Talk:List of fictional asexual characters/Archive 1

Possible new entries
Need better sources for these, but here are the ones in this spreadsheet, which have sources:

Protagonist is ace


 * Dust


 * The Alpha and His Ace


 * The Bone People


 * Open Skies


 * Banner of the Damned


 * Carrie Pilby


 * Cold Ennaline


 * The Deadly Nightshade

Secondary character


 * From Under the Mountain


 * Cracked! A Magic Story


 * We Go Forward


 * The Best of All Possible Worlds


 * Guardian of the Dead


 * Days of Blood & Starlight


 * Tropic of the Dead


 * Flesh and Fire


 * Make Much of Me

Also see this list of LGBT webcomics and A-Spec Audio Fiction Character Compendium.

Historyday01 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There may be some here, but again they do not have sources.

Separate asexual and aromantic sexualities please.
In this list, Asexuals and Aromantics on the same list. Please create a separate list for Aromantics as Aromantism and Asexualism are two different separate sexualities and by combining these two, you’re erasing aromantic representation. Some people (characters in this case) may be Asexuals AND Aromantics, and therefore may be on both of these lists. Thank you for your attention and contribution to aromantic community 😊 ArrowPotato (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. @ArrowPotato, that makes sense. I think I only combined them for convenience sake, but as I've said many times on here, Wikipedia is fluid and always changing, so changes can always be made. It looks like there are 16 aromantic entries (Alastor, Peridot, Shouko Tanimoto, Cal, Rivka, Wilbourn Lisa (Tattletale), Hazel, Georgia Warr, Sunil Jha, Ellis, Caduceus Clay, Percival King / Percy, Donut, Emrys, and Occhio "Oki" di Tigre, Ambra), and since there are enough, they should have their own list. I'm thinking that I'll leave those existing aromantic characters on the list, but duplicate them to a new page named List of fictional aromantic characters. That's my thought, at least. I'll probably also take some text from the Aromantic section and put that at the top, then link that page back to this page. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This is very important! ArrowPotato (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The page has been created. Yay! --Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS
As a note to the two editors warring here, the onus is on you to add content here, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of fancruft. Unless there is significant in depth coverage (ie. we should have an article) it should not be included. VAXIDICAE💉 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reminder of WP:NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. The next step is to agree on the selection guidelines. Given the somewhat obscure nature of the article, I think #2 from WP:CSC is the guideline that makes the most sense: 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. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To say that every entry on the list fails the notability criteria is patently absurd. I think that there should be reliable sources to support each entry. I do NOT think an entry has to have an article to be on the list, as that is criteria that assumes that editors have the time and energy to create articles for every entry, something which most do not have. Historyday01 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. I think entries should have sources but I think one reliable source per entry could work (notability requires at least 2 secondary sources) & it shouldn't be a requirement that an entry has a link elsewhere on Wikipedia. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that criteria. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah a bunch of fancruft sourced to the writers themselves, who we have no articles about and tumblr do not make for encyclopedic content. VAXIDICAE💉  16:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this is too high of a bar for articles and it assumes editors have the time to create articles for every single entry they add. I certainly don't have time, but I'm trying to create as many articles as I can. Historyday01 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. If you can't find sourcing to establish 1.) it's notable and 2.) encyclopedic, it cannot be included anywhere. Including on standalone lists. Primary sources in this case are not acceptable and just 1 source existing is not sufficient. It needs to be independent and reliable, not fanblogs, fansites, the authors own site or things like tumblr. VAXIDICAE💉  16:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, individual entries on a list article don't have to meet the notability bar of multiple secondary sources (WP:NLIST). I think the question on sources to ask is if a entry has received reviews or other secondary coverage but the coverage doesn't highlight or mention the asexuality of a character, is a primary source on asexuality acceptable? For example, if a book has a single NPR review but the only mention of a secondary character's asexuality (outside the book itself) is on the author's Twitter should the book be included? Should we include both sources? I think we should include both sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't however they do need to meet the criteria of being independent and covered in reliable sources in this case. Otherwise we'd have List of fanfiction about asexual characters. VAXIDICAE💉  17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sariel Xilo on this one. I don't see a problem with linking to the site of the author (or some other official source) as long as another source is added as well. I've read through the rules, especially the ones on self-published sources. And, from my understanding, self-published sources are acceptable as long as they don't constitute the majority of the sources in an article and are used rarely. And I try to follow that, only using self-published sources when absolutely necessary. Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because then it's just listcruft. If we have no article on the work or the author and the only source discussing it is the author or some non-independent rs, or non-rs it cannot be included. I don't understand how you find this difficult. Two editors agreeing here does not negate our policies or guidelines. Otherwise you're leaving it open for me to create a highly reviewed fanfiction about an asexual character and then add it. VAXIDICAE💉  17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And no, unless there is an independent source discussing the characters asexuality (sure, you can use a primary source along with it) it shouldn't be included otherwise what you said above constitutes original research. VAXIDICAE💉  17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Original research is something that is thrown around and often wielded against LGBTQ pages, from my experience, but in terms of independent sources, I stand with Sariel Xilo on that. In terms of a fan fiction, I don't think you could even create a page for that, or link it, because AO3 itself isn't a reliable source, usually, from my understanding. I know because I asked about it when asking whether I could add in a link to Molly Ostertag's Lord of the Rings fic, which got thousands, upon thousands, of hits, and she even created a Twitter account for it. Historyday01 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding the notability requirements for lists. It's not original research when we include details of characters that are included only in the source material or mentioned by the creator (this is the standard practice for things like plot summaries). There is no one official "common selection criteria" for list articles; there are some suggestions and the guidance is that editors should come to a consensus on what the criteria should be for specific article. One of the suggested guidelines is even Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. I think all of us agree that that's not the right call for this list article. So instead, I'm suggesting that each entry needs at least one review (or some other secondary coverage) that meets the reliable sources bar and that this secondary coverage doesn't need to to mention asexuality as long as there is a primary source that mentions it. Ideally, we would do better (multiple sources that mention asexuality) but given this is a niche topic which is subject to discrimination I don't think requiring every entry to meet standalone article notability requirements makes sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC); Fixed typo Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and I'll go through all the entries later today to make sure they follow this suggested guideline.Historyday01 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Entries which need better sourcing and need work
Since @User:Praxidicae and @User:discospinster have decided to remove entries, on this page, which I created, I'm moving some entries which need better sourcing here. The Olivia Experiment is NOT included because it has an additional source currently (specifically Bitch (magazine)), with the same is the case for Guardian of the Dead, Banner of the Damned, Every Heart A Doorway Quicksilver which are mentioned in Tor.com reviews. All of these need Wikipedia pages, and I will get to it, eventually, but I'm working on webcomics first, per the edits by discospinster. I would appreciate it if Praxidicae take the time, and work, to create pages for ALL of the above listed, I'd be eternally grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyday01 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ; Added strikethrough per WP:REDACTED Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Literature

