Jump to content

User talk:Historyday01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CONSIDERING RETIREMENT
Historyday01 is considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Note: I am considering either full retirement or semi-retirement, per what is stated at WP:RETIRE, possibly by December 31, 2025. We will see what happens.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created 60 articles on Wikipedia.



Hello! Feel free to post comments, suggestions, and whatnot, and I'll do my best to respond to them in a timely manner. Please do not ever invite me to participate in AfD discussions or those on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN), either by posting on this talk page or pinging me. If you do so, I politely decline to participate in such discussions. Engaging in such discussions is emotionally and mentally draining. I do not wish to be pulled into those discussions. Thanks.--Historyday01 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder about talk page guidelines

WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS and WP:INTERLEAVE state:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page...Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving or interpolating your own replies to individual points. This causes confusion with who said what and obscures the original editor's intent.

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, which lists examples of appropriately editing others' comments (italics is my emphasis):

Personal talk page cleanup...Removing prohibited material such as libel; legal threats; personal details; content that is illegal under US law; or violations of copyright, living persons, or anti-promotional policies...Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived...Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution

WP:TALK#REPLIED states (italics is my emphasis):

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely. But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes...To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment directly below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate; insert a comment in square brackets.

WP:OWNTALK states:

User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. The length of user talk pages, and the need for archiving, is left up to each editor's own discretion. Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving.

WP:BLANKING states:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so.

Current draft pages:

Currently watching:

Current drafts in progress:


Keeping a watch on and updating view counts every so often:

Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel are usually updated pretty frequently so I'm not going to worry about those.

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iyanu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Absolute power.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of lesbian characters in animation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Hi! I looked through the edit history and wanted to clarify. Did you add any additional sources and/or rewrite the text about Suletta and Miorine in the LGBTQ list? Or did you just update the sources? Solaire the knight (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some additional sources. I didn't rewrite/change the Suletta and Miorine text, no. I did change some other entries, but not that one. In any case, I do think it was good to get rid of those listicles which had become too integrated into those animation pages. Historyday01 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Takina

[edit]

Made a quick search and found third party sources with commentary about Takina. Good luck with the editing.Tintor2 (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And there's definitely more out there. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some wiki-appreciation

[edit]

Hello hello~I want to say: I appreciate the times we have interacted, and I value the input you have brought to the table on pages like List of autistic fictional characters and List of fictional characters with disabilities TheZoodles (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for saying that. I really appreciate it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quinceañera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bravo Network.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

superfluous word "pronouns"

[edit]

Re [1][2]:

Thus I have again removed the superfluous word. [5][6] Mitch Ames (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine and you are clearly approaching this with good faith. I'm not disputing that at all. As such, I'm not going to contest your reversals. All I am going to say is that I think that adding "pronouns," in the edits I made, could help users, and I stand by that viewpoint. That's all. Historyday01 (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki love Pride

[edit]

