Nonbinary:General discussion

From Nonbinary
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the place where discussion between Non-binary wiki users happens. To create a new discussion, click the Add topic tab. Remember to sign your comments with --~~~~!

Non-binary or nonbinary?[edit source]

We should agree on what's the correct form. Reddit (and I think that Cassolotl too (here)) spell it nonbinary, while Wikipedia spells it non-binary (which is the form we use here, for the moment). If anybody thinks that nonbinary is better, just let us know and we will decide what form do we use. --NeoMahler (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that nonbinary is better because it's easier to type, it reads more smoothly, and it matches the URL of the wiki. However, I have no particularly strong opinion on the matter. odious_odes (yodel) 22:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I think "nonbinary" is better. It's being more and more commonly used, and a twitter poll by Neutrois Nonsense ( had more people voting for "nonbinary" than "non-binary". --Kaiforest (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kaiforest: thanks for your opinion! I will rename the wiki to Nonbinary wiki together with the project namespace. Than I will proceed to change all words that appear on articles (you can start doing this last thing, if you want). --NeoMahler (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the wiki name to Nonbinary, updated the logo (the changes to the logo take some time to take effect, it seems) and also updated the rest of non-binary occurrences to nonbinary. --NeoMahler (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename the wiki to Non-binary wiki[edit source]

Basically, the problem now is that the project namespace has the capital letter: Non-Binary:General discussion. I propose to change it to Non-binary wiki (also, it would follow better the style guide. If nobody disagrees I will fill a request to Phabricator soon. (Ping Cassolotl because active). --NeoMahler (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am totally down with that. :) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: requested. You might want to subscribe to the request to keep track of the progress. --NeoMahler (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Looks like it's marked resolved! Awesome. :) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Are social networks good for references?[edit source]

There are pages, like multigender, were almost all references are links to tumblr, which is a blog service/social network. I propose to remove these references and the corresponding content if we can't find any other references. Any thoughts? --NeoMahler (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no participation in this thread, I will remove all references to tumblr and other social networks. --NeoMahler (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed all references and added an filter to warn users that add links to tumblr. --NeoMahler (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously content referencing only tumblr or social networks isn't ideal, but at the moment the vast majority of information about nonbinary identities can be found in personal conversations (unciteable), on social networks, and in articles where a reporter is interviewing a single nonbinary person, which doesn't seem any more of a reliable source than social networks. It's still totally dependent on that one person talking getting their info right. If we don't allow citing social networks, that's leaving out a lot of primary source material, most particularly for terms that were coined on tumblr. Leaving them out just makes this resource less complete; I think a better solution would be a warning at the top of the article saying it cites a social network. --Kaiforest (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kaiforest: that's a good argument. The problem with social networks is that while they are a good source for us because all these words to describe gender identities are relatively new, they can also be "abused". If we agree on allowing tumblr links, we should try to establish some sort of criteria to be sure that the tumblr blog used is notable in some way. I have no idea on how to do this, though... what do you think about making the abusefilter just to encourage the user to look for other sources and add the warning you say on top of the article? (The abusefilter currently warns the user saying that tumblr is not allowed, tags the edit as "tumblr link" but doesn't prevent the user of performing the action). --NeoMahler (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: I think the warning at the top is the best way of marking information from tumblr as less reliable to readers, and people can generally figure out for themselves whether that blog is trustworthy. Figuring out criteria sounds difficult to me, especially since sometimes people coin a word they want to use and otherwise don't post a lot of gender stuff. I think the continuation of the abusefilter while still allowing users to take the action is a good idea, but maybe instead of saying tumblr is not allowed, saying tumblr is only allowed if no other sources are available. --Kaiforest (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kaiforest: I have updated the Abuse Filter warning, you can see it in MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-tumblr. I have also created Template:Tumblr links and added it to Gender neutral titles and Ambonec (I have just restored this page, which was deleted because of that). Feel free to make any suggestion. --NeoMahler (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is kinda late, I know, but on the old wiki there was a rule that in order to be on a mainspace page a gender or pronoun or whatever had to have evidence that more than a small handful of people use the word. This kept lists and reference sections useful and readable and processable. So a lot of gender words got moved to talk pages pending evidence from more than a Tumblr post that got a few notes, because that wasn't considered enough evidence of the term being in use - and it meant that all the historical and international genders that had been properly documented were more visible, too.

