Talk:List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010s/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Principal

Lead character is gay

Slasher

Has gay couple

Heartless

Danish series with lesbian/bi couple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.32.126 (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Borgias

Different show to Borgias, The Borgias has a couple of gay characters. Most notable is Micheletto played by Sean Harris.

And Then There Were None

Miniseries, Has gay characters

Grantchester

The second priest is closeted. Slight references are made to it in season two, like how he knows the photographer is gay. Not sure if that counts.

Offspring

Australian series. Has a number of lesbian/bi characters. Not sure if there's been a gay guy though.

In the Flesh (2013 - ongoing)

Main character is a gay zombie.

His former lover appears in series 1. In series 2 he has an intimate relationship with another man.

In the Flesh (TV series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.41.221 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Degrassi/Next Class

I've noticed Degrassi Next Class isn't here (along with a couple characters introduced), do we want to make this a separate list from Degrassi: TNG? --QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

VisualEditor and tables

@Pyxis Solitary: Responding to your edit summary. Those who mess up the code often use VisualEditor, therefore this change will hardly bring the desired results. – Máté (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Máté: The hidden comment was added a very long time ago after the list was cleaned-up and, compared to the 'wild wild west' that existed beforehand, resulted in the consistent addition of table rows in a concise format by both registered and IP-only editors. It has been a beneficial instruction. However, if a registered User receives a message from another editor explaining how table rows are added to the list, and the editor does it his way again in his following edit of a similar list ... that editor is deliberately ignoring the format that's in place. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: As you can see, that edit has a Visual edit tag on it. You can't expect those who edit with VE to care for the look of the code, as they never even see the code. It is VE that should be improved. This was something to be expected when VE was introduced, now we have to deal with some way, but not by attacking users for something that's not their fault. – Máté (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Máté: If an editor is a registered User and has been made aware of the table format markup, then he should either not use Visual editor or go back and fix the format after-the-fact. Too many Wikipedia editors depend on other editors to carry their water. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I'm afraid many of them wouldn't know how, even after your detailed explanation. The whole point of the Visual Editor is that you don't have to know anything about wikitext which has always been a major barrier to entry. – Máté (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Máté: Every person who contributes to Wikipedia has a first edit. Every person who edits Wikipedia with any frequency goes through a learning curve. There are many IP-only editors who don't use Visual editor to add new rows. (Visual vs. Source edits of identical content.) Any editor who regularly contributes to and edits Wikipedia, but ignores the best way to do it is deliberately creating disorder and relies on other editors to clean-up after him. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to get a clue about editing Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: I didn't say it's rocket science either, all I'm suggesting is to assume good faith. – Máté (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Máté: "Good faith" assumption exists before an editor is made aware about how best to contribute to an article. When any editor has been alerted about how edits are done, and sees how edits are done, but continues to edit articles his way: it's no longer "good faith". Pyxis Solitary talk 09:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Call the midwife

Especially episodes 32 through 51 (more episodes are in production), which show the relationship of female characters Patsy and Delia; at least one other episode discusses gay men. List_of_Call_the_Midwife_episodes --92.194.22.149 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Series added to list. Pyxis Solitary talk 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Prostitute, hustler, or sex worker?

Regarding the recent substitutions of the words prostitute and hustler with "sex worker" because the former contain "negative connotations": in the matter of how a character is described, in Wikipedia there are words to watch because they may be loaded or formulaic language, misleading, editorializing, trite, neologistic, insinuatory, and/or may promote a subject. But Wikipedia does not sugarcoat words. Even material that may be considered offensive and unpleasant by some readers and editors is acceptable if its removal would make an article less informative or accurate. Based on Wikipedia policies, character descriptions should be unbiased and accurate; not be based on personal opinion; not contain original research; and the terminology used to describe a character should be supported by reliable sources.
Take the character of Callie Dunne from Godless, for example. The series is set in the 1880's and she is a prostitute that becomes the town's school teacher in the building that used to be the brothel. To describe her as a former "prostitute" is accurate, plus the term is also supported by sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3). It is best for all, including Wikipedia, to always try to avoid warring over edits, particularly when content is supported with sources. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Vida

