Tech, emailconfirmed, Administrators
38,060
edits
Tag: 2017 source edit |
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Beyond that, however, I would like to note that I do not think there is a easily-made distinction between the categories and how the Queer rep page's coverage of real-world individuals operates. Therefore, my one real hope here (regardless of how the ruling will likely be made on the categories, especially given my conceding at the time) is that we may find a distinction that would, at least, protect the current state of Queer rep. [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] [[User talk:JDPManjoume|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) | Beyond that, however, I would like to note that I do not think there is a easily-made distinction between the categories and how the Queer rep page's coverage of real-world individuals operates. Therefore, my one real hope here (regardless of how the ruling will likely be made on the categories, especially given my conceding at the time) is that we may find a distinction that would, at least, protect the current state of Queer rep. [[User:JDPManjoume|JDPManjoume]] [[User talk:JDPManjoume|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 08:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: Although my leaning towards Delete is, as the opening post correctly identifies, mostly rooted in ‘Against 1.1’, I disagree with the supposed [[T:POINT]] irrelevance of ‘Against | :: Although my leaning towards Delete is, as the opening post correctly identifies, mostly rooted in ‘Against 1.1’, I disagree with the supposed [[T:POINT]] irrelevance of ‘Against 2’ (or some variant of it) based on the prior discussion for in-universe characters. It simply isn't the case that what's relevant and appropriate for categorisation of in-universe characters is always relevant and appropriate for real-world page. There's no real-world equivalent of [[:Category:Human biological fathers]] or [[:Category:Human adopted children]], even though such facts could certainly "influence how you read their work and provide important context for understanding the perspective they're approaching subjects from"! [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 07:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::I assume you mean Against 2? Noting that we don't need this category may be true! We might not have good reason to have real world categories here, I don't deny it. But it has nothing to do with the argument that RadMatter and Jack were making and what I was summarizing. They were making the exact same argument as in the previous thread, that it was wrong to have categories for LGBT people because it "othered" them. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | :::I assume you mean Against 2? Noting that we don't need this category may be true! We might not have good reason to have real world categories here, I don't deny it. But it has nothing to do with the argument that RadMatter and Jack were making and what I was summarizing. They were making the exact same argument as in the previous thread, that it was wrong to have categories for LGBT people because it "othered" them. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::: Yes, sorry. Typo. I recognise that you were summarising a specific argument involving Jack and RadMatter, but I wouldn't say my development has "nothing" to do with it, and I don't endorse "we might not need this category" as a summary of the point I was making. Again, I think there are demonstrably cases where we get "personal" with IU categories in ways that would be inappropriate with real-world ones. So it might be that the LGBTQ categories are too othering (or otherwise inappropriate) ''for real-world pages'' even though they're on the right side of the line for characters. | |||
:::: ("Human biological fathers" not existing for real-world people is more about relevance and some sort of privacy thing; but surely one of the problems with "Real world adoptees" would be that it would be potentially othering or stigmatising ''to real people'' in a way that doesn't apply to fictional characters. Ditto, say, "Real world criminals".) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 07:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC) |