Talk:List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010–2015/Archive 1

Horror fiction
Are we considering Horror fiction to be a part of dramatic television series. Horror fiction is not listed as a sub-genre of Drama (film and television) or Comedy-drama, which is the present criteria listed for inclusion in this article. I've noticed that some of these shows (across all the articles I've updated) are identified as horror fiction only, or it is the primary genre. There are also variants like supernatural and supernatural thrillers. Would it make sense to create a separate article for this genre of shows, List of horror television series with LGBT characters, or is there already an article for horror related/LGBT characters. Thoughts? Isaidnoway (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think it would make sense to create a separate article if there are enough characters in horror fiction that are LGBTQ. I just found LGBT themes in horror fiction, along with related pages like LGBT themes in speculative fiction, List of LGBT-themed speculative fiction, Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth (big list farm), but I don't see one specifically for horror related/LGBT characters. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a very quick look at the shows in this article reveal there is at least 13 shows that are horror, supernatural horror, horror-drama, psychological horror, apocalyptic-horror, or have horror listed as one of the genres of the show. Most of the shows are about werewolves, vampires, zombies, end-of-the-world, etc. and AHS is strictly horror fiction. I haven't looked at the other list articles. My guess is these shows were included in dramatic television series because there was really nowhere else to include them. Sure is something to consider, and would lighten the load on this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It definitely would lighten the load, for sure, and I'd definitely support a page that focused on horror television series with LGBT characters. Historyday01 (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support splitting the horror entries to a new article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've created Draft:List of horror television series with LGBTQ+ characters, and will move to mainspace after some final tweaks. After moving the draft to mainspace, I will remove the horror series from this article to reduce the page size. Comments welcome. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. My only comment is that the article does not need to be perfect to be published, and it is greatly needed that this happen. The title should also be "LGBT" to be uniform with our other articles and naming policies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to do that for some of the lists of LGBT animated characters too, but I have only bulked at it because it would require manually moving the content to the other page. Historyday01 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Moved draft to main space - List of horror television series with LGBT characters, redirect created for List of horror television series with LGBTQ+ characters. Will start removal and clean-up shortly. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Article size is now ~491,514 after splitting content. Will still have to consider splitting by years.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 16:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also support that as well. Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support that too. All of the years are long enough. Perhaps we could split it into 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 and see how that goes, if it is still too long we could split it further. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That could work. I did something similar for the lists of LGBTQ animated characters and it seemed to work pretty well. Historyday01 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And I have also seen that before for other pages, such as the lists of lost films. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Page length, inclusion criteria and splitting
Hi everyone. This page is still far too large. It appears we have consensus for both splitting the article into years and increasing the inclusion criteria to remove entries. Is there any movement on either of these things currently happening or intending to take place? Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support splitting, oppose removing entries.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 00:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Isaidnoway completely. Splitting makes more sense. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Whatever works best for Wikipedia and its readers. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 08:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with a split. I suggest splitting the page into List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters (2010-2014) and List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters (2015-2019), like with List of lost films. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think (2010-2015) and (2016-2019) is a better split, due to page size, 2010-15 would be ~257,000 bytes and 2016-19 would be ~262,000 bytes. Whereas 2010-14 would be 197,000 vs 2015-19 at 321,000.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 08:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This article and many other list articles of television series with LGBT characters are at serious risk of being nominated for deletion, where editors who do not share enthusiasm for this subject would very likely view these articles as irresponsibly maintained. I strongly urge editors of these articles to seriously consider an aggressive inclusion criteria that reflects the relative normality of LGBT characters in media of present times. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we could do what is the case on the pages of animated LGBTQ characters (so far have survived deletion attempts) which I created a while back and only limit it to LGBTQ characters in the main cast, supporting, and recurring characters (3 eps or more). That's my thought. Historyday01 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (1). where editors who do not share enthusiasm for this subject - these list articles of television series with LGBT characters are primarily written for readers (like all WP articles are), not editors, so it is not relevant if editors are enthused about this subject, and considering this article has had 38,614 pageviews in the last 90 days it appears our readers do appreciate this subject matter. (2). very likely view these articles as irresponsibly maintained - I have no idea what this means, so please don't toss around baseless accusations, because the article is divided into sections, all entries are properly sourced and the table formatting is good as well, yes, it needs to be split, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is irresponsibly maintained, and it's certainly not a reason for it to be deleted. AfD is not meant for clean-up, when that can be achieved through normal editing, so the threat of "serious risk of being nominated for deletion", is an empty threat.

