Talk:Lists of feature films with LGBT characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stuart Smalley

I removed Stuart Smalley, because he's not gay. Even though he seems very effeminate, it's never been stated that he was gay, in fact in the book he was mistakenly thought to be gay by someone else.

List

So, not actors then. I vote that it be changed to "List of gay and bisexual characters" in film, radio, and TV fiction 202.191.106.86 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "fiction" should make that suggestion redundant... 惑乱 分からん 13:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

These are not people, they're characters. Title of article should be changed.--Larrybob 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair point, I guess... 惑乱 分からん 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist

I've Changed a couple of things that thought, to avoid confusion, to mention it here, with reasons for the changes.

1. Ennis DelMar ; From the movie Brokeback Mountain. He is not gay, as some may believe, he is bisexual, Leaning more towards Heterosexuality.
2. Jack Twist ; From the movie Brokeback Mountain. He, Like Ennis, is not gay, but is Bisexual, but unlike Ennis, Leans more towards Homosexuality.

The above changes can clearly be seen in the Movie, despite what mainstream Media has stated. --Aaron Twist 08:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some days ago...I changed their listing to "Gay, possible bisexual" because the subject of sexual orientation in concerns to these two characters is disputed. They aren't even categorized as gay or bisexual in their articles anymore because of this very reason, as discussed on their talk pages. They are rather just categorized as LGBT characters. In this article, however, they should be listed as I've mentioned above due to dispute over the categorization of their sexuality. Most sources report them as gay, but others bring up the subject of bisexuality. Thus "Gay, possible bisexual" fits them best in regards to placing them on this list. Flyer22 (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Format

This list seems a bit disorganized. Sometimes the character's sexuality is classified at the end of the listing, sometimes after the show... Is there a proper format to follow, or is it just expected the editors would work it out? --OGoncho 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to apparent lack of interest, i've begun to standardize a few items throughout the article based on what's already been done. basically: name - programme - identification - orientation. i've also truncated the id part to just a simple blurb instead of some of the longer descriptions containing 'portrayed by', other 'show references', every encountered, etc. i think short and snarky is much better since the majority already have complete bios, in article of whatever programme they appear in. ...just a suggestion. i'm also working on placing the data in a tables. --emerson7 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING DELETION REQUEST:::

There are older versions of the page that contain incorrect information that is degrading to individuals. the following edit made on this date: 19:25, 27 February 2007 Inline six (Talk | contribs) is not correct as it lists owen rotharmel and this information is not correct. Can this page version please be deleted so that the page cannot be reverted to this version again?

There is no reason for this page to be deleted and an AfD would be pointless. Can somebody give me an -obia? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For film historians like me, it would be extremly helpful if someone could add years und countries to the list. Right now, it is a list only for the use of insiders who know all these shows, movies and characters anyway. --Stilfehler 16:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay.

Personally, I think it's disrespectful when people start putting names up that there isn't solid evidence for (like Sponge Bob). I mean, grow up and save that for Uncyclopedia. I've tried to eliminate as much of that as I can, but it would be nice if that would stay out of this article so it can be a credible source of information. Thanks for the hard work.

Well, while it's all horrifically unsourced (should be a "source" field after medium), the Harvey Birdman inclusion isn't completely without evidence.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There do seem to be entries that are speculative at best. Also, what's the policy on entries for which there's a significant indication of homo/bisexuality, but no actual confirmation?Jefepato 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Idiotic, Homophobic, Communist and Bigoted

When I search for "Monster TV show", this is the #1 result, with 100% relevance!!!!!!

What is Wikipedia trying to suggest???

That gay and bisexual people are monsters???

Wikipedia is idiotic, homophobic, communist and bigoted.--71.203.147.175 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Or...it could just be bad programming. The search probably counts the instances of "monster" (such as Party Monster), "TV" (all the listings of TV) and "show" (all the subheadings film/show). Taking this into account, and also remembering that this is a list, the search naturally, although naïvely, shows this as the first result with 100% relevance. Take that last bit with a grain of salt. DonQuixote 22:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to pile on here, but I think Herbert the Pervert should be removed from this list. He is clearly not gay; he's a pedophile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.124.21 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

He probably should be removed...Done. DonQuixote 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why remove him because he's a paedophile? He most certainly is, however, his fantasies are of young boys... He's chasing Chris not Meg! GuinanTheCat 16:39, 13 December 2011 (GMT)

