![]() | This category was nominated for renaming on 9 February 2024. The result of the discussion was not renamed. |
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion review on 2007 March 23. The result of the discussion was Relist. |
Despite what the above template says about the discussion being inconclusive, the category "women writers" has been removed. However, I would argue that it should be reinstated. It represents a legitimate sub-section of literary study, widely recognized. Despite what some have said it is a useful category, not just in academia but on Wikipedia as well. Just look at the number of lists of women's writing various Wikipedia editors have initiated and spend time building. I find it astonishing that the main category of "writers" has such an extensive list of subcategories but this, a major field, has been removed. One can claim that gender has nothing to do with publication, as some have done, but this flies in the face of accepted literary history. The reclamation of women's writing has been a major task of literary scholars, and the task is still ongoing. Only someone completely ignorant of literary history would think that women writers have historically had equal access to publication. Major publishing houses produce series of women's texts; universities recognize women's writing as a specific and discrete field of study; tens of thousands of pages of books and articles have been devoted to studying women's writing, AS women's writing. By removing the category we risk losing credibility. And we risk looking politically reactionary, by not reflecting the state of the field of literary history as it is generally practiced. Some may think having a "women writers" category does not reflect a neutral point of view -- that it is "feminist" -- but I think removing it means that the neutral POV is at risk. I would argue for a reinstatement of the category. scribblingwoman 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that after the deletion review concluded without consensus, this category has been relisted at CfD: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women_writers.
Readers may also be interested that Category:Women poets was deleted last year: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Women_poets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering whether "genre" might not be more useful to most people who might be using these categories? "Format" implies more concrete qualities about the actual production of texts, whereas "genre" is a literary rather than a publishing category. Thoughts? scribblingwoman (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What think ye?
scribblingwoman (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Whatever we choose will have problems, but that seems the most inclusive. And it avoids the imperialism of us eighteenth-century types, who grab everything from 1660 until, in some cases, Victoria took the throne. Here is a draft list, following and extrapolating from the periodization on Medieval literature. Please comment, change, and/or amend:
- Women writers (early medieval period)
- Women writers (10th century)
- Women writers (11th century)
- Women writers (12th century)
- Women writers (13th century)
- Women writers (14th century)
- Women writers (15th century)
- Women writers (16th century)
- Women writers (17th century)
- Women writers (18th century)
- Women writers (19th century)
- Women writers (20th century)
- Women writers (21st century)
Of course, lots of people will be in two categories, but that would happen whichever way it was arranged.— scribbling woman 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
see my comment at Category talk:Women writers by historical period. I don't think it is very productive to start a categorization scheme idiosyncratic to women writers. Assume I started a similar initiative subdividing Category:Finnish writers. Please try to organize categorization of Category:Literature top-down, not bottom-up, making use of the existing structure of Category:History of literature. It is, for example, a long-standing desideratum to rename Category:13th century books etc. to Category:13th century literature etc.; there can be "writers" subcategories there, and, if you absolutely insist "men" and "women" subcategories to that. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Women screenwriters is being
considered for deletion. —
scribbling
woman
02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Women screenwriters was kindly withdrawn from discussion by the nominator, but then re-nominated here by someone else. In addition, Category:Women television writers is also up for discussion. — scribbling woman 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You know that this is a disputed category, so it would be decent to show some restraint. Subcategorisation will result in some women ending up in half a dozen or more gendered category, which is wildly disproportionate, and makes it so obvious that this particular part of Wikipedia is being controlled by people who are using the project to promote their political views. Abberley2 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categorization of people — "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise. In that case, please specify the reason on the category page, and record the consensus on its associated discussion page" — I have drafted an introduction for the main category page. Please comment and/or edit! — scribbling woman 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up given the recent and ongoing wrangling over this category and its subcategories, but I recently discovered a small mother-lode of sub-categories related to feminist literature. I have tried to place them appropriately within Category:Women writers but frankly they are going to need some work. They are by and large underpopulated and some of them overlap. Thoughts on how best to proceed here? And, should they even be here at all or should we let them languish elsewhere? Commonsense would indicate feminist writers would be an appropriate subcategory of women writers, but my commonsense may not be other peoples'. And how does one determine what is feminist? Presumably some overt engagement with feminist themes and/or politics, but it is arguably a slippery slope. I would suggest at the very least that we think of merging some of them (eg. "feminist novels" into "feminist fiction"). — scribbling woman 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This may or may not be the appropriate place to bring this up, but surely the correct name for the category is female writers? Women is a plural noun, it is not an adjective. This is very different from say the article Women's Writing in English, which is using it as its proper noun form.
