Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transgender issue: Difference between revisions

Transgender issue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creator of this page, Haj, created it as a redirect to Transgender rights movement, then realized it was created in error and tagged it {{db-author}} at 22:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC). A subsequent editor is attempting to bootstrap this ludicrous concept into a legitimate disambiguation. It is not. It makes no more sense than Health issue, Tenant issue, Human rights issue, etc. This is beyond ridiculous. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anomalocaris: Ed Poor created the page, not Haj. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Irrelevant in any case. —Alalch E. 02:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just a regular disambiguation page. We have been having redirects Transgender issues, Trans issues, and Trans-gender issues for a few years, and they all pointed to transgender rights movement, which isn’t ideal. “Transgender issues”, in particular, has been getting a fair amount of hits, and it’s a choice between a redirect and a dab. No comment on Tenant issue and Human rights issue, but I might create Health issue.—Alalch E. 02:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Disambiguations. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We also have gender issue, currently a redirect. As for this page, it does not seem very unreasonable, and the phrase is quite common looking at a web search, though the plural form (which has existed as a redirect for a while as noted above) seems like a more suitable title. The book listed on the disambiguation page could (up to capitalisation) also be plausibly searched by this phrase, and it seems more sensible to disambiguate rather than redirect to that article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comparison to existing pages:
• What we do not have many of are redirects or disambiguations ending with “issue” that are about some group of issues:
• We also don’t have:
• If any of these redlinks are created, I reserve the right to nominate them for deletion. Wikipedia does not create an article, or a redirect, on any random set of words someone might type.
• We do have the redirect Gender issue → Gender (as well as the more plausible Gender issues → Gender). —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing where I left off, I don’t see the need for Transgender issues either, but it was created as a redirect to Transgender issue. My first choice would be to delete both. My second choice would be to delete Transgender issue, a disambiguation to multiple issues, and retain Transgender issues. My third choice would be to keep Transgender issue as a redirect to Transgender issues. What we have now is the worst possible, that Transgender issues, the obvious disambiguation title, redirects to Transgender issue. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone creates Straight issue or Straight issues, I might nominate that for deletion too. As for the rest… —Alalch E. 08:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Swap with plural – While I’m not convinced this page is ideal, I can’t think of a better place to redirect it. Redirecting to transgender rights movement definitely doesn’t seem ideal by itself since many trans issues are not directly related to rights per se but (for instance) to trans healthcare. The one place I think this page is definitely bad is that the WP:COMMONNAME here is “trans issues”, not “a trans issue”, and so we should be using the plural not the singular as the main name. Loki (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move Transgender issue → Transgender issues; i.e., flip the two. “Transgender issues” seems like a perfectly valid dab considering the breadth and ambiguity of the term, and how it’s perfectly capable of taking readers towards specific facets of the situation. /over.throws/^✎ 19:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Overthrows Would you please change your “redirect” bolded word to “flip the two” (or “swap with plural” or “keep and move”), because “redirect” is a different outcome: it just means turning the page into a redirect causing it to stop being live, whereas you have recommended keeping and moving it (via WP:ROBIN or not that way specifically). —Alalch E. 11:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sure whoever closes this discussion will be able to tell from the comment what the suggestion is. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair: I suppose I was thinking redirect because I’d want Transgender issue redirectified. /over.throws/^✎ 14:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks —Alalch E. 14:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nonsense fork that serves no purpose as a DAB. Metallurgist (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) Fork of what? (2) Imagine someone wants to read about Transgender legal protections but is only familiar with the vague term “LGBTQ issue” and that’s the only thing that person can manage to type in: This article will help them get to their desired topic at Legal status of transgender people. But another person might want to read about issues advocated within the transgender rights movement and will similarly think that “Transgender issue” is the best query for getting to that other topic… If “Transgender issue” redirects to “Legal status of transgender people”, that will not be helpful to that person. As a dab, this page helps them get to transgender rights movement where they want to go. A third person will want the article about the book. Et cetera. So you see, it does serve a disambiguation purpose, like any other disambiguation page. —Alalch E. 05:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a number of academic sources discussing this [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Deleting it is surely not the way to go, but I’m neutral on whether it should be a redirect or disambiguation page. V. S. Video (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, the AfD is for the singular form of Transgender issues—Transgender issue (which used to redirect to Transgender rights movement before the AfD was created). Only one of the sources you linked seems to talk about a transgender issue, singular.

  The paper which does talk about “transgender issue”, and not the book by the same name, has quite a few grammatical errors in its abstract alone. I’m not sure how relevant it should be in a discussion about the nominal value of a redirect.

  … related to this issues. and [c]urrent legal regulation in Iran not just allows sex-change procedure … quidama _talk 03:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do not think the argument that redirects are cheap as stated by Alalch on the redirects talk page (Talk:Transgender issue#What?) is reason enough to keep this misnamed disambiguation page. It also feels like Alalch is trying to shoehorn a justification for keeping this redirect by creating the page LGBTQ issue (according to WP:COMMONNAME and the bolded name LGBTQ issues mentioned first in the lead, the page should actually be called LGBTQ issues) and redirecting the other examples given by Wcquidditch to it. Considering they’re LGBTQ issues, shouldn’t Transgender issue(s) also redirect to it? None of this makes any sense. People searching for transgender issue are most likely looking for The Transgender Issue because it otherwise isn’t a common name. And neither are gay issue, lesbian issue, and bisexual issue for that matter.

quidama _talk 03:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional info: Ed Poor, the creator of the Transgender issue redirect seemingly created the page for the purpose of turning a red link on this talk page blue following a reply he made.

Creation edit summary: redirect – for a talk page link

Discussion titled “What?” on Talk:Transgender issue: I just made a redirect to support a talk page link, as I have repeatedly done over the last 1/4 century.

Ed agreed that a piped link was more appropriate and he nominated the page for speedy deletion.

The initial reply mentions the “transgender issue” in the context of how it was phrased in the final conversation Charlie Kirk had before his assassination. In that context, “the transgender issue” refers to the (non-)”issue” of mass shootings perpetrated by transgender individuals. While I highly doubt that Ed created the redirect page with this in mind (especially since the page redirected to Transgender rights movement) it rubs me the wrong way to keep a page that was created and might be used in that context. quidama _talk 04:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You led Ed to believe that he made a mistake to create the redirect to add a link to his comment which he had correctly and appropriately been doing for close to 25 years. Instead of Ed “agreeing” that a piped link was more appropriate, he became uncertain and worried for no reason, and was induced by you into a wrong course of action. —Alalch E. 09:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal opinion.

Per Ed Poor: Good catch. I tweaked my comment above to include a piped link. –Uncle Ed (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC) quidama _talk 01:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were wrong to complain to Ed Poor. Then Ed Poor was wrong to think he made a mistake. Through your not understanding what redirects are for, especially seeing how you wrote in the other AfD that redirects should be deleted because They’re not common names for what they’re describing, you misled him through your complaining. I think that you’re probably a good editor, but since 2021 you have accumulated 1,027 edits, you have mostly edited articles (great) and appear to have zero participation at RfD, and very little participation in the project namespace in general, so there are massive gaps in your understanding how some things work. —Alalch E. 01:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]