The request was opened on 14 February.
What are people saying?
‘”LGBT” was certainly the predominant form at the time this article was created, but there’s since been a solid and well-documented shift, and “LGBTQ” is clearly the most common standard now. To be clear, I don’t think it would be helpful to move this article every time another subgroup comes along to add another letter to the alphabet soup that the most extended permutations have turned into — “K” for “kinky” being the newest — but the most common base form seen in standard sources now pretty consistently includes Q,’ writes Wikipedia user Bearcat.
Various other users, however, oppose this change.
‘I see no proof that “LGBTQ is clearly the most common standard now.” And proof has yet to be demonstrated. Whether it’s LGBT topics in the media, such as when reporting on LGBT characters, or the news reporting on LGBT people, “LGBT” is still the standard. And it’s still the standard in literature sources I come across. It also has a rich and solid history, as the LGBT article is clear about, while all these alternatives do not,’ user Flyer22 Reborn chimed in.
‘We are not going to start renaming our LGBT articles and lists (such as LGBT history, LGBT community, LGBT rights by country or territory, and LGBT stereotypes) to include the “Q”. Same goes for our LGBT categories. Moving this article to “LGBTQ” would make people think that we should since we should ideally be consistent across the project.’
‘There has been a shift in the usage of LGBTQ, especially in colleges and at the tip of the politico-cultural vanguard, and from where I sit, it’s gaining ground. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and by its nature follows general usage, it does not take the lead in causing or driving change,’ user Mathglot wrote.
‘As of 2008, usage of LGBTQ in books was on the rise, but still lagged well behind LGBT, which seemed to be gaining ground even faster than LGBTQ in published sources. With attempts to include questioning, intersex, agender, allies, pangender, and perhaps others, many other initialisms are attested, and some at the bleeding edge of change might see LGBTQ as already hopelessly inadequate. It’s perfectly okay for Wikipedia to report on any of these terms inside an article, given adequate reliable sources. Given sufficient notability, one might even be able to make a case for a separate LGBTQ article, but imho [in my honest opinion] that would be highly likely to turn into a content fork as it covers the same ground, and thus is not a good idea.’
‘It is currently far from clear exactly how this will play itself out over the coming years. It is not a settled issue, but it is sometimes quite a contentious one, and Wikipedia should not be seen as taking a position on it,’ user Rivertouch wrote. ‘It may also be worth noting that even among those who prefer to tack the “Q” on the end, there isn’t consensus on what that letter stands for. We probably shouldn’t be renaming articles—or whole groups of articles and categories, more like it—using an initialism that doesn’t even have an agreed-upon meaning.’
It is unclear as of this article’s publication as to what the final decision will be. However, it seems doubtful that Wikipedia moderators will decide to change the page to LGBTQ.