Talk:Gay (disambiguation)

Gay Meaning "Stupid"

Since gay means happy it has NOTHING to do with LGB!

This is an accepted (slang) term in various countries/regions. Admittedly amongst younger people. Also, whilst this may prove offensive to some, merely removing the content doesn't change that the word "gay" is widely used in this manner. So leave it there..... John Miler 21 April 2006

Widely used? With some effort, I'm going to assume good faith, and not merely tell you "Don't troll". To have your addition on the disambiguation page with no other discussion than a link to Stupid is simple abuse. And since discussion isn't appropriate for for dab pages anyway, the only place for your point, with discussion, would be the article Gay. (Of course it'll be removed from there in a matter of minutes, mind you, but that's another discussion.) I suppose you are aware that a talkpage, such as this, isn't part of the article? Most readers never see it. They would, in this case, simply see a claim that stupid is a useful article to read more about a special sense of "gay". Get a grip. Bishonen | talk 13:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

it doenst mean homo sexual it means bitch or ass hole. this is a common word used through out high school

Certainly here in the UK "gay" has many meanings. Besides referring to homosexuality and bright/happy/colourful, it can mean bad/rubbish/unsatisfactory: "This new computer is totally gay, I'm taking it back to the shop". It can also refer to an infortuitous event: "Oh no, you crashed your car? That's gay!". Or it could be an insult: "You are gay." Interestingly, it can also be used as a term of endearment or affection between male friends in the same way that other insults are. For instance "Come here you big gay!".

I think it should be remembered that the word "gay" existed long before the homosexual community adopted it. I don't know if any gay people actually take offence at the above uses, or if it is non-gay people taking offence on their behalf. The word "straight" is also used to mean "boring" or "plain", yet I have never taken offence from someone referring to something as "too straight" when they mean "uninteresting".

So, I propose that "gay" should go to the disambig page, whereupon there are also links to these various other terms that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Either that, or perhaps the article on "gay" should take a leaf from the book of the "queer" article and include all meanings?

The purpose of the disambiguation pages in Wikipedia is not to provide various meanings of the words, but rather to serve as navigational assistance; to help readers locate the article they are looking for. For meanings of the word, you might want to check Wiktionary, a link to which is also displayed at the top of this disambiguation page. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the word "gay" as meaning "lame" or "Second-rate" has been removed from the article. Why? It is in common usage. Therefore it should be included, whether certain people like it or not. 41.245.162.99 (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article; it is a disambiguation page, whose purpose is to help users find the article they are looking for. There is no article about the use of "gay" as a pejorative term, thus there is no need to mention it on the disambiguation page. Discussion of the usage of the term "gay" would be more appropriate to Wiktionary, where indeed you will find the pejorative use of "gay" mentioned. SparsityProblem (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms for "gay"

I have removed the most recent addition of "gay" as "rubbish or stupid", as this is not what a disambig page is for. Moreover, it seems that by the same reasoning, we should remove "cheerful or happy", since there is no article about the use of "gay" to refer to a happy mood. Does anyone agree? It seems to me that describing all the meanings of the word "gay" is a task for Wiktionary, whereas someone looking for "gay" on Wikipedia is either looking for the article on homosexuality, or on one of the proper-name Gays listed after the first section. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion over at the gay page about this. Many people have objected to the "gay has only ever meant 'homosexual'" take on that page. That article is however locked. But many people have stated that it needs to reflect the entirety of the word "gay", not merely the homosexual aspect.

