Category talk:Fictional gay men

This category was nominated for renaming on 9 November 2019. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

LGBT studies Category‑class

	LGBT portal This category is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Fictional characters Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Not necessary![edit]

Is this sort of thing necessary? Smacks of homophobia to me. PatrickJ83 01:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's homophobic? The inclusion of certain names, like Harkonen, or the whole category? I could see the other side saying it's a "gay agenda" gay studies kind of category. That it's pointing toward the role gay men have in fiction ala The Celluloid Closet.--T. Anthony 04:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because there isn't a category for fictional heterosexual men? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean the "men" part should be removed to make it "Fictional gays"? Or does it mean Category:Gay actors is homophobic because there is no Category:Straight actors?--T. Anthony 07:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional lesbians exists, as does Category:Fictional bisexuals so I can only assume that it's because nobody on Wikipedia is categorised as heterosexual. I don't think that's homophobic, but I don't see what else PatrickJ83 could mean. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes people assume respecting others means pretending everyone is exactly the same, rather than acknowledging differences? The sexual equivalent to color-blindness or political correctness? Anyway heterosexuality is considered the "norm" and automatically assumed unless stated otherwise, that's why we don't need to point out straight people, and why it's so important to call attention to LGBT people and others who "break the mold" so to speak (particularly since objectivity is constantly undermined by stereotypes and prejudice, and efforts to erase homosexuals and other "dissenters" from history and culture). The comparison to the Celluloid Closet is apt. See heterosexism.VatoFirme (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Waylon Smithers (Simpsons) be in this category?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.205.174 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Degrassi goes, Riley is on here... but Marco is not? Riley has featured in only two episodes... Marco was a regular for nearly 7 seasons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.125.9 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is awfully homophobic, even if the creators may very probably not be. It screams "hey, look at them, them gays!!!". Either we have a "fictional gay males" AND a "fictional straight males" and then it's ok, either we remove this category, which is just pure discrimination. Why gay should define a character if straight doesn't? That sadly very much reflects the society's attitude towards LGBT people in general, this "if you're straight, that's just a part of your personality but if you're gay, then you're nothing else than gay" way of thinking. --Floeticsoulchild (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this get edited?[edit]

Wayland Smithers (Simpsons) should indeed be here, as well as Lt. Dangle (Reno 911).VatoFirme (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]