Talk:Ficto (orientation)

What audience should I prioritize for the history section? A general audience who may not be familiar with ficto- attraction, or ficto- individuals who want to learn more details about their history and community? I tend towards being detailed and specific because I'd feel bad if any ficto- reader felt erased because of oversimplification, but a 101 introduction level explanation has different expectations than something written for an "in-crowd" so to speak. Would making an overview or summary history subsection be useful to appeal to both groups? - Net (24 June 2023)

I think it would be fine to have a more in-depth history, as long as the language used is easy to understand, and any related pages are linked, and each fact is cited. As a basic example of the language: writing transgender instead of trans, and ensuring that it's linked to the transgender page. If it's too dry or complicated we can think of summarizing it but we'll just aim for complexity for now. Jeb_CC, Bureaucrat | (xe/xem/xir) (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Putting this separately because it is a different question: should I include historical sources that disagree with the view of ficto- as healthy and/or an orientation etc? I see that a bit of biphobia is explained on the bi page, but is that intended to only be for current issues? If historical arguments against should also be included, how much detail should I get into? I know the wiki aims to be a neutral source, but I'm not sure how exactly to implement that. I'd appreciate any guidance or ideas people have. - Net (24 June 2023)

Any history should be included, including the negative stuff. But I would, as biphobia does it, hide it in a collapsible tag and clearly mark it as harmful or phobic. It is not our place whether to say something is right or wrong, we only share information and it's up to the readers on what they should do with what information. Jeb_CC, Bureaucrat | (xe/xem/xir) (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)