Contrary to what some might think, paedophilia is different from homosexualit DonQuixote (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to revive an old thread but this is an important point: Yes, pedophilia is not homosexuality, which is precisely why Herbert is both a pedophile and a homosexual. "Child" isn't a gender, being a pedophile doesn't magically erase your gender-based sexual preferences. Conscious Code (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

One Piece

Since people talk about what should and should not be included on this page, and because I am a One Piece fan, I'd like to raise the issue of Mr. 2 Bon Clay. While he may be noted as having a very flamboyant nature, he is really only officially labeled as an 'okama', which means he is a transvestite. His main article on wikipedia doesn't mention or give any source for him being listed as gay. Could it be his name doesn't really belong here and someone just slipped him in based on assumption? In the anime, he did seem to show slight interest in Princess Vivi by blowing her a kiss.

Removal

I've just removed Albus Dumbledore from the list. Can't think why... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I put him back. Please read this and this. Thanks. GlassCobra 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anime

About half of the characters that are from an Anime are listed as "TV/Anime" The other half are just listed as "TV" and a remaining portion are listed under "Manga" or "Comic." How should this be standardized? -Vcelloho (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd put all characters from anime or manga in an "Anime/Manga" section. TigressofIndia (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Buffy

Shouldn't Buffy and Satsu be included on here? Satsu at least as a lesbian, but Buffy as a "questionable" bisexual (she did sleep with Satsu and finds Satsu calling her ma'm sexy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.190.114 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

An editor removed Buffy because he or she says that Joss Whedon confirmed that Buffy is not bisexual.

As for Buffy having sex with a woman and being a little sexually attracted to her, well, I don't believe that anyone is 100 % heterosexual or homosexual. That doesn't mean that I believe that everyone should be called bisexual either. It seems that Buffy was just sexually experimenting/being free with her sexuality altogether in that moment. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Humphries from Are You Being Served?

In the article it has been stated that he is bisexual - there is no proof of that, nor is there proof that he is homosexual. It is a questionable subject between fans of AYBS? (including myself). He could just be an effeminate male. I thnk that he should either be removed from the list, or be marked as possibly gay, possibly bisexual.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.235.179 (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have not seen every episode of AYBS? so I don't have a definitive conclusion, but from what I have seen I would have to strongly say that Mr. Humphries is gay. He is typically seen in a work environment and so his personal (bedroom) life isn't shown, but his behavior strongly suggests that he has sex with men in my opinion.Jackygage (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yu Yu Hakusho: Miyuki edit war

First of all, sorry for (my) bad English grammar.

Twice I've tried to add a note about Miyuki's transgender sex. But you can see here and here it's some kind of expanding (Thriller (song) --> Beat It --> Off the Wall (song) --> List of Post-disco --> List of LGBT characters) personal attack or what - consecutively, 4 my edits (first proof)/3 (second proof) were reverted, but this is irrelevant, right now.

List of all "references" that I added:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GYCwlEhWiY (yes, I know, RS W:RS rule)
• http://www.pojo.com/yuyu/bios/m.shtml (It's a little bit unclear, but with that YouTube video is badass reference, that clearly saying: "she's half woman and half man = transgender")
• http://www.comicvine.com/miyuki/29-46449/gallery/108-10205/74991-miyuki/105-168807/ (some argue, this reference shows some "other wiki" and therwithal unsourced at the same moment. What a comedic contrast! I've laugh so much)

However, in the article are just three references at all, so why be so fussy about referencing for one character; there must be something else: Why somebody successfully keeping down that Miyuki note, and why only Miyuki character? It's so mysterious! :D RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Patty Bouvier (from The Simpsons)

I would say that Patty was changed from a heterosexual to a lesbian character. For a very long time there was no reason to think she was bisexual or bi, she even dated Seymour Skinner and always fancied MacGuyver respectivly the actor who played MacGuyver. Then in one or two (I wouldn't say more) rather late episodes she was lesbian and suddenly she also had a "lesbian past". I really guess you couldn't call her bisexual at any point. Her sexual orientation was changed from heterosexual to lesbian. I have to add that at least in the german dubbed version she tells Marge Simpson once that she's "lesbisch", meaning "lesbian". But it might be a wrong translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.123.66 (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Michel Gerard (from Gilmore Girls)

I've seen literally hardly missed more than three minutes of the whole show, if not nothing. I have seen all the episodes at least once, most of them even two or four times. I am 99.99999 % sure that in the show no-one ever mentions that Michel is gay. I guess here he is listed as gay because his character SEEMS like the perfect stereotypical gay man. But this is no proof. I don't know if anybody like the creator of the show ever said that he is gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.123.66 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-referenced names

I have removed all of the names from the list, with the exception of the four names that were referenced. The reason I did this is because the list was unverifiable as it was; and therefore, not acceptable within the Wikipedia project. DO NOT add the names back unless you include a reference to verify your assersion that the character is, is fact (fiction), gay. Onthegogo (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A bit extreme if you ask me. It's not as if WP:BLP applies here. However, I should be able to add back the majority of the EastEnders characters with references. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Utena Tenjou

The article says she is "Bisexual/Transgender". Bisexual is correct here but not transgender. I think she is more crosdresser and not transgender. I'm not sure, but think "transgender" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Kaioh (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eric Cartman?