Good evening. Please do not add articles to the Wiki loves Pride whose topics are either completely unrelated to LGBTQ topics or whose relationship to them is highly speculative. This is an original categorization and has the potential to mislead authors and readers. I can understand debates about ships or the sexuality of characters in MyGO, but Anne Shirley is literally an adaptation of a children's book from the early 20th century. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but they were updated during Wiki Loves Pride, and I added related information, of interest to those following LGBTQ topics, at the time to each page, which is why I added those categories. I completely disagree that they are completely unrelated to LGBTQ topics. Of course they ARE related, whether the shows have canonical themes or not, sorry to say. I'm not going to get in an edit war here, but if you want to discuss this further, then I strongly suggest starting a topic at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Loves Pride as to the scope of when and where these categories should be applied. That would be a fair thing to do and I'd support that. I don't wish to discuss this further here, as a discussion on the scope of when and where Wiki Loves Pride should be applied would be more relevant to users beyond the two of us. Otherwise, I didn't think adding these categories would be "controversial" or mislead people, as you are saying. It isn't an "original categorization" either, it is reflective of my editing on each of those pages and the content on each page. That's all it is. Sigh.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a thread about this last month, including mentioning Ann Shirley, but it was effectively ignored. So what's the point of this event at all if you're adding shows that have never had a direct connection to LGBTQ topics? If we start adding all the articles that have some ships or are just interesting to the queer audience outside of the topics, then this event will simply lose all meaning. The idea that articles about a non-queer show could have direct relevance to a queer event is self-contradictory by definition. I don't mind if you have an interest in these pages as part of personal queer reading, but in this form it already looks like abuse, to be honest. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that thread before you just linked it, sorry. I have so many topics on my watchlist that if I did see it, I may have missed it. I would have participated in it if I had seen it earlier. But, I'll remedy that later today. I'll try to share it on the LGBTQ project. I do get updates from that. It isn't. I do think there's some flexibility when it comes to issues which aren't directly connected to LGBTQ topics. I'm not wedded to those two pages having the Wiki Loves Pride notice. In fact, I'm okay with them being removed, but with a caveat (see my my last paragraph of this comment).
Otherwise, you say that if we add "all the articles that have some ships or are just interesting to the queer audience outside of the topics, then this event will simply lose all meaning." That is a fair point. You go onto say "the idea that articles about a non-queer show could have direct relevance to a queer event is self-contradictory by definition" and say "I don't mind if you have an interest in these pages as part of personal queer reading, but in this form it already looks like abuse, to be honest." I have to dispute that this is "abuse." That isn't accurate. Otherwise, I do think that a non-queer show could have "direct relevance to a queer event" under the right circumstances.
However, I was thinking about it over lunch and there is a possibility of what we could if there's a series that is yurish. Option 1, as I see it, is to carefully add a section to Yuri (genre) about it, carefully attributing claims of yuri subtext but not directly saying "oh, this series has yuri themes" if that makes sense. Option 2 is just leave the yuri subtext, as some reviewers point out, in the reception section (i.e. the status quo). Option 3 is to do what is proposed inn option 2 but also add, carefully, a section to the Romantic friendship page about anime and/or manga with intimate friendship (Anne Shirley would be a good example of this, and Erica Friedman has written about other series with similar themes before, in articles like this one). That's just some thoughts I had. Historyday01 (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you want to say perfectly well and could agree with you, but in its current form the project description creates the impression that all articles created or developed within its framework are devoted to LGBTQ topics. At the very least, it would be difficult for me to call "LGBTQ content" the addition to an article about an obviously straight show that the author of one of the reviews considers the characters' relationship to be "almost romantic friendship". Perhaps the issue can be resolved by some change in wording, etc., but in its current form it looks like a very non-obvious connection that creates difficulties both on the Wiki loves Pride side, blurring the subject matter of its articles, and on the side of articles about anime, since out of context this template can easily convince the reader that they is reading an LGBTQ article or at least the wiki itself considers it to be so. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have a good point there. That's why, in my view, Option 3 is a bit attractive, in that I'd just have to find enough about romantic friendship to add to that section. By the way, someone could even add something about female friendship to the Female bonding page as well, as that page could surely use some improvement (it's okay, but it doesn't cite many sources). I hope people reply to your discussion. I shared my view, but who knows if people will have similar views. I do think having some guidelines on this would be... a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if or how this is possible, but I would support a separate clause stating that articles created or developed within the project may also not be objective or obvious queer content, but at least have a noticeable discussion within the context of queer reading or other topics. For example, JoJo is not an objective gay show, but the show is widely discussed and explored within the context of its homoeroticism. If this is somehow specifically stipulated, then I don't see a problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose that either. We would just have to define what "a noticeable discussion" means. Historyday01 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned this in the topic, we can discuss it. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for "yuri-ish" themes, a lot depends on what you mean by that term. Because in modern Western parlance, that word, like "implied yuri subtext", is often overused to shift the topic into a discussion of "queer reading" when it's really about idealized friendship or fanservicey female friendship in a show for a male audience. Erika's article you cited is emphasizing the importance of female friendship beyond trying to pair up female characters on various ships at any cost, which I've always respected her for bringing up despite her love for yuri. So while I'm not against the topic itself, it's a very minefield, and it's also partly covered in the article itself, by saying that the term yuri itself doesn't necessarily imply lesbian romance or attraction. Maybe sometime in the future after we understand how to describe it and based on what sources (for example, the conditional section "yuri and anime romantic friendship", which also described the confusion of concepts on the part of viewers). Solaire the knight (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was a bit of my concern too, which is why I was leaning more toward options 2 and 3. Defining yuri subtext could really be a mindfield. Just look at people posting on the queerbaiting page? That page has been a mess for a while, and a lot of the issues are still not even resolved. On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to a section, at the very least on it, described something like "yuri and anime romantic friendship" as you are pointing out. Historyday01 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, many articles from this "gray zone" should have been rewritten a long time ago, because they are often very disordered in matters of context. For example, the article on homoeroticism very weakly describes the homoerotic subtext as an artistic tool outside of actual homoerotic themes, while the article on queerbaiting ignores the use of the theme as pure fan service, describing it only as a way to attract a queer audience, which is far from significant in the context of the same anime yuri and BL bait. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people have tried to rewrite the queerbaiting article (see the Talk:Queerbaiting#Removal of the list under “examples”. discussion, which took place in 2023 and a little bit this year) but had the seeming consensus implemented. I mean, that "Some of this section's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed." has been there for the "Examples" section since August 2021. Historyday01 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Example lists like these are often quite problematic because they are often compiled on a sensational basis based on keywords. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the problem with that list. If I have time, I may just boldly combine it into a paragraph sometime this year. Historyday01 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About Queerbaiting? Solaire the knight (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm talking about the queerbaiting article. I was the person who proposed merging all those examples into a paragraph a while ago. Historyday01 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest creating a section of several paragraphs that summarizes and discusses the most common instances of queerbaiting, such as attracting a queer audience, fanservice for an audience of the opposite sex, or so-called "virtue signaling," when it's done for positive media exposure. While some things like the Hibike may be quirky, despite its memetic reputation as a symbol of yuri bait, the main reason for queerbaiting was the excessive use of homoerotic tools, which was then turned into a selling point for the show. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely sounds doable. Historyday01 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UPD. I looked at your edits in these articles. So, do you think that an indirect description of queer reading in general overviews of the show or a few short sentences about how the friendship of two straight characters is a romantic friendship/follows Class S traditions is enough to connect a show without any canonical or explicit queer themes with a queer project? I've read the project rules a few times and in my opinion it's pretty clear that articles must be LGBTQ-themed and not just have some oblique reference to LGBTQ in order to be related to it. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that under certain circumstances, such articles could be included. I'll talk more about that on the thread. I don't want to repeat myself two places. Otherwise, see my other above comment for a fuller response. Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the thematic project is practically dead, so I duplicated the topic in the discussion of the anime project. If you want you can also leave any comment there. In any case I will not delete anything or cancel your edits again until the issue is resolved. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was a good idea. I tried to post about it in the most neutral way on the LGBTQ project. Will that result in people commenting in the discussion? Maybe. I hope so. Historyday01 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri demographic LTA