I completely understand the purpose of MOS:ACCESS, but the wikitable syntax that now make these lists "accessible" has swamped them. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This appears to me to just be a rehash of your argument from 2 years ago, inclusion criteria, where you argued about notability, WP:GNG clearly states that notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists, and additionally, stand alone lists says under common selection criteria that this sort of list is precisely where these LGBTQ characters belong - Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles, so while the shows themselves do have independent articles, obviously many of the LGBTQ characters fail the notability criteria and do not have their own articles, which is exactly why they are listed here in a stand alone list article. And if the LGBTQ entries are reliably sourced, then they meet the inclusion criteria for this article and that goes for all the rest of the LGBT characters in television articles as well. In my opinion, your idea of an "aggressive inclusion criteria", is seemingly designed to erase and/or limit the history of LGBTQ representation in television series from the 1960s to today. And finally, since this sort of information is hard to find all conveniently located in one place, Wikipedia is serving our readers, as a valuable resource for this type of subject matter. Therefore, I do not support your suggestion of an aggressive inclusion criteria.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 16:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What Isaidnoway is saying is completely right. I withdraw my previous comment and oppose your suggestion, Onetwothreeip. I'm changing my view on this. I don't think narrowing the inclusion criteria of these lists would be a good idea at this point. However, I do support splitting the page, if size and other reasons necessitate it, and having reliable sources for all the entries. Efforts have already been made on those fronts, when it comes to splitting pages on LGBTQ representation and providing reliable sources, by myself and other like editors of LGBTQ pages on here. Saying that articles like this are "at serious risk of being nominated for deletion," is not true. The last deletion related to this page was of the List of BL dramas and that was to merge INTO this page. I would not say this page is "irresponsibly maintained" and I could care less about people who think that way about pages like this one. There is no need to play devil's advocate here. I already adopted "more aggressive criteria" on pages like List of animated series with LGBT characters (and all the pages which split off from it) and List of fictional vegetarian characters it is a pain as people always add one-time characters and those who aren't recurring, supporting, or main characters, which causes more annoyance than anything else. So, I would not recommend doing that on this page. Not having the criteria which you speak of, which you do not define, still allows for "relative normality of LGBT characters in media of present times," as you put it, to be shown on this page. Having criteria which would limit the types of characters on this page would not magically make it better, but, it would undoubtedly increase the workload of those who maintain these pages, which is not something I want at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The attitudes of editors outside this topic area are relevant for whether these articles are deleted or not, or some other dramatic change. It's not relevant whether I am asserting that these articles are irresponsibly maintained, I am saying this is what it looks like to many editors outside the topic area. Editors here do not need to think the opinions of other editors are correct or persuasive to accept that editors from the broader community decide which articles are deleted.
 * The main issue is the inclusion criteria which may be the result of a topic that is simply too broad for this article, but there is also issue with the length of descriptions. Deletion is a serious possibility when cleanup is not possible, and I am urging editors to consider the latter to prevent the former. I am not determining what the necessary actions should be, even if I have expressed opinions on that in the past. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant whether I am asserting that these articles are irresponsibly maintained, I am saying this is what it looks like to many editors outside the topic area. Who are these "many editors"? I don't see anyone but you complaining, 2 years ago, 3 months ago, and again now, and multiple editors have disagreed with your argument about the inclusion criteria, so it doesn't appear you've ever gained consensus to change the inclusion criteria. So now you are implying that the article is being irresponsibly maintained, many unnamed editors feel the same way, and making allegations that the article potentially wouldn't survive an AfD, all without any supporting evidence. I presume you know how consensus works, and if you want to change it, then please pursue those options, rather than coming around here trying to intimidate editors who don't agree with you. Thanks.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Isaidnoway on this again. Onetwothreeip, I understand what you saying in terms of other editors, but I'd say that the attitudes of the "editors outside this topic area" toward pages don't matter in how this page is organized. If they wish to provide suggestions, then they can do so on this talk page, but they have not done so since you posted over two years ago. I would not say the "topic...is simply too broad for this article." And in terms of descriptions, if they too short, then they become useless. I don't think they should be overly long either, but cutting them down is not going to make the page more organized. I think the possibility of deletion at this point is low, as clean-up is being done every day on this page. We need to deal with what the page than talking about hypotheticals, which is a waste of our time. Historyday01 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to editors who are not involved in the topic area, and thus aren't active in talk pages like this one. The reason I am stating this is because I believe the broader attitudes elsewhere conflict with those of editors active here. I am not proposing any particular changes and I have no interest in doing so. Instead, I am urging editors such as yourselves who are interested in the topic to consider what changes may be appropriate to satisfy those concerns. This is the largest article on Wikipedia, so clearly something is not working here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I support splitting the page, perhaps into 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 sub-pages, as I did with the LGBTQ animation pages List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010–2014 and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2015–2019. I'm not sure if this article is the largest article on this site, but it is big, I can agree with you there.Historyday01 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I split the page per consensus and if you would please take a look to see if I missed anything, I would greatly appreciate it. As you already know, I am visually impaired, so it was quite the task to perform, and since apparently there was a sense of urgency to get it done right now (or face a serious risk of being nominated for deletion), I might have accidentally missed something (not sure if I got all the pages that linked to the old title, but if I did miss some, they will be redirected to this article, but now the new one). But at least we are not on the shitlist of being the largest article on Wikipedia anymore. Thank you for everything you do for the LGBT–related articles on WP, I do appreciate it.