Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism
| Main page | Talk page | Members | Resources | Popular pages |
|---|
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Feminism and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Feminism page. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
missing women philosophers
Hi all - as of late, I've been working a lot on bios of women philosophers. We were missing a lot of people who were not only notable, but foundational in their fields. Alison Jaggar for instance had no Wikipedia article at all until I wrote it this week. I would like to eventually transform my own efforts in to something like Keilana's Wikiproject Women Scientists, except for philosophers. I haven't set up all the infrastructure yet for an actual wikiproject, but for now I've put up a page in my own user space - here - that has a partial list of notable women philosophers who currently don't have articles. If anyone has the time and inclination, some help filling some of them out would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add new names to the list, too! Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is great! I've added it to the open tasks, where I'm trying to assemble all of these lists. Wadewitz (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- The following links may help: (redacted) (Potential) women philosophers who aren't yet tagged as women philosophers - note this second one will have many false positives; that's because we intersect Category:Philosophers with Category:Women and it turns out that as you dig down, Category:Philosophers contains many people who aren't (like Category:Minimalist_artists) and Category:Women contains many people who aren't women, but it's a useful start and may help in cleaning up the Category:Philosophers tree... You can tweak the depth to get more or less hits, but as you go deeper the false positives increase... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- erp the ghettoized search doesn't work. Need to think about it more carefully. Here's one that sort of works just for American philosophers: link, but the general case is harder to solve.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- The following links may help: (redacted) (Potential) women philosophers who aren't yet tagged as women philosophers - note this second one will have many false positives; that's because we intersect Category:Philosophers with Category:Women and it turns out that as you dig down, Category:Philosophers contains many people who aren't (like Category:Minimalist_artists) and Category:Women contains many people who aren't women, but it's a useful start and may help in cleaning up the Category:Philosophers tree... You can tweak the depth to get more or less hits, but as you go deeper the false positives increase... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Women by Ethnicity nominated for deletion.
Category:Women by ethnicity is being considered for deletion. Anybody interested in commenting, can do so at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_4#Category:Women_by_ethnicity. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Stub needing help
Role of women in Pakistani media is a horrid article, but we should almost certainly have coverage of the subject, and there may be enough to keep it separate from Women in Pakistan. Either way, I wanted to give it a chance... Steven Walling • talk 08:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should just redirect. The Women in Pakistan is a decent article, and I don't see a need for a breakout of just media here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
More categories up for deletion/discussion
See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism#Article alerts. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
General discussion?
I confess I get confused on category deletions like these sometimes and who has time to look at them all. Is there some general pattern or dubious principle we should be aware of to motivate us to look further? Thanks. CM-DC 
talk 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:EGRS contains the guidance around gendered categories. There are several things to be aware of (1) Normally, we don't do gender + whatever intersections - you have to establish that the gender + {topic} is notable and discussed in multiple RS (2) In the particular Canadian case, there aren't any other instances of {Women} from {Province}/{City}/{State} - we do have intersections around {gender} + {certain jobs}, but not classifying people by {Gender} + {location}, with the exception of country-level boundaries. Another general rule is to not create last-rung categories - where you are splitting the last level of a category by gender - the reason is that this tends to ghettoize women, and those of you who followed the women novelists mess remember what a brouhaha that caused. I've done a lot of work in de-ghettoizing categories (I did Category:Female duellists yesterday), and developed an algorithm here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#Deghettoization_algorithm that those interested in deghettoizing can use, but in some cases it's frankly better to delete the categories if they are more likely than not to lead to ghettoization (or if they violate WP:EGRS). Properly dealing with non-diffusing categories, which most gender-based (and ethnic/religious/sexuality) categories need to be is actually quite complex, as you can tell by reading the algorithm. Therefore, consensus at CFD seems to set a relatively high bar for ethnic/sexuality/gender/religion-based categories. I'm really hoping to get more support around dynamic category intersection, which would allow us to do {gender} + {arbitrary topic} without the need to actually categorize thousands of articles as such, but for now not many people have expressed interest in helping - drop a note on my talk page if you'd like to assist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- @CM-DC: Thanks for starting this discussion. If you click Special:RecentChangesLinked/ Category:Forbes_most_powerful_women you will see what will happen when you click on the Related changes of Category:Forbes_most_powerful_women. This is the type of watchlist information that will be lost when this particular category is deleted. Am I making sense? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- But that applies to any category, so I'm not sure why it would be an argument to keep this particular one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Statistics about deletion of women biography categories
