Talk:List of LGBT-related films directed by women

Satisfying WP:V

Good grief, I hadn't realized this article had been operating under a bizarre if it looked like a male criterion, set by the same editor edit warring over this now, since 2017. @Crossroads: suggests the edge case is best determined by whether sources categorize the film this way. Some links:

• Bust, 10 Movies Directed By Women You Need To Watch Right Now (Bound is #3)
• Doc Films, Incredibly True Adventures from the New Lesbian Cinema (All the directors here identify as lesbian, bisexual, or trans women, Bound is #4)
• GO, A Millennial Queer Girl Reviews Classic Lesbian Film "Bound" (At that point in the film, I am certain it’s written and directed by women (it is!).)
• BBC, The 100 greatest films directed by women (The Matrix is #35)
• BBC, regarding the previous link, Cinema still needs to make space for queer women, specifically highlighting the inclusion of trans directors and mentioning the Wachoswkis specifically
• The Outline, Let Women Make Erotic Thrillers (Bound is #3)
• The Stranger, Great Films Directed by Women: The Wachowskis' Jupiter Ascending
• Forbes, Box Office: The 25 Highest-Grossing Movies Ever Directed By Women (the Wachowskis appear several times)

I could go on, but I think that should suffice to demonstrate that Wikipedia would not be alone in categorizing Wachowski films as directed by women whether or not it predated either/both of their public transitions. Since the spirit of MOS:GENDERID is clearly that for Wikipedia purposes trans people were always the gender we use to refer to them now, and WP:V does not appear to be an issue, are there other policy-based objections or shall we allow the MOS to override the idiomatic invention of a single user? --Equivamp - talk 09:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

All those examples you listed are simply marching in step with the rewriting of history that today is becoming mandatory in contemporary gender-related narratives.
In your edit revert you state about MOS:GENDERID: "unless they have indicated a preference otherwise...." Which to me translates as: unless the individuals have indicated that they prefer to be recognized as men in that time of their lives.
But there is more than just one way to interpret MOS:GENDERID: there is also the absence of preference in any capacity -- because I have found no source where either Wachowski denies having been a male, nor refute the credits in Bound which continue to be "written and directed by the Wachowski Brothers". I have not found any source where the Wachowskis have requested that the credits be changed. Larry Wachowski became Lana Wachowski in 2010 -- 14 years after the release of Bound. Andy Wachowski became Lilly Wachowski in 2016 -- 20 years after Bound. Both historically and accurately, the 1996 film was not directed by women. MOS:GENDERID is being used to deny and rewrite history. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Your alternative interpretation of MOS:GENDERID is mistaken. The text of the guideline already states what to do in the absence of a known preference: use the current preference. Hence the word unless. I'd previously assumed you had a working knowledge of that guideline, but maybe I'm mistaken?

Whatever assertion you're trying to make regarding whether they requested a film (which I'm not sure has had a release since the zenith of the DVD) have its credits retroactively changed, it strikes me as bizarre and irrelevant.

It seems we agree that sources largely, and increasingly, handle the topic in the way I described in my original comment. You may think it's inaccurate, but that's no matter - this isn't a place to try setting the record straight. --Equivamp - talk 00:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the "bizarre and irrelevant" angle about a film that continues to be credited as the "Wachowski Brothers" and said "brothers" have not publicly said anything about these credits in relation to their transgender transition afterwards.
If MOS:GENDERID is going to be the straw by which a film made by an individual when they identified as a man is going to remain on this list, then compliance with the guideline needs to done to the letter. Therefore, per MOS:GENDERID : "If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion." The inclusion in this list of a film by the "Wachowski Brothers" needs to be explained for the benefit of the general public reader. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course - Lana and Lilly Wachowski (as the Wachowski Brothers) or something similar. --Equivamp - talk 14:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit notice?

Pyxis Solitary, at [1] you seem to mention an edit notice on this page instructing against including citations for list membership a la ListVerify for bluelinked items on this page. Of course, article-level deviations from guidelines are at times permissible, and this one does seem within bounds so long as list membership is verifiable in the article itself. Is there such a notice present on this article? My browser doesn't render one, but I am running some user CSS so perhaps I'm just doing something wrong. The only information I see are those requesting citations for those films or directors without an article, as comments in the article body:

<!--Films without WP articles must include reliable published sources about the film. See WP:VERIFY.-->
<!--Use citation templates to cite sources. See WP:CITE.-->
<!--Only link director names that have a biographical article. Link only 1x.-->
<!--Per [[WP:REDDEAL]]: films that are red-linked, are candidates for future articles. Do not remove red link.-->

This is not to say that such a message is needed, I just figured I'd raise this either (a) so I can find out if somehow my browser is neglecting to render editnotices, or (b) so as to bring the lack of such a notice to your attention, if you believe that one does and/or should exist. Srey Sros^talk 03:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason the hidden messages exist is to prevent the problems that happened in the past when films were added (particularly by inexperienced editors). The easiest path between A and B is to have simple, clear-to-understand instructions that all editors can follow. Every time the editing screen (Visual and Source) is opened, the hms appear at the top of each corresponding alphabet letter. It has proven to be very helpful. If you were able to copy/paste the hms to your above post, it means that they should have also been visible when you edited the list. Maybe your browser had a momentary glitch? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 04:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so you did mean the comment -- no, of course that's always visible. If we want those messages to convey that bluelinked pages should not be cited, perhaps we ought to write that. I would propose:

−

Films without WP articles must include reliable published sources about the film. See WP:VERIFY.

+

Films without WP articles must include reliable published sources about the film. See WP:VERIFY. If list membership is verifiable on the film's or director's WP page, citations should be excluded.

Srey Sros^talk 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "Films without WP articles must include reliable published sources about the film. See WP:VERIFY.." is not difficult to understand; and if an editor takes a moment to look at the list before adding a film, they can see that wiki-linked films don't have citations. A hidden text should be short and to the point Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 02:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)