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 09:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "This is the largest article on Wikipedia, so clearly something is not working here." The "List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters" articles used to be manageable, with only the need to split them when they became too large for one page. The reason they have become a size problem is because the original table formatting was changed to comply with MOS:ACCESS. MOS:DTAB was meant for simpler tables, but the dramatic television series lists are more complicated because of the many series that have several LGBT characters. While one series has one character (e.g. The Big C), another series may have 12 (e.g. Pretty Little Liars) — after four years' worth of series with multiple characters the accessibility table layout becomes visually and sizewise overwhelming.
 * Just for the record, changing the table format from inaccessible to accessible did not swamp the articles and make them larger, to the contrary, when I was working on the year 2017 changing the table format, as seen here in - to -, the format change actually removed over 10,000 bytes. Also the same for 2015, removing over 10,000 bytes, and the other years as well. The real culprit for the article growing in size was the massive amount of citation needed tags, and when all of those were fixed and over 325 new references were added, it dramatically increased the size of the article by at least 174,906 bytes (as seen in the articles history), probably more.


 * This is also true for the other LGBT series articles, in the 1960s–2000s article, I added over 100,000 bytes in new references for the citation needed tags, likewise in the comedy series article, I added over 54,000 bytes in new references for the cn tags. And the reason I mention this, is because I don't want editors to worry that making a WP article more accessible is a burden on article size. And if you want to know why it's important to keep all tables on WP accessible, listen to this screen reader audio when these articles were using the tags formatting in the tables. Imagine being able to only listen to this article and figure out what LGBT character goes with what actor. Thanks.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 16:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Bad Girls screen reader audio.wav


 * Isaidnoway, thanks, I definitely will take a look at is as soon as I can. Sure, its my pleasure for working on LGBT-related articles. I agree with you that it is a lot of work to split pages and such, which is why I have all these grand plans to create all sorts of pages, but when it comes down to it, I usually don't have time for that, unfortunately. I didn't actually see this a "sense of urgency" honestly, but it is good it was list. I have also tried to get rid of those "br" tags where I can, although there are still some left, and I also agree with you it doesn't make sense that "changing the table format from inaccessible to accessible" did not make the table larger, rather it was the addition of new references to take care of all those citation needed tags. So, Pyxis, I have to disagree with you there, and still stand with following MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTAB as much as possible. I think it is definitely possible and doable to not use "br" tags, even on a page such as this one. And it can be helpful to people viewing the page too, as separate characters can have separate entries. I know it can be some work to set it up, but I'm ok with doing that, to be honest.Historyday01 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can confirm the article was the largest article on English Wikipedia at the time, before the recent split. If editors believe that splitting these articles will be a primary solution to accessibility issues, then I would encourage editors to split them for each year., thank you for splitting the article. I did not mean to imply that these articles are at risk of being deleted imminently, but that this is a long term concern. Splitting large articles is usually better than not splitting them, but often does not solve the accessibility issues involved with large articles. I have split large articles before, which were then deleted when they were brought to the attention of the wider community. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. In any case, I don't think splitting them by each year would be a good idea as I think they would create too many spin-off articles... I think its fine to clump them into articles 2010-2015, 2016-2019. While I see what you are saying about the risk of deletion, I used to worry about that more than in the past, but I just edit and move forward, adding and subtracting content from LGBTQ pages. If this page or others are nominated for deletion in the future, then I'll confront that, as will other users, if that happens at all. Historyday01 (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

What used to be split off as a decade (e.g. 2010s) now needs to be split into halves (e.g. 2010–2015 + 2016–2019), and no doubt the "List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters" will eventually become single list articles for individual years. Accessibility wikitable syntax has created a behemoth. I get that you use a reader as do many others with visual impairments, but complying with WP:ACCESS has been detrimental to the page layout of complicated tables composed of several columns and multiple entries for many rows, as well as resulting in more bytes usage overall. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 03:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Just for the record, changing the table format from inaccessible to accessible did not swamp the articles and make them larger...." They did visually. You are entitled to your opinion, but a table that had a concise, aligned layout was easier and quicker to explore than a table that now presents an enlarged, bloated layout.  Blaming citation needed templates for the reason the article became larger is absurd — citation templates with sources use more bytes than citation needed tags:    becomes.
