Jump to content

Talk:Queer coding

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amanda342.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources

[edit]

The sources in this article are terrible, most are either unreliable, or not independent, or both.

As noted in the recent AFD, there are better sources that could be used:

Reposted from the AFD for future reference. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those aren't that great (Buzzfeed, for example). We should be using scholarly sources from the field of LGBT studies, not articles that may barely be more than blog posts spouting some writer's opinion. Crossroads -talk- 03:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources "from the field of LGBT studies" strikes me as non-independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent perhaps, but surprisingly enough the popular media can be at times be even more inclined to exaggerate "queerness" than that field. I haven't looked at all the sources above, but some are like that. Crossroads -talk- 02:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... Anachronist, that's not how the independence of sources work. Never do sources about social concepts have to have subjects be disconnected from an academic field, per se, because articles and journal are normally peer-reviewed. But, disregarding that, these are two academic pieces that have the phrase in their headline, are mainly about the topic, and are from academic journals not generally about LGBT issues: [1] and [2] 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to try using these in the future if I have some time to add them in. I would say the articles in The Conversation, Insider, Slate are good when it comes to Luca, as is Wired when it comes to Loki, USA Today when it comes to the new Lion King, Vox when it comes to Mulan, CJR when it comes to queer-coded publications in the past, the academic article "The Snow Queer? Female Characterization in Walt Disney’s Frozen", and other articles in Quail Bell, Syfy, Collider, Insider, New York Times (small mention), and the chapter in "Disney Channel Tween Programming". And there are undoubtedly many more articles out there when it comes to queer coding. Historyday01 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Sissy villain into Queer coding

[edit]

Both of these articles are very short, and a "sissy villain" is the same exact topic as queer coding. We don't do WP:CFORKs. "Sissy villain" is somehow an even more inflammatory title than "queer coding". The former has an oddly high number of non-English sources, so I wonder if translation from another language Wikipedia may be part of the issue. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (both for the merge and for the advancement of LGBTQ+ people). This should be at least be included briefly in the other article to indicate it's another phrase to refer to the subject. Academic sources, books, and other sources use the phrase (sometimes derogatorily) to refer to queer-coded villains, but not nearly as much as they use the phrase queer coding. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although both articles may be related, they are different concepts. While queer coding is an abstract idea, sissy villain refers specifically to a kind of fictional character. And "sissy villain" has its own academic sources in Google Scholar, that can be found in several languages like Portuguese or Spanish. Also, there are other sources like newspapers and other webs in many languages as well. In the other hand, I really cannot see why some find these titles "inflammatory". But anyway, like any other controversial article, these two can contain their specific sections of Critics, adding them with their respective references. --DaddyCell (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You created the Sissy Villain article, yes, but it is a subset of this phenomenon, and one of the biggest examples of it. It is just a different term. Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - simply a fork of the article. Readers are best served by keeping the information in one place. Onel5969 TT me 16:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the "Sissy villain" article was created in June 2021. I have to agree with One15969 and HumanxAnthro. Crossroads was right to propose this. And DaddyCell can still add sources by using Google Scholar to a "sissy villain" section of this article, and expand it as such. Once the two articles are merged I would also support keeping "sissy villain" as a redirect to this article, so that the term "sissy villain" can be used on various pages if needed. Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stumbled on this discussion through WP:NPR and I've merged the article into this one.Citing (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"is scary and is the only male character who does not wear pants and is made up."

[edit]

Is that vandalism? What does "scary" or "made up" have to do with queer coding?71.222.175.164 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I can look into it later... Historyday01 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2022

[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: not moved. Speedy close: the OP was blocked as a sockpuppet and no one else has supported the move. Anyone should feel free to start a new discussion if they support a move. (non-admin closure) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queer coding → Queercoding – This article's title should be Queercoding or Queer-coding. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is there evidence in reliable sources that "Queercoding" is used more than "Queer coding"? If there is, then it should be moved. If there isn't, then it shouldn't be moved. Historyday01 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that's true. "Queercoding and "queer-coding" don't even show up on the Google Ngrams, but "queen coding" does. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, reads oddly and no evidence has been given that the scrunched-together version is more common in sources. Crossroads -talk- 23:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in line with Crossroads and Rreagan007. I understand what QueenofBithynia is saying, that the "current title is grammatically incorrect", but for one I'm not sure about that, and secondly, is there evidence that "Queercoding" is a common term above "Queer coding"? No such evidence has been provided as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2022 (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.

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexualities

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thenerdiestninja (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LivMourning (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: American Cinema History

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UttRen0002 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by UttRen0002 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive focus on television/animation

[edit]

Covering examples of queer coding in animation is important but this article is subpar coverage of an extremely important part of film history. It includes 0 examples of queer coding in film from the actual Hays code era and disproportionately focuses on animated television and film, and only mentions 2 live action films, both of which are contemporary series that lacked the restrictions of older films. Teddybearbutch (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may have to do with content which was merged into this article from elsewhere. I wouldn't mind there being MORE examples of queer coding from the Hays Code era. Historyday01 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queer_coding&oldid=1215180224"