Talk:List of transgender-rights organizations

To link or not to link

This article is currently up for deletion, although it looks like the consensus is currently in favor of keeping the article. However, some concerns about the appropriateness of external links and internal red links have been raised. I would like to reach an agreement here about how to best approach the links issue. For now, I've delinked all but those organisations that currently have wikipedia pages, as this seems to be the least controversial format. I'll try to summarise some options:

• Embed external links like this: FTMInternational. A couple of editors didn't like this for it's possible use as a web directory.
• Remove all external links and leave as internal links: FTMInternational. One editor didn't like this as most of the links are currently red.
• Both internal and external links, like this: FTMInternational [1]
• Neither for groups without pages, like this: FTMInternational

Personally, I'd rather see external links to the home page of each organisation. It helps with verifiability. Anyone want to make another suggestion? Here are some relevant guidelines:

• Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory

ntennis 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a directory, and thus shouldn't be a collection of links. It should, however, be a list of a links to relevant articles, whether yet created or not. What we need is more articles on this. Rebecca 01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I understand that you prefer to leave all the groups as internal links? I would rather have them as external links in lieu of an article on the particular group. That way I can confirm that the organisation does indeed exist, and find more information about them — perhaps to help write an article! Some of these groups are unlikely to have an article written about them. In the meantime, do you suggest we give no external links, even as a reference? See List of Kurdish organisations, a similar page that inconsistently uses these two approaches. User:Mugaliens suggests in the AfD page for this article that Wikipedia:List guideline suggests that "embedded links in the list contents are even recommended, provided they take the user to the appropriate resource." What do you think? ntennis 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link directory. I have no objection to them being linked beside a redlink to an actual potential article, but to make them external links from the word go a) discourages the creation of articles on them, and b) makes the list serve no particular purposes, when it could be serving as a useful index to articles and potential articles on transgender-rights organisations. Rebecca 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia is not a link directory. You've said that twice, and if you read my post above, you'll see I said it first! Do you think I disagree with this? You've deleted all the external links to the groups mentioned, and deleted a few perfectly legitimate groups in the process. I restored some of these groups, but have not restored your removal of the links — which are the only reference available for readers to assess their inclusion — because they have been objected to at the AfD page, and discussion is still underway. The overwhelming volume of red links has also been objected to, and I believe that AfD is not the appropriate avenue for this discussion. So I removed all the elements that people object to, and invited discussion here, in the spirit of consensus and community participation. Let's agree on how we want to handle the links, and then implement it. So far we have had two proposals: yours, to simply have red links, and mine, to include the external links as a reference. I really don't mind either option 1 or option 3 above.

Please, don't try to get your way with a revert war! The article will be more robust if we (all) can reach an agreement. Please, don't call my efforts to find consensus "silliness", or other changes made in good faith. For example, I merged two mexico sections. I added an intro to regional sections. I resored groups in Chile and india that you deleted — very important in addressing systemic Anglophone/Western bias on wikipedia. I corrected typos, and provided more detail on the nature of various groups. I removed National Gay and Lesbian Task Force from the list (not a transgender rights group). You reverted all of this as well.

Your last edit summary was: "If you don't want your changes reverted, quit delinking perfectly useful links (many of them blue)." I could have said the same when you deleted all the external links! Could you specify the many blue links that I deleted? I can't see any, but if there are, we can certainly restore them. ntennis 04:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we just have red links, but that having the red links there is a prerequisite for this page's existence. If you wish to attach a website on to the end of the line for each organisation, be my guest. Furthermore, I'm happy to let your edits stand where they don't involve stripping the article of all relevant links, but if you persist on re-removing them in the same edit, I've got no alternative but to revert the lot - I'm not digging through your changes to sift out the good ones from the patently useless.

Lists on Wikipedia, basically without fail, serve primarily as indexes to other articles. By persistently stripping all the links from this article, you're not only discouraging the writing of articles on perfectly notable topics, but effectively making this page useless. You might want to note that only one person commented on the red links, and that that particular person wanted the article as a whole gone. Rebecca 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From the tone of your edit summaries you seem upset. I've been very active here for a couple of years, editing on a number controversial topics, and this is the first time I've had someone repeatedly revert like this. Are you aware that you have reached your 3-revert limit on this article? Repeating yourself does not make your argument stronger, nor does it help us build a better article.

I'll respond to your edit summaries. Here are your last three summaries, in order:

"Revert silliness. Having a list that doesn't go anywhere is completely pointless. Redlinks are *not* harmful.)"

"If you don't want your changes reverted, quit delinking perfectly useful links (many of them blue)."

"(For gods sake, quit delinking perfectly useful links. These need articles, and what the heck is the purpose of the list if it doesn't go anywhere?)"

Your point that a list should "go somewhere" is a little lost on me. Plenty of lists are not linked. E.g. List of Proto-Indo-European roots. A list is a useful reference, regardless. To someone who is interested in social movements, especially regarding gender and sexuality, such a list of groups is very worthwhile. It illustrates some of their similarities and differrences, and indicates what regions they have emerged in. However, if you had read my posts above, you would be aware that I am not advocating having no links with the groups. I think it is most important to leave the links to the groups' websites, in one shape or form. I don't really care if the group names are red or black. Why is this such an urgent issue for you? You claim you can't be bothered to add the red links again, but then suggest that I go though and re-attach the web addresses that you deleted!

Your claim that I am "stripping useful links" from the article is bizarre! You are the one who stripped all the links out!!! Take a look at the history of the page. Your summaries are also deceptive, as you are not reverting a "delinking [of] perfectly useful links", but you are reverting the addition of content, the correction of (your) errors and typos, and the removal of groups not appropriate for this list, etc. You also haven't responded to my questions above. For example, what blue links have I removed?

Please try and keep our discussion civil. Calling my edits "patently useless" and "silliness", especially when I am tidying up after you, is not necessary. ntennis 06:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't really care if the group's names are red or black, then why have you been insistently removing red links all day, especially when I have twice made clear that I have no objection to the website links returning beside the group names? Rebecca 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:S I don't think you have read this discussion page. Please try to calm down and read it. I've explained the situation at length. ntennis 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, alternatively, you could answer my question. Rebecca 07:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Merge with -support to form List of transgender organizations

You may have noticed that the sister article, List of transgender-support organizations is currently up for AfD here. Unlike this article, which is most likely destined to survive, the support organisations list is most likely to vanish. To be honest, at the moment this is understandable, as it is mainly a list of website links, however many of these really should be articles given their national importance. I suspect that the best means to provide a substancial list suitable for featured status would be to merge both this and the related article's notable organisations into List of transgender organizations. Whilst the name may be a little ambiguous (ideas please), I believe it would serve the goals well. Thoughts?

I like the idea of incorporating it onto this page; "transgender organizations" implies to me both organizations by/for transgender folks and those supporting transgender rights (i.e. supporters). ivan 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Get rid of Intersex organizations

They are intersex organizations not transgender organizations and should be elsewhere. Mykell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.238.5 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)