This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2023.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
https://www.autostraddle.com/to-unicorns-from-an-ex-unicorn-287425/ Article from a polyamory site republished with permission by a queer women's magazine. Some interesting info from a queer poly person's perspective on how the terms "unicorn" and "unicorn hunter" are positive/negative and self-identification with "unicorn."
A fact from Unicorn hunting appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that unicorn hunting is the practice by a couple, usually a man and a woman, of seeking a third partner for the relationship, usually a bisexual woman?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that unicorn hunting is the practice by a couple, usually a man and a woman, of seeking a third partner for the relationship, usually a bisexual woman? Source: "Unicorn hunting is when a heterosexual couple seeks a bisexual woman to join their equation temporarily or permanently" (Vouge)
Comment: I'll come again and update once I make the QPQ. I hope that the hook is interesting enough, but I can think of alternative ones if needed. Credits to Dr vulpes for updates in the page.
Article is new enough and long enough to qualify. Although strict adherence to RS isn't a DYK criteria, WP:V is, and I am a little concerned about the sourcing. Seeking.com is a dating site, and is IMO unreliable and inappropriate for use as a source (it only has two uses and could easily be removed). More concerning is that the article relies heavily on an article from Verywell Mind. As it turns out, that site is blocked via the global spam blacklist, which I discovered when I tried to fix the source by adding a link. I don't think it's right to skirt the blacklist by avoiding linking to the source in the reference - the point of a blacklist is to not have those websites used onwiki. Surely there must be better sources you could substitute? Books? The hook itself is fine and sourced, given that it's the premise of the article any of the refs would suit. QPQ completed. I am tagging this as ? for now instead of giving the green tick in the hopes that at least the blacklisted source can be subbed out before this goes onto the main page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: First, I wanted to thank you for your time to review the nomination. I originally didn't pay much mind to these details given that it didn't seem to be controversial information and it could also be found in other sources. However, with the inclusion of new sources I can agree that the article can be better off without them. I have removed Seeking.com per your advice and will try to remove Verywell Mind while taking care of the verifiability of the content. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try a Google search for "unicorn hunting" + bisexual, and filter for books. I found a few that look reliable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: The verifiability issues were easier to solve than I expected and this time around I found more references, including ThePleasantRelationship. I don't usually edit regarding these topics and I might not be so sure regarding their reliability, so while I can I wanted to ask your thoughts regarding it. I want to expand the article further if I have the chance, but also wanted to solve these mentioned issues first. Thank you very much. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The new sourcing looks good to me, thank you for taking care of that. I know it's a bunch of work but the article is better for it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Article is new enough and long enough to qualify. Although strict adherence to RS isn't a DYK criteria, WP:V is, and I am a little concerned about the sourcing. Seeking.com is a dating site, and is IMO unreliable and inappropriate for use as a source (it only has two uses and could easily be removed). More concerning is that the article relies heavily on an article from Verywell Mind. As it turns out, that site is blocked via the global spam blacklist, which I discovered when I tried to fix the source by adding a link. I don't think it's right to skirt the blacklist by avoiding linking to the source in the reference - the point of a blacklist is to not have those websites used onwiki. Surely there must be better sources you could substitute? Books? The hook itself is fine and sourced, given that it's the premise of the article any of the refs would suit. QPQ completed. I am tagging this as ? for now instead of giving the green tick in the hopes that at least the blacklisted source can be subbed out before this goes onto the main page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
