Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ representation in children's television

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lewisguile (talk | contribs) at 18:17, 19 September 2024 (Lewisguile moved page Talk:LGBT representation in children's television to Talk:LGBTQ representation in children's television: As per RM for LGBT—>LGBTQ, cleanup for WP:CONSUB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Danimai7. Peer reviewers: JereSierr, Kdwhit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Hi all, I'm editing this article and besides adding sources and info, I was also thinking of reorganizing the page by network, instead of by year. If anyone has any thoughts/objections feel free to make suggestions.--Danimai7 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Gravity Falls, Star vs. the Forces of Evil or Doc McStuffins, or of Luna Loud being confirmed as bi? 31.50.135.103 (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions of those shows now, though!

Untitled

[edit]

Some of the content does duplicate that in the article Dottie's Magic Pockets, but I cannot see how the article as a whole is spam. Te subject would clearly seem notable, so I think what it mainly needs is some expansion and referenceing. DGG (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She-Ra?

[edit]

I'm gonna be honest I don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages but I noticed that She-Ra: Princesses of Power is missing (produced by Dreamworks) and I was hoping someone who knew Wikipedia standards and guidelines could add that in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.206.155 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure She-Ra counts as "children's television programming." However, I have written a whole long section on the Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation page and I just added that to the see also section. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She-Ra And The Princesses Of Power is included in the Kids sections of Netflix in most countries and has, since 2020, been aired in the United Kingdom by the BBC on their CBBC channel. Anyone who so much as glances at it can tell it is a children's show, regardless of the large — or at least vocal — adult following. While it makes sense for most of the information regarding She-Ra to be kept on the Netflix & LGBT page since it originated there, I do think some mention of it should be added to the CBBC section of this page specifically (by someone who is a better writer than myself), as CBBC airing the final episode unedited was quite notable and went against previous reports/media speculation of how the series would be aired there. --Aceflibble (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose? Aceflibble, I wouldn't call it a "children's show" though, as She-Ra isn't like something like Santiago of the Seas which is clearly a children's show, as is Elena of Avalor, Cleopatra in Space, or Doc McStuffins, to give three other examples of children's shows. Historyday01 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Children's television series page says "Children's television series are television programs designed for children, normally scheduled for broadcast during the morning and afternoon when children are awake. They can sometimes run during the early evening, allowing younger children to watch them after school. The purpose of these shows is mainly to entertain or educate." That does NOT sound like it would include She-Ra, Kipo, or any of the others. I know people may be tempted to add it to this article, but how can it be called a "children's show"? Those more squarely fall into young adult animation, with the series creator of Kipo, Rad Sechrist, specifically arguing that his series was a YA animation. However, I would say that "children's television programming" also includes shows considered to be all-ages animation (like Steven Universe), while I'd argue that Steven Universe Future was a bit more mature, pushing the limits of "all-ages animation". Historyday01 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@70.95.206.155, TenorTwelve, Aceflibble, and Historyday01: — I'd definitely say She-Ra and Kipo 100% count as all-ages animation. If equally "all-ages" shows like Legend of Korra and Steven Universe (and Steven Universe Future) count, then She-Ra and Kipo definitely do as well. Since "Netflix and LGBT representation in animation" has its own article, the section would only need to be a brief paragraph preceded by a "Main article" template. Boldly doing it now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Paintspot, I only didn't include those because I was unsure if they counted as "children's shows" (as noted in my comment back in May), but I suppose they can be added here with a link to the page you mentioned, which I created a while back... Some people sneered at me and said that Netflix page wasn't necessary, but they never proposed any alternatives to it, so its stayed for a while now. Historyday01 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in LGBT children's television programming

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of LGBT children's television programming's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those may be correct, but I'd have to check each one individually by searching the main page. Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2021

[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 to LGBT representation in children's television. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT children's television programming → LGBT representation in children's television programming – The topic of the article is LGBT representation in children's television programming, but the current title doesn't clearly reflect this. It seems to imply that the topic is children's television programming that somehow is LGBT, whatever that would mean. The proposed title is also consistent with e.g. LGBT representation in American adult animation and LGBT representation in animated web series. Alternatively, the word "programming" could be dropped for conciseness as I think just "children's television" is precise enough; the new title would then be LGBT representation in children's television. I have no strong opinion on this. Lennart97 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i don't get it—blindlynx (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
It's referring to Steven Universe, which is often referred to as "SU" by fans, with Steven Universe Future as "SUF." Also, the new She-Ra is SPOP and The Owl House is TOH. There are a bunch of others, but those are the ones I can think of off hand.Historyday01 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
oooooooh, thanks!!!—blindlynx (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Sure! Its hard to remember those abbreviations sometimes (like TTS for Tangled the Series, PAF for Phineas and Ferb, or TDP for The Dragon Prince) but they make sense usually.Historyday01 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2021 (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.

