LGBT additions to the Vsbattles wiki

[Armorchompy]

That is correct, yes. I have seen some people try to include SpongeBob Squarepants as an LGBTQ+ character just because it is a non-serious all-ages comedy cartoon that is not focused on romance, and I do not want neverending arguments in this forum regarding which characters that fit or not.

Actually, Stephen Hillenburg confirmed Spongebob as Asexual and Nickelodeon has done so too, they've even used him in lists of their LGBT+ characters during Pride Months.

 

[Rozi]

Actually, Stephen Hillenburg confirmed Spongebob as Asexual and Nickelodeon has done so too, they've even used him in lists of their LGBT+ characters during Pride Months.

Since when did Spongebob become asexual?

 

[Rozi]

Stephen Hillenburg never said that

 

[Antvasima]

Actually, Stephen Hillenburg confirmed Spongebob as Asexual and Nickelodeon has done so too, they've even used him in lists of their LGBT+ characters during Pride Months.

Was he ever portrayed as identifying as such within the show? And can you link to Hillenburg's statement please?

 

[Armorchompy]

Was he ever portrayed as identifying as such within the show? And can you link to Hillenburg's statement please?

I know little about Spongebob, I'm just going by the Wikipedia page here

Hillenburg statement (there's others)

Season 2. Episode 32a portrays him reproducing asexually like sponges

Nickelodeon lists him as a LGBT character (imgur link since you have twitter blocked)

There's not much room to argue when he's literally listed as LGBT by the people who own him

 

[AKM sama]

If we are creating a LGBT category, I see no reason to leave out QIA+. Just apply it only to officially confirmed characters.

 

[Armorchompy]

If we are creating a LGBT category, I see no reason to leave out QIA+. Just apply it only to officially confirmed characters.

And ones who blatantly showcase this, I hope, if two dudes kiss we usually don't really need author confirmation to say they're gay. This won't usually apply to ace characters, but still it should be for others (and ace ones too, in certain specific cases)

 

[Antvasima]

I know little about Spongebob, I'm just going by the Wikipedia page here

Hillenburg statement (there's others)

Season 2. Episode 32a portrays him reproducing asexually like sponges

Nickelodeon lists him as a LGBT character (imgur link since you have twitter blocked)

There's not much room to argue when he's literally listed as LGBT by the people who own him

Okay. That seems fine then.

If we are creating a LGBT category, I see no reason to leave out QIA+. Just apply it only to officially confirmed characters.

Okay. That seems fine then, but somebody would need to concisely explain the other terms in easy to understand manners, so I can update the category explanation text and then move the category accordingly.

And ones who blatantly showcase this, I hope, if two dudes kiss we usually don't really need author confirmation to say they're gay. This won't usually apply to ace characters, but still it should be for others (and ace ones too, in certain specific cases)

Well, or bisexual, but it still fits under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

 

[Armorchompy]

Okay. That seems fine then, but somebody would need to concisely explain the other terms in easy to understand manners, so I can update the category explanation text and then move the category accordingly.

Here's my shot at it

"Characters that are officially defined or confirmed as being part of LGBT, which includes homosexual or transgender characters as well as other gender and sexual identities."

Well, or bisexual, but it still fits under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

Yeah, definitely, I was simplifying

 

[AKM sama]

And ones who blatantly showcase this, I hope, if two dudes kiss we usually don't really need author confirmation to say they're gay. This won't usually apply to ace characters, but still it should be for others (and ace ones too, in certain specific cases)

Yeah, the latter statement I meant about the QIA+ since it's difficult to show or there can be confusion.

 

[Agnaa]

When I'm looking through recent edits, should I ask people who add the "LGBT Characters" category why they added it, or should I just assume they did so for a valid reason?

 

[Antvasima]

Here's my shot at it

"Characters that are officially defined or confirmed as being part of LGBT, which includes homosexual or transgender characters as well as other gender and sexual identities."

That is far too vague. This is an indexing wiki. We need to be very specific regarding exactly what does and does not qualify.