This show has Eddy, Vida's (whose death launches the show) girlfriend, Emma, Vida's daughter, is a lesbian and Cruz is Emma's girlfriend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.189.244 (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Series added @ 10:14, 13 August 2018. Pyxis Solitary yak 10:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Suburra: Blood on Rome

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7197684/ It's gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:EE0:577D:EFB0:B8DB:8F73:5946:BFF9 (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

First, IMDb is user-generated content (i.e. anyone can edit an IMDb page) and has no editorial oversight; therefore, the details in IMDb are not relied upon for verification. Second, the series includes homosexual characters. You can read about it here: "Suburra: Blood in Rome", homosexualidad y delincuencia a la italiana (translation: "Suburra: Blood in Rome", homosexuality and delinquency Italian style). You can perform a web search yourself of "Suburra Blood in Rome+gay". Pyxis Solitary yak 04:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Andi Mack

Why was it removed from the page? There are two LGBT characters in the show, Cyrus who has been openly gay for quite a while now, and TJ who though the series finale didn't really specified his sexuality, it was implied that he had romantic feelings for Cyrus (which the actor confirmed after the episode aired)

Do you know when it was removed? Maybe it was accidentally deleted when the list was reorganized in chronological order of earliest to recent years. I'm going to re-add it to the list. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I only edit in Source and found that Andi Mack was still there but had become hidden along with 12 other rows due to an error in wiki markup. All 13 rows are now visible. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas14

