This category is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This category is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hi - I nominated this category for deletion, but it was closed as no consensus, so I'm hoping to see if we can create inclusion guidelines here. Does anyone want to take a shot at what merits inclusion in this category? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I would include articles and sub-categories which specifically cover women by cause of death, articles on said causes, women who caused the death of others, or feminine depictions of death in religion, art, etc. I would exclude anything with only peripheral connection to death (war, battles, duels, failed assassination attempts, etc) and articles or categories which cover both genders. Dimadick (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I would include whatever is currently in the category. How to describe that I don't know. Hmains (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
that's a pretty bad inclusion criteria. Dimadick, why do you think causes of death of women should be joined with women who killed others? What do the two have in common? As you know, death itself is pretty common, it's not some unique thing that happens rarely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As you pointed, what they have in common is death. A wide subject such as death allows for more articles to be included and wider scope of topics. - "Rarity" is usually a criterion to avoid creating a category. It is not a mark of uniqueness, it simply signifies that the scope of a category is in single digits and thus questionable. Dimadick (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just gone through the similar Category:Children and death and moved all but 3 of the articles that were directly in it into subcats (or removed them from the category) - e.g. I've separated child murderers from child victims. I think we should do the same for the women category (might be best to wait a few days in case there's any feedback on the recategorization I did for the children articles). I agree with the statement made in a recent (7th Sept) CFD: "A category, with limited exceptions, should reflect a characteristic that is both shared by all of its members and defining for them in a similar way." (my emphasis). DexDor (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
We need to scrap a lot of the articles involved. How does Missing white women syndrome go here, when many of the people involved do not die? I also have to say I question the racialization in the article after how heavily the kidnapping of Tiane Brown, an African-American law student at Wayne State University Law School was covered late last month.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)