated effort, would benefit Wikivoyage and its readers. Any relevant policies and guidelines would, of course, be followed. Athelwulf (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think such a thing is long overdue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a GLBT district in Oklahoma City with the Oklahoma City/NW 39th Street Enclave. When I get time and things slow down, it will get merged into another district, but all the information will be maintained. I like the idea of some better organization and direction for LGBT and an Expedition might be a good way to go. I think it is a good idea, and worth looking at some ideas and what you have in mind. - Tom Holland (Xltel) (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the intention here? I remember working on DMOZ a decade ago, where the LGBT activists seemed to be interested in total segregation of related material and creating a separate directory from the main body. Is that what your proposal entails? If so, I am against segregation. Gamweb (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd hope not. On an aside, Wikivoyagers should probably be aware of Wikimedia LGBT and Commons:LGBT Free Media Collective. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
View a category at DMOZ that was created by the LGBT activists [1]. Notice the very first link is from Tampa. The links were removed from the cities, states, regions, and are only listed in LGBT categories. DMOZ has a policy of only listing links ONCE in the directory, so Tampa lost its local listing of the link for the LGBT activists. (Yes I do sound somewhat bitter about this strange policy) Gamweb (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gamweb, as I said, all guidelines the Wikivoyage community has agreed upon would be followed. One of those guidelines, explained here, is that any information geared to LGBT travelers would be integrated into the article, and not, for example, split into a separate heading. The idea is to avoid suggesting that LGBT travelers go here, and heterosexual travelers go everywhere else, or that heterosexuals aren't welcome at establishments that welcome LGBT people. If DMOZ policy was not followed, then that is unfortunate; I do hope Wikivoyage's policies are followed.
In short, inclusion is the already agreed-upon policy here, and inclusion is my intention. (Incidentally, inclusion is what virtually all LGBT people want anyway, both activists and non-activists alike. Also incidentally, most LGBT people aren't comfortable being generally characterized as "activists".) Athelwulf (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is a separate "expedition" needed? I live in Daytona Beach; there is a gay/lesbian friendly bar named Savoy in town and I have listed it as such. [2] What else is needed? Gamweb (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See my response to K7L, further up in this thread. An LGBT expedition would serve a purpose somewhat similar to that of the Access Expedition, which helps develop content for disabled travelers. No one would characterize the Access Expedition as a "separate" expedition out to add totally segregated content; an LGBT expedition should be no different. Again, my intention is inclusion, not segregation. Athelwulf (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about DMOZ/ODP: it's been dead for a while. It'd be interesting if someone brought it back from the dead, but that's a separate issue. I think whether an LGBT-specific expedition on Wikivoyage is useful or not is rather dependent on the nature of expeditions. If they are like WikiProjects on Wikipedia, then there ought not be too much to worry about. WikiProjects are just a formal way of getting editors together to update articles about topics they are interested in. They don't have an identity component: you don't have to be LGBT to be involved with WikiProject LGBT Studies; you don't have to be a Christian to be involved with WikiProject Christianity.
I'd say that some kind of WikiProject-style infrastructure may be useful at some point, to help with long-term maintenance of Wikivoyage. In fact, the Wikivoyage equivalent of "LGBT Studies" and "Christianity" WikiProjects might actually be quite useful: someone needs to keep the entries about LGBT-specific venues maintained, someone probably needs to keep churches, cathedrals, monasteries and so on maintained. Organising people together by interest is a useful way of promoting that kind of maintenance. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only reason I "worry" about DMOZ/ODP is due to the probability of the same editors being active on Wikipedia (and eventually migrating to Wikivoyage). They may chose to cite DMOZ/ODP as an example and propose similar policies here. And I do call them "activists" because that is the way they behaved. No offense intended to User:Athelwulf, but I had some bad experiences along the way here. Gamweb (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tom Morris, we are on the same page.
Gamweb, I think I understand your concern. I'm presuming that our current policy of inclusion was reached by consensus, and it would take consensus to change it. I would generally oppose such a change, as it appears you would too. I think we don't have much to worry about in that regard. Athelwulf (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see overlap with access too. And yes, inclusion is the go. --Inas (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most seem to agree that inclusion, rather than segregating things, is the way to go. When it come to content, you can get editors together to add a paragraph (2-4 sentences or so) to the stay safe section to note any relevant issues and make sure any welcoming businesses are noted as such. One thing that seems to be overlooked is Travel topics. This is where an LGBT expedition can really shine. We have travel topics focused on things like "[city name] with children" (such as London with children & Charlotte with children), how about a travel topic such as "[City name] for LGBT"? Such pages can maybe go into more detail about listings & provide a more LGBT-focused "understand" section. Such pages would be in addition to providing a minimal amount of detail on the destination's page (I don't mean "minimal" in a disrespectful way, but the destination page doesn't need 2-3 paragraphs in "understand", a sentence on most eat & drink listings, and 2/3rds of the stay safe section focused on LGBT issues). You can also create travel topic pages that might focus on other issues, like LGBT parades/festivals/events or safety issues (like traveling in the Middle East). You can even create an itinerary or two, like "Weekend in [city name] for LGBT". AHeneen (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything you mention sounds great to me. I'm thinking destinations like San Francisco and Provincetown would have enough notable (Wikipedia term — what's the Wikivoyage equivalent?) content to make a viable LGBT travel topic subpage. That seems like one great way for an LGBT expedition to contribute to Wikivoyage. Athelwulf (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I've plunged forward and created Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition and added it to Wikivoyage:Expeditions. We can continue discussing the form that this collaboration takes on the talk page, and, err, fly rainbow flags and edit wikis and stuff. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this was swept off, possibly before anyone who had been participating in the discussion has seen that the Expedition had been created, it might be a good idea to drop a note on their talk pages to notify them. LtPowers (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. As I moved it out of the pub, I went ahead and notified everyone who was involved in the discussion. -- Sapphire (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huzzah! Athelwulf (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Information for gay and lesbian travellers was written on Wikitravel nearly a decade ago, and requires an update. /Yvwv (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please be more specific? Athelwulf (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikivoyage talk:Information for gay and lesbian travellers for further discussion. In brief, I would like to see LGBT city guide articles such as LGBT Stockholm. /Yvwv (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent naming[edit]

