Talk:List of LGBT-related films directed by women/Archive 1

Duplicate links
I would kindly ask to have the duplicate links restored. I agree that in general we should avoid duplicate linking (per MOS:DUPLINK), but in this case, I think the exception applies: "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader." A reader may be drawn to the list and see a film by Jamie Babbit, and if it's at the end, may leave the site thinking Ms. Babbit has no article in her own right. We're also asking readers to start from the top and mentally keep track of who does and does not have a linked article. That's asking a bit much, when there's no real extra cost for us to provide the links for every film. GetSomeUtah (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia has an exception to the guideline, then I suppose multiple linkings of the same names is acceptable. (Although I don't think any reader who reads a list and sees a name appear more than once is going to think an article doesn't exist for the subject if the name appears again, unlinked, elsewhere. If anything, what readers will probably look at first is the article for a film, if it exists.) All things considered, over-linking a list is not a major offense. However, we should avoid red-linking to a nonexistent article unless, per WP:REDLINK, an editor intends to create it, or the subject is considered "notable and verifiable". Pyxis Solitary  talk 03:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Red-linking is bad.  Fully agree.  Thanks.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Year
Would it be a good idea to also include the year of a film? For those unfamiliar with the films in the list, seeing a lesbian-genre film from as far back as, for example, 1931 (Mädchen in Uniform) may be of interest to the reader. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * My view is that if we keep the format of a simple list, the year is only needed in cases to deconflict, such as Tomboy. This is mainly because there is already a list of LGBT films by year.  And we want to avoid clutter here.  Keep in mind that this list isn't technically lesbian genre; it's rainbow genre directed by women.  If you wanted to take the approach of the other list (a table) and have it sortable and to have a field for the year, I'd be in favor of that.  It would also allow other useful fields, such as Country and Notes.  Country would be interesting because I'm always amazed at how many lesbian films Canada turns out per capita.  I digress.  But a wikitable, sadly, is beyond my technical capabilities.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I know it's not a lesbian genre-only list. Mädchen was only used as an example of an LGBT film (that happens to be a lesbian theme) from 86 years ago. I don't think adding the year would clutter the list, but I do think turning it into a table would with the multiple cells. Right now it's easy on the eyes. Pyxis Solitary  talk 09:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to offend with the lesbian genre comment. It's just that this list attempts a single goal:  film+director and not film+year+director.  My bias will always be toward making things easy for the reader, and by definition, the people coming to this list are seeking the film and the director.  So each entry has that and nothing more.  The double-linking is, again, to help the readers and to save them from reading the entire list and having to remember which directors have articles and which don't.


 * Additional data fields are outside the scope of this list, in my view. Those people that might have idle curiosity about the year or who really want to see only LGBT-related films of the 1930s have other easy-to-find ways to do that.  To aid them, I've added the List of LGBT-related films by year in the See also section.  With very little effort, they can scan that list for female directors.