I would be in favour of this rule being introduced here, too. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 12:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolotl: better late than never! So what exact requisites you used? more than 100 or 200 notes on tumblr? Or just ban tumblr entirely? --NeoMahler (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Notes on Tumblr weren't considered proof, I guess because liking or reposting something isn't proof that a person uses a label or word. Blog posts that show that a lot of people use a term would be okay though; the reports from the nonbinary stats survey,, were considered acceptable even though they were on Tumblr because that's just where the reports were hosted - the survey reports had information about how many participants used or identified with each word, so the wiki could say "3% of participants in the Nonbinary Stats survey used this label" or "were happy with this pronoun" or whatever.
There were some pages on the wiki that were just swamped with lists of genders that were posted (name and description) on Tumblr, and nothing else. They were moved to the talk page just because there was no evidence that people other than the original poster were using the term, and there were dozens of words like this. It was really hard to find the more commonly used words (like nonbinary or bigender) in amongst them! Which is not to say that they were bad, and if they did start to be used more commonly and documented in (for example) the Nonbinary Stats survey they would be added to the mainspace article with a more reliable reference.
So we would say that to be included in the mainspace article it needs to have a reference showing that more than a handful of people were using it - and in practise that did rule out Tumblr posts as a source if those Tumblr posts were just a word and a definition. But ruling out any Tumblr page as a source would, I think, be unwise - especially since the nonbinary presence there is so strong and well-established. After all, it's just a blogging platform! Saying "no Tumblr" would be like saying "no newspapers" - but saying "no Daily Mail" is fine, and saying "no [specific blog that happens to be on Tumblr]" would also be fine. For this reason I'd say the title of this section is probably badly applied - Tumblr is used as a social network in many ways, but it is designed and used as a blogging platform. A very social one where sharing is encouraged, but still a blogging platform! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 13:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: I see, it makes sense. So, what about:
  • Keeping the abusefilter warning message on all tumblr links saying that only relevant blogs are allowed.
  • If a whole article is based on questionable tumblr blogs, add the {{tumblr links}} (used currently in 2 pages.
I don't know how to measure the notability of a blog though. I mean, Nonbinary Stats is clearly a good source. But what about this one? --NeoMahler (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler:I don't think the abuse filter should be there at all, just because to my mind it's not the fact that it's from Tumblr that makes a source unreliable/bad. If there is a warning when adding links, it should say "make sure that the source is reliable. [Link to page about what makes a source reliable.]"
The LGBTQ+ Advice blog might be a good source for the use and definition of a word if it's a secondary source, meaning it has to be saying "this reputable person worth interviewing says the word means [this]," as opposed to a primary source, "I/we say the word means [this]." But unless they are somehow providing reliable information that a term is being used by a significant number of people it can't be used to justify the inclusion of the term in the wiki in the first place, if that makes sense?
The notability and reliability of blogs is a very difficult thing to judge. I imagine Wikipedia has some good resources on this! But it seems like a slightly separate issue, I think? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 19:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: well, as far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't allow blogs at all. At least the Catalan version. Anyway, ok, makes sense. So I will disable the abuse filter and change the template to "this page contains links to Tumblr blogs who are not notable". Thanks for your input! :) --NeoMahler (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Wikipedia does allow links to blogs as sources, but only in some situations. Like, if there is nothing better and the source is reliable in some way. For example, the Nonbinary Stats blog is considered a good source on Wikipedia for information about preferred language for nonbinary people (titles, pronouns). An example is Gender neutral titles, which has links to Practical Androgyny, Beyond the Binary, and Nonbinary Stats - all blogs.
Re: "this page contains links to Tumblr blogs who are not notable" - I think the blogs don't need to be notable, they need to be reliable. If the blog is not a reliable source, the citation needs to be removed and a 'citation-needed' should be added - or the statement removed entirely, or moved to the talk page until it has a source. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cassolotl: I didn't know this detail about Wikipedia. I think that the Catalan version is stricter in that topic. I'm not sure, though. As for "reliable" instead of "notable", yes, I'm changing it now. When I wrote the template I didn't find the correct word (English is not my first language). --NeoMahler (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Ahh thank you for tirelessly updating the template over many moons, haha! :) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 12:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAB/AMAB or the written-out forms?[edit source]

Most of the time I see people use AFAB/AMAB instead of "assigned female at birth". Do you think it's a good idea to make AFAB (or AMAB) the main page? That's how it is at the moment but I wanted to make sure that was a reasonable course of action. --MxLexicon (talk) 2:42 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@MxLexicon: I think that it's better to use the most well-known form for the page titles. I have added the last line to the Naming conventions. Edit it if you think it's inaccurate! --NeoMahler (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@MxLexicon: Checkout Assigned at birth- Both AFAB and AMAB redirect there. I think the acronym works and makes sense, so long as it links to the explanation. --Pyrollamasteak (talk) Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 5:12:30 am (UTC)

New main page and featured articles[edit source]

Hi! I'm about to finish the new main page. There some things we have to decide together:

  1. Featured articles: I have chosen 12 articles and put them in subpages of the Main Page (see here). I have chosen articles of different topics, not only identities. Let me know if you think that an article shouldn't be there, or if an article that is not there should be there. The featured article will automatically change every month.
  2. Texts: please check all texts in the page and correct any errors you find. I'm not a native English speakers, so there's probably something wrong. Also, if you think that a text is too long or too short, feel free to change it, this is a wiki!
  3. General format: I used the color scheme of the non-binary flag and a flat design because I love flat designs :P However, I'm open on any ideas you have! If you want to make a small change, you can make it directly in my subpage. If it's a big change, please create a new subpage under your user.