Isn't Eric Cartman gay or bisexual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.143.225 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. 02:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible rename?

Shouldn't this list be called List of fictional LGBT characters in keeping with the naming conventions of other such articles? And why limit it to film, radio, and TV? Why not include those in notable books or comic strips? Dream Focus 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

i think you need to read the AFD again.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The AFD you argued with everyone, and still had all your arguments shot down by the closing administrator? Some want to split it, others not, there no consensus on bothering to do that. I don't see it as too long a list to handle anyway. If it ever gets too big, then some can be tossed off elsewhere of course. Dream Focus 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See the next section for arguments for a split, particularly WP:SALAT. The inclusion criteria are not clear (how major or minor a character needs to be to merit inclusion, what is the threshold for different media?). With separate lists we don't have to ask whether to include books, separate manga and anime, etc. We just make a list of lists, per the guidelines.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Splitting

Given the AfD, splitting should be considered as film, radio and TV is just an arbitrary combination of media (why not include books and games?) and the inclusion criteria are not clear and the subject is too broad (there is certainly enough material to make a list for TV characters alone). With separate lists, each with their own rules as what constitutes sufficient reason for inclusion, maintenance would be much easier. This page would be left (or redirected to List of LGBT characters in fiction) as a list of list, per WP:SALAT.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I've actually begun the arduous process of an attempted split. I saw the list was inordanantly long, and arbitrarily clumped together. Thus far I've split just the A section into List of LGBT characters in film, Television and Animation. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ncboy2010 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Jackygage (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with deleting this page because I am interested in this list.

Reference column

Hey. I think it would be a great idea to introduce a reference column and begin the process adding sources to each listing. In the end it would be great to see this list fully sourced and it would help combat additions of false material.Rain the 1 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge

List of LGBT characters in television seems to be the same thing. Most of the entries are already represented on this list. 207.6.226.131 (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Ncboy2010 was trying to make a split around April 2012, but didn't get around to finishing it. The rules for splitting lists aren't particular clear, but given that it IS easily divisible, I think we should go ahead with splitting the article into TV, animation, film, which already exist. I'm not sure what to do with radio, though - it looks like there are seven radio characters on this list, which might not be enough for its own list. Honestly, I think a list of LGBT characters in media is always going to be hard to maintain, but if we split things off and get some good references in here, that'll be a good start. Subwayfares (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So I just did some looking around, and it turns out there are a LOT of lists like this. So the first step is probably to come up with a good organizational system, make those articles exist, transfer all the content and put citations on it. Anyone have any thoughts? Subwayfares (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting this article seems like a no-brainer at this point to avoid redundancies. Just make sure all links to this article are properly dealt with. Airplaneman ✈ 13:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on splitting the article now. I've just moved the live-action tv characters to the List of LGBT characters in television, and will do the same with animated characters. After that, renaming this article. AD (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

|- |Mitch || ParaNorman || Gay || Film |- Yoder.librarian (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

Doctor Owen Harper from Torchwood needs to be listed as bisexual. In the second episode of Torchwood, Season one Episode Two, Day One, He has a threesome with a man and his girlfriend soon after he made out with the man. He's considered to be Bisexual. Doctorowenharpertw (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. AD (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Radio characters

Wouldn't it be better to place the characters from radio fiction with the ones from television, and have this for just film? There aren't many, but the radio programmes appear to be closer in format to televised fiction than film. –anemoneprojectors– 09:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think an additional split make sense. AD (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, List of LGBT characters in film already exists! –anemoneprojectors– 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, that's a lot of overlap. So, move all the radio items to the television article, and merge the remaining with the film article? AD (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's what I think should happen. –anemoneprojectors– 12:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you copied the radio characters over but didn't remove them from here so I've done that. This now excludes radio fiction and needs updating. The merge with List of LGBT characters in film definitely needs to be done, as this cannot be renamed to that title! –anemoneprojectors– 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Castiel and Dean Winchester