 * For one, Pyxis, I don't think the "List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters" will "become single list articles for individual years." Secondly, I'd say that complying with WP:ACCESS hasn't been an issue. It has been the size of the page otherwise, in terms of the entries, citations, and such. As such, I'd say that splitting the page into part decades was a good decision, and I don't think that the page needs to be split further, into single years as Onetwothreeip seems to be proposing, something which doesn't seem to be good idea. I would actually have to thank Isaidnoway for bringing up the issue of accessibility because I wasn't as conscious of it before and it has made me a lot more aware of it than I had before. I'd even be willing to use a screen reader on various pages, just to make sure it it is accessible as much as possible. I'd say that is definitely important. Historyday01 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blaming citation needed templates for the reason the article became larger is absurd - it's not absurd, it is the main reason, having to add references for 355 cn tags, and having to add references for the additional 400+ unsourced entries that weren't tagged, did add to the size of the article size in bytes. On (day before I started clean up), there were 442 references in the article, by the time I was  finished on, there were 1263 references in the article. You do the math in byte size for adding 821 new references. It's not my fault the article had become a cesspool of unsourced entries. And I already demonstrated that changing the markup to make them accessible had absolutely nothing to do with the article size in bytes increasing.
 * (3841 bytes) and then compared to (3760 bytes). Exact same text, all I did was remove the  formatting and replaced it with the || (pipe) syntax, 3841-3760=81 bytes removed. Now accessible. Didn't contribute any new bytes being added to the article size.
 * (3666 bytes) and then compared to (3602 bytes). Exact same text, all I did was remove the  formatting and replaced it with the || (pipe) syntax, 3666-3602=64 bytes removed. Now accessible. Didn't contribute any new bytes being added to the article size.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 14:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Isaidnoway once again. The additional citations undoubtedly expanded the size of the page. It is just common sense. Thanks to work on pages like this, I have tried to make sure the LGBTQ pages I work on don't become "a cesspool of unsourced entries" either. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"The real culprit for the article growing in size was the massive amount of citation needed tags...." — that is the original statement. My response: "Blaming citation needed templates for the reason the article became larger is absurd — citation templates with sources use more bytes than citation needed tags:  becomes". Let it sink in. I'm done. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 10:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're both falling over each other.
 * I wouldn't say "falling over each other" as that is an extreme exaggeration. I just happen to agree with Isaidnoway and I'm not withdrawing that. I think it can be said with definite certainty that that the addition of citations to the page, which was needed, caused the page's size to expand. Anyone can look back at the page history and see that. How much space each citation takes up in terms of bytes depends on how much information is added into each citation template. That's just common sense. If you are done, fine. In any case, putting the blame on measures to make the article accessible as the reason the page is bigger, or more "bloated," as you put it, is plainly wrong as Isaidnoway as pointed out. Historyday01 (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * that is the original statement - Yeah, that you cherry-picked from the full sentence, and then drilled in on to make a failed point, which I called you out on for not being accurate. The rest of the sentence  that is obviously relevant  - The real culprit for the article growing in size was the massive amount of citation needed tags, and when all of those were fixed...it dramatically increased the size of the article. It's just plain common sense that when you add hundreds and hundreds of new references, the size of the article in bytes will increase. Please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black">(talk)</b> 16:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"List of BL dramas" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_BL_dramas&redirect=no List of BL dramas] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)