Talk:List of video games with LGBTQ characters/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possibility of splitting page

As much as the LGBT blanket covers, it would be much easier to use lists of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Characters in Video Games as well as a separate list for Transgender Characters in Video Games. I would like a second opinion before using a split tag.

Dadofme (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Could we first try to organise those sublists as sections within this article, and see how well it works? From a pure pragmatic standpoint, I wouldn't like to attract much attention to the article in its current status. It has barely survived several deletion attempts, and it's not in its best shape. While it certainly complains with the WP:LISTN policy, it's somewhat on the inclusionist WP:IAR-ish side of "a list of items from a notable topic, without being notable themselves" (nor having independent sources in many cases). Although I find this WP:IMPERFECT form highly valuable, others might think otherwise and start an AfD that delete this forever. I'd recommend doing the cleanup first, and having the discussion about splitting afterwards, when it's in a better shape. Diego (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I like that idea. However I do have a slight problem. The page is already in some sort of division, by years. If you could provide some insight on how to do this while maintaining the chronology, I'd like to hear it! I'm not too clever about those kinds of things. Dadofme (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Dadofme, you may want to experiment with a division in the categories Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual (and maybe an "Other" catch-all section), and then divide those by decade if there are enough items in a particular section. Diego (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this is what we get for giving WP:BEANS bad ideas. Let's the circus begin. Diego (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, depending on what happens with the AFD. I think the article needs a lot of reworking and cleanup, but one thing I'm noticing is that much of it is treated less as "List of LGBT characters in video games" and more as "List of video games depicting LGBT characters". I personally think the list should try to come up with some sort of table format, but in pondering over it, the current prose's general orientation as describing the aspects of the game with its characters makes it difficult. If I were to try to make a table based on the current prose, the first column would be "Series", with another column (rowspanned with "Series") to denote individual characters as necessary. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Alright, like many of these fictional media-related articles, original research and example bloat is becoming an issue. I'm aiming to start up some inclusion criteria for the article. Some beginning thoughts:

1. If the video game the character comes from doesn't have its own article, it's deemed not a notable game, and thus, not a notable example, and should not be included.
2. Every entry should be sourced, and directly confirms the character's LGBT status of the character. For example, its not enough to just slap a Youtube video of two guy game characters talking friendly to each other and call it a relevant example. There should be a source directly stating it as LGBT. In short, the claim needs to come from creators or journalists, not Wikipedia editors themselves.
3. It should be limited to main characters. Its hard to tell where exactly to draw the line, but definitely yes to playable characters (Kanji from Persona 4) and definitely no to "that one nameless character in town number 5 from that one JRPG that said something about liking another guy". Enforcing #2 properly would likely eliminate any non-notable instances of this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Any support or opposition is welcome, as are further criteria suggestions. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I even really agree with point 3. If an extremely minor character has been discussed by multiple reliable sources (perhaps because their dialog is controversial), I think it would have a place in such list. ~Mable (chat) 19:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with Maple here. #3 should mostly be prevented by #2. "that one nameless character in town number 5 from one JRPG that said something about liking another guy" is probably not going to be found in sources, so will fail #2 anyways. We also need to consider someway to notate games like Skyrim that allow universal marriage without any character being explicitly.. well... anything. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's true, I hadn't thought about that. You're both right - enforcing #2 would automatically enforce #3 as far as it needed to be - if sources did report on a random minor character, then I guess it would be worth noting. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Ferret's question is interesting. Seeing a specific list of games that allow homosexual relationships (and what limitations they may or may not have) could work really well. ~Mable (chat) 21:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this, there could be a section/table on specific characters, and a second table on games that present open player choice (I.e. Mass Effect 3 or Skyrim as quick example) without a specific focus on individual characters per say. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Those are sensible criteria, as long as they are applied on an either/or basis, not both required. A character that is significantly discussed in independent media should be included even if the game where it appears is not deemed notable for a stand-alone article.