Various IPs are repeatedly trying to add these characters to this article. Neither character is LGBT, and they're from a television show, not film. AD (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Merges and moves

I just wanted to explain what I have done today. List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction was once split into various lists but it was a slight mess and we had two lists for film characters at the same time. The larger list had the title List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction but I needed it to have this title (after I put the radio characters where they belong). I moved the page that was at List of LGBT characters in film to List of LGBT characters in films so that its history would not be lost, and then redirected it here after moving List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction. So if you need the history of the page that used to have this title, please view the history of List of LGBT characters in films. Sorry if this is so complicated!

However, this list contains Anime characters that don't belong here - they should be moved into List of LGBT characters in animation. –anemoneprojectors– 16:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a problem

How do we know for certain that the character identifies as gay, lesbian, bi, or transgendered? Is there a point in the series where it is implied or do the ycome out and say it (Two very different things). Anyone can pretty much add anyone and without seeing the series it would be hard to pin these down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change

I have started a discussion of a proposed change to this and similar pages that can be found on the LGBT Studies Project talk page. In short, I am proposing to expand the scope of the page from solely "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" to "non-heterosexual or non-cisgender". Please join the conversation and comment here. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we all know that didn't happen... sadly. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Keep trying to dilute what the LGBT community represents. That sure is progress. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Boys in The Band needs to be added.

The Boys in The Band (1970)- Director- Willian Friedkin Writer- Mart Crowley (Based on his play by the same name from 1968) Cast- Gay Characters: Kenneth Nelson as Michael Leonard Frey as Harold Cliff Gorman as Emory Keith Prentice as Larry Robert La Tourneaux as Cowboy Tex Frederick Combs as Donals Laurence Luckenbill as Hank Ruben Green as Bernard Bisexual/ambiguous character: Peter White as Alan McCaarthy.

sources https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065488/ [[1]] [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.69.0.41 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It should. But IMDb is not accepted as a reliable source and cannot be used, nor Wikipedia (or any wiki, for that matter): Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#IMDb + WP:CITINGIMDB + WP:CIRCULAR. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential films to be added

Hi, I have some movies that have implied to have lgbt characters, but not yet confirmed:

• Black Swan
• The Dresser (1983 film)
• Green Book
• No Time to Die — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningman2027 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Six Degrees of Separation
• Soapdish
• Thelma & Louise

If you have related information, I would be very grateful. Thanks. Runningman2027 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Black Swan

• "Mila Kunis: No Tequila Was Involved in Black Swan Sex Scene" – https://people.com/movies/black-swan-sex-scene-mila-kunis-natalie-portman/
• "'Black Swan' lesbian sex scene led to most viewer complaints" – https://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/entertainment/black-swan-lesbian-sex-scene-led-to-most-viewer-complaints-7938330.html / Archive @ https://archive.md/MTA6h Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

missing some characters

Less Than Zero(1987) Is missing Julian Wells(Robert Downey Jr), in fact, Clay in the movie(Andrew McCarthy) wasn't even bi, that was just in the book. Also missing Charlie in One Night Stand(1997), as played by Robert Downey Jr, Terry Donager in Black & White(2000), also played by Robert Downey Jr, and Deadpool. In Deadpool(2016) and Deadpool 2(2018), portrayed by Ryan Reynolds. Additionally, Tony Stark is bisexual in the comics.Kiss my iron (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

#1 – since you seem to be knowledgeable about the characters, please provide published reliable sources that can be used to support the L, G, B, or T status of the characters in the films.
#2 – the characters in this list are only the characters that appear in the named films and the sexual orientations seen, heard, or suggested in the films must be verified with reliable sources about the films. Whatever the sexual orientations of characters found in the book or comic a film is based on may be, only what appears in the films is applicable for this list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed

This list has too many entries missing reliable sources (RS). Lists are considered articles and, as such, WP:LISTVERIFY states: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources." There is no reason, for example, for not being able to include sources for films released in 2020 and 2021. Reliable sources can be web, newspaper, and/or magazine articles; books and scholarly publications. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree... Options are to either find sources for those entries, or...just remove them. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe in the destruction of information. Before someone who doesn't give a shit about the value of this list decides to light a match and set fire to it, it would be in the best interest of editors who support the inclusion of LGBT topics in Wikipedia to start searching for sources now, not later. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I don't believe in destruction of information either and I'll try to add sources when I can, but I also know that pages can languish for a while without people adding sources... --Historyday01 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As of this date, I've added missing citations for the 2020 and 2021 films. But I can't be the only one tackling this task, nor should any editor interested in this list depend on others to clean-up after their elephant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, when I have some time this weekend. Historyday01 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now, I feel kinda bad because I have been swamped with work and stuff and never got around to adding citations. Oops. Anyway, I'll try to do what I can. Historyday01 (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was acting as if WP:PRESERVE was not an important and fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Try not take it personally there are people doing that to all kinds of articles, destroying is far easier than building, far too easy in Wikipedia. People seem to forget how often articles start badly and are gradually turned into ... maybe not pearls but quite often a a shiny polished mudball.