 * If we go down the path of opening things up to additional entries, we could soon see someone posing the following question: "Would it be a good idea to also include the country of a film?  For those unfamiliar with the films in the list, seeing a lesbian-genre film from, for example, Sri Lanka (Forbidden Love in Bandarawela) may be of interest to the reader...right?  It's the exact same wording and argument made above -- nice to know, but not central to the list.  In my view, if we start adding in more data fields (year, country, sub-genre, etc.), we essentially end up with the same lists others have done, only by a different name.  I don't mean to be dogmatic on this, and I certainly don't own this listicle.  If there is a broader consensus, I will gracefully yield.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, what you're saying is that instead of having readers immediately see the year a film was released, you expect them to review 62 links representing 62 years between 1895-2016 in "List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films by year", for which within each year there can be anywhere from 5 to 70 films listed, and go through the director names for each year to find a female-sounding name. And since many films directed by women don't have a Wikipedia article about them, and many also don't have a page about the director where a film may be mentioned (example: 2015's All About E by Louise Wadley) ... well, then, readers can just deal with it (after all, a web search of the title will provide the year). But you were open (your first comment above) to making the list into a table that would contain title/year/director/country/notes (5 cells). Pyxis Solitary  talk 04:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm not here to argue or be on the receiving end of tirades.  Add the year, please.  I agree that we shouldn't make reader search across many lists, and I take it by the logic above that we'll also be adding in the other fields so that no one has to hunt for anything, ever, and everything will be on this listicle.  Thank you for your assistance in improving the page.  And please be so kind as to recognize that I'm not responsible for the skewed state of women's representation on Wikipedia, and that I'm actually trying to help fix that.  I always welcome collaborative allies in that effort. GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Having a difference of opinion is not a tirade. Pointing out a contradiction is not a tirade. And I don't know how you interpreted anything I said as holding you responsible for a "skewed state of women's representation on Wikipedia". To edit Wikipedia requires a bit of teflon coating. We both have good intentions for doing what we do in this webopedia. The only detail I've argued for has been the inclusion of a film's year. That's it. Pyxis Solitary  talk 12:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Notability
I would propose deleting films for which there is no link to the article nor a link to the director. We need at least one of the two to establish notability for the list. Without those links, editors could add fake films to the list, and it becomes a burden to the Wikipedia community to constantly hunt down these films to verify they do, indeed, exist. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be a list about films and the directors that are included within Wikipedia, is it? Many of the films included in List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films by year don't have a Wikipedia article for the film + director. All an editor needs to do here is add a citation that verifies it's an LGBT film directed by a woman. Every film I've included that doesn't have a Wikipedia article + director is a film I've double-checked on the web (for example: Die Konkurrentin (English title: The Competitor) (1997) by Dagmar Hirtz). To remove them from the list will deprive readers the knowledge of their existence. Pyxis Solitary  talk 06:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer to the first question, wikilinked items are inherently notable and are sourced. So, yes, every item on the list must be sourced one way or another, either via a link to an article or through a citation here on this page.  Please see WP:CITE and add a citation for any unlinked Films+Directors with an WP:RS attesting to the film's existence.  Wikipedia is not a list of everything that exists, including LGBT-related films that are in danger of fading from peoples' memories.  This is a key point.  Everything on this list, like everything else on Wikipedia, has significance and is notable.  Poor sourcing on another page doesn't mean sloppiness reigns on this page.  Anything without a citation is subject to immediate challenge and removal.  The burden is on the editor who adds the item to provide the citation, not others who come along and clean up.  I take it by your response above that you agree and will add citations.  Thanks.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Chill. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2008 and I also pull my own weight. This list was created on 8 July 2017. If the issue of adding a source for a movie that didn't have a film and/or director article had come up earlier, I would have done it from the get-go. Pyxis Solitary  talk 13:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not discerning a substantive response above, I would merely note that bandying about edit counts and revolving barnstars doesn't give anyone a free pass. Thank you for alerting me to the problems of sourcing on the List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films by year.  In my experience, flagging items needing sourcing isn't a criticism but rather a means to galvanize the community to make improvements.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "bandying about edit counts and revolving barnstars doesn't give anyone a free pass".
 * What is that ^ supposed to mean? Because it's coming off as a personal affront. If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page. Keep it out of here because the passive-aggressive tactic and the lecturing is wearing thin. Pyxis Solitary  talk 10:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Red-linking
As with the other LGBT film lists, such as by year, the movies here are all inherently notable and worthy of inclusion on a list. This is not an indiscriminate list. As stated at WP:RED, "One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow." Accordingly, I have red-linked the black-text movie names. GetSomeUtah (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Two films with unclear LGBT links
For Yuriko, Dasvidaniya, there is no mention of LGBT in the article, nor even a single source. It would be good to add a mention there how the film is LGBT related. Similarly, Close-Knit is described only as a "drama" in the article. In that case, I was able to pull from the one live-linked citation that it is a drama having to do with transgender issues. GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Pyxis Solitary, for the adjustments. GetSomeUtah (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)