Also as someone hinted at the AfD discussion, the few early examples from pioneering games should be included, even if their sourcing is less than stellar; both because coverage was less extensive in that era so we should't be as strict, and because LGBT characters at that time were so rare that any appearance was significant all by itself. As long as the character can be verified as being LGBT, it should be included for all games in the 80's (although almost all entries we have now are properly sourced) and most of those in the 90's, before the topic became more mainstream. Diego (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, similar to Ferrets response to #3, #2 would probably effectively enforce #1 most of the time - it's probably unlikely that we'd find sources discussing a character's relationship with LGBT themes without there being enough sourcing to create an article. Your either/or proposal is a problem though - ignoring #2 isn't really an option because #2 is essentially WP:V, which is non-negotiable on Wikipedia, and ignoring #1 leaves us with inclusion criteria of essentially WP:V, which isn't really inclusion criteria at all, it's just "normal Wikipedia inclusion" at that point. There seems to be a consensus at the AFD that we need to trim some back and implement some inclusion criteria. Can you (or anyone else) think of any others? Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If this is kept, sourcing of every entry is indeed not negotiable. It's core policy - WP:V. This leaves us only #1 as a real inclusion criterion. Additionally I suggest that not only must the entry be sourced, but the LGBT aspects of the characters must themselves be discussed at some depth, not just mentioned, in the source. Else we just have an accumulation of trivia (background character x is briefly seen in a same-sex kiss) in violation of WP:IINFO. Good writing is often more about what to leave out than what to include.  Sandstein  06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we ignore WP:V, only that we don't require in-depth independent sources as it's often done at other list articles; that's never been a required Verifiability criterion. Requiring that all entries come from a notable video game is not reasonable if the character is reliable sourced as significan on its own, and characters from a notable game can often be verified as LGBT from the game itself. I don't see anything wrong with "normal Wikipedia inclusion" - there's a reason why we consider it normal, and it's because it's a valid inclusion criterion, right? The list can be trimmed by removing those entries which are not verifiable, not even from primary sources, as their classification as LGBT has been made with a WP:SYNTH argument. Diego (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not that there's anything wrong with it, its just fundamentally not inclusion criteria anymore. Editors wanted to narrow the scope down a bit to make the list more manageable, and your response is essentially a "no". But we can start cleaning up the article according to WP:V and take it from there. What action to take may be more clear once we've cleaned it up - it may still be unwieldly, or it may be just fine at that point. We can discuss further when we get there I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Make that a "no" to a criterion that would remove 90% of the current list, and "no" to remove entries without ever checking whether they can be verified by independent sources (I've not even talking here about verifying from the game itself as a reference). Heck, some of the entries removed were already verifiable from one source in the article, but people didn't read the available references before starting the cleanup. Diego (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What criteria would remove 90% of the entries...? Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"The LGBT aspects of the characters must themselves be discussed at some depth, not just mentioned, in the source". That's a criterion for defining the notability of topics, but the reliable sources we have available typically just list the characters in compilations of "X LGBT characters you haven't heard about", with little depth of commentary. The only characters that typically get such in-depth treatment are protagonists and antagonists, which could make for a good sublist; but that's not this list. Diego (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. I thought you were referring to one of my 3 proposed points, didn't realize you were referring to Sandstein's comment. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think everyone in this discussion pretty much agrees when a character can be added and when not - now I just wonder who is going to go through the effort of converting the whole article ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 08:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to request that people perform at least a cursory check for references before removing entries, in special for the 80's and 90's characters. There are things deleted in the previous edits that were literally one search away from being verifiable. Diego (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose we can start with using inclusion criteria #2 - basically WP:V - at first, and see just how much that trims things down. I'd recommend we keep reviewing entries prior to converting to a chart - no need going through the trouble of formatting entries that just need to be removed anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

+1 'thumbs up'. Let's see what we got and how hard is it to properly reference it, and craft the inclusion criteria according to the overall level of coverage existing in the sources for the topic - not the other way around. Diego (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVEd content

This version contains a long list of characters added by editors during the last years, from before performing a large cleanup. Editors from the future are welcome to try to find references for removed entries and re-add them to the list. Diego (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

References

When looking for the LGBTQ Video Game Archive site (that I've added as an external link), I've found that several news sites mention it while describing this topic. Here are a couple articles that may be interesting to expand the article, there may be many more where this came from. Diego (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/02/how-video-games-are-slowly-quietly-introducing-lgbt-heroes/284017/