There are plenty of good reasons for some version of this article to exist (personally I'd have trimmed it way back to prime examples, the most significant well referenced examples), but you've done a great job making sure most of the examples are verified. To improve the article further in the long run I would like to see more prose to give an overview of it all, to really tell the story of how cinema has gone through phases of gay characters being barely mentioned, or as comedy stock characters, or tragic characters, to normalized whole characters not solely defined by their sexuality, to leading characters in independent films, to (pinkwashed characters) leading characters in mainstream films. I'd guess some of the book references in the article already say something about whatever larger phases may have existed, and I believe few more chunks of prose could improve this article substantially, so please take this as a polite request to any editors with book sources to try and add more introduction and overview, to metaphorically put a bow on it. -- 109.77.195.1 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the deletion discussion is not over, although I hope it ends soon. Since this is a list, I'm not sure how much prose can be added, but I agree that there should be more about " how cinema has gone through phases of gay characters being barely mentioned, or as comedy stock characters, or tragic characters, to normalized whole characters not solely defined by their sexuality, to leading characters in independent films" but that is generally covered on other history pages, like History of homosexuality in American film or the many subpages of History of LGBT characters in animation, for instance, along with many other pages out there. Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I did see the links at the top, but a better written prose intro would more clearly point to or summarize key elements from other articles (such as History of homosexuality in American film).

It is interesting to me how many of these films I was already aware of but I guess I am trying to articulate the problem that I cannot tell from this long list article alone which of them were the most culturally, socially, or politically impactful or otherwise significant. Brief bits of text introducing the sections might help this list stand alone but maybe editors will prefer to keep this more as a supplemental resource to other article. As someone who just bounced into this article from elsewhere it is hard to know, but the article is getting better and I expect the rest will get figured out sooner or later. -- 109.77.195.1 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

First, thank you for your support and kind words. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm sure those of us who have put a lot of work into cleaning-up the list into a coherent, uniform format appreciate all the thumbs-up we receive for our efforts. I try to add a brief descriptive narrative about the films when I become familiar with them, and along with other editors to add reliable sources that support the inclusion of films and their LGBT characters in this list.
Unlike some people who have grown up in an era of films made by LGBT filmmakers and the increasing representation of non-straight characters in films ... I take nothing for granted and see the value of providing information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender characters in films (and television) that I could not easily find 40 years ago, if it existed at all. I remember when, in researching information about films for a graduate paper, I spent days and countless hours in the MOMA library, and depending on the precious few sources that offered the material I needed to find. When I see someone dismiss this list because "in the future" there will be so many LGBT characters in movies that this list will become unmanageable in size, I laugh. As if an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia purports to be, has only enough room in it for a convenience of time.
I am leaning more and more towards splitting the list into sexual orientations/identities (i.e. List of feature films with __("lesbian" | "gay" | "bisexual" | "transgender")__ characters), because then when readers want to find, for example, how many gay characters there are in which films a specific list narrows it down for them. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Column for references (i.e. citations)

I've added a column for the citations, so they can stand out from the descriptions (hopefully, more descriptions will be added in the near future). As of this time I've finished sections // Film franchises // through // 1990–1999 //. I will continue to edit more sections as much as I can in one sitting and have this finalized before the end of the week. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I definitely support that. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding new films & characters without reliable sources included

@Runningman2027: If you're going to add new films/characters to the list as you did here, it's best that you also include reliable sources for them, too. The recent WP:AFD discussion in February–March about this list noted how many films did not have RS for them. After the result of the AFD was to keep the list, the bulk of the editing has been to add RS for the films/characters that need it.
If you already know enough about a film to add it to the list, it would be wise to include the RS at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone, as they say.
Don't forget ... this list is going to be split into four lists: List of feature films with lesbian characters; List of feature films with gay characters; List of feature films with bisexual characters; and List of feature films with transgender characters. We should not drag our feet in reaching this goal, and adding new unsourced films/characters adds to the RS problem that needs to be resolved before the list is split. Thanks. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought the section is used for the movies with uncertain LGBT characters. I will take more about notice about this in the future. Runningman2027 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Just so it's clear, the non-merged section is for films/characters that need to be added to the list, not because the sexual orientation of the characters are uncertain. We don't include ambiguous characters anywhere. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The Batman