 

[Antvasima]

When I'm looking through recent edits, should I ask people who add the "LGBT Characters" category why they added it, or should I just assume they did so for a valid reason?

It seems best to ask them to provide some official evidence.

 

[Moritzva]

As I mentioned previously, it would be far too complicated and ambiguous if we impose asexual characteristics on fictional characters just because they never have any interest in getting sexual and/or romantic partners due to story conventions for their respective genres.

Let's keep things simple and straightforward please, especially in order to avoid lots of drama due to the sheer uncertainty of the issue.

I'd say this is a fair response. "LGBT" is a very large label with a lot of identities under it, and anyone who reads "LGBT" should and would probably understand what we are referring to. As long as we agree to apply it to anyone who falls into those identities, I don't see a need to sweat the small details or make it into anything more than a minor issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, most people probably understand the homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and asexual parts, but beyond that it turns considerably more complicated and confusing.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, should I update the text to the following instead then?

"LGBTQIA+ Characters:

Characters that are officially defined as being parts of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum of sexual identities.

Take note that this category should only be added to self-evident cases based on genuinely reliable official information from the owners of the characters, whether it is in-story or out of story, both in order to ensure reliability and to follow our preexisting rules, and to avoid lots of future hostile arguments. It should definitely not be added based on fanon or headcanon."

 

[Confluctor]

A slightly related question, would characters who are beyond the concept of such things as gender - and changes their gender from time to time or others see them differently - fall under this umbrella too?

As an example, the One Above All. People perceives him differently - different species, gender, people, etc.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think so, unless they have been officially defined as such.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, should I update the text to the following instead then?

"LGBTQIA+ Characters:

Characters that are officially defined as being parts of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum of sexual identities.

Take note that this category should only be added to self-evident cases based on genuinely reliable official information from the owners of the characters, whether it is in-story or out of story, both in order to ensure reliability and to follow our preexisting rules, and to avoid lots of future hostile arguments. It should definitely not be added based on fanon or headcanon."

Anyway, should I apply this text, and change the category name from "LGBT Characters" to "LGBTQIA+ Characters" then?

 

[Pikaman]

Anyway, should I apply this text, and change the category name from "LGBT Characters" to "LGBTQIA+ Characters" then?

Could you hold off for a hour or two until I have time to try and draft up my own suggestion?

 

[Moritzva]

Actually, you know what? I've changed my mind. I don't think this category should exist at all.

Look, I get why people may want it, but it just feels like a landmine. We're doing versus battles here, you know? I feel like it's such a dangerous field to open Pandora's Box on which characters are LGBT and which aren't. Hell, that's where all this drama started.

I am LGBT, and I do fully want characters defined as their preferred pronoun. However, adding an LGBT tag just opens a whole new, easy avenue for small-time trolling alongside an overwhelming, chaotic mess of trying to figure out if Naruto is actually LGBT or something ridiculous like that.

Personally, I think we should simply stick with listing the correct pronouns on their pages. To my knowledge, we don't have a tag for "Straight Characters", so sexuality shouldn't be at all relevant anyways.

Edit: And don't get me started on Yujiro. Oh lord.

 

[KingTempest]

There's a lot of categories that need to be deleted tbh, a shit. ton of useless ones

Like this

Yandere Characters

vsbattles.fandom.com

What is its' purpose

 

[Pikaman]

There's a lot of categories that need to be deleted tbh, a shit. ton of useless ones

Like this

Yandere Characters

vsbattles.fandom.com

What is its' purpose

I mean searching categories like these are useful for finding thematic matchups

 

[Tllmbrg]

I think if we want to delete other categories it should be its own thread
(Also this categories are how I find shit pages so)

 

[Dereck03]

I think if we want to delete other categories it should be its own thread

Agree with this.

(Also this categories are how I find shit pages so)

(Also with this)

 

[ShivaShakti]

Actually, you know what? I've changed my mind. I don't think this category should exist at all.