• http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/5449/1743

One-off scenes of wearing opposite gender's clothes

Just curious - do these sorts of things warrant inclusion? I mean, for example, the scenes in Final Fantasy 7 where Cloud Strife dresses up in women's clothes to infiltrate a building/organization. Yes, he's wearing the opposite gender's clothes, but it's strictly as a disguise. There's nothing to indicate that this was meant to represent Cloud having homosexual/bisexual preferences, or wanting to be a woman, etc. Do things like this belong on the list? Sergecross73 msg me 12:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• No, clothes are clothes and not directly related to sexuality or gender on its own.--IDV^talk 12:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• That said, if we have sources connecting the two – Jean Armstrong from Ace Attorney comes to mind, where I have sourced information about how his character is portrayed and how his drag act is part of it – then I believe we can mention the crossdressing. This source would obviously have to be more than someone using "gay" as a catch-all for all things outside gender norms.--IDV^talk 12:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, something like that, where its more of a core part of the character, makes sense. But there's a few instances similar to the FF7 example above, seemingly in JRPGs, where guys dress up as girls for a single humorous scene or something, and I didn't think it quite fits. The article is titled LGBT characters - and characters like Cloud aren't defined like that anywhere on the project, nor do I think they should be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed, especially regarding the specific example of Cloud. -- ferret (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Crossdressing on its own means very little, especially if there is some plot-related purpose to it. But yeah, of course, it depends on how sources discuss it. Bridget, for instance, crossdresses 24/7 and has been described as an otokonoko by Kotaku. That's a major part of his identity. ~Mable (chat) 13:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed too. I think the "any other minorities falling under the LGBT" part that I added to the list description may be the key here. If crossdressing is reliably part of the character's identity, it may be considered genderqueer and merit inclusion as part of LGBT, as for example drag queens. If crossdressing is episodic and circunstancial, and the sexuality of the character is heterosexual or unknown, that would not merit inclusion in the list. Diego (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for generating noise; I've just reverted the removal of the FF VII entry. Although there's clear consensus that Cloud's crossdressing doesn't make him gay, on closer inspection the episode *does* include some gay characters; so the entry is relevant not because of Cloud, but because of the body builders. It's a typical case of "LGBT as comic relief" mentioned at the "themes"article. At most the entry should be reworded to make it clear that Cloud is not the LGBT character, but I believe this is a quite significant example - because of the high profile of the game and its early date. Diego (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well, as always: get some sources. The bodybuilders may be too minor to be even worth a mention, and, seeing as this article is about LGBT characters and not LGBT themes, Cloud's situational crossdressing is not relevant. ~Mable (chat) 16:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• If you're conceding that Cloud is not a LGBT character, but rather he's involved in some LGBT themed situations, then that sounds more like an entry in the dedicated "themes" article. Its entries like this that get this article targeted for deletion on the grounds of being redundant. Also, as prior noted, if it is to be kept, it should be completely sourced and reworked, not just reverted wholesale... Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  Is LGBTQ Video Game Archive OK? It describes the incident in detail, and defines Murkki as "a gay (vage) bodybuilder". Thus Murkki is a valid entry for the list. (BTW the Archive is self-published but I think it qualifies as "established experts on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published", and the site seems to be regarded by independent sources as a significant reference on the topic). It's also likely that more sources exist for that scene, although I'd have to look for them later. Diego (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Conceptually, I'm fine with the rewriting/refocusing to Murkki or whatever his name. Source-wise...I doubt a self-published wordpress blog is going to hold up upon scrutiny. I do also agree that there's likely other sourcing on it, so hopefully we'll just find something better on it... Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reliability of LGBTQ Video Game Archive

Per WP:NEWSBLOG, the format of an information resource is irrelevant to the reliability, what matters is how the information has been compiled and the reputation of the publisher. Given the novelty of this topic I *think* it's likely that the LGBTQ Video Game Archive might be the most comprehensive compilation of LGBTQ characters existing in the world (together with http://www.queerlyrepresent.me), and it happens to have been compiled by knowledgeable academic experts on the subject - i.e. not a "random fansite blog". This could be discussed at WP:RSBOARD, but I think either this talk page or WT:WikiProject LGBT studies are the best places to decide a consensus of whether the site is a reliable source. What do Wikipedia editors interested in this topic think about the quality of the information stored at that website, and about the existing references that mention it as a reference to take into account? This is how we can generate a consensus about its reliability. Diego (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• I recognize that it being a blog isn't necessarily a disqualifying factor, but the fact that its a Wordpress blog isn't generally a good sign. I can't think of a single Wordpress blog that has had a consensus for reliability at sources lists like WP:VG/S or WP:MUSIC/SOURCES - its generally synonymous with "amateur" and WP:USERG.
• That being said, the "about us" page you listed above does look more promising, with is being written by so many PHD educational-level writers.
• That being said, there may be WP:CIRCULAR and further WP:USERG issues. For example, looking at the Final Fantasy 7 link you offered up above, their "citations" section, it consists entirely Wikipedia, Wikia, and YouTube links. That may be seen as an issue.
• Ultimately, it may be a good idea to get a call by the LGBT WikiProject or RSN or somewhere. Its not so much that I'm taking a hard position against the website, I'm more concerned because of how much it could affect this particular article: The website seems to host a lot of relevant content. I don't want to flippantly say "Yeah let's just use it", rewrite a large portion of the list using it as a source, and then have some other experienced editor go through and prove its not usable after all, because it would completely destroy a lot of the reworked article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, this may be the exception that proves your rule ;-) Academic circles often don't have the same technological muscle, so for a self-hosted project it makes sense to use a less-than-professional setup. But this self-hosted approach is OK in terms of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and explanation of their review process, which rate high in our criteria for reliable sources. In their peer reviewed publication they explicitly describe the purpose of the site as "a heavily curated" repository to explore the diversity of characters in the media. They explain that the content taken from user-generated websites has been cross-referenced with news sites, so that shouldn't be a problem either.

The paper makes a classification of characters in nine categories according on how they are treated by the developers and the public. We could use that as the basis to restructure the article and provide a more focused inclusion criterion; any character that can be reliably classified in one of the categories would belong in the list. Diego (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to propose it on RSN, I won't challenge or badger anyone, I'll just observe and accept what they say. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thx, I've created an entry at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#LGBTQ Video Game Archive. Diego (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently listed by Diego at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#LGBTQ Video Game Archive for discussion as well. I'd say give it a few more days for replies before starting use. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)