Catwoman actress Zoe Kravitz stated that she interpreted her version of character as bisexual, should we add this to the list? Runningman2027 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can cite the source, then yes. DonQuixote (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What about this?https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna18172 Runningman2027 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I think https://www.glamour.com/story/the-batman-implied-bisexuality and https://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/is-catwoman-bisexual-the-batman/ would be better sources, with the latter being the original interview where she said that, but sure. Historyday01 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-merged films section

I think the time has come to remove the section from the list. I propose that it be transferred to this talk page as a collapsed list (e.g. "Films for consideration") of potential films to be added when sources are procured for them. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Film franchises

I created a specific list article with the "Film franchises" section. See List of film franchises with LGBT characters. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! That's a page that will hopefully be helpful to people who use this page. Historyday01 (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the list

Per the recent deletion RfC, there was agreement that the best way to go forward with this generalized list is to split it into either films by decades (e.g. List of feature films with LGBT characters: 1990–1999), or by sexual identity (e.g. List of feature films with lesbian characters).
Imo, what will result in an overall better service to readers is to break the list into individual sexual identities (...films with lesbian characters, ...films with gay characters, ...films with bisexual characters, ... films with transgender characters).
We need to make a decision about what to do with the list now, rather than put it off for a later time. So, what are we going to do? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Pyxis, I would support splitting it by sexual identity as that would be in line with other lists, since we already have lists like List of bisexual characters in television, List of lesbian characters in television, List of gay characters in television, List of transgender characters in television, and List of transgender characters in film. I was hoping that some of those from the AfD would post here, but sadly none of them seem interested in having a discussion about the page, which seems weird to me. Also updated the List of transgender characters in film today and the main page here, moving sources and information back and forth. Historyday01 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The list cannot be split until all the citation needed templates have been replaced with RS — and the end of this tunnel is not as far away as it was when the AFD was opened. The Section sizes template has been added and now we can see why splitting the list is necessary. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, I can completely agree with that. If I have some time this week, I'll try to add some more reliable sources for other entries. Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

* List of feature films with lesbian characters

The franchises section was split on 3 June. That's one down, four to go.
Starting today, I will be working offline creating the List of feature films with lesbian characters. The list will use the same table format of this list, but without the "Identity" column (which would be redundant per the article title). I estimate the completion of the new list to be one week from today. I will not be removing the lesbian characters from this list until the new list is created. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The list has been created. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done. The lesbian characters have been removed from this list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

* List of feature films with transgender characters

Historyday01: per your comment of 24 June 2022— if you're able, please go ahead and create the List of feature films with transgender characters article. Thanks! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Historyday01 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Just created it tonight. Historyday01 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure! It was good to do because I found some characters from the List of transgender characters in film which hadn't been added, so that helped. Historyday01 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

* List of feature films with gay characters

Out of the LGBT, the G characters represent the largest total. The List of feature films with gay characters is going to be extensive. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. When I search the word "gay" on the main page, it brings up over 750 results! Historyday01 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll do the gay list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The list has been created. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

* List of feature films with bisexual characters

Now that the lesbian and transgender characters have been removed from the list, creating the List of feature films with bisexual characters should be easy to do. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since there are only 200 results when you search for "bisexual" when searching the page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll work on creating that page today. Historyday01 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The page has been created! Now all that's left is the gay characters. Historyday01 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you for tackling it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible split