While it is certainly true that wikipedia is not wiktionary, the fact remains that many people searching for "gay" may very well be doing so, looking for the origin of the word "gay" as means "lame" or "gay" as in "gay apparel" or the movie The Gay Divorce etc. So either this disambiguation page removes all "meanings" and refers only to gay as in eg. people with that name, or it lists all modern and recent usage. Likewise the Gay article itself needs MAJOR fixing-up. 41.245.165.107 (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For those folks we conveniently provide a link to the Wiktionary entry at the top of the disambiguation page. I've removed the dictdef once again—this is not what disambiguation pages are for (they are for providing links to Wikipedia articles with ambiguous names). What's going on the gay page has nothing to do with this disambiguation page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But there is no specific "gay" page as in "homoseuxal" either. In fact, the top of the article for gay gives a link to the homosexual article, for people who are looking for that aspect. The article for gay reflects the original meaning (happy), the current "mainstream" meaning (homosexual), and also the current "teen" meaning (lame). So why does this disambiguation page give links to 2 different articles for homosexuality, but not to any other meaning? That's very queer indeed(original meaning of "queer")! Dr Rgne (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster in this section, who are you to say that "someone looking for "gay" on wikipedia is either looking for the article on homosexuality, or one of the proper-name Gays listed after the first section"? That seems a remarkable claim to make! How can you claim to know what the millions of people who use wikipedia are specifically looking for? So now, there are 2 links to "homosexual", and no links to any other meaning. Likewise, the idea that there should be an article based solely on the word "gay" as in one of its modern meanings, while ignoring all other usage is entirely POV, and that sort of thinking should have no place in wikipedia. While you can claim that someone looking under "gay(disambiguation)" could conceivably be looking for someone with the name "Gay" or "Gaye", it is obviously completely arrogant of you to claim that the main(and only adjective-esque) searching for "gay" will be for "gay=homosexual". There are already more than one homosexual pages on wikipedia. Likewise, the gay article does reflect all usage of the word "gay", historic and current, though with obvious POV editing, and thus the disambiguation page should reflect all 3(4?) usages on the page gay. See the gay page and note the references to gay as in "cheerful" or "stupid" on the gay wikipedia page! So what exactly was the original point? Simple POV. 41.245.183.56 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you do not like the gay article, you are welcome to edit it to improve it. I would recommend that you create an account first. SparsityProblem (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But even though the gay article is POV and focuses on the homosexual aspect, it still mentions in detail the other usages of the word "gay" Therefore removing them from the disambiguation page's link to the article gay is unproductive, and may even constitute vandalism. 41.245.183.56 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is explained real simple for you: gay (term) is an article, so it is being linked to. Homosexuality is an article, and one of the meanings of the term "gay" is "homosexuality", so there is a link to homosexuality as well. Other meanings of the word "gay" do not have corresponding articles (if they had, they would have been considered dictdefs and would be deleted), so other meanings are not mentioned. Disambiguation pages are intended for disambiguating articles, not meanings of the word. If you are looking for all possible meanings of the term, you should go to Wiktionary, a link to which is helpfully supplied on the page. Hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But the article for the gay (term) is not merely about homosexuality. It is a complete overview of the wrod "gay" which includes the other meanings that have been removed by a disruptive editor. This is obviously not a dictionary, but the gay article is not only about homosexuality, is is about the complete (ie. ALL) usage/meanings of the word "gay" which include the other 2 meanings listed. The way you wish this disambiguation page to stand makes it appear that the article gay is merely about gay=homosexuality. If that were the case there would be no need for two separate articles, "gay" and "homosexuality". Therefore, the disambiguation page should refelect exactly what is contained in the gay article page, which would most definitely include the "cheerful" and "rubbish" usages. See gay and discover it isn't merely about homosexuality. And if you desire the gay page to merely refer to the homosexuality usage, then why have 2 separate articles? Would it not be more appropriate to have one redirected to the other?

Furthermore, the 2 "homosexual" usages listed here may be different, as in adjective-noun, but they are both about homosexuality, and should therefore be listed that someone who is oof homosexual orientation is obviously connected to homosexuality . As it stands now it appears that someone of homosexual orientation does not necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality, which is absurd. Likewise, if this is not a dictionary, then why include TWO usages of homosexuality, instead of just linking to gay?

To summarize, there is an article called gay, which has obviously got a link on this page. That article is not merely about the homosexual aspect of that word. Either all definitions listed on that page, or none, should have corresponding links. While there is a homosexual page, that is a totally different page to the gay page. Likewise happiness is a totally different page to the gay page. This is not the "homosexual" disambiguation page, it is the "gay" disambiguation page. 41.245.183.56 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I was trying to say. The gay (term) article is indeed about all meanings of the word, and it is a separate article, so it is being linked to from the disambiguation page directly (i.e., there is a separate entry for "gay (term)"). Of all meanings of the word "gay", we only have articles about "homosexuality" and "homosexual orientation", so those are being linked to as well. We do not have articles about "happiness (term)" or "stupidity (term)", because neither would amount to anything more than a dictdef and would be quickly deleted. Note that the happiness and stupidity articles are not valid targets because they (unlike the homosexuality and homosexual orientation articles) do not mention the term "gay", nor should they mention it (because, again, these mentions would be nothing but dictdefs), and they are about the concepts of happiness/stupidity, not about the terms these words represent and their synonyms.