During the two weeks period starting October 30, 2013 there have been 24 women-biographyCategories nominated for "discussion" compared to only 35 non-gendered CfDs. Since there are far less women-related categories to start with, this should be cause for alarm. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I ran the statistics on this, and got a different result. I looked at all CFDs since October 24, and then filtered to just categories that were meant to contain people; then tagged each category with a "gender". I found 22 "female" categories, "23 "Male" categories, and 62 "neutral" categories that were nominated for discussion (this should really be 82, since there was a group nom of Honorable degree recipients). So, I'm not sure what exactly is the cause for alarm. A large number of the "women" cats nominated were from a tree that you yourself very recently started in Canada, which is basically a duplicate of Category:Women in Canada by province or territory. It's hard to know for sure, but there are likely more "Women/female" specific categories than male/men specific ones overall in the tree - in either case, there are something like 6-8,000 categories for each.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's possible that you don't see the problem with 22 women-related categories being discussed for deletion in the last couple of weeks because you're specifically the one who nominated a dozen of them to be deleted. Your chart doesn't address that you've made the lion's share of nominations involving women here as well as being the editor responsible for nominating categories about feminists and rape victims for deletion. Maybe you find this too small a point to mention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to say I nominated several of them, and I've nominated many other categories for discussion over the years. I do a lot of maintenance on categories, and sometimes, deleting or merging categories is the best way to keep the system working. I've also, in the past few weeks, populated and deghettoized Category:Female explorers, Category:Female travelers, Category:Women travel writers and Category:Female duellists as well as a few others, in some cases adding dozens of more bios to these categories. I personally think we shouldn't genderize everything, it makes categorization more difficult and is more likely to lead to ghettoization - this is my experience from looking at hundreds of gendered categories over the past 6 months - the vast majority of them just end up segregating women, which caused a massive hoopla when it happened with women novelists. I'm currently working on a proposal to get rid of the down-to-the-lowest-level genderization of acting categories that is now going on, which I find excessive (e.g. Category:American telenovela actresses, Category:Actresses from Phoenix, Arizona, Category:Male actors from Kansas City, Missouri), etc - we got rid of the "women writers by state" categories, and I think we don't need this level of split for actresses and male actors either. I'd really prefer we just used simple category intersections instead. You make it seem like me nominating Category:Murdered feminists is something bad (you'll notice it is trending towards a strong delete, so I'm not the only one who thinks murder victim + ideology is a bad mix), but it's not - it's simply an intersection we shouldn't start categorizing by; the nomination of Category:Radical lesbian feminists is also b/c it's a violation of WP:EGRS, which says you should not have last-run categories, which this one is. (the last rung rule is why we don't, and shouldn't, have categories like Category:Lesbian voice actors from New York. The reason I've nominated the Category:Rape victims category is because I don't think every woman who has been raped needs to have this tag at the bottom of her page - I think it's a BLP nightmare personally - there's a huge difference from coming out publicly in one interview and saying you've been raped, and having "rape victim" alongside "author" and "born 1945" and "from Seattle, WA" - as if being raped DEFINES you - per IAR, for this particular category, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits - if we add it to a victim and they see it there, they may be insulted; if we take it off a particular victim's category, they may think wikipedia is saying "You aren't really a rape victim" - it's a no-win scenario. In any case, if you have thoughts on the categories, please comment at CFD, we could always use more editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Simple category intersections don't include significant entries flagged by editors. 2. You removed the hatting on this chart and it seems disruptive and distracting. It gives the impression that you're trying to drown out discussion by hosing raw data at people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not the one who started this discussion, I simply added data to it that contradicts the initial assertion of "this should be a cause for alarm". If we're going to have a discussion of what gets nominated at CFD, let's start with the raw data. Stop making bogus accusations of "drowning out discussion". Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean about category intersection missing "significant" entries. Category intersection will always be more inclusive than any specific intersection tags that are placed. If there's an error, it can be easily corrected.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Elaqueate Now that the noise here has died down, I wonder if you could explain in simple words what hatting means. I have been around Wikipedia for over six years and I am still struggling with the jargon. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Hatting" usually refers to adding hatnote templates atop articles, though I don't know how it was used above. Could have meant "heading". czar ♔ 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I think I was using imprecise jargon myself. I saw someone write about "hatting" when they add some header and footer text to a discussion or table to collapse it. Help:Collapsing I think this table including all of article recommendations could be collapsed in some way, whether it's called hatting or collapsing or whatever. The point this table supports could have been made in a sentence, or a link to a table, or a collapsed table, instead of a wall of listings. I tried to collapse it earlier but was reverted. If someone else responds with another table, this discussion would be even more difficult to follow for a new reader. How do people feel about collapsing the 100-line table below so that it's one line that can be expanded? __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hatting is usually used to refer to use of {{Hat}} tags to shut down or close off one aspect of discussion, but can also be used for collapsing (instead of Hatting), although it's slightly imprecise. I don't Think We need to collapse that section just yet, it can remain until we get to the bottom of the issue Ottawa brought here. Feel free to add to the table columns or rows as needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously you want your table to dominate the talk page, but maybe people have a different opinion. I believe that if someone responded to one of your questions with a 100 line table, you would have collapsed it in a heartbeat. Please collapse it if requested. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think if we continue this, we will spend more time talking about collapsing the table than the contents of the table or the issue at hand. In general, it is fine to collapse your own comments, or to hat comments that are off-topic, but it is not generally considered permissible to collapse other's comments just because you believe they are too long, or at least you are welcome to try but should drop the stick if reverted. I suggest you drop the issue and engage in the actual discussion which Ottawa opened.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I collapsed your list in the interest of clarity, you reverted. I left it alone until I was pinged here. If you think you're not deliberately obstructing discussion, fine, but a table of raw data wouldn't universally be considered "a comment". It just seems a cheap way to hide the fact that women's categories put up for discussion spiked in the first half of November by adding undated raw listings from October. But I'm not going to collapse your list, if you think it proves something as it is. But the fact that a second section had to be started might tell you something about how helpful it's been. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think if we continue this, we will spend more time talking about collapsing the table than the contents of the table or the issue at hand. In general, it is fine to collapse your own comments, or to hat comments that are off-topic, but it is not generally considered permissible to collapse other's comments just because you believe they are too long, or at least you are welcome to try but should drop the stick if reverted. I suggest you drop the issue and engage in the actual discussion which Ottawa opened.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously you want your table to dominate the talk page, but maybe people have a different opinion. I believe that if someone responded to one of your questions with a 100 line table, you would have collapsed it in a heartbeat. Please collapse it if requested. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hatting is usually used to refer to use of {{Hat}} tags to shut down or close off one aspect of discussion, but can also be used for collapsing (instead of Hatting), although it's slightly imprecise. I don't Think We need to collapse that section just yet, it can remain until we get to the bottom of the issue Ottawa brought here. Feel free to add to the table columns or rows as needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh I think I was using imprecise jargon myself. I saw someone write about "hatting" when they add some header and footer text to a discussion or table to collapse it. Help:Collapsing I think this table including all of article recommendations could be collapsed in some way, whether it's called hatting or collapsing or whatever. The point this table supports could have been made in a sentence, or a link to a table, or a collapsed table, instead of a wall of listings. I tried to collapse it earlier but was reverted. If someone else responds with another table, this discussion would be even more difficult to follow for a new reader. How do people feel about collapsing the 100-line table below so that it's one line that can be expanded? __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Hatting" usually refers to adding hatnote templates atop articles, though I don't know how it was used above. Could have meant "heading". czar ♔ 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- 1. Simple category intersections don't include significant entries flagged by editors. 2. You removed the hatting on this chart and it seems disruptive and distracting. It gives the impression that you're trying to drown out discussion by hosing raw data at people. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to say I nominated several of them, and I've nominated many other categories for discussion over the years. I do a lot of maintenance on categories, and sometimes, deleting or merging categories is the best way to keep the system working. I've also, in the past few weeks, populated and deghettoized Category:Female explorers, Category:Female travelers, Category:Women travel writers and Category:Female duellists as well as a few others, in some cases adding dozens of more bios to these categories. I personally think we shouldn't genderize everything, it makes categorization more difficult and is more likely to lead to ghettoization - this is my experience from looking at hundreds of gendered categories over the past 6 months - the vast majority of them just end up segregating women, which caused a massive hoopla when it happened with women novelists. I'm currently working on a proposal to get rid of the down-to-the-lowest-level genderization of acting categories that is now going on, which I find excessive (e.g. Category:American telenovela actresses, Category:Actresses from Phoenix, Arizona, Category:Male actors from Kansas City, Missouri), etc - we got rid of the "women writers by state" categories, and I think we don't need this level of split for actresses and male