I noticed a discussion regarding a split above, and I would like to re-ignite it separately as I think that an additional discussion should take place regarding it. The article has gotten too long, as you may know. It would be wisest and easiest to split by each section: List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters, List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century), and List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century). Also, what does non-merged mean? @Onetwothreeip, Zsteve21, Pyxis Solitary, Gary1227, and Runningman2027: Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-merged, from my understanding, means entries which have not yet been merged into the main lists. I continue to support splitting it by identities, rather than by years, as Pyxis said above, as I feel that splitting it like years would make the articles far too long. And as such, those articles would need to be split again. Historyday01 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Though the article is already sorted by time period. It would be much easier to split by time period rather than split by identity. Also, the sections are all around 100,000-200,000 bytes, which is not that long, as most articles on this wiki are around that length. There are currently only about a hundred or so pages with a length of 400,000 bytes or longer according to Special:LongPages. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That is true that it is currently organized that way, but there is no need to stick with that organization. I think splitting it by identity would make it more accessible to readers (who will likely be looking for information when organized by identity), and as I said before, I fear that if it is split by time period, then it would need to be split again. I believe that would be less likely if it is split by identity. And such a split could even engender more possible participation by those looking at the articles. As Pyxis said above, a split by readers means that "when readers want to find, for example, how many gay characters there are in which films a specific list narrows it down for them." However, my opinion on this is not set in stone, as I'm willing to change my mind on this and am not wedded to the split by identity, as a person who is transitioning some LGBTQ articles I edit to be organized by years rather than identity. There are good arguments either for organizing it by identity or by years. Historyday01 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, we would not need to split it again. 200,000 bytes is not long. 400,000+ is usually the dividing line. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If a split is needed, I would say splitting by decade/time period would be the most useful. Gary1227 (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a split is needed because as the article currently stands it is too long to be useful to those who look at this page on a daily basis, which numbers in the hundreds and with over 37,000 viewing the page this year alone! If we use WP:SIZESPLIT, anything over 100 kB "almost certainly should be divided" while anything about 60 kB "probably should be divided" and about 50 kB "may need to be divided". If we split the content into the three pages as proposed by Blubabluba9990, "List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters", "List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century)", and "List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)", then...

• A "List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters" page would be, according to the section sizes template on this page, 27,655 bytes (equivalent of 27.655 kB), within the guidelines of WP:SIZESPLIT
• A "List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century)" page would be, according to the section sizes template on this page (not including any additions from the "Non-merged films" section) 198,347 bytes (equivalent of 198.347 kB), meaning that it would need to be split again in order to comply with WP:SIZESPLIT
• A "List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)" page would be, according to the section sizes template on this page (not including any additions from the "Non-merged films" section) 229,209 bytes (equivalent of 229.209 kB), meaning that it would need to be split again in order to comply with WP:SIZESPLIT

Hence, while a "List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters" page would not need to be split again, a "List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century)" page and a "List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)" page would need to be split again to comply with WP:SIZESPLIT. Blubabluba9990, I'm not sure where you got that 400,000+ bytes is the dividing line, as 400,000 bytes would be 400 kB, not 40 kB, with WP:SIZESPLIT stating: "below 50 kB, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 40 kB and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues." The dividing line is 40,000 bytes (equivalent of 40 kB) at the lowest, not 400,000 bytes (equivalent of 400 kB). Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In practice, 400 kB is the dividing line. If we split every article on the wiki that exceeded 50 kB, then we would be splitting over 10,000 pages (as every page that is possible to list in Special:LongPages is over 100 kB. In practice, articles are generally not split unless they exceed 400 kB, though on occasion articles that are 300 kB or more have been split. Also, up until around 400 kB, article sizes generally remain similar. There are currently only 116 articles with lengths of 400 kB or more. It also depends on who is requesting the split. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a good point, but what if someone nominates one of the bigger pages for deletion again? While a "List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters" page might not be nominated and might be relatively deletion-proof but I could see a "List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century)" page and a "List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)" page nominated by some unscrupulous editor. Beyond that, wouldn't it be better to split by decades than in huge blocks (like 20th century and 21st century)? Wouldn't that make it better for anyone viewing it? How is the current split you are proposing better than what we have now? I don't mind having a List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters but I still believe it would be beneficial to create List of feature films with lesbian characters, List of feature films with gay characters, List of feature films with bisexual characters, and convert the already-existing List of transgender characters in film to List of feature films with transgender characters as Pyxis proposed in the recent AfD, splitting the entries that way. Historyday01 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea for splitting the list by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identities was put forth in the AfD held February–March 2022, and was found agreeable by five editors (myself included) in the discussion. Splitting the list by identities:

(1) distinguishes the lists from the generic compilation of lists in Lists of LGBT-related films by year;

(2) is more beneficial and useful to Wikipedia readers searching for specific information about L, G, B, or T characters in films by providing a functional and clear-cut method for finding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender characters in them (as opposed to going through all the films to find the L, G, B, or T ).