Webcomics


 * Making underhanded comments demanding other editors work on a project for you, rather than reading the relevant policies and guidelines is doing no one any favors. I'm not interested in expanding this, I'm interested in abiding by our existing policies, consensus and guidelines. If you wish to add many of these, you need to do the leg work with other interested editors. You cannot use tumblr, blogs and non-independent RS to do this. The items should be covered in-depth by independent reliable sources if we do not have an existing article about the work or character. VAXIDICAE💉  16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I was just trying to be nice here and have a compromise between their edits and the original. I guess that isn't possible. And to be clear, I am NOT demanding others work on the project, but I'm hoping they do so. I would hope you help improve this page in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Gargoyles source, re: Edit summary
@Historyday01, that’s not how burden works. That article has a bunch of unrelated inaccurate info and doesn’t say where the Gargoyles info came from, so I don’t think it’s a reliable source or worthy of inclusion here. The Tumblr link is much more relevant, but it doesn’t say Owen is asexual. CaribouFanfare (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CaribouFanfare, I don't have the time or energy to update and correct every single entry even the "wrong" ones, that's why I hope that other people do it. If you feel that strongly about the subject, then remove the entry, I won't stop you. Historyday01 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of feeling strongly but of verifiability. I think the fact that I haven't touched the page since June shows I'm not especially invested in the outcome of that entry. And I didn't expect you to look at or correct it--since no one "owns" Wikipedia pages, tags asking for verification aren't specific demands on your time. I put in a verification failed tag figuring either someone knew of a better source (or had both time and interest to search for one) or if it sat for a while someone would delete the entry. Since this page seems not to have gotten much traffic since then, I'll leave the tag there. If someone else wants to add a better source, wipe the entry entirely, whatever, go for it. CaribouFanfare (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I just fixed up the entry when doing some updating of entries today. I think its much better. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dang, good work! CaribouFanfare (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to do work on it, but I decided I might as well, since I'm trying to update all sorts of entries on those LGBTQ animation pages... which is a long process, but I already finished going through the 1960-1980s one, then the two for the 1990s. Next up is the ones for the 2000s, then the 2010s, then 2020.

Entries which need better sources
Just creating this because I know that other editor will try to pick apart the entries, so I'm moving them here for the time being, where they will be safe for now... This is another compromise in the endless series of compromises I've made to preserve these pages. Sigh. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I moved it to my sandbox for now. You can move it to your own sandbox or a draft if you would like. Talk pages aren't for drafting those and is not the right place for it. As for the content itself, anyone can write a book, create a web series or web comic. We simply cannot include characters from every single one in existence in this article or it would get unmanageable. Either the work of fiction or the creator having to be notable to have a Wikipedia is a simple and clear guideline to have. I can't think of any situation where we would really need to make an exception. If a character has received significant media attention, then by extension, the work of fiction must have received significant media attention, and we should be making an article for the work of fiction. I'm sure some of the removed entries should have an article about the work of fiction, but that should be fixed before adding them to the list. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. I'm aware that not every comic in existence can be added to the page but, I thought it would be easier to access if it was on this talk page rather than in some sandbox or draft. Putting on the talk page is a reminder to me to come back to those later, as no one else seems to care enough to actually update the entries most of the time, except for tiny edits here and there, and possibly to encourage others to use those entries to do the same. After some thought, I decided to move them to one of my sandboxes, at the very end, where they will probably, predictably languish for a pretty long time. Just a guess on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)