Unbalanced article

[edit]

I think this article gives the television channels too much praise. It has often been the channels themselves limiting LGBT representation, and even in many of the most important examples of representation listed in this article, the creators have wanted to include more of it in their work, the executives being the ones limiting the possibility of doing so. The article should mention this, and be tagged with {{Unbalanced}}. BlueBanana (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how else do you want the content organized? Organizing by TV channels makes sense and makes it easier for people to find what is here. And I have included a little about executives limiting it, its just that there isn't that many articles out there about that... I wouldn't call the article unbalanced though. There are sections like these which criticize the networks:

Some noted that while the relationship between two bisexual characters, Korra and Asami, was built up during the course of the series, the words "I love you" were never uttered, nor did the characters kiss...Jara recalled that he sent in the script for a kiss of the two character to the show's studios, and Nickeleodon, and fellow producers working on the show, but the moment never aired, despite support from Nickeledon, because a partner was concerned that the storyline was not "age-appropriate" for young viewers. As a result, despite Jara's attempts to convince the partner, the creative team had to scrap the kiss, and almost had to unravel the whole love story between Zarya and Kitty, but Jara fought for that to be included...Apart from Reilly's statement, then-PBS chief operating officer Wayne Godwin said the episode brought up an issue that was “best left for parents and children to address together at a time and manner of their own choosing,” while spokesperson Lea Sloan said it was “sensitive in today’s political climate.” Godwin also claimed that the episode conflicted with PBS's purpose. This rationale was criticized by FAIR for violating the "terms of its Education Department grant," calling what PBS did an act of "political pandering," and asking people to contact PBS, calling on them to "support programming according to their mandate, not political pressures."...the creator of Steven Universe, Rebecca Sugar was told point-blank by executives that queer romance could have ended their show...Despite these positives, Disney executives did not always receive LGBTQ characters and relationships positively. They, for instance, axed a proposed lesbian relationship in Gravity Falls, at the same time that Gumball was censored for supposed "homosexual overtones" by various countries...As such, Disney has been criticized for its approach to LGBTQ representation as compared to Cartoon Network...By February 2018, the future of Danger and Eggs was uncertain. As Petosky put it at the time, she felt that the show was in limbo, with the loss of the crew, without "much concern or enthusiasm" about the show, saying it "it just slipped through the cracks." She lamented that the show's fate is up the new executive team on the show and predicted the show would probably be cancelled as a result.

--Historyday01 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Family, a "christian fundamentalist organization"

[edit]

The article falsely claims that We Are Family is a Christian fundamentalist organization and the references to that claim is only about "The Family" cult which is completely unrelated group. Not only is it not a fundamentalist organization it actively supports LGBT rights. i would correct it myself but I'm using the mobile app which makes doing so extremely difficult so could someone correct this error/vandalism for me? JackyTheChemosh (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened was when I edited the article the first time, I confused the two in my head. I fixed it after reading the first link, to make it more accurate. Thanks for this comment on here. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!JackyTheChemosh (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that the "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section be split into a separate page called "Disney and LGBT representation in animation". It would be similar to the Cartoon Network and LGBT representation and Netflix and LGBT representation in animation pages. While it could focus on Disney Channel LGBTQ representation more broadly, I think that may be too mammoth of a task, and considering that most of the shows listed are animations (Gravity Falls, Star vs. the Forces of Evil, Doc McStuffins, Star Wars Resistance, Big City Greens, DuckTales, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, T.O.T.S., The Owl House, The Ghost and Molly McGee, Amphibia, and The Proud Family: Louder and Prouder), they could be split off, while live-action series like The Lodge, Andi Mack, Good Luck Charlie, could stay. One of my main motivations for this split is the fact that this page goes about the size limit as delineated in WP:SIZESPLIT. Section sizes (shown below) indicates that the Disney section is 35,867 bytes (including The Owl House sub-section), the second-biggest behind the section about LGBTQ representation on Nickelodeon. I'm doing one split at a time, rather than both, so as to get feedback on this split and its name before proceeding to the next one.