Add: Thomas14 (2018) https://imdb.com/title/tt7915288/ - King of Xavier (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What characters have a sexual orientation that's relevant to this list? What is the orientation? What are the names of the actors that play them? IMDb is not an acceptable source. Do you have any reliable sources that support the inclusion of this series in the list? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas is shy and goes to the new school, and Emma loves Thomas but Thomas is not interested in Emma, ​​Thomas always peeps at every boy, especially Thomas has fallen in love with Emma's brother, Mikkel - King of Xavier (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Is there really a point in having this list extend into the 2010s? Surely with the widespread acceptance of LGBT people, any television series with more than twenty characters would now have at least one character that is attracted to the same gender. At the very least we would have to split this article, but surely there is no point in having many of these programs listed. They may be notable television programs and they may verifiably have a gay character, but these programs are not notable for having such a character anymore. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a point in having it.
No, there is no "widespread acceptance of LGBT people".
No, there is no guarantee that any television series, regardless of how many characters it has, will have "at least one character that is attracted to the same gender".
Maybe the article will need to be split in the future, maybe not.
"these programs are not notable". This list is not about the programs — it's about the characters in them.
As long as there is an interest in knowing what characters are LGBT/ANP in a dramatic series, this list provides a valuable purpose. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A list of every LGBT character in every work of fiction is not a notable list though, when there is clearly a widespread acceptance of LGBT characters in media. In contemporary media when there are LGBT characters, their sexual orientation is simply incidental and not any more notable than any other character's sexual orientation. This list doesn't provide a valuable purpose when it catalogues every single character in any dramatic fiction with same sex attraction. A list would only provide such a purpose when it includes only the notable instances of an LGBT character. Most of the recent programs are not notable for having an LGBT character, and those characters are not notable for being LGBT either. Clearly many of these characters just happen to not be straight, which isn't itself notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless a Wikipedia reader watches every, single dramatic TV series that has ever included an LGBT/ANP character, they won't be aware of their existence in them. You don't see the value in a comprehensive list such as this one, but obviously I do. And considering how many editors have contributed to this list, and continue to, your opinion is not the majority. Fortunately for the rest of us who see the usefulness of this list, your opinion does not determine the consensus for having LGBT-related lists such as this one. Btw, synonyms for "noteworthy" are: worth mentioning, meaningful, interesting, noticeable, significant. As I see it, "worth mentioning" is good enough. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 09:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is about notability, which is a key Wikipedia policy. It is not about whatever an editor may think is "worth mentioning" or any other synonym, it is what the reliable sources deem to be notable. Plainly it is not always notable when a character is LGBT in a work of fiction, particularly in recent years, according to reliable sources or a lack of them. If we construe the scope of this article to include every series with an LGBT character, as the article currently is, that would be plainly not notable according to WP:NOTABLE, particularly WP:GNG. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, guess what? MOS:LIST does not require a list to be limited to notable content. And since the content has grown beyond the idea behind its creation 12 years ago (on 11 April 2007), its purpose can be revised to include characters that are not restricted to "notable". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the notability of the characters, although we may choose to impose criteria on that. The characters may still be notable themselves, but it may not be notable that they are LGBT. However, this is a list of the television programs rather than the characters, and these television programs may not be notable for having LGBT characters, even if they do contain them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For the purpose of this list, a television series becomes "notable" when it includes one or more non-straight characters or a non-straight relationship. It's the inclusion of non-straight characters in the story that lands a dramatic TV series on this list. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 03:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability isn't something that we as editors establish though. It's established by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The first step is someone watches a TV show, there's LGBT/ANP representation in the plot, adds the character/s to the list, provides a description. The second step is RS supporting the inclusion of the character/s in the list. Although WP:MINREF requires "an inline citation to a reliable source for only...four types of statements", when an editor fails to include a source the {{citation needed}} template is added. That's why the template was created: to alert editors that a source is needed. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not about whether there is a source for the series having an LGBT character, it is about whether this actually can be sourced, particularly that it's notable that this series has an LGBT character. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Whether you believe it or not, we are not yet in an era when LGBTQ characters are a normal feature of all or even most television series. Television is certainly getting better than it was, but GLAAD still publishes annual trackings of LGBTQ television characters which highlight that there's still work to do on achieving anything like genuine, sustained and consistent equality. Without Pose alone, in fact, the 2018-19 season would have significantly backslid from prior years. Yes, I'll grant that we're at a point when this list could potentially stand to be split up into smaller sublists — especially since we're almost at the turn of a new decade anyway — but we are not yet at the point where lists tracking LGBTQ representation in television have completely ceased to have any necessity or value at all. In theory, sure, us queers is equal now. In actual practice, however, we have not yet achieved actual lived equality in the real world: including queer characters in a TV series is still an active political statement, and still not just a thing that TV shows do just because our inclusion is routinely and uncontroversially expected of all TV as a matter of course. Our stories are still left out of far more TV shows than we're actually included in. And guess what: the fact that even in 2019 we're still the exception more than the rule is precisely the point of a list like this. Bearcat (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

