Better naming of this article

Would it not be better to instead of having "Known Homosexuals" have the heading changed to "Known LGBT individuals"? Include only characters announced to be in this category, and not speculated characters would be the best way to do this I think. That way, this page can serve as a category and I think this would please both sides. I think the word 'known homosexuals' is almost slightly a prejudiced way to phrase this too. ThatJosh (talk) 16:02, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that's what I just did. For future notice, though, people would assume that the newest message on a talk page is at the bottom rather than up at the top. -- Saxon 16:35, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

A tad silly, no?

Oh, come on! "Possible bisexuals"? Every single character in the series could be a "possible bisexual". Hagrid? Charlie? McGonagall never marries, is she a lesbian? How about Sprout? Flitwick? There is a fine line between information pertaining to the subject, and complete and utter insanity. I suggest we find where that line is, and build a huge electrified, barbed wire fence over it! Jayden Matthews 15:02, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, just because it was never mentioned that they were married, or who they married does not make them a homosexual or bisexual. Its ridiculous. If it was never mentioned that Harry married Ginny, would that mean he married another man or something? No. Gryffindor1991 17:31, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Known Homosexuals?

As a Known Homosexual myself, I find this a little accusatory. As though we were looking for them? I think "Out Wizards," or maybe "Gay Wizards" would be preferable. The word homosexual is acceptable academically, but the term gay is just a lot softer and less scientific. I don't really know how to explain it, but all the hate groups call us homosexuals while we generally just use gay. Food for thought. 03:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I, too, find the word a bit clinical. However, this is an encyclopedia. I think most people will probably prefer to use a more formal context. Maybe we could just change it to "Homosexual wizards"? Jayden Matthews 08:45, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
To be completely honest, I don't see the need for this article to exist at all... It's doesn't really deal with any concepts that are otherwise unknown to anybody, and it is just one known in-universe fact along with a bunch of speculation. Just saying. — beeurd talk 21:12, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


I'm sorry but this article seems completely ridiculous. Sexual orientation is not something distinct or exclusive to the Harry Potter series and it shouldn't have it's own page. If sexual orientation can have a page then why not have an article on Males and Females and shoes and socks. I think I could accept this page if it wasn't a huge load of BS, but you list Viktor Krum and Cho Chang as "possible bisexuals"? Really? It's infuriating to be honest and it's nothing more than grasping at straws....small straws at that. My opinion of the HP wiki dropped when I saw this page. I am a roll back user on a very accurate and high quality wiki and an administrator on another and I can tell you that we would never allow an article like this to stay. I'm not saying that there's something wrong with the Harry Potter Wiki, i'm just saying that it would be a lot better if pages like this didn't exist. {{SUBST:User:IamJakuhoRaikoben/Sig|05:26,11/29/2011}}

Regarding notability, we've actually been working on a policy regarding it, and you're welcome to take a look at the proposed draft. I agree that certain articles do set a bad precedent and certain articles have been deleted for exactly that, or have been proposed for deletion. Though, I don't think anyone has proposed deleting this particular article. In this case, the subject matter was deemed worthy likely specifically due to the subject of the character Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation. However, I agree that the material regarding Krum and Chang should almost certainly be removed.. Edit -- seems it just was removed, and good riddance too. ProfessorTofty 05:57, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
My greatest problem with the article was the Krum/Chang thing so with that removed I have no complaints. :) {{SUBST:User:IamJakuhoRaikoben/Sig|01:01,11/30/2011}}
To be honest, I think this article would have relativity if its content was a bit more HPverse specific. It'd have been good if we could get a clearance on how exactly sexual orientation is treated in the Wizarding world cause that is indeed a relevant subject, if we're gonna create a page it should at the very least be important and helpful for the reader and not contain speculation. To create a page for this sort of thing seems unnessecary unless there's noteable differences between how its treated in our world and among wizards and witches. If the goal is to create a place where you can easily find the relevant LGBT witches and wizards, then this should simply be made into a category or something. Njalm (talk) 18:38, June 25, 2013 (UTC)