Look, I get why people may want it, but it just feels like a landmine. We're doing versus battles here, you know? I feel like it's such a dangerous field to open Pandora's Box on which characters are LGBT and which aren't. Hell, that's where all this drama started.

I am LGBT, and I do fully want characters defined as their preferred pronoun. However, adding an LGBT tag just opens a whole new, easy avenue for small-time trolling alongside an overwhelming, chaotic mess of trying to figure out if Naruto is actually LGBT or something ridiculous like that.

Personally, I think we should simply stick with listing the correct pronouns on their pages. To my knowledge, we don't have a tag for "Straight Characters", so sexuality shouldn't be at all relevant anyways.

Edit: And don't get me started on Yujiro. Oh lord.

I agree.

It also may be subject to other arguments such as:

Azathoth is LGBT (transcending the binary of Gender)

There is also the scenario regarding Oryx. He is neither male nor female, but his gender is quite literally "King".

It only precipitates more debates which likely aren't necessary.

 

[Pikaman]

Could you hold off for a hour or two until I have time to try and draft up my own suggestion?

“Characters that are officially defined as LGBTQIA+ (The conformation of which should be either from in-verse or from a statement by the creator and/or owner of the work) including being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or otherwise having a sexual orientation outside of heterosexuality, and/or a gender identity outside of being cisgender”

As for this issue

Azathoth is LGBT (transcending the binary of Gender)

A slightly related question, would characters who are beyond the concept of such things as gender - and changes their gender from time to time or others see them differently - fall under this umbrella too?

As an example, the One Above All. People perceives him differently - different species, gender, people, etc.

I had an idea on how to tackle this in the description, but am more iffy on this part and would like to hear input on whether it’s ok

Please note that this category should not be applied to those that, for example, transcend gender or sexual orientation, as transcending the very concepts of which the above definition was founded inherently mean that they transcend being LGBTQIA+ as well

 

[Pikaman]

There is also the scenario regarding Oryx. He is neither male nor female, but his gender is quite literally "King".

Rather simple, does the Gender of “King” exist in the standard way Male or Female does in our own world in Oryx’s verse? If it does, was it the gender Oryx was assigned at birth/has had his whole life? If the answer to both is yes, then he is cisgender, and would not qualify for the category. If the answer to either question is no then he is not cisgender and would qualify for the category

 

[AKM sama]

Actually, you know what? I've changed my mind. I don't think this category should exist at all.

Look, I get why people may want it, but it just feels like a landmine. We're doing versus battles here, you know? I feel like it's such a dangerous field to open Pandora's Box on which characters are LGBT and which aren't. Hell, that's where all this drama started.

I am LGBT, and I do fully want characters defined as their preferred pronoun. However, adding an LGBT tag just opens a whole new, easy avenue for small-time trolling alongside an overwhelming, chaotic mess of trying to figure out if Naruto is actually LGBT or something ridiculous like that.

Personally, I think we should simply stick with listing the correct pronouns on their pages. To my knowledge, we don't have a tag for "Straight Characters", so sexuality shouldn't be at all relevant anyways.

Edit: And don't get me started on Yujiro. Oh lord.

I concur with this. Really not looking forward to have more gender/sexuality debates on VSBW. Just like an argument was made in the last thread that AMAB/AFAB terms feel like unnecessary labeling, a character's sexuality also feels the same, it's not that relevant, why label it? I can see that it can be useful for thematic matches but that's just it. Quite negligible gain. Not having it will also save a lot of time dealing with unnecessary debates.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

Taking all the controversies (read: shitstorms) we've had recently into consideration I am kinda having second thoughts on this.

 

[Antvasima]

“Characters that are officially defined as LGBTQIA+ (The conformation of which should be either from in-verse or from a statement by the creator and/or owner of the work) including being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or otherwise having a sexual orientation outside of heterosexuality, and/or a gender identity outside of being cisgender”

"LGBTQIA+ Characters:

Characters that are officially defined as being parts of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum of sexual identities.

