Category talk:Gay-related television shows

This category was nominated for renaming on 1 September 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This category was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus but purge.

This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This category 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 Television This category is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

@

• If there is consensus to rephrase the header text accordingly, I will not object. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there was no opposition at all to the above proposal for over 3 weeks I altered the text accordingly, in order to make it consistent with the parent and most related categories as

Before proceeding to wider discussion, like RfC, I'm going to ping all participants of the CfD discussion to alert them of this discussion since they may be interested in voicing their opinions. If I've missed anyone, please let me know. @Escape Orbit, Bearcat, Roscelese, David J Johnson, 2A02:418:4014:1:0:0:0:10, Laurel Lodged, and GetSomeUtah: --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the category lead was:

"This category is for live action and animated television series, miniseries, made for TV movies and pilots that include one or more gay male characters."
(This category is for [[live action]] and [[Animated series|animated]] television series, [[miniseries]], [[made for TV]] movies and [[Television pilot|pilots]] that '''include''' one or more [[Gay men|gay male]] characters.)

It was edited by Marcocapelle as follows:

"This category is for live action and animated television series, miniseries, made for TV movies and pilots that consistently and prominently include one or more gay male characters."
(This category is for [[live action]] and [[Animated series|animated]] television series, [[miniseries]], [[made for TV]] movies and [[Television pilot|pilots]] that '''consistently and prominently''' include one or more [[Gay men|gay male]] characters.)

It was changed by AussieLegend to:

"This category includes television series, made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature gay characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device."
(This category includes television series, [[television movie|made-for-television films]], news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature gay characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device.)

I re-edited this to read as:

"This category includes live action and animated television series, miniseries, specials, made-for-television films, news, entertainment and other programming which deal with or feature gay male characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance, relationships, friendships, or only sexual encounters as an important plot device."
(This category includes [[live action]] and [[Animated series|animated]] television [[Serial (radio and television)|series]], [[miniseries]], [[Television special|specials]], [[television movie|made-for-television films]], [[News program|news]], entertainment and other programming which deal with or feature gay male characters or issues. They may have [[Homosexuality|same-sex]] [[Sexual attraction|romance]], [[Significant other|relationships]], [[friendships]], or only [[Human sexual activity|sexual]] encounters as an important [[plot device]].)

Restoring the specification of "male" to the term "gay", the inclusion of live action and animated, links to WP pages, and added friendships and sexual encounters (because storylines about gays, for example: a crime series where gay men are murdered after a one-night stand, such as Deep Water, do not automatically focus on romances and relationships).

A consensus discussion about rephrasing the lead was not held and no decision was reached before AussieLegend changed the wording. The only engagement among editors that existed prior to this was a statement in the Talk page by AussieLegend and a reply from Marcocapelle -- two editors only. No request was made for a discussion to be held with more editors.
A discussion specifically addressing the wording of the lead needs to be held and consensus needs to be decided. Pyxis Solitary talk 10:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to say a discussion wasn't held. I originally posted to Marcocapelle's talk page and that discussion was moved here. Nobody chose to participate in a 3 week period, including you. That normally indicates there is no opposition to the proposed changes. Similarly, the claim that No request was made for a discussion to be held is not correct. The mere presence of the discussion on this talk page was a request and a discussion was referred to in the CfD close comments. It's really very hypocritical to argue that there was no consensus when you never had consensus for the original wording and when you changed the inclusion criteria without any discussion at all. The entire category was objected to within 36 hours of its creation so your whole "no consensus" argument really doesn't fly. This aside, I'd like to know why the inclusion criteria that you established are so different to that of the parent category? It was made clear at the CfD that the criteria are not appropriate as they are inclusionist, not defining. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You originally posted whatever to another editor's talk page. So what? You're the one who started the let's-get-rid-of-it and created the come to Jesus debate about it in the 'Category for discussions' page. Since it's your baby, you should have also kick-started a consensus discussion here afterwards and pinged editors. Stuff the "That normally indicates there is no opposition to the proposed changes" nonsense were it belongs: in the trash bin. You failed to do what you should have done to generate responses. Pyxis Solitary talk 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where it was first posted was irrelevant. The fact is that it was moved here to encourage wider discussion. I didn't need to create another discussion since this one already existed. Since this category is your baby you had the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes but did not. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it was so irrelevant, you wouldn't have pointed it out. There was no "discussion" being held here. Your hair caught on fire when Marcocapelle's edit of the header wasn't what you thought it should be. Marcocapelle's response was that if there was consensus for your version, he'd go along with it. But YOU did not lift a finger to seek consensus by letting other interested parties know to come here for a debate about it. You're the one that wanted to delete the category, not me. You're the one that wants to copycat the header from Category:LGBT-related television programs — which I'm on the record as saying it's outdated because that umbrella category was created in 2006, when (and I'm repeating what I've said in other discussions) the television landscape involving LGBT characters was nowhere near what it is today. Pyxis Solitary talk 18:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The added "friendship" language is ridiculous ("same-sex friendship" is the premise of every buddy cop show and every children's cartoon). Keep it simple. Pyxis is the only one who appears to have trouble understanding what the category is for, and that's