Thanks! --NeoMahler (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I love it! I made some small edits, including minor grammar points, but that's all. I think the colours and style are good. odious_odes (yodel) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Odious odes: thanks! I have moved it to Main Page. --NeoMahler (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived version of[edit source]

I tried clicking the link on the main page and it said "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt". All the pages show the same result. Is this just me or is it doing this for everyone? Is there another archived version we can work from? --Kaiforest (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kaiforest: wow, two days ago it worked. I hope it's just a temporal issue and we can get it back soon. If not... well, we will have to work on the wiki without its help! --NeoMahler (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems it's not a temporary issue. Probably the new [] has a robots.txt preventing the archiving :( --NeoMahler (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What should we do about sexual/romantic orientations?[edit source]


The page Asexual was created some hours ago. I'm not sure if we should also include sexual and romantic orientations here. The AVENwiki is already a great resource for the asexual spectrum, although I can't find any other wiki about allosexual orientations.

Since this is the Nonbinary Wiki, sexual orientations seem out of scope to me. However, maybe we could allow articles regarding sexual orientations as a complementary topic? What do you think? (pinging @Niki Skylark: as the creator of said article). --NeoMahler (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

hello, it's Niki. I do not remember which page this was, but I found someone had requested/linked to an asexual page, which is why I originally made it. I am fine with removing it if you think it is irrelevant. I think some mentions of sexualities makes sense though to clarify how sexuality works for people who identify as nonbinary (for instance, can an agender person be heterosexual? What would that imply, etc.). Also, clarifying that bisexual doesn't mean attracted to only men and women, that sort of thing. 20:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Niki
@Niki Skylark: yes, LGBT links to asexual. Ok, I agree. If nobody else opposes we can include orientations. --NeoMahler (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

British/American spelling[edit source]

Currently, some pages are written with British spelling (recognised) and some with American (recognized). Do we want to standardize this? 20:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Niki Skylark

@Niki Skylark: I don't think so. We can't force people to use a dialect when writing other than their own! Both dialects are mutually intelligible, so no problem in my opinion. --NeoMahler (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to go with British spelling because it is more globally recognised. --Otvm (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Twitter account[edit source]

Hi. Do you think that a Twitter account could help us? Why/why not? If you agree, I will create one. --NeoMahler (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It could help point people towards this resource and possibly get us more editors/contributors. I don't think there's a particular harm in it, although tumblr might be a better place to advertise (that is where I found out about this wiki). Niki Skylark (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Niki Skylark

@Niki Skylark: Tumblr is also a good option (there's a lot of LGBT+ people there), but isn't it designed for longer text walls? On twitter we could post quick news links, new pages, article of the day... tumblr entries would be a lot more work! However, if you feel that you could maintain it, you can create the official tumblr page for the wiki and post resources there or whatever you feel like posting. I'm not a usual user of tumblr :P --NeoMahler (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not in a place to be able to do that, but I'd support someone who made a tumblr. I agree, Twitter is better in those ways! --Niki Skylark (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC) Niki Skylark

@Niki Skylark: ok, I have created it. Also, I have added a link in the side bar and in the sitenotice. Let's see if this helps us!--NeoMahler (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Another wiki (maybe it will help you)[edit source]

