22:
71:
53:
81:
155:
be legitimate so I have left it here. Is it a legitimate topic? Is it valid for inclusion here? The referencing is questionable. Does this have real academic acceptance? Maybe somebody, maybe even somebody who speaks
Japanese, could take a look?
184:
109:
179:
105:
95:
58:
33:
161:
39:
151:
from a load of LGBT templates as it was overly granular. This is the one place where it seems that it
165:
157:
104:-related issues on Knowledge. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
148:
173:
86:
70:
52:
76:
101:
100:, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
15:
8:
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
49:
21:
19:
7:
38:It is of interest to the following
118:Knowledge:WikiProject LGBT studies
14:
185:WikiProject LGBT studies articles
121:Template:WikiProject LGBT studies
92:This template is of interest to
79:
69:
51:
20:
1:
180:Template-Class LGBT articles
201:
64:
46:
166:13:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
96:WikiProject LGBT studies
108:or contribute to the
34:content assessment
140:
139:
136:
135:
132:
131:
192:
126:
125:
122:
119:
116:
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
200:
199:
195:
194:
193:
191:
190:
189:
170:
169:
147:I have removed
145:
143:Fictosexuality?
123:
120:
117:
114:
113:
85:
80:
78:
12:
11:
5:
198:
196:
188:
187:
182:
172:
171:
149:Fictosexuality
144:
141:
138:
137:
134:
133:
130:
129:
127:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
197:
186:
183:
181:
178:
177:
175:
168:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
142:
128:
124:LGBT articles
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
97:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
152:
146:
115:LGBT studies
106:project page
94:
93:
87:LGBTQ portal
59:LGBT studies
40:WikiProjects
29:
158:DanielRigal
174:Categories
110:discussion
30:template
36:scale.
153:might
102:LGBTQ
28:This
162:talk
176::
164:)
156:--
160:(
112:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