after long and labored explanation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Why is the idea of same-sex friendship between gay men ridiculous? Because gay men can't have friendships that don't include sexual intimacy? Because besides Will & Grace, other television series can't portray two gay men as friends only? This category is not about straight men in romcom buddy cop shows. It's about gay men. Get it? G-a-y men. "Homo men", if that makes it clearer for you to understand. Pyxis Solitary talk 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be very clear that it is not just prominently featuring gay characters but that gay-related themes are either a central part of the show or are revisited frequently enough to make the show reasonably about gay themes. The problem this category had before is asserting "it had a gay character therefore it's gay-related" which diluted the category when shows like The Walking Dead are included. Be very explicit that we are looking at the theme of the program, not just the composition of the characters. --Masem (t) 14:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A
    subplots. Gay male characters included in a subplot are people, not objects. A series that includes gay male characters in a subplot creates a narrative about gay men by virtue of their inclusion — and thereby, they are an element that builds the story that affects the theme. You don't get to pick and choose the importance of subplots as the basis for acknowledging series that have gay male characters in them. Pyxis Solitary talk 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Let's first start purging uncontroversial articles and only after that has been concluded start an RFC about the friendship issue. It may make the discussion a lot easier when the category is first trimmed down to, for example, 40 articles so that we can easily count how many of those 40 are portraying friendship between two gay men. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You just outlined the problem yourself. A theme is what is a central element of the show; not every narrative aspect that a show has is part of its theme (That is, the theme is by definition a very narrow cut of all the narrative elements presented by a show, and not a total sum of its parts). There's the issue of dilution of the category when you assume that just by virtue of having gay characters the work is suddenly gay-related. By nature of our category system, I would expect to be able to randomly click on any entry in this category to find a show where gay themes are frequently visited, not infrequent side plots to a very different theme, given the way this category is named. --Masem (t) 14:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This category is for programmes that include gay characters. It is not restricted to themes about gays. Since many programmes feature gays in their ensemble of characters, this category provides a means to identify those programmes. It is still considered a risk to include gay characters in a television programme, but those that do broaden viewer's understanding of LGBT people. The inclusion of gay characters provides visibility and representation for a class of people still considered abnormal by many viewers. I have read comments where the need for this category has been dismissed as a fatuous idea comparable to a category for people with brown hair colour; yet I am not aware of any culture where people with brown hair are condemned as aberrant and odious, their sexual activities described as vile, and portrayals of characters with brown hair receiving backlash from any segment of society.