LGBT characters are certainly normal in television, even if they are not in every television series. Many television programs aren't about issues of sexuality or relationships, and so it can be irrelevant if a character happens to have a partner of the same gender, just as it would be irrelevant if they are straight. This frankly also isn't a list that tracks representation, although there would be nothing wrong with such an article. The "point" of this article and of every article on Wikipedia is categorically not for any political purpose, but purely as an encyclopaedia. Instead what we should be focusing on is the earlier programs where LGBT characters were included and their relationships were explored, which were fundamentally important and notable for having those characters, rather than any program in 2019 where a female character may mention having a wife. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If LGBT characters were fully normalized in television, it wouldn't be a news story anymore when a TV show adds an LGBT character — but even today it still is news, and still is a thing media still ask people to comment on as "controversial". The idea that a show has to be about sexuality and relationships before inclusion of one or more LGBT characters is warranted is exactly the problem — we are not just our sexualities, but are people who live fully rounded lives with many aspects besides just what we do in bed. We have jobs, for example, and should rightly be included in workplace series given that gay coworkers are a thing that really exists in the real world. We go out to bars and restaurants, and should rightly be included in shows set in bars and pubs. We live next door to people, and should be visible as neighbours and friends. And on and so forth: if we're included only in shows that are specifically about queerness, but are not fully integrated as part of the fabric of everyday life in shows that aren't about queerness, then we're not really properly included. And at any rate, this list isn't including "token" queer characters who get one line of dialogue saying they have a same-sex partner — it's only listing shows which foreground LGBTQ content as a recurring or significant storyline, which is still far rarer than you seem to think it is. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Many times it is indeed not a "news story" for a television series to contain an LGBT character. I'm not sure who or what most of what you are saying is directed to. It's not about a tertiary character being LGBT, it can very well be a main character for who being LGBT is not a big deal for the series. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"LGBT characters are certainly normal in television, even if they are not in every television series."
In 2018 there were 495 original scripted broadcast, cable, and streaming series premieres. How many of these 495 series included a "normal" LGBT character? All of them? No, of course not. 300? Nah. 200? Um, uh, well ... heck if I know. But what we do know from this list is that in 2018 there were at least 55 dramatic series that did.
Your naiveté regarding how LGBT inclusive television is now and how LGBTrs are today just another bunch of normal characters on television is cute. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 12:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Your source for there being 55 such series is this very article. Even if this article included every series with a confirmed LGBT character, that would still not include characters for whom sexuality is not discussed or referenced. As I've said before, this article can determines series where sexuality is relevant, omitting others. Either way, you're still trying to make an irrelevant point here, about there being not enough LGBT characters in television, or not enough television series with LGBT characters. This could be very well true but still an irrelevant point here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge (October 2019)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BL dramas it was decided to MERGE the content of that article to here. The author of that article included some television shows from Thailand (and one from South Korea), and the years of release, but with no supporting information or reliable citations. Per Wikipedia procedure, I am transferring those entries into this article, but I know little about the shows in question so there will be some empty entries in your table. Do what you will we the results. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This merge from another list was a total fail. Not only was the table wiki markup screwed up, but there are also no networks, characters, actors, descriptions, and reliable sources included. Other editors should not be relied upon to fix the mess. If these rows are not completed in the same manner as all other existing rows they will be deleted.
P.S. do not use Visual Editor to edit tables. The Limitations section specifically explains the problems with using VE, and for tables it states: "Unaware of table formatting done by templates". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 12:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-English language series

Needless to say, this is the en.Wikipedia (i.e. English language Wikipedia). WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY also apply to lists: (R) "The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception", and (V) "everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable."
The rows for Skam España, Skam Italia, and Skam France were removed because (1) no en.Wikipedia articles exist for them, and (2) the sources provided, if any, were not in the English language which impedes being able to read them and verify the reason for their being added to the list. If reliable English-language sources are found for them, there would be no issue with their being restored to the list. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Layout Suggestion

As the articles are now split by decade and there are becoming a lot more series with LGBT+ characters, could we split the shows into sections based on the year they began (e.g. 2010, 2011, etc.)? At the moment the section header is just 2010s which is what the entire article is about so it doesn't really help navigation.LunaLovegoods (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 12 January 2020‎ (UTC)

Y Done. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Or, here me out, it could be organized by character debut date like the List of animated series with LGBT characters page. Just a thought.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You posted a similar comment in the 2020s list talk page. As an editor with a long history of editing these lists, I responded to your suggestion there on 09:36, 31 March 2020. For the record, you also suggested that the 1970s–2000s list be modeled "after the List of animated series with LGBT characters pages". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Overzealous deletions of series

This deletion of a series is not acceptable. We cannot discard contributions because an editor has done everything right (alphabetical order – date – linked series – linked network – names of characters & linked actors – description of characters) — except for the failure to also include a reliable source. This type of contribution should be moved to the talk page so that another editor can find the RS, if the original editor does not, and then re-add the series to the list.

