This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
As I said there: per the template's help page, This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa).. Without evidence of that, the tag is not needed. What evidence is there that people in these places view this topic differently? Crossroads-talk-18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon position currently redirects here and casually mentioned once. However, the topic has been covered in numerous reliable sources, and it is an important woman on top position. I believe there is opportunity to expand on the topic in this page, and also change the redirect page into an actual spinoff page. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't that long (a bit overloaded with pictures, but we can fix that) and I can't imagine an amazon position article would be that long either. Seems to make more sense to include it here. Crossroads-talk-00:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary in this edit, "we don't credit individual wikimedian pseudonyms in image captions. We do credit famous artists by their actual names, when relevant" sees to be contrary to MOS:CREDITS, which says that "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, then a wikilink to their biography may be appropriate". If the artist has a Wikipedia article, then they are notable. Note that it was a link to the artist's article, not their user page. Green Montanan (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It *may* be appropriate. It may not be, and in this particular case where the artist is also the uploader of the image, it's not appropriate (and a dubiously circular form of notability, given that the author in question is *only* notable for their Wikipedia images and nothing else -- they are not *independently* notable). Since the uploader is 1) also the artist in this case, 2) credit and attribution is provided through the license on the file (unlike the Avril image, where Avril is clearly not the uploader) and, 3) the article is not about the author, it's unnecessary to additionally highlight them with credit in the caption: Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!22:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what doesn't make sense to me is what difference does it make how the artist became notable. Why does it matter whether they distributed their artwork on Wikipedia, or via other means? Green Montanan (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