This is a valuable category. (1) I agree that the singular term gay does not define the category as being for male characters and, therefore, the explanation for it should identify gay male. (2) I don't see a need for including friendship, but I do see the addition of sexual encounters as useful because "relationship" is mostly understood as including emotional connection, whereas depictions of casual sex among gay men (cruising,

Wikilinks are important and should not be excluded. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• • There really should be a separate category, "Television programs with gay characters" to distinguish from "Gay-related television programs". The former can include whenever there is a gay character regardless of anything else, while this category (the latter) should be when themes around gay characters or relationships are fundamental plot elements (eg how most people would read "Gay-related". Just because a work has "X" in it does not make "X-related". --Masem (t) 14:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Categories should not merely be inclusive, they should be defining. Merely having a gay character is not justification for including a program in the category. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Concur with Masem. Perhaps adding this separate category would resolve this. As it currently stands, the incidental appearance of a gay character is not sufficient cause to warrant placing an article in Category:Gay-related television programs. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The new separate category would be deleted in CfD without any doubts. The incidental occurrence of (a) gay character(s) is simply an insufficient reason for categorisation an article in regardless which category, per
        WP:DEFINING. At best, creating a List of television programs with gay characters might be a possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • If the category was limited to cases of TV shows that had main or recurring gay characters, that might be different. (Though one would have to very explicit to define what "main or recurring" is, to distinguish it from incidental/guest). This would still be different from gay-themed shows; to take the example of The Walking Dead, there are certainly 2 non-minor characters on it with confirmed gay identities (Aaron and Jesus), but the only elements of demonstrating anything about a relationship is passing mention of "partner" and a few on-screen kisses. It's a show with gay characters, but it is not a gay-themed show. --Masem (t) 16:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The purpose of these categories was always to capture shows in which gay themes were a prominent and
  WP:DEFINING part of the show — it didn't necessarily have to be right at the very core of the show's entire raison d'être in the manner of Queer as Folk or Will & Grace, but it had to be significantly more than just informed background on a minor character. The intention was never to capture every show that has any gay characters in it at all (we have lists of LGBT characters for that purpose), and the arguments above that that is what the category is for actually represent personal opinions about what it should become for rather than established consensus about what it is for.
  Gilmore Girls, for example, is a show where I'm very unclear on why it's been added to the category — its inclusion is so poorly explained that the category declaration itself is the only appearance of the word "gay" anywhere in the entire article. That's an example of a show that isn't properly defined by its inclusion of gay characters, because it has little to nothing to do with what the show is about (it's about the Gilmore girls, not their gay friend Michel). Conversely, Modern Family is an example of the kind of show that does belong: although it's not exactly on par with QAF or W&G in the sense that the word "gay" would come up if you tried to summarize the show's basic premise in ten words or less, Cam and Mitch are central enough to the show that it still counts as defining — and it would be a very different show than it is if you took them out and replaced them with another straight couple, a statement which is not similarly true of the gay characters in The Walking Dead.
  Basically, the rule has always been that if removing or dequeering the gay character(s) wouldn't really change the show's actual identity or purpose or cultural context in any significant way, then it doesn't belong here. If you want that to change, you need to build a consensus to change it — you don't get to just arbitrarily decree that its purpose has already changed to "all shows with any gay characters at all", and then demand a consensus to prune it back to the old purpose. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This discussion is about the wording of the lead. The lead was edited first by Marcocapelle, then changed by AussieLegend (with a 5-word summary basing the change on the talk page convo between him and Marcocapelle), followed by my back to back edits, then reverted to Marcocapelle's edit — and then you and other editors were pinged for a discussion to reach consensus about the wording. If my edit is read without a knee-jerk reaction, you can see that it was not rewritten to specify or suggest that the category is meant for every television series wherein a Gay character appears. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your preferred wording doesn't achieve that aim. The biggest problem is "which deal with or feature gay male characters or issues". It means that any program that simply features gay male characters can be added to the category and that is how you populated it. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Insert the word "important" between "feature" and "gay":

This category includes live action and animated television series, miniseries, specials, made-for-television films, news, entertainment and other programming which deal with or feature important gay male characters or issues. They may have same-sex romance, relationships, or only sexual encounters as a plot device.

