Nonbinary Wiki:General discussion/Archive 1

    From Nonbinary Wiki

    This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

    Join our Discord server!
    Although this page can be very useful to keep track of important decisions, we also have a Discord server with some of our editors (and readers). You can join us in

    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)
    VisualEditor - Icon - Advanced - white.svg This page contains links to Tumblr blog which might not be reliable enough. If you find more reliable sources for this article, we encourage you to add them.

    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)

    About stubs[edit source]

    Hi all, I want to discuss some things about the stubs. Basically, it can be summarised in the question "What exactly is a stub?" Demigender, for example, is a long article which is quite complete and had the stub template. While ludogender, for example, is a short article which is not considered stub. "Common sense" is a good method to decide if an article can be considered stub, but I think we should establish a limit. Should it be a byte limit or a character limit?

    There's another smaller thing: I think that the stub template should be placed at the bottom of articles, not at the top. The reason is that the reader already knows if an article is short or not. And although it might help to attract new contributors, I think we can't forget that the articles are for the reader, and the reader does not want templates that tell them obvious things.

    What do you think? --NeoMahler (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

    Discord server[edit source]

    Hi all, yesterday I joined a Discord server for nonbinary people. It's the only one I know, so I thought it would be nice to add the link to our sidebar (Social section) and promote it with our Twitter account. What do you think? The invite link is --NeoMahler (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

    Translating the Wiki[edit source]

    I think it would be a good idea to spread recognition of nonbinary people by translating this wiki into different languages. Many people speak English, but there are also many who do not speak English, and nonbinary rights may be more difficult to realise if some of the information about nonbinary people and their rights is not multilingual. While there are probably many non-English resources on nonbinary people and their rights and recognition, it would be better to have one too many resources in one language than to have too few in another. --Otvm (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

    @Otvm: I'm not a native English speaker and in my native languages (Catalan and Spanish) there's not much information on nonbinary identities (especially in Catalan), so I think this is a good idea. But opening other language versions means having other users to maintain them. And while I could edit in a Spanish or a Catalan version, I don't think I could make them grow alone. I will tweet something to see if there are any volunteers who might want to help in other languages. Do you speak any other language? --NeoMahler (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    @NeoMahler: I am currently learning Norwegian, but I am not sure how much I could translate. --Otvm (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Otvm: I made a post on reddit and some users said they were interested in opening a new version in their language. There's French, Spanish, Polish and German (although there's already a Nonbinary Wiki in German, not related to us). I think that, for the moment, opening a Polish version is a good idea. The users seems really enthusiastic abut it. The next one could be in Spanish, as I also speak it. I'll send a message to Falkirks to see if it's possible to have a domain. --NeoMahler (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    @NeoMahler: Could be a page which redirects people to their various languages while the actual website is moved to It could be somewhat more friendly. I can also translate part of the wiki into Norwegian, but it could be slow. I also wanted to ask this: Should the name Nonbinary Wiki be translated, or would it be less confusing to leave the wiki name so it is identical to the website address? --Otvm (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    @Otvm: well, I suppose we could do that... but it would be difficult and unstable (because we don't own the servers where the wiki is hosted, so would have to use another hosting service which basically means money). I agree that it would be better, but I don't think it's necessary for now. If we ever get bigger with a lot of language versions, then we could reconsider it.
    The Polish version has been created with the name Niebinarna Wiki. I don't think it is a good idea to maintain the English name, specially if the language has already a word for "nonbinary" (and most do, because it's just a compound form of no + binary). --NeoMahler (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

    Update: the Polish version has a single article, almost no edits. I have tweeted the link to see if we can find any contributors. Let's see if we can keep it active! --NeoMahler (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    About the stub template[edit source]


    I think it would be an improvement if we placed the {{stub}} template at the bottom of articles instead of at the top. In my opinion, our readers can already tell if a page is short or not, so there's no need to put a big announcement saying "hey, this page is short".

    Also, which limit would you establish for articles to be considered "short"? Ping @Wolle and Sevaquinn: as the two active users in the last days. --NeoMahler (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

    I agree, I like the idea of putting the stub template at the bottom, because it looks tidier that way. Personally, I consider an article a stub if it's less than two screens long when viewed on a desktop, OR if most of its headings only have a couple sentences under them. -Sekhet (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think that the stub template is more to encourage participation, not for a purely informative purpose. I do however agree with the qualifications for being a stub. MorningSparrow (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

    Poorly-attested identities[edit source]

    I've created Nonbinary:What's a poorly-attested identity? and added the {{Poorly-attested identity}} template to those pages that meet the requeriments. I've just used the content that was in List of poorly-attested nonbinary identities, so I thought it wasn't necessary to ask for consensus. --NeoMahler (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

    Templates needed[edit source]

    Hi, can we please have the wiki templates imported that handle citations and legends? They are and -Sekhet (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    @Sekhet: I don't think we need to have all of them. I would say that with web site, book and journal is enough. There's a problem though, and it is that Wikipedia's citation templates use Lua modules. I have zero knowledge on Lua, so I don't feel comfortable importing the modules without being able to maintain them afterward. --Ondo (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