Best to decide now between GLBT (currently used in our most important relevant articles) and the more American centric LGBT and then stick to whatever choice is made (with re-directs in place). -- Alice 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, consistency is desirable. For what it's worth, the English Wikipedia community appears to have settled on "LGBT" mainly because they think it's the most common version among reliable English-language sources. True, their conventions don't apply to us, but if they're correct that "LGBT" is more prevalent in the English language, it's worth weighing this. On the other hand, if we happen to use "GLBT" more often on Wikivoyage, we could decide that we've set a precedent, and just formalize the guideline. I'm partial to "LGBT", but I'm happy either way. (Incidentally, "LGBT" is Americentric? I'm not finding any evidence of that. But I'd like to hear what you know about this.) Athelwulf (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may have been once. Certainly I now see "LGBT" a lot more than "GLBT" here in Britain. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick search of WV shows:
  • LGBT - 125 pages
  • LGBTQ - 5 pages
  • GLBT - 38 pages
  • GLBTQ - 1 page
  • gay - 553 pages
  • lesbian - 235 pages
  • queer - 29 pages
Wikipedia shows similar results, with LGBT (16937) vastly outnumbering GLBT (818). --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia LGBT/Interwiki[edit]

I have included LGBT Expedition as an interwiki collaboration at meta:Wikimedia LGBT. I invite project members here to come expand the Wikivoyage section to provide details about (and goals of) this project. I very much hope that our groups can work together and support each others' efforts in the future. --Another Believer (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very poor coverage of listings for LGBT bars/clubs[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I've started to realize the coverage for LGBT bars and clubs on WV is terrible. Even places that are specifically called out as being major gay destinations often have few or no LGBT listings.

