Forum:LGBT categories in-universe and real world - Prop delete

I propose we delete both real world and in-universe LGBT categories.

In-universe

We write articles in the past tense from an 'end of the universe' POV. The Category:LGBT individuals, makes no sense for me as it's a very 20th to early 21st century view point. Beyond the 20th and before the 20th it's never really made an issue of, DW universe wise. By Benny's time (26th century) it's not even a thing, Jason Kane (who was from the 1980s) has shagged everything male, female and alien. In Chris Cwej and Roz Forrester's time (30th century) again not a thing, and the fast forward to the 51st century and we've got Captain-shag anything-Jack.

If the concept of LGBT existed in the DW universe we'd have a page for it, and we don't, cause it's really not something that's given a lot of thought as a defined concept.

Real world

I know Wikipedia has categories like this, but, do we? On Wikipedia they state that it's for notable LGBT writers etc. Within the wider scope of Wikipedia that's maybe useful where they are speaking about notable LGBT writers whose work is noted and it helps put their work in a wider context of a much larger encyclopaedia.

But on this Wiki where we cover DW etc is it relevant or notable? Leaving aside the "Gay Agenda" that fandom went on about in 2005, it's not really notable. Here we seem to just be using it as an extra category to categorise articles, so, why don't we have a "Straight writers" category? --Tangerineduel / talk 13:28, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Delete 'em both.


 * Deletion of in-universe LGBT is fairly uncontroversial, since the DWU goes to such unusual lengths to prove that sexuality is fluid and has no definition. No letter in "LGBT" actually describes Jack Harkness or Jason Kane.  They're just very sexually active.


 * As for the real world category, I can see that people have a "thing" for applying the pink triangle to people, but frankly, I think that does more harm than good. RTD prefers men, but that's rather incidental to his importance to the DWU. Should we also have category:Doctor Who writers who are known smokers? Or category:Doctor Who actors who are Presbyterians? Or category:Doctor Who vision mixers born in India?  Or category:Doctor Who directors born in Kent?  I mean, they're "good" categories in the sense that they're not vague — someone is born in India or they aren't — but they're organising according to totally irrelevant information.


 * The other thing that worries me a lot about the LGBT category is its potential misapplication. If we put it on the page of someone who isn't actually LGBT, that's libellous.  And I don't mean in the sense that we occasionally get wrong someone's credits.  I mean it's the kind of thing people get mad enough to sue over.  Why even have the category around as a temptation?   15:48: Thu 26 Jan 2012