It will let editors know that the category is not for incidental gay male characters. Even editors with low English-language skills will understand what "important" means. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for everyone's proper understanding, by including "important" how would it then be different from the post-CfD version? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What you're doing is returning to the CfD.
  This is the original 2006 lead of the umbrella category. In 2007, another editor changed it into this. In 2011, another editor tweaked the second paragraph. In 2017, I saw the umbrella category for the first time and added my tweak.

1. Oxford Dictionary defines "important" as: 1 Of great significance or value.
2. The Oxford Thesaurus provides many synonyms for "important": significant, consequential, momentous, of great moment, of import, of great import, of great consequence, far-reaching, major; critical, crucial, vital, pivotal, decisive; of value, valuable, valued, useful, of use, beneficial, necessary, essential, indispensable, vital, of the essence; of concern, of interest, relevant, pertinent; prominent, notable, noteworthy.

I turn your question around on you: how is the use of any synonym of "important" different from the post-CfD version? The nitpicking rabbit hole you're sliding into is the eventual deletion of the umbrella category, because no matter what the synonym of "important" may be, the semantics are the same gound zero. Pyxis Solitary talk 03:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd rather prefer this discussion about the lead to come to an end and have all of you start purging the category in line with the closed discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, the lead defines the inclusion criteria and while it continues to say "consistently and prominently include one or more gay male characters", then simply including a gay character allows a program to be added to the category, which seems to be how the cat was populated. Even "or feature important gay characters" does not resolve this problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rabbit hole. All L / G / B / T sub-categories stem from the umbrella Category:LGBT-related television programs. Either the umbrella category is revised with a detailed, minutiae description for what it is precisely for, or it will need to be deleted, and let the dominoes fall. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All L / G / B / T sub-categories stem from the umbrella Category:LGBT-related television programs - Since this is the case, the inclusion criteria for this category should be similar to that category, which is what I tried with my wording. The original wording for that category was:

This category includes television series,

made-for-television films, news, entertainment, specials and other programming which deal with or feature significant lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as an important plot device.
For television series and programming which are not specifically LGBT-themed but feature occasional LGBT characters and episodes, see Lists of television programs with LGBT characters

.

However, when you created this category you chose the following wording:

This category is for

programming

.)

Either the umbrella category is revised with a detailed, minutiae description - That is unnecessary. Simply removing "characters or " (i.e. transgender characters or issues) resolves any issues. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I did to the lead of

point of view. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's going to be a subjective line at some point, but it needs to be more restrictive than just "has a gay character in it", because having a gay character is not equal to "gay-themed". It's a necessary element, but not sufficient. There's clearly some guidance given above: if you can summarize a show and can't avoid mentioning "gay" or related language, it's likely gay-themed. If there's one or more gay characters that make up its main or recurring (not guest) cast, it's a good chase of being gay-themed. The show should have a reasonable fraction of time spent discussing gay issues, and not just a couple of scenes across several seasons. These aren't hard and fast rules, there are exceptions both ways. But keep in mind for the benefit of the reader: if I read a show in this "gay-themed category" I expect to see the show spend some time delving into the issues surrounding gay men, and not just have them there as stock characters. --Masem (t) 01:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mixing apples with oranges with the insistence that "Gay-themed" is the same as "Gay-related".
1. Oxford defines "related" as : Belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.
2. Whereas "theme" is defined as: The subject of a talk, piece of writing, exhibition, etc.; a topic.; An idea that recurs in or pervades a work of art or literature.
Do we need to resort to paint-by-numbers explanations to make it simpler to understand? They're not one and the same. Pyxis Solitary talk 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "-themes" and "-related" are different the latter being a bit broader. But "gay-related" still does not equate to "having at least one gay character", which was how this was populated. A gay character front and center of a show's cast is likely going to make the show gay-related, but a minor or incidental character is not. Again, for The Walking Dead, there is maybe about 5 minutes across 7.5 seasons (100+ episodes) of two gay men in a relationship (including an onscreen PDA). The characters are gay, but they absolutely do not make for The Walking Dead to be "gay-related" because of how little any topic relating to a gay lifestyle or issues is covered. --Masem (t) 20:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The title of the category is gay-related, not gay-themed; and is an extension of the LGBT-related category. As described, the LGBT category is not defined as only for tv programmes that deal solely or predominantly with LGBT subjects. I oppose the idea that the use of this and other interconnected categories should be left to a subjective interpretation of what are or aren't considered gay matters of substance. Explain what is meant by LGBT-related and how to appropriately use the category so that there are no loopholes for assumptions and opinions. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's take this from a different perspective. For each of the following articles, to what extent do you agree or disagree that they should be purged? No need for argumentation at this point of time, just say keep or purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy Endings (TV series)