Examples of important articles with poor listings of LGBT bars/clubs:

There's not some policy I haven't noticed that prevents us from listing places specifically as (or specifically because they are) LGBT-targeted, right? I know several print guidebooks I have list quite a few of them. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Information for LGBT travelers is the only relevant guideline on the subject that I'm aware of. By all means, add listings for LGBT bars and clubs - the only concern that has been raised in the past was that information applicable to LGBT travelers should usually be integrated into the rest of the guide, rather than called out in separate sections, for reasons outlined in that policy page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition probably merits a mention too; though it's been stuck in neutral since January, perhaps you might be able to spark interest in it anew. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone want to help another article?[edit]

Over at Retiring abroad/Table is a table for potential retirees to compare destinations. It has cost info plus a few columns for the legal status of various things some retirees will be interested in — prostitution, cannabis & homosexuality. Currently all the legal columns are woefully incomplete.

Would anyone here care to improve that? Pashley (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a map of Africa in this article that might be useful. Pashley (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LGBT collaboration as part of Wiki Loves Pride?[edit]

Greetings! I was wondering about the possibility of having a Wikivoyage collaboration related to LGBT travel, as part of en:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014. This would be for the month (or part of the month) of June, when pride celebrations often take place. Thoughts? Or, is there another avenue in which this discussion should take place? I'd be more than happy to update the Wiki Loves Pride page with details about the Wikivoyage project, if one comes to fruition. Wikimedia Commons will be hosting an LGBT photo challenge--it would be great to have additional interwiki collaboration as well! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status of Expedition?[edit]

What are the concrete goals of this expedition? The rationale to improve the guide for LGBT travellers is very commendable, but the goals are very vague and it doesn't seem to be doing anything.

Are there topics that need to be written, or existing destination articles that need improving for a LGBT audience? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, since there are no actions for this expedition, would there be any objection to merge with Wikivoyage:Information_for_LGBT_travelers ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This looks inactive or semi-inactive (a "wiki loves pride" enquiry in June got no response) but I don't know if merging an expedition into something which is not an expedition makes any sense. WP's wikiprojects have a tag "this project is currently inactive" and the project is left dormant unless and until someone else picks it up; perhaps that is the only (or at least most suitable) option as there is no related expedition to which to merge this one? K7L (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually cleaning up some of the expeditions right now and archiving some of them.This is sort of an edge case because it does have a 'semi active' status, but at the same time it doesn't have any hallmarks of an expedition such as goals to achieve or articles to work on.
For that reason I was thinking some sort of merge rather than an archival. Archive is still an option though. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed the 'Merge' template because I didn't want to confuse the the question.
I propose to retire this expedition because it lacks concrete goals. Additionally activity on this page is very low.
After archiving, this topic can continue at Wikivoyage:Information_for_LGBT_travelers where concrete goals are not needed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually one would expect the active users on an expedition to define the project goals... if there were anyone active here. There's a "how to install posts in concrete" which might explain how to make concrete goalposts, but there's not much point discussing goals if there's no one here. K7L (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I just wanted to give the opportunity at least for someone to come and save this.
If we archive then there is nothing to stop someone coming later and 'rebooting' the expedition with active members. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I edit Wikivoyage infrequently, and when I do I try to add LGBT-related content to it too. I don't see why we need to abandon the project even if it is inactive. It's still a useful way to find other editors who are interested in the topic. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(indent) The article has goals listed. How should those goals be "made concrete" if they are not? Do they need to be things that can be checked off, such as "Improve all LGBTQI nightclub info in each American state capital"? Honestly, aren't 99% of our expeditions the same as this one? The Search Expedition seems to be the one of the only expeditions people do more than sign their names to. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride 2017[edit]

Although I don't see any drive to create new content from this expedition presently, I thought worth highlighting that 'Wiki Loves Pride' is still active and might have some material for us to consider:

Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QW2022 Meeting on Friday and Saturday (October 21-22)[edit]

Dear project members Queering Wikipedia 2022 takes place on: Friday, October 21, at 18:00 UTC and Saturday, October 22, at 14:00 UTC

Though the initial 2019 title centers Wikipedia, all Wiki projects, LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies are welcome, especially You :-)

Please register using the link on the page to the Zoom based system as soon as possible even if your attendance will be partial. Pardon the late announcement.

--Zblace (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brussels Pride[edit]

Hey Wikimedians - anyone can and wants to meet at Brussels Pride today? We cad do a simple photo walk or just meet over a casual chat and drink? Please message me directly on Telegram or by email if interested. --Zblace (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]