Talk:Amanda Filipacchi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:American novelists[edit]

This category eventually ended up empty, which is a standard fate for "diffusing" categories. leaving aside the amusing conceit that, according to the original argument, there are now no American novelists any more, it would be rather good if the story could be completed. Of course RS would be needed to do so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Seems like they could also make it a non-diffusing category that includes everyone AND has the spinoff categories, that is perfectly within WP guidelines and sometimes necessary. Montanabw(talk) 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Whichever way it's done, maybe every bio category needs a note explaining how these categorizations come about. Love it or hate it, at least you'd understand it - and so would editors... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I think editors do understand it. And there is a note:
on all these categories. We have apparently 29,512 novelists in 1,537 novelist categories. And 7,170 American novelists in 52 American novelist categories. (Apparently - because there are always flaws in the category tree.)
We will never know what would have happened if Filipacchi hadn't written that article and emailed all her friends, but previous experience suggests either that would have happened (diffusing), or the gender subcats would have been upmerged.
As I say I would like to see a RS for what actually happened at the end of the day.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
I like the idea of a talk page explanation, though. There are many different reasons for making categories difusing or non-diffusing. Those that were the result of a significant dispute or issue should be so noted. Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah for the notes!! Last time I looked at some writing related major category, maybe 6 weeks ago, if there was a note, it wasn't obvious with all the names of individuals listed below the subcategories which I went straight to looking for.
I do see there is another note which is on Novelists (i.e., template {{catdiffuse}}) which reads in greater detail:
Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories.
That's even better because it encourages editors to remove the inevitable listings from editors who don't know any better or are too lazy to search for appropriate categories and just dump the name in the main category. Anyway, I hope this means we don't have to hear any more discussion of "ghettoization" and this is now the standard categorization regime. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy being rehashed[edit]

FYI this controversy being rehashed at Wikipedia:Why women edit less. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

That discussion has nothing to do with the use of "female" as an adjective. You are mistaken if you think there is anything controversial about it. Two editors have already reverted you, please either accept that you are wrong or make your case before edit warring over this. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: Are you saying that because you and have reverted my edits readers of this page should accept the use of a derogatory term applied to to women? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
You believe that the use of "female" as an adjective is derogatory. I disagree and respectfully suggest that you have misunderstood the difference between referring to women as "females" and the use of the word "female" as an adjective to describe a person's gender. In any case, an IP editor reverted your change which was the signal for you to start a discussion instead of editwarring. If you want to make a case for your assertion that "female" as an adjective is derogatory, you should start that discussion somewhere else, such as a manual of style talk page, not here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech:, I have a query. Where you insist on "as well as women novelists", if we changed the gender would you insist on "as well as men novelists"? Moriori (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Moriori: Are you asking if men novelists should be used as opposed to male novelists? If so, yes I believe this is much preferable. Just as when one uses the adjective female, there are negative connotations associated with the use of male as an adjective. For example: male strippers / male prostitutes, etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Luckily for the quality of Wikipedia content, your preference is unlikely to ever be the norm.Moriori (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Are you making a joke here or are you seriously suggesting that someone might take offense to the "male" part of male stripper or male prostitute? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)