I have been really missing and this past week I had some time, so I decided to crawl and import as many articles as I could into my own wiki. I have gotten a large chunk of articles imported already and Im working on the rest manually or with a bit of automation, This is just a personal project and I don't really expect contributors, but I thought I would post here in case it was useful to anyone. I am over at Falkirks (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Falkirks: thanks for telling us! I believe that one wiki instead of three (because there's also Gender Wiki) is more effective. So I have a proposal: what about importing all articles of your wiki that we don't have here (with an imported template so we can easily detect them once imported and improve them in case it's necessary)? We could also use the domain if you want, because miraheze allows custom domains. --NeoMahler (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: That sounds like a good idea. I have a bunch of articles left to do on my end. My only concern at this point, is that I am trying to preserve the website almost entirely intact, with minor improvements. But articles here seem to have reduced in size and available information (see for example). I will get back to you when I have articles all done on my end (which could be a week or so). Falkirks (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: the reason I remove this content of agender is that at that time we reached a consensus to remove all content referenced with tumblr or other social networking sites. Some days ago we decided allow blogs as references as long as there's proof that more than a small group of people use that word. See the section Are social networks good for references? of this page for more information. Thanks for everything! --NeoMahler (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: That makes sense. Going along with that, would you be willing to merge pages like and which are almost entirely tumblr based in source? Because if they aren't imported, then they only exist on, which isn't very helpful to most people. Falkirks (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC) I read the above and that answered my question. Right now the trickiest part of the merge seems to be images, because I have imported all of the pride flags from "Pride Flags" on DeviantArt ( And I'm not sure how to figure out which I have used in articles. Falkirks (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: uhm... I have asked the system administrators and they will enable uploading by url. It will probably be easier to import all these images here (see MediaWiki API page). I think that you are a much better programmer than I am, so if you could make a script to import all pages and upload all flags here, that would be awesome. Pinging @Cassolotl: as the most recent contributor. --NeoMahler (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: The pages can imported via XML on the Special:Import page. When I imported the files to my wiki I used ImportImages.php, but that won't be possible on Miraheze. I can probably write a script to do it though. And I could do the script even without URL uploading I think. Falkirks (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: awesome. Could you make the script to add {{imported from}} to all files it imports from the wiki, adding the license information in the first parameter? --NeoMahler (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I have just seen the last sentence. Well, that's not a problem at all. URL uploading should be enabled now. If you want to do it that way, tell me so I can grant the "Uploader" right to your bot. I have given it the Uploader right anyway! I'm giving it the bot flag now. --NeoMahler (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Thanks. I will start working on uploading those now. The XML dump is available here. Would you like me to process it and add a template to the top of all pages? Falkirks (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: I think it would be better to add the template at the bottom of the page, so it doesn't distract the reader. Also, when adding them to non-file pages, use the parameter | type = page (by default it says file). --NeoMahler (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: I am attempting the import of the pride flags now, which the bulk of the files on my wiki (the rest can come over manually). I will work editing the XML file now. Falkirks (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
All of the images and descriptions are almost added The XML is updated and ready to be imported!8HRmGK7L!bDjdzzVrUcfEEdtyy9-bWkOXwuDvT8HJV7wRy128zYM. It includes 5 templates and 13 modules (for mbox), which can probably be trimmed down after importing. Let me know if you need any help importing the file. Falkirks (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Falkirks: all pages have been imported, including the templates and modules. I'll take a look at them and decide what do I do with them. I have noticed that the imported pages have over-written those pages that were already created. I fixed the main page, but I don't know if there's any way to check which pages were created on import and which weren't, to compare and decide the best version? --NeoMahler (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. It didn't do that on my test wiki. Sorry. I will look and figure out how best to do that. If you look through my contributions, and find things that don't say "Created page", that should be most of them. I will go through and revert them now because yours are more current. Falkirks (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I am reverting most of them, I will post a new discussion here about ones I have left. Falkirks (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge conflicts[edit source]

I have gone through quite a few pages to revert changes made by the merge. There are a few pages which I have left be for now (because the merged version is more complete). There are also some naming conflicts which need resolved in some way.

Pages overwritten[edit source]

... There may be others which I haven't gotten to yet, but those are unintentional.

Naming issues[edit source]

If anyone finds additional issues, feel free to update this list.

Falkirks (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Falkirks: thanks for your work! Can I publicly thank you on Twitter?
  • Gender-variant identities worldwide: I think it's better this name than Nonbinary identities, because nonbinary is a modern term while all these identities are traditional. If there's no oppose, I'll merge both articles under the name Gender-variant identities worldwide leaving a redirect from Nonbinary identities worldwide.
  • Assigned gender at birth: I'm not sure which name is better. I guess that the longer one is better because it's more complete? I don't know. Any ideas?
  • Demigender: I think that demigender should be a single article, with redirects from demiboy and demigirl. If there's no oppose, I'll do the merge.
  • Nonbinary and Nonbinary gender: Both articles have basically the same content. Which one do you think is better?
I'm going to check the templates, modules and pages under the namespace. --NeoMahler (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@NeoMahler: Posting to twitter is fine by me. Thanks for asking.
Falkirks (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: ok. I have made this poll, let's see which word is more popular! --NeoMahler (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Falkirks: it seems that Nonbinary is preferred on Twitter! Two people voted (I didn't). Renaming the article. --NeoMahler (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

NBGQ Survey 2017 results are now available[edit source]

Just so everyone here is aware for including them in articles. There are several articles which could be updated to use the newer results. Falkirks (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The link you provided is the UK-only results - the worldwide results are here, posted back in May. :) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 13:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Ha. Whoops. I didn't even realize they posted worldwide results :P Falkirks (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)