Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters/Archive 6

Requested move 17 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

---

List of animated series with LGBTQ characters → List of animated series with LGBT characters – In line with existing consensus to use LGBT, rather than LGBTQ and because I cannot move the page manually to the other page name Historyday01 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not all queer identities fall under those four initials; ideally we should probably just throw the acronym in the bin since all it does it start arguments and allow people to exclude people they don't like. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that there is an existing consensus for LGBT. I would (and do) prefer LGBTQ, but I think that would have to be a category-wide proposed change for all pages with LGBT (or LGBTQ) in the title, not have some pages which have LGBT and others that have LGBTQ. That's why I proposed this move. Historyday01 (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Support if that indeed is the current consensus as Historyday01 says. Eccekevin (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my impression that it is the current consensus, presently. Hopefully, in the future, that consensus can change. Historyday01 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Kind of confusing that subpages like List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010–2014 have already been moved because they were listed as separate RMs. I think they all should have been listed together, since it's important they end up in a consistent state. Anyways, I think there's some subtlety going on here. LGBT and LGBTQ aren't just synonyms that we're choosing between, right? There's a material difference. Would this move entail a change to the actual scope of the article? e.g. Oscar François de Jarjayes is listed and described as 'queer'. Based on the article for that character, it doesn't seem like their depiction would fall under any of the labels lesbian, gay, bi, or trans? So would they need to be removed from the article if this name change occurred? Colin M (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Colin M, I would argue that even while calling it LGBT, it could still include all the same characters, no change whatsoever. As I've said before, the consensus is LGBT, and if it is kept at the current name, someone will come around later and try and change it. This change would not change the scope of the article, no. In terms of separate RMs, that was my mistake, because I honestly didn't know how to list them all together. I described Oscar as queer because of one user put up a fuss when I called Oscar something else, so I changed it... Historyday01 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination (unless consensus around the usage of the current "LGBT" acronym changes). Sean Stephens (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research and lack of citations

The page as it currently is seems to have issues with WP:OR and lack of citations. For example, it is stated that Princess Sapphire has "Ambiguous" sexuality, but the references provided (one and two) never use that word and fail verification. Aditionally, these sources, like many other on the page, do not seem to be WP:reliable sources, but are fan wikia sites and blog sites hence are not admissible under WP:BLPSPS. I added several tags and {Original Research} tags, but they were removed without the issues being addressed. Eccekevin (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking about those two entries, I have updated them to be more accurate. Okazu is reliable source per WP:A&M/ORS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29#Erika Friedman RS for yuri related anime & manga. How does Anime News Network fail verification? Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Situational it says this about Anime News Network:

A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. The "fan interest" pieces, however, may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news is the "reliable" feed. In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards.

The source from ANN here meets this standard. Please read the Wikipedia rules before making your comments.--Historyday01 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read the top of the page you linked Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources: There is no guarantee that sources listed here can be used for a particular purpose, and this page is not a substitute for understanding Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. These sources and blogs are not necessarily reliable, and I don't think they are, as they are self-published blogs. Eccekevin (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The page also refers to those people as individuals whose work automatically qualifies as reliable (because they are published industry experts, qualify as reliable self-published sources, or for other reasons) will write pieces for more than one website, and the RS status of some of the websites they've written for will be up in the air. In these cases, as long as there's no reason to doubt the author is who they say they are, their established RS status will override the website's indeterminate RS status for that piece in the "reliable individuals" section. These people have tons of experience writing in the industry and are automatically considered RS because of it. Link20XX (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no winning with you, is there? Also, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#General, THEM Anime Reviews is a reliable source, as is CBR, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 328#RfC - Screen Rant, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Should we be using opinion pieces from non-experts?, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 97#Harry Potter fansites, as is Rachel Matt Thorn per Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Academic, DVD Talk per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict, the official Urusei Website, an interview with Haruyuki Nakano, Anime Essentials: Every Thing a Fan Needs to Know which is within Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Reference Library#Academic, essays, and similar and Anime Feminist per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Two suggestions for online reliable sources. I think that covers a lot of them. If you had your way, I'd have to junk the whole page. I'm not about to do that. If you want to help and find better sources, be my guest, but I did a lot of research to find the ones on there right now. Historyday01 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

There are several issues with this line of reasong, chiefly - who decides which people are "automatically reliable" (which is not a thing on WP). Most importantly, that page from the Anime and Manga project (which is not a Wiki policy) does not override Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which is a Wikipedia policy. If a source fails to meet the standards laid out in the policy, then it is not reliable. Let's be clear, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources is compiled by users of the project, it is in no way a WIkipedia guidline or policy, and it has no bearing on what is considered a WP:Reliable Source Eccekevin (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. I would say that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the Anime and Manga Project can work in tandem. Many of the sources listed on the Anime and Manga project are not listed on WP:RSPSOURCES for instance, and likely aren't discussed in the noticeboard there. So, you have to use both. I am basing my reasoning on what is reliable based on what is said on the Anime and Manga Project and the noticeboard. I don't have time to go through every source on this page right now, but I'll go through all the sources on every page in the coming days. Historyday01 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. One is an official Wikipedia guideline, the other is a list composed by users. Eccekevin (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The page at WP:Reliable sources does explicitly state Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Link20XX (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, Link20XX and I'd say these sources often fall into the first category, but sometimes in the second one (in terms of Erica Friedman for example). Trying to find experts for every single source, Eccekevin, would be literally impossible, because media studies experts don't really care about LGBTQ people and/or don't write about them often. If you can find a book of some expert examining all the LGBTQ characters in anime ever, feel free to share it, because I've never found it or come across it.Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As an addendum, there are sources like Queers in American Popular Culture, Vol. 1 (and possibly something in Out in Culture: Gay, Lesbian, and Queer Essays on Popular Culture and Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture) and I'd be willing to get a copy of that and update sources on this page, but that's only for US-based shows. I still have never seen a scholar look at shows with yuri or yaoi for instance, in a similar matter. Perhaps it exists, but I have never come across it. I haven't read it, but Encyclopedia of Gay and Lesbian Popular Culture looks promising, although I have to bet it only focuses on U.S. shows. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eccekevin, have a good night. I don't have time to deal with all this now. I'm gonna go to sleep, watch some Amphibia or maybe Final Space (both don't have LGBTQ characters yet, but hopefully will soon). But, I'll get to it, either tomorrow, or sometime this week, depending on how busy I am. Wading in the area of reliable sources can be a tricky business. @Link20XX, goodnight to you too. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No LGBTQ characters in either yet, although I can have my headcanons... nothing reliable enough to add to this page yet, just some statements I've seen from Matt Braly and Olan Rogers (who runs the official Final Space Twitter) saying there will be LGBTQ characters. Historyday01 (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

To add on, several of the sources in the newly-promoted featured article The Heart of Thomas are only considered reliable because they were written by Rachel Thorn/Matt Thorn. If you want to despute their reliability, take this discussion to that article too. Link20XX (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I would say articles by Thorn are reliable based on who Thorn is as stated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#Academic. That's just my two cents on that. Historyday01 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)