    Requesting a MediaWiki extension[edit source]

    @Ondo: May we please have the MediaWiki extension for transcluding sections? This would be useful for something I'd like to do with the articles listing neutral names. If we have this extension, then I'll be able to create articles such as "List of neutral Hebrew names" and "List of neutral names about nature," and then use transclusion of sections to make an appropriate selection of names from the alphabetical name lists appear in these other articles as well, without having to manually duplicate each name entry in multiple places. If you find a different process for automatically accomplishing this, which would be more efficient than this particular extension, then I'd appreciate it as well. Otherwise, so far it appears that this extension is the most appropriate for this task. -Sekhet (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

    @Sekhet: done! Do you have access to Special:ManageWiki? I don't know if it's administrator or bureaucrat-only (in any case, it's good to ping each other if we want to enable new extensions). --Ondo (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Ondo: Thank you! I don't have access to that special page. --Sekhet (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

    Content Policy[edit source]


    As the wiki grows in both content and community, I think it's time to put some basic policies in place. I think that keeping it simple is important, but having nothing can also be counterproductive. This is why I have written a Content Policy draft that you can read in User:Ondo/Content Policy draft. Feel free to edit it, but reply here before making any major changes.

    Let me know if you agree or not, and any suggestions or comments you might have. Thank you, --Ondo (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

    This looks great! The only thing that’s missing that I would love is a statement acknowledging the intersectionality of these issues and that we will always prioritise the lived experience of groups at these intersections of oppression (ie: people of colour and two spirit). We’ve had some people recently fixing up content for non-English languages that we are not experts in, and we should make it clear that their knowledge is more valuable to us than our potentially outdated source material. Falkirks (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Falkirks: I'm not sure I understand what you mean with that. Could you re-phrase? Or even better, you can add it to the draft directly! :) Also, the page has a couple of [BOLD] parts that need to be discussed. Do you have any ideas for them? --Ondo (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Perhaps its not a good fit for a content policy, but I feel like it should be written somewhere. I wanted it to point out that just because someone is non-binary doesn't make them qualified to write about everything in the wiki, we have a lot of content about non-western identities and non-English languages. And that as a policy someone who belongs to a specific group (eg: A two spirit person wanting to edit the article on two spirit people) shouldn't be edited over or argued with by people who are less connected to that identity. And even if our sources disagree with what they are saying, we should do our best to find new sources. I don't mean this to police anyone, just to make it clear to potential new editors that we want to support them. I will try to look at the other parts later today. Falkirks (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Falkirks: if I understand what you are saying, I don't completely agree with you here. Trustworthy sources should be our main reference, even if the individual experience of someone doesn't completely agree with them. Of course, feedback should be taken into account and if someone who has direct experience tells us it's wrong, then looking for new sources is strongly encouraged. But we shouldn't change an article without sources just because someone says so.
    In any case, I'm not sure if that would fit the content policy though. Maybe it would be more adequate for a Code of Conduct? I'll ping Wiki Users again in the Discord for feedback on the policy and if no one disagrees, the policy will be approved. Pinging @Sekhet: what do you think? --Ondo (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it does seem better suited for a code of conduct. And I think for the most part I agree with you. I still think something should be formalised just acknowledging that this is a complex issue and that by providing articles about especially marginalised communities we have a duty of care to them. I could go on but I don’t want to detract from the content policy, so I will follow up sometime later about adding something to the code of conduct. Thanks for putting the content policy together! It looks great! Falkirks (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

    The policy has been approved: Nonbinary Wiki:Content Policy.--Ondo (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

    Structured Discussions[edit source]

    Hi! There is a MediaWiki extension called Structured Discussions, previously known as Flow (more info). It makes talk pages more easy to use and intuitive, so unless someone is against having it here, I'll enable it in some days. If I remember correctly, it won't be enabled for any talk page by default, so I'll start by enabling it in the General discussion (and then, if anyone wants to have Flow in their talk pages, we can do that too).--Ondo (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

    Structured Discussions[edit source]

    Hi all! I've been thinking lately on how to make talk pages easier to use, and today I have enabled the Structured Discussions (also called Flow) extension (without enabling it in any actual talk page, just for testing purposes). In short, it's an extension that turns talk pages into forum-like threads, they are easy to use and have a simplified version of the Visual Editor to make things simpler. It's not the ideal solution, but I think it's an improvement over the current system. You can see how it looks in this test page: User:Ondo/tests (feel free to play with this page all you want! I don't mind). This system can be enabled in all pages of a specific namespace (such as user talk:) or in specific pages. If you like the idea of using this system, there are three options, I think:

    1. Enabling Flow in this page only, and then in specific user talk pages when requested (administrators can enable it using Special:EnableStructuredDiscussions.
    2. Enabling Flow in all talk pages, including this one but not user talk pages (and only do so when requested by the user).
    3. Enabling Flow in absolutely all talk pages.

    Let me know your thoughts! I'll ping some of the more active users, just in case you are not following this page: @amazingakita, Pod the Elder, TXJ and Bean3000: --Ondo (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)