With that, I hope to hear from you all on thoughts about this proposed split. Historyday01 (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the size of the section is quite large, and other specific articles do exist that would mirror the type of article that would be created for Disney Channel. That being said, I feel like the "in animation" portion of the proposed article title might be noninclusive considering Disney's documented history of stereotypes in animation. I would also like to point out that, while I approve this change, the relevant content does include at least one "citation needed" template that needs to be addressed before the split. Otherwise I am for the proposal. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. As I'm envisioning it, the "Disney and LGBT representation in animation" article would expand more on Disney's history of stereotypes in animation, pulling in some content from other pages, like History of LGBT characters in animation, History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s, History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s, and History of LGBT characters in animation: 2020s too, along with content on some other pages. I'll take a look at that citation needed template. I could easily make it "Disney and LGBT representation" but the "in animation" part was supposed to narrow it, because I honestly don't think I know enough to write about Disney as a whole when it comes to stereotypes. I mean, I can read more about it, but that would take a bigger effort, and for me, it makes sense to keep it within the animation realm. Historyday01 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to pull content from other relevant articles, and I'd suggest that after the split those sections include a link to the proposed article to possibly gather more attention to it. I'm for the split proposal because, if left as it is, I think this section will continue to grow substantially in the coming years due to increased acceptance of LGBT representation in media, so a separate article makes sense as the best solution. — Paper Luigi T • C 03:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I definitely would include links to the proposed article to gather more attention to it. And I also think the section will grow substantially in the future as well, that's my guess too. Historyday01 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new title suggests an expansion instead of narrowing things down. As discussed in History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s, Disney had made of habit of introducing "queer coded" characters in its 1990s animated films. Gaston and LeFou in 1991, Jafar in 1992, Scar in 1994, Hercules in 1997. Mulan in 1998 had a male army captain falling in love with a cross-dressing woman (who he thinks is a fellow male soldier). Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the split page would mention those queer-coded characters, of course, not just the content on the current "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section. While the page will undoubtedly expand upon the content currently on this page, it still would be a narrower topic than focusing on LGBT representation in live action and animated series, which a "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" page would necessitate if it was split off in its current form. That's why I wanted to focus it specifically on animation. Additionally, since I'm the one who wants to do the split, and I've already written about Disney animation on other pages, it only seemed logical to keep it only in the realm of animation. Additionally, if the split page did include live-action and animated series, it would be an expansion as well. In any case, a split page would be much better than having the content on this page. I would provide a summary of the split page, like I have done for the section on Cartoon Network, and then move the content to the split page. Such a split page would be organized similarly to the Cartoon Network and LGBT representation and Netflix and LGBT representation in animation pages as I noted earlier. Historyday01 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas. I wasn't planning to remove the section on the Disney Channel but to trim it, as you are noting, although my idea was to limit it only to Disney animations. I was planning to do the same with the Nickelodeon section too, but I wanted to propose a split of one section at a time. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely has the possibility to expand, going beyond the currently airing animations, acquired ones, and those on Disney Junior to the future animated series and the those on Disney+, including a bunch which are upcoming. Historyday01 (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Hiya, @Paper Luigi, Kaleeb18, and @Dimadick, the Disney and LGBT representation in animation page is now live at long last! So edits and changes there are welcome. The "LGBT representation on Disney Channel" section of this article has been significantly trimmed down, but maybe it can even be trimmed more, I guess. Historyday01 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01Wow! Good job on the article. Since I know very little about LGBTQ I will be unable to help really. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I know I didn't get everything there and I felt like I kinda just moved a lot of text around, but, I think I did a good job. Historyday01 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Planning to split off the "LGBT representation on Nickelodeon" section soon. With that, the page would be within the guidelines of WP:SIZESPLIT in that it would only "Probably should be divided", so I don't think it would need to be split further at that point unless some of the other sections end up expanding beyond their current length. Historyday01 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool and I agree. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Sailor Moon???

[edit]

I'm shocked that this article makes no mention of Sailor Moon, which had LGBT representation in 1994, over a DECADE earlier than most of the media mentioned in this article, and five years later in 2000, one of the earliest representations on American TV! 208.95.210.183 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page to add in Sailor Moon, but generally anime are more mature than Western animation, and don't often fall under "children's television". Otherwise, Sailor Moon is an anime, and this page focuses on Western animation. It has a prominent role on the LGBT themes in anime and manga with a whole five paragraph section on the series. Otherwise, it would be great to have this page be longer and have more text. Historyday01 (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Is there any way the recent edits (namely the mass deletions) to this page could be undone? I found it very helpful before and feel that a lot of informative content was removed. FunnistPreacher (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I wouldn't say it a "mass deletion" and I did my edits boldly, as the page was in a terrible state beforehand (it had become a dumping ground for representation). As the person who did it, the point of the edits were meant to make the page better for people and more usable. I wouldn't mind if SOME of the previous content was re-added, but there was just TOO much here before and it didn't make it that usable, to be perfectly honest. The page NEEDED to be changed. Besides, the pages Disney and LGBT representation in animation, Netflix and LGBT representation in animation, and Cartoon Network and LGBT representation cover a lot, and fill in any gaps this page had previously, as does pages like List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present. The more concise these pages can be, the better.Historyday01 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_representation_in_children%27s_television&oldid=1246562361"