[edit]

Thanks for removing that IP's commentary on Talk:Bloom Into You. The user leaving that comment is a persistent LTA who has been frequently returning to edit war over the demographics of yuri manga and light novels; this isn't a behavior unique to them obviously (part of the reason I've brought up the idea of deprecating the demographic parameter in the template at Template talk:Infobox animanga) but it's usually pretty easy to tell when it's them because of their inflammatory edit summaries and talk page discussions accusing anyone who reverts their edits of being a "predatory pedophilic man fetishizing lesbians" or whatever. If you see them again my recommendation is to just revert them and report them to AIV. I tried responding to and warning them early on and mostly just got personally harassed on my user talk page for the trouble. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for the tip about that user. I'll definitely keep that in mind. It's sad there are people like that lurking on here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've already vandalized the article itself several times, adding that yuri can supposedly only be loved by women, etc (people like this seem to imply that lesbians are asexual and only men are attracted to female characters). Also, regarding Utena, I remind you that we shouldn't care what critics or fans think. Only how the potential sexuality of the characters is described by the show itself and the author. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When it comes to Utena, it does seem to be a bit up in the air as to *exact* sexuality stated (since neither of them say "oh I'm lesbian" or "oh I'm bisexual" in the show itself), so I think the best compromise is to say that Anthy and Utena are queer, while noting other interpretations (that they are lesbian or gay, or that they are bisexual). That's just my view on it. I think critics can be helpful in adding information for those entries along with what the author says (like I did something similar for the entry on Princess Bubblegum on the List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010–2014 page; she shares an entry with Marceline the Vampire Queen because it was easier to do that way), and I believe my edits to those entries balanced that. However, I'm always open to discussion on the talk pages of those animated series articles. On the positive, a lot of people have written about Utena, in many reliable sources, so there's a lot to choose from. This is all part of my slow efforts to try and update entries on pages like List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 1990–1999 (where the entries for Utena are right now) but it is taking a long time because there's so many entries. I've thought many times about if here should be a task force *just* to tackle animated series with LGBTQ characters, but I'm not sure if there'd be enough participation by users to even make it worthwhile. Historyday01 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is easy to indicate that a character likes characters of both sexes or their own sex. Analytics are acceptable if they are based on authoritative sources, but for the article itself, not the list. Because this is largely guesswork. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I will say that I watched the Adolescence of Utena film recently for the FIRST TIME (after finishing my Utena rewatch), and damn is that film so, so gay. Like in a 1,000 ways. Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't write about it in the article itself hehe. Otherwise, as I said, sources with interpretation of sexuality or relationships of characters are not something bad, but it is more suitable for articles about the works themselves than for the list. Since in the list we are interested only in the strict fact. For example, we can easily write about the popularity of reading Frodo and Sam as men in love, but this obviously won't fit for the list, since Tolkien didn't even discuss it in principle. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girl

[edit]

Hi! Bad Girl looks like a blurry yuri bait, which people often see as yuri so far, so I've temporarily removed it until there's any more explicit development. Japanese sources describe it as admiration several times, so writing this based solely on Western media can lead to a trap. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm willing to have it off for now. I was on the fence if to add it or not, anyhow.--Historyday01 (talk) 11:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to check the original manga on Japanese book resources, but it seems to be a bit of a mess right now. Some works with explicit female friendship are posted as yuri, while works with explicit romance are untag. But in this case, it all looks like yuri bait at the very least, so I've returned your addition and just suggest waiting until the show has some development. Solaire the knight (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overreacting at Talk:Ollie & Scoops

[edit]

Look, I am here to inform. I was just explaining why the line was a problem. That long comment you posted was quite an WP:OVERREACTion. I suggest that you calm down for a bit. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 00:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Sigh. Anyway, I'm not going to be on here for a couple weeks, so feel free to start a discussion and involve other users about it. I still think that line segment could be useful, but also, I'm not dedicated to keeping it either. It is a real struggle to find good sources for that page, I will openly admit, so that's probably part of the reason I reacted the way I did as well... Historyday01 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think that the line about Nico Colaleo should be moved to the Production and release section, as it's more relevant there because it talks about the people involved in the making of the show, including, of course, Colaleo. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 15:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that section already somewhat talks about it, but it doesn't mention DreamWorks TV. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 15:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyday01&oldid=1301781269"