actors either. I'd really prefer we just used simple category intersections instead. You make it seem like me nominating Category:Murdered feminists is something bad (you'll notice it is trending towards a strong delete, so I'm not the only one who thinks murder victim + ideology is a bad mix), but it's not - it's simply an intersection we shouldn't start categorizing by; the nomination of Category:Radical lesbian feminists is also b/c it's a violation of WP:EGRS, which says you should not have last-run categories, which this one is. (the last rung rule is why we don't, and shouldn't, have categories like Category:Lesbian voice actors from New York. The reason I've nominated the Category:Rape victims category is because I don't think every woman who has been raped needs to have this tag at the bottom of her page - I think it's a BLP nightmare personally - there's a huge difference from coming out publicly in one interview and saying you've been raped, and having "rape victim" alongside "author" and "born 1945" and "from Seattle, WA" - as if being raped DEFINES you - per IAR, for this particular category, I think the potential costs outweigh the benefits - if we add it to a victim and they see it there, they may be insulted; if we take it off a particular victim's category, they may think wikipedia is saying "You aren't really a rape victim" - it's a no-win scenario. In any case, if you have thoughts on the categories, please comment at CFD, we could always use more editors there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's possible that you don't see the problem with 22 women-related categories being discussed for deletion in the last couple of weeks because you're specifically the one who nominated a dozen of them to be deleted. Your chart doesn't address that you've made the lion's share of nominations involving women here as well as being the editor responsible for nominating categories about feminists and rape victims for deletion. Maybe you find this too small a point to mention. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
| Obi's findings including the week previous to discussion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This table lists the 3 previous weeks of categories nominated for discussion that were meant to contain biographies. If the category in question was for an individual man or woman, or designed to contain only men or women, it was tagged with 'M' or 'F' - otherwise it was tagged with 'N'. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Should the table be collapsed?Questions regarding the CfD table above
Opinion soughtShould all women-related categories be part of this wikiproject? Background:
So, do all women-related categories belong to this wikiproject? If not is there another project that encompasses all of them? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Request for help from AfC
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Barbara Risman and express an opinion about whether the article is suitable and ready for mainspace. Review comments can be posted at the top of the page in the space provided using the template {{afc comment|1=Comment text here ~~~~}} or you may post your comment here, as I will watch this topic. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Risman is notable so I went ahead and moved this to article space. The article could still use some copyediting for tone and additional references that support notability. Gobōnobō + c 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Move discussion of possible interest
There is a move discussion at Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Suggested_move about renaming the article to include the name men in the title. This may be of interest to some participants because of the gender issues surrounding article names for national sport teams where both a men and women's team exists but only one is gender denoted. --LauraHale (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Classification of revenge porn
The revenge porn article has undergone substantial changes, updates and improvements since someone from Project Feminism last gave it a classification. It would be great if someone could give the article another look-through to see whether it warrants an improved classification.
Thanks! Amphiggins (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, this is happening around North America - and hopefully beyond - on Feb 1 2014! Get involved! SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
AfD Sharon Presley
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharon_Presley. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 06:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Libertarian feminist bio kept, FYI. Needs more work since a bunch of new sources were found. So many articles, so little time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter to the infobox for films
The discussion at Template talk:Infobox film#Adding an optional "Bechdel test" parameter may be of interest to members of this project. Sandstein 21:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting that discussion Sandstein. I think it would also be worth exploring setting up a Bechdel test property for films over at Wikidata. Gobōnobō + c 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Girl power! Press kits? Not long to go now.
Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism mentions press kits being sent out. On the talk page of this imminent event, someone asked how to obtain these press kits.
Does anyone know? Please help preserve the legacy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- They mentioned it in their last email to satellite coordinators. I thought the main coordinators might see the talk page sooner since their email response times have been lengthy. czar ♔ 02:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi I am one of the organizers and can send you a press kit. Please email me at dhoward@metro.org Thanks!OR drohowa (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Article SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen marked for deletion 27 January 2014
Apologies for not knowing how to do this correctly. SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen was marked for deletion 27 January 2014. There currently are 3 keep votes of 3 votes total. --Ronja (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)