If you are still disagreeing/not understanding why this page is laid out the way it is, I would recommend you seek additional advice from the community and/or read the disambiguation guidelines thoroughly. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous and is going nowhere. You have changed your explanation twice now. Of course the terms homosexuality and homosexual orientation refer to concepts, the same way that happiness and stupidity do. Apparently the only reason that the former and included, and not the latter, is because of someone's personal prejudice, and desire to "own" the word "gay". I will not continue this discussion as it is obvious that the "hive mentality" is at work here, and it would be pointless to attempt to discuss this rationally and objectively. 41.245.183.56 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it is not the "hive mentality" that is a problem, but rather someone's unwillingness to read the existing guidelines thoroughly. Like I said, if you do not understand the guidelines' requirements, please ask for help. Village pump is a good place to start, and so is WPDAB.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gay meaning "happy"

Regarding the 26 August edits: I agree with Gavia, that the dated usage is still worth mentioning in the lead.

Partially because the term still appears regularly on TV in series-reruns and old movies, as well as in numerous classic books. (ie, it's not an 'archaic' usage, yet)

Partially (and more importantly), because the article Gay really does cover both meanings.

Hence, I'm reverting to Gavia's last diff. Thoughts welcome. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the former meaning is fast becoming an archaism, but obviously I also think we should explain it. Simply put, there is nothing to be gained by omitting the former usage, and this is a disambiguation page, so we should aim to disambiguate.

It's worth noting that the lead sentence of this page, containing various plain meanings of the term, has been ridiculously unstable compared to most dabpage leads. When I reverted I considered opening a discussion here about a consensus lead - so now that there's a discussion I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has an opinion about how to present the information in the lead. I like my recent version, of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with the version I corrected, both of which are explained in my first edit comments. Here is further info for those not having read or understood my edits:

1.Their is undue focus on the dated meanings by placing them as the _first_ ones and by not having a link to the main, current, and most common meaning. Disambig pages do not use such focus on dated meanings of concepts or terms as per policy and practice. Please note that these dated meanings were in fact retained, expanded, and marked as "dated" in addition to having received wikilinks.

2.There was no link to the homosexual meaning nor to sexual orientation, both of which being the main and most common meanings.

Please justify why you think there must not be a wikilink to homosexuality and sexual orientation. If you think that the homosexual meaning is not current and the most common use, please find supporting evidence, evidence which would contradict the OED and the Wikitionary. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added wikilinks for both homosexuality and happiness in the most recent revision. I honestly did not realize that they had gone missing; see above for my comment on the general instability of the lead sentence. In any case, I think they should both be wikilinked, and my edits were not meant to reflect any effort to prevent linking those terms. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no question as to your intent. :-) However, please refrain from altering the wikilinks and deleting sexual orientation. As well, please refrain from undue focus on the dated meanings by placing them before homosexual or sexual orientation. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the most recent version of yours engages in serious overlinking in the lead. There is no need for separate wikilinks to Gay, Homosexual, and Sexual orientation all in the first half-sentence. Preferably, there would be one wikilink to either Gay or Homosexual; in any case all three terms have prominent wikilinks to the others. Also, as a matter of grammar pedantry, "same sex" does not take a hyphen when used as a noun phrase, but only when it is used as a compound adjective. Please do not be angry if I change this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeated, multiple edits deleting direct links to homosexuality and sexual orientation from this disambig page can only be construed as a form of vandalism. Please refrain from excluding homosexual from this disambig page. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(Fwiw, I'm a friend of friends of Dorothy, and have spent many evenings applauding drag shows, and being outdrank and outsassed by Queens and Kings)

It's not quite that simple, as the line needs to follow the Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), specifically MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic.

One possibility, is using something along the lines of the current intro sentences in the article itself, e.g.:

The term gay was originally used to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy", but gradually came to be used as a reference to homosexuality during the late 19th century.

That would also clarify that the article gay is about the term (new and old meanings), not the orientation itself, and it would provide the link to homosexuality for people who were looking for that aspect.

The third link (to sexual orientation) is not warranted in this disambiguation page, as the word we're disambiguating isn't a synonym for "sexual orientation". Wikilinks are kept to an absolute minimum in disambiguation pages - only the ambiguous word targets, are linked.

HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (tweaked 05:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

As a matter of fact, I like your idea of copying the lead sentence from the Gay article. It seems like a reasonable solution to me, since it cannot be accused of minimizing any part of the topic. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Enola Gay

What about the plane? הראש (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)