Template talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

peer-review parameter

It would be helpful to deprecate the peer-review parameter in the documentation, to reflect that WP:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies/Peer review is inactive and peer review requests can instead be made at WP:Peer review. However, we would want to keep the documentation for old-peer-review and title parameters, which are still used for historical peer reviews that were done. The difficulty is that all of the peer review documentation is transcluded from {{WPBannerDoc/peerreview}}.--Trystan (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to add "core" parameter

It would be very helpful if this template had a "core" parameter that could be used for articles on the project's core topics list, akin to the core parameter on {{WikiProject Film}} that is used for the same purpose for that project. Like the core parameter used by WikiProject Film, it could be used to categorize articles under a categories like "WikiProject LGBTQ+ core articles" and "B-class WikiProject LGBTQ+ core articles" (etc.), and to show in the WikiProject Banner Shell that an article is considered core to the project. This would have two benefits:

1. With categories for core articles, we would no longer have to update the project's goal stats for core articles by hand, a task that is arduous and often left unattended to.
2. As far as I can tell, the only significance the core topics currently has is that those articles are listed on the project's core topics page. Non-members of the project therefore likely never learn about the list, making it (IMO) moot. Indicating which articles are core to the project in those articles' WikiProject banners would change that.

I can't make this change myself, as the template is protected to template editors, but could potentially poke around in my user sandbox to figure out how to implement the change, if that would be helpful. MidnightAlarm (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Two problems with this - it’s uncontrollable, anyone can modify the parameters and means that it just infinitely grows - the WikiProject Films currently has over 500 core articles as a result.

The second one is the criteria selection for it - WikiProject film tried to solve this through specific criteria such as “Top 250” movies from this website - that has aged like bad milk and there’s currently 298 out of 250 top Films in that section. The other criteria they have are delegated to sub-task forces, which basically ends up in a show of power, bigger countries have task forces and representation, smaller ones are just entirely absent.

Given that the scope of WP LGBTQ+ is a lot more squishy, the inclusion criteria for our core list is similarly squishy and generally just requires good judgement of what we have in the list.

Our list also just doesn’t change that often, there’s been less than 10 additions/modification to the list. The rest is updates to the ratings, which while yes, take some TLC from the community, it also seems to work just fine.

As for the second argument about categories - the GA and such rating is already automated, e.g. Category:GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles which is consistent with other Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Statistics Wikiprojects (the 1.0 project has also been paused years ago) - very few projects have more precision for core+rating, so we want to stay consistent with the rest, given that we only have so many members and have bigger fish to fry, rather than forcing us to have to expend time to ensure articles added via banners would fit some set of criteria we’d have to come up rather than the current approach.

So I think while sure, it could be neat to show the fact that an article is core at the talk banner, I think the maintenance it would require for keeping the list in check to not grow infinitely, which defeats the purpose of the core-ness, outweighs the benefits. It is a lot easier to keep up with it by being set at the single page that people have on their watchlist. Raladic (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I hear your concern about anyone being able to add "core=yes" to an article's banner if we implement the parameter, and it's a fair point. Given the small number of identified core articles (currently 120), I wonder if that's something that project members could periodically monitor - i.e., that only the core 120 have that parameter set... But of course, that's more manual work, which was what my suggestion was an attempt to avoid.

Just to contextualize my thought process here, I brought this up because I recently noticed that the core topics list hadn't been fully updated (to amend ratings icons or to update the goal progress tracker) in at least a year, as far as I could tell. I went ahead and updated it by clicking on the articles one by one, checking their current ratings, amending the icons as needed, and then adding up the numbers manually, but this took me at least an hour's work. Not that that's an egregious amount of work for WikiProject maintanence by any means! But it seemed inefficient, and I had the thought that it would be nice to be able to automate these tasks, so when I noticed today that WikiProject Film has a core article parameter, it seemed like a good way to help automate the task.

But automating one task just to create another where project members have to monitor the use of the parameter doesn't make a great deal of sense. I'll have to head back to the drawing board on this one. Thanks for explaining the potential issues, I do appreciate it. MidnightAlarm (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

updated it by clicking on the articles one by one, checking their current ratings, amending the icons as needed, and then adding up the numbers manually, but this took me at least an hour's work.

Oh, that task can be easily simplified using semi-automated editing tools like WP:AWB.

I'll add it to my Todo list to see if I can come up with an easy script to do that in the future to share.

For now, using the list comparer in AWB, it took me about 5 minutes to grab the articles, then cross them against the respective categories under Category:LGBTQ+ studies articles by quality and spit them out into a file for each class.

In doing so, I ended up with 117 articles from FA, GA, B, C, Start and List-class, as well as discovering 3 articles that were redirects, so I went and fixed those in the core list.

Here's the output if you want to cross-check: User:Raladic/WPLGBTQ+CoreAssessments.

All that's left is to make the pattern or regex to takes the list output and replaces the respective rating icon in the core-list based on the processed list output. Raladic (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, amazing! I'll leave that task alone in the future then, at least until I finally get around to figuring out AWB. MidnightAlarm (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

AWB can be a useful tool for bulk tasks, I primarily use it for post-move cleanup when I move pages as a result of an RM or the likes, or, you know, moving LGBT to LGBTQ last year :), but it requires great care since you are still responsible for every edit made, which is also why it requires special permissions you need to request if you're interested in its use. Raladic (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)