• Keep (Marcocapelle)
• Keep (Pyxis Solitary)

• The Hard Times of RJ Berger

• Purge (Marcocapelle)
• Purge (Pyxis Solitary)

• Help Me Help You (TV series)

• Purge (Marcocapelle)
• Purge (Pyxis Solitary)

• Hit the Floor (TV series)

• Purge (Marcocapelle)
• Purge (Pyxis Solitary)

• Hollyoaks

• Keep (IP number)
• Keep (Marcocapelle)
• Keep (Pyxis Solitary)

• Home and Away

• Has already been purged (Marcocapelle)

• Hotel Babylon

• Purge (Marcocapelle)
• Purge (Pyxis Solitary)

• How to Get Away with Murder

• Keep (IP number)
• Purge (Marcocapelle)
• Keep (Pyxis Solitary)

In this list I am only familiar with Hollyoaks, which is not a gay soap opera, but has lgbt characters (you can read about one of them here) and has been criticised as being too gay; and How to Get Away with Murder, which won a GLAAD award for Outstanding Drama and has a variety of lgbt characters, including Annalise Keating, the programme's main character. They should not be purged. Furthermore, an editor who is not personally familiar with a series should not be purging any of them. Programme pages missing text about lgbt characters is the fault of editors who have failed to include it. 217.61.14.127 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it may have LGBT characters, does it prominently and consistently address LGBT issues?

an editor who is not personally familiar with a series should not be purging any of them - By the same token, an editor not personally familiar with a series should not be adding the article to the category just because it includes gay characters. I find it hard to believe that Pyxis Solitary has watched every one of the programs in the category. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I find it hard to believe that Pyxis Solitary" blah blah blah. #1: Don't drop my name as if you suddenly can't ask me a question directly. #2: The addition of the category was based on

List of LGBT characters in television and radio. Pyxis Solitary talk 09:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• For what it's worth (not much, really) I've added myself in the above list. It's more important to see the differences between all of you though, in order to understand how big the differences really are and how we can solve that without repeating the same arguments all over. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... "gay-related", as defined above by PS, is a meaningless category: does Star Trek: The Original Series count as a gay-related show because fifty years later an alternate timeline version of one of its characters was established as being gay? Pinning down the sexuality of fictional characters is often extremely difficult and complicated by how such characters are inconsistently written/portrayed by various people, and insisting on categorizing a television series based on such things is ridiculous. I considered taking this to CFD but then noticed that it had been there two months ago with only two significant contributors, with an apparent consensus to purge. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: The category was created and then populated based, apparently, only on the fact that particular programs included gay characters. Whether the program addressed gay issues does not appear to have been a factor. It's now awkward to purge it unless you're familiar with the program you're looking at removing. I'd like to see an explanation as to why every program was added (almost all were added by the category creator). If that's not forthcoming I think it would be better to just empty the category and start again. However, the problem remains that the category inclusion criteria is inclusionist rather than defining and this needs to be fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But she already said.[4] Shows that include gay characters is apparently enough of a criterion in her mind to build a cat around, but almost no one else on Wikipedia agrees with her. I'd say bring it back to CFD, and if she attempts to

bludgeon the discussion again, tell her politely but firmly to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have purged the category at best effort and will remove the template. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]