Jump to content

Talk:LGBT representation in The Simpsons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCLGBT representation in The Simpsons is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2023Featured list candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that producers of The Simpsons have spoken about the importance of its LGBT characters in representation?

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk15:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Thebiguglyalien (talk). Self-nominated at 14:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Karl

[edit]

I think Karl, https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Karl, may be worth mentioning in the article. Thriley (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, this is something I looked for when creating the article, but I was not able to find any reliable sources that discuss this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This piece in Slate mentions it: [1]. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

[edit]

For more info, go to Articles for Deletion/List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons, but in short, most of these characters are one-offs, and the ones that aren't either have their own pages already and could easily have their sexuality talked about on said pages, of if they don't have a page it could be talked about on List of The Simpsons. The only notable part of the page is the lede, which I copied over to the influence and legacy section of The Simpsons. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon I think you misunderstand the guidelines surrounding stand alone lists. Items on a list are not necessarily expected to be notable. Lists are a common method for collecting items that are part of a specific set of criteria but not notable enough for articles of their own. Regardless of what format this article uses, it's not appropriate to remove sourced items that are in fact part of the criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


List of LGBT characters in The SimpsonsLGBT representation in The Simpsons – Per Zxcvbnm's comment on here, reworking this article to be a prose format instead of a list format would hopefully fix the redundancy issue that several of its most notable characters listed have their own separate pages, and as a list was also filled with bloat and poorly sourced characters that had to be removed. As Zxcvbnm said, "Just having a list like this seems... random". As a list this article is unsalvageable, but everyone on the AfD so far believes it's notable for its own page, so the next best option is to rework it into no longer being a list format so it doesn't sound so redundant. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.