Thread:Uskok/@comment-1616746-20180125084049/@comment-1616746-20180222151942

Shabook wrote: Bridgetterocks wrote: Also, I know this isn't the discussion and that we have had it before on a separate thread, but regarding the LGBT characters category, what I had in mind when proposing it is only categorizing characters who we know FOR SURE that belong to the community, not every character as we don't know everyone's sexuality. As I said above in my previous message, that wouldn't work. Categorization of articles is meant to be inclusive, and either it works for all articles or a set group (Characters, Actors, Events, Items...), or it works for none.

All characters can be classified by their Affiliation, Appearance, Gender, Occupation and Media (they appear in). And those are the categories that currently exist. Not all characters can be classified by their sexual preference or religious beliefs (to cite two examples that have been proposed and denied) so, even if some characters can be notably identified by this, not all of them can, a category is out of the question because of that.

For these kind of things is where the whole body of the article is used. It's not that we don't acknowledge it or something... I know, I am not saying there is some sort of organized discrimination and I don't think I implied it in my message. If that's what you understood from it, I apologize. I was just clearing up what I meant when I originally proposed it. I understand your explanation, even if I personally don't agree with exclusively globally applicable categories.