Take note that this category should only be added to self-evident cases based on genuinely reliable official information from the owners of the characters, whether it is in-story or out of story, both in order to ensure reliability and to follow our preexisting rules, and to avoid lots of future hostile arguments. It should definitely not be added based on fanon or headcanon."

I think that my version is more neutral and to the point informative in its language. It seems better to let our visitors simply click the Wikipedia link that I provided for further information. Also, many people who identify as their born gender seem to find the "cisgender" term annoying and/or offensive to force upon them.

Actually, you know what? I've changed my mind. I don't think this category should exist at all.

Look, I get why people may want it, but it just feels like a landmine. We're doing versus battles here, you know? I feel like it's such a dangerous field to open Pandora's Box on which characters are LGBT and which aren't. Hell, that's where all this drama started.

I am LGBT, and I do fully want characters defined as their preferred pronoun. However, adding an LGBT tag just opens a whole new, easy avenue for small-time trolling alongside an overwhelming, chaotic mess of trying to figure out if Naruto is actually LGBT or something ridiculous like that.

Personally, I think we should simply stick with listing the correct pronouns on their pages. To my knowledge, we don't have a tag for "Straight Characters", so sexuality shouldn't be at all relevant anyways.

Edit: And don't get me started on Yujiro. Oh lord.

I agree.

It also may be subject to other arguments such as:

Azathoth is LGBT (transcending the binary of Gender)

There is also the scenario regarding Oryx. He is neither male nor female, but his gender is quite literally "King".

It only precipitates more debates which likely aren't necessary.

I concur with this. Really not looking forward to have more gender/sexuality debates on VSBW. Just like an argument was made in the last thread that AMAB/AFAB terms feel like unnecessary labeling, a character's sexuality also feels the same, it's not that relevant, why label it? I can see that it can be useful for thematic matches but that's just it. Quite negligible gain. Not having it will also save a lot of time dealing with unnecessary debates.

Taking all the controversies (read: shitstorms) we've had recently into consideration I am kinda having second thoughts on this.

Well, given that I have seemed cause controversy recently (whenever I have started to blabber about my rather anti-totalitarian and left-libertarian ideals), it is probably best if I mostly stay out of this argument.

For the record, I do not really know whether or not it is better to have or not have such a category.

The pro-side is that it is good for indexing purposes and people who want to find characters that they can identify with.

And the con-side is that it will likely invite lots of hard-to-spot vandalism, speculative additions, and aggressive arguments, especially if there will be ongoing pushes to list all abstract characters that are beyond gender, or characters that have not been officially defined to belong to this category.

 

[Pikaman]

Taking all the controversies (read: shitstorms) we've had recently into consideration I am kinda having second thoughts on this.

Tbf that’s always going to be at it’s highest as the idea gets introduced. Once we set very clear guidelines on when and when not to apply the category, the wiggle room for interpretations leaning one way or the other should be very low. If you’re talking about people protesting the existence of the category, just point them towards this thread, say it was accepted, and if they keep on banging on about it let them do that to an empty audience. We have people who complain about ratified standards literally all the time

 

[Pikaman]

Also, many people who identify as their born gender find the "cisgender" term annoying and/or offensive to force upon them.

Huh, learn something new each day. Sorry then, your version is likely better

especially if there will be ongoing pushes to list all abstract characters that are beyond gender

I had an idea on how to tackle this in the description, but am more iffy on this part and would like to hear input on whether it’s ok

Please note that this category should not be applied to those that, for example, transcend gender or sexual orientation, as transcending the very concepts of which the above definition was founded inherently mean that they transcend being LGBTQIA+ as well

 

[Moritzva]

Tbf that’s always going to be at it’s highest as the idea gets introduced. Once we set very clear guidelines on when and when not to apply the category, the wiggle room for interpretations leaning one way or the other should be very low. If you’re talking about people protesting the existence of the category, just point them towards this thread, say it was accepted, and if they keep on banging on about it let them do that to an empty audience. We have people who complain about ratified standards literally all the time

If we use wording that eliminates wiggle room, there will be inevitably people who disagree with that lack of wiggle room in the future. Trying to put a hard standard on what is LGBT and what isn't is a travesty in the making. I'm really just not interested in seeing threads about the real-life implications of wacky anime shit and the nonsense that will follow.

