Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons

Featured list candidates/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons/archive1

Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like many aspects of The Simpsons, its LGBT characters and how it portrays them have received attention in pop culture articles, books, and at least one scholarly journal. I've compiled all of the characters that are mentioned in reliable sources with brief descriptions, including prose sections for characters that have their own articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, I'm opting to withdraw this FLC. Not only has it reached an impasse, but there's a good chance that it's going to be converted to a non-list article soon, rendering the point moot. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The Simpsons has historically been...." - I would briefly introduce what The Simpsons actually is for the benefit of the four people on the planet who don't know ;-)
"or identified as possibly being portrayed as such in the future" - bit of a mouthful. Maybe "or identified as such in episodes set in the future"...?
For the characters who merit a full section, you have a "main article" template but then immediately use their name as the very first words, so you may as well just link those words
"The gender and sexuality of Kang and Kodos has been portrayed...." - specify that Kang and Kodos are aliens
"Waylon Smithers was widely alluded to as gay throughout the show's run" - suggests that the show's run has ended, which I don't believe is the case? I think rather than "throughout the show's run" you need "for much of the show's run" or "for the first N years of the show's run"
"Dewey – A romantic interest for Dewey Largo" - just to confirm, they're both called Dewey....?
Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude I've cut the part about future portrayals because it's essentially redundant, and I fixed all other issues in the text. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP

I'm new at FLC so please forgive me if anything I write here appears dumb.
This is valid as a list, but isn't the real topic here the theme of LGBT representation in the Simpsons in general? If there's already an article (or article-section) on that on Wikipedia, it should be linked. If not, for full coverage of the topic there's a number of topics that should be covered somewhere (Fox's - and other networks? - threatened censorship of episodes featuring LGBT characters, the reported positive effect on closeted gay people of LGBT representation on the Simpson encouraging them to come out etc.).
Has there also been criticism of LGBT representation in the Simpsons, or of these characters? Except for the reference to stereotypes in the lead section, there seems to be a large amount of positive coverage on this page. Not saying there has to be more negative coverage, but it would be unusual if there were not, particularly retrospectively. Looking at the sources (e.g., the Game Rant article) the coverage is not quite as positive, at least from a quick read-through. May be worth thinking about for full WP:NPOV.
What is the difference between a supporting character and a minor character? This is not obvious to the casual reader and probably requires a bit of context, especially when some of the minor characters may have appeared in numerous episodes.
Going down the criteria I get:

1) Prose - Good.

2) Lead - OK.

3)

a) Comprehensiveness - questions above.

b) Citations - I'm going to AGF on this.

c) Meets WP:SAL.

4) Structure - OK.

5)

a) Visual appeal - OK. I tend to like a nice image right at the top to make the article really "pop" which this doesn't have, but I understand that may be difficult to get given the copyright protection of the Simpsons.

b) Media files - in as much as it is possible for someone who is not a US lawyer to confirm the licensing data on this, the files appear OK.

6) Stability - stable.

And that's all I've got. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, notable characters have their own sections. If you have any ideas on how to clarify that for the reader, I'm open to suggestions. For your other questions, there is such a section on another article that covers the topic, so I've added a hatnote link to it, though again I'll take suggestions if there's a better way to incorporate it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably there should be a stand-alone article about LGBT issues in the Simpsons but until there is the link to that section is good enough. "Notable" is a Wikipedia term - if we're using the distinction that some characters are "minor" and others are "supporting" that should be substantiated somehow, or another way of sorting the characters should ideally be used, since a character being "supporting" or "minor" is conceivably something that someone could challenge. Some of the "minor" characters have been in a lot of episodes (e.g., the Dewey Largo character). FOARP (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, there's never a perfect way to organize info like this, but I think this is adequate. If you have any alternative suggestions that might be better, I'll hear it out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien - A structure based on number of episodes in which they appear would at least not require a source since it is effectively just simple maths (e.g., "recurring characters" and "other"). I note that we have List of recurring The Simpsons characters so this is at least a structure used elsewhere on Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP I wonder if this is something where it might help to get more eyes on it. This is one of those issues where the best answer is probably going to be subjective. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely because the statement that a character is "minor" is entirely subjective that we should instead prefer an objective way of organising the characters. FL status should not be conferred for an article with unsourced statements. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jake

I appose this article for inclusion as a Featureted list due to the fact that it is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy (Deletion page) Jake Jakubowski (Talk) 14:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.