If this kind of stringent policing of the list continues it will result in alienating editors from this list, and all similar lists. I don't care what reasoning is given for deleting what is by all accounts a legitimate edit, but I guarantee that it will result in an ANI in the future based on Wikipedia's WP:WIARM policy: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." — and WP:UNSOURCED: "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

This deletion is particularly glaring because RS such as this can be found: "‘For All Mankind’ Episode 7 sees intolerance towards gay and lesbian people in 70s as Ellen is forced to marry Larry to save her career". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd talk to Isaidnoway about that, but I don't think the temporary removal of one series without a source, encouraging the original poster to add a source, is necessarily bad as I can understand their reasoning, but I get what you are saying. However, I am personally leaning more toward the approach of adding a citation needed tag and mentioning the other user, saying something like "can you please add a reliable source for this?" after some users on other pages got annoyed with me for doing the same thing with some entries. That's probably what I'll do if I see any entries on any pages I usually edit with unsourced content if I can find the person who posted the content (sometimes you can't if the unsourced content has been there for a year or something). Historyday01 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

So you found a source, great, now add the show back and quit your constant complaining. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not cleaning after you. I'm done. Whatever results from your possessive and heavy-handed approach, it's yours to deal with. I'll be polishing my eyeglasses. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my sentiment too. Some of the people who add unsourced stuff are those that don't have user accounts, so that makes it even more difficult to ask that they add sources, too. The removal of one show is not, I would argue, a big deal. If someone removed a whole bunch of shows without explanation, that would be a different story. Historyday01 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"that's my sentiment too." LoL! I see nose and I see brown. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I just agree with them on that point, but I still have been taking a different approach with pages that I've been editing recently, just adding "citation needed" and asking the user (who originally added the content) to add sources. Historyday01 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility

This list article is not compliant with WP:ACCESS, which makes it impossible for our visually impaired readers to access properly. The format of the tables in the year defined sections use <br /> tags to emulate a visual row, which is not recommended. This is a significant problem for users of screen readers which read tables, cell by cell, HTML row by HTML row, not visual row by visual row. To get a clearer understanding of the accessibility issue, you can click on my username and hear it for yourself. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not surprised that the page isn't accessible... it really needs some work for sure. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This page is a beast too, at 400,000+ bytes right now, and with 350+ citation needed tags, that will add another roughly ~60,000 bytes, and then when I look for sources, I usually find more characters and more shows, which will increase the size. It needs to be split, but I don't know how. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would say it could be split the list of LGBTQ animated characters, into lists for 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. However, 2010-2014 page would be 140,209 bytes (140 kb) and 255,777 bytes (255 kb), which would still fall into the highest readable prose size category of WP:SIZESPLIT which says "almost certainly should be divided." So, I really don't know how unless it was organized a different way maybe by network or something like that, since the identity of the characters isn't currently a category. I added a section size template to the talk page if that helps. --Historyday01 (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

After latest update, page size is now 485,000 bytes. I added 100+ new characters that I found during my search for sources, and I've only completed the years 2010-2013, so eventually when all the years are completed, this article will probably reach ~950,000 bytes, which is way too long. I also eliminated massive amounts of white space from AHS and Shameless, the first 3 columns were nothing by white space with 60 and 40 rows respectively of white space, which makes it super difficult to read and navigate on mobile devices, tablets, pads, and desktop, was also an issue for accessibility. Further discussion on ways to split the article are welcome. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Article size is now ~557,000 bytes. Splitting off horror fiction will help, but not enough. Since the sections are categorized by years, that seems to be our best option. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  I would strongly urge article contributors to consider greater inclusion criteria, which would exclude and remove very minor characters listed here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could adopt the same approach that List of animated series with LGBTQ characters page uses:

These lists only include recurring characters, otherwise known as supporting characters, which appear frequently from time to time during the series' run, often playing major roles in more than one episode, and those in the main cast are listed below. LGBTQ characters which are guest stars or one-off characters are listed on the pages focusing exclusively on gay (in animation and anime), lesbian (in animation and anime), bisexual (in animation and anime), trans, pansexual, asexual, non-binary, and intersex characters.

Onetwothreeip, would that approach work as inclusion criteria? I'd say that the shows that are not recurring or major characters could be kept on identity-specific pages, like List of lesbian characters in television for instance. Any other thoughts?

I prefer alternate solutions like creating new articles or splitting off content, rather than excluding sourced content. If sources are covering these very minor characters in relation to LGBT inclusion in a TV series, then so should we. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I would rather not exclude content, either. Historyday01 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that increased criteria. Sourced content not meeting that criteria could still be placed elsewhere. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)