 

[Antvasima]

I had an idea on how to tackle this in the description, but am more iffy on this part and would like to hear input on whether it’s ok

Please note that this category should not be applied to those that, for example, transcend gender or sexual orientation, as transcending the very concepts of which the above definition was founded inherently mean that they transcend being LGBTQIA+ as well

That seems like a sensible addition, if we keep the category, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

If we use wording that eliminates wiggle room, there will be inevitably people who disagree with that lack of wiggle room in the future. Trying to put a hard standard on what is LGBT and what isn't is a travesty in the making. I'm really just not interested in seeing threads about the real-life implications of wacky anime shit and the nonsense that will follow.

The DC Comics wiki has separate categories for Homosexual Characters, Bisexual Characters, Transgender Characters, and that seems to be it. Would separating the LGBT category in this manner, and avoiding any more complicated additions, be a better solution?

 

[Pikaman]

If we use wording that eliminates wiggle room, there will be inevitably people who disagree with that lack of wiggle room in the future. Trying to put a hard standard on what is LGBT and what isn't is a travesty in the making. I'm really just not interested in seeing threads about the real-life implications of wacky anime shit and the nonsense that will follow.

We’re not “putting a hard standard on what is LGBT”, we’re putting lines down to prevent characters not officially confirmed in any sense as LBGTQIA+ as being indexed as such by this wiki. There’s a massive difference. People disagree with all kinds of standards on this wiki, we don’t shut down any and all rulings on them just because of that. All our guidelines prevent is headcanon or possible/mild implications being used to index a character as LGBTQIA+ by the wiki, they don’t decide what is and is not LGBTQIA+, they decide who is officially confirmed as belonging to that group. That is a very objective and easy to discover matter for 99.99% of characters on this wiki

 

[Moritzva]

We’re not “putting a hard standard on what is LGBT”, we’re putting lines down to prevent characters not officially confirmed in any sense as LBGTQIA+ as being indexed as such by this wiki. There’s a massive difference. People disagree with all kinds of standards on this wiki, we don’t shut down any and all rulings on them just because of that. All our guidelines prevent is headcanon or possible/mild implications being used to index a character as LGBTQIA+ by the wiki, they don’t decide what is and is not LGBTQIA+, they decide who is officially confirmed as belonging to that group. That is a very objective and easy to discover matter for 99.99% of characters on this wiki

What you find to be a "massive difference" is definitely not as easily defined as you think it's going to be. People disagree with standards of all kinds on this wiki, but not only are LGBT topics far more volatile than other topics and standards we have, but we have no reason to be discussing them in the first place. The same 'guidelines' presented to prevent headcanon can and will be used in unexpected ways to cause problems, and even if they somehow aren't, it will only lead to debates over what qualifies and why they don't.

There is absolutely no reason to go out of our way to index this. Having observed what happened in the past, I cannot see it ending in any way other than a complete dumpster fire. At the very best, it will be a slow, painful thorn in our side that will be progressively harder to take out the longer we let it linger.

As for DC comics, that categorization could work, but I still don't think it's necessary. It's not particularly important, and our wiki isn't focused on indexing these matters in the same way. Not to mention, we deal with a much wider array of characters than DC Comics, including far more characters that exist as extremely dubious edge cases on a wide spectrum difficult to determine.

I don't want to deal with these arguments. I don't think any of us do. I highly, highly encourage us to save ourselves the trouble and not do it.

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Yeah, this is why i'm in neutral but inclined to disagree, if this get accepted then we're going to be in hellish time to deal with those negativity due of LGBT, sure what Saman said are true but we still have a limit on how we can handle this stuff
As i said, i'm fine if this going go through but with consequence.....like a very big consequence

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

But then again, "thematic matches" being mentioned here for a reasom why we don't need this stuff made me feel that we, the match-makers are being pressured lel