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's true. I still think that is the best division of the pages would be that way, rather than by decades. Additionally, dividing that way would make more manageable pages as well, and be in line with the focus on specific identities rather than years. Historyday01 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We could do both as a compromise. However, the reason why I suggested decades is because the article is already sorted by decades, so it would require a bunch of sorting and it would simply be cleaner to split by decade. Also, many other articles of this nature are split by decades. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 16:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand what you are saying, but I continue to believe that the year pages (named something like List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century), and List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)) would need to be split again. Additionally, someone might nominate them for an AfD, possibly using similar reasoning to the one that put this page in jeopardy.

Currently, the List of film franchises with LGBT characters has been split off, but no other page has been split off as of yet. Pyxis, what do you think. Should we do both, or stick with one way of splitting it instead, i.e. by identities or by years?

We already have List of transgender characters in film as I noted earlier, so it would be easy to convert that to List of feature films with transgender characters, with the same for other identities, with pages entitled something like List of feature films with lesbian characters, List of feature films with gay characters, and List of feature films with bisexual characters. Historyday01 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It is tiresome when after having held an AfD discussion that lasted 20 days (16 February–7 March 2022) in which 49 editors were involved (only 3 were IP-only), and in which decisions about how to split the list was discussed ... that this Johnny-come-lately talk page topic keeps being fanned.
I said it in the AfD, I've said it in previous comments, and I repeat it again: the best solution and the most Wikipedia user-friendly solution, is to split the list by identity.
This list wasn't created for Wikipedia editors. As with all that exists in Wikipedia, articles (lists are articles) are created and intended for readership by the general public. Which means that if Jane or John Doe Reader wants to find out information about how many feature films have involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender characters: they will seek information regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters. The individual lists will offer focused and targeted content, instead of film lists where readers are forced to search line-by-line for the specific information about characters that they seek.
Is splitting the list by L, G, B, and T going to be a monumental project? Yes. It will be slow and steady, but when it's all over each list will provide a direct source of clearly defined information.
I agree with Historyday01's conclusion that "pages (named something like List of feature films with LGBT characters (20th century), and List of feature films with LGBT characters (21st century)) would need to be split again. Additionally, someone might nominate them for an AfD, possibly using similar reasoning to the one that put this page in jeopardy." The AfD of 2022 was the second AfD held about this list.
Roll up your sleeves, help to accomplish the splitting, and the next time there's an AfD discussion ... participate in it. However, as all editors have experienced: if an AfD discussion has ended and the AfD was closed by the time you found out about it, then in the future keep an eye on AfD discussions so that you can be in the mix when they're taking place. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm very appreciated that the splitting process was quickly done. However one question still remained inside me: Some films feature characters with different sexual orientation. Wouldn't it tire the readers as they need to read other articles as well? No disrespect, I just have this concern and I want some insights from fellow editors about it. Runningman2027 (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I mean, maybe, but the current organization really isn't workable. Dividing them into specific identities helps. This isn't like the list of animated series with LGBTQ characters in which there are far less entries, so it makes more sense to keep the characters of specific identities together. And, if needed, specific LGBTQ representation sections could be added to the pages of specific films.Historyday01 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are films that have more than one sexual orientation, but Wikipedia cannot have a list which becomes so large that it overwhelms readers. See WP:LENGTH for usability and size considerations (don't forget that lists are articles). Splitting the list into sexual identities makes them more manageable and lessens the likelihood that some editor will come up with a reason to bitch about their existence. And since each L, G, B, and T list provides a link to other related lists, interested readers can go to one or more of them for relevant information. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"if needed, specific LGBTQ representation sections could be added to the pages of specific films." Editors of film articles are obliged to follow MOS:FILM. A "representation section" would be considered trivia, about which the manual states: "Trivia may be a useful section in a film article, as it can serve as a "Miscellaneous" area for important facts (not just fan facts) that may not yet fit easily elsewhere." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, exactly. It does make it less likely that someone will challenge those pages. Historyday01 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2022

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) Iffy★Chat -- 16:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

List of feature films with LGBT characters → Lists of feature films with LGBT characters – This page now exclusively contains lists, so it could feasibly be renamed to "Lists of feature films with LGBT characters", similar to Lists of books mentioned in WP:Naming conventions (lists). Since it was one list but was split across multiple pages, I can see the argument for it being kept where it is. If it does get moved, I definitely think redirecting the current title to the new title would be a good idea. I'd love to everyone's opinions on whether a move would be necessary. And I hope you all have a good day! – DirkJandeGeer щи 16:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed move. Historyday01 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. From singular "List" → to plural "Lists". Makes sense now. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Calling multiple lists a single list just isn't correct. AkiyamaKana (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Support per above --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 19:38, 13 July 2022 (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.