I'm not making a gross misinterpretation of the English language here am I? -- Matthew Proctor 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This category was nominated for renaming on 9 February 2024. The result of the discussion was not renamed. |
![]() | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This category was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion review on 2007 March 23. The result of the discussion was Relist. |
Despite what the above template says about the discussion being inconclusive, the category "women writers" has been removed. However, I would argue that it should be reinstated. It represents a legitimate sub-section of literary study, widely recognized. Despite what some have said it is a useful category, not just in academia but on Wikipedia as well. Just look at the number of lists of women's writing various Wikipedia editors have initiated and spend time building. I find it astonishing that the main category of "writers" has such an extensive list of subcategories but this, a major field, has been removed. One can claim that gender has nothing to do with publication, as some have done, but this flies in the face of accepted literary history. The reclamation of women's writing has been a major task of literary scholars, and the task is still ongoing. Only someone completely ignorant of literary history would think that women writers have historically had equal access to publication. Major publishing houses produce series of women's texts; universities recognize women's writing as a specific and discrete field of study; tens of thousands of pages of books and articles have been devoted to studying women's writing, AS women's writing. By removing the category we risk losing credibility. And we risk looking politically reactionary, by not reflecting the state of the field of literary history as it is generally practiced. Some may think having a "women writers" category does not reflect a neutral point of view -- that it is "feminist" -- but I think removing it means that the neutral POV is at risk. I would argue for a reinstatement of the category. scribblingwoman 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that after the deletion review concluded without consensus, this category has been relisted at CfD: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women_writers.
Readers may also be interested that Category:Women poets was deleted last year: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 5#Category:Women_poets. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering whether "genre" might not be more useful to most people who might be using these categories? "Format" implies more concrete qualities about the actual production of texts, whereas "genre" is a literary rather than a publishing category. Thoughts? scribblingwoman (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
What think ye?
scribblingwoman (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Whatever we choose will have problems, but that seems the most inclusive. And it avoids the imperialism of us eighteenth-century types, who grab everything from 1660 until, in some cases, Victoria took the throne. Here is a draft list, following and extrapolating from the periodization on Medieval literature. Please comment, change, and/or amend:
- Women writers (early medieval period)
- Women writers (10th century)
- Women writers (11th century)
- Women writers (12th century)
- Women writers (13th century)
- Women writers (14th century)
- Women writers (15th century)
- Women writers (16th century)
- Women writers (17th century)
- Women writers (18th century)
- Women writers (19th century)
- Women writers (20th century)
- Women writers (21st century)
Of course, lots of people will be in two categories, but that would happen whichever way it was arranged.— scribbling woman 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
see my comment at Category talk:Women writers by historical period. I don't think it is very productive to start a categorization scheme idiosyncratic to women writers. Assume I started a similar initiative subdividing Category:Finnish writers. Please try to organize categorization of Category:Literature top-down, not bottom-up, making use of the existing structure of Category:History of literature. It is, for example, a long-standing desideratum to rename Category:13th century books etc. to Category:13th century literature etc.; there can be "writers" subcategories there, and, if you absolutely insist "men" and "women" subcategories to that. dab (𒁳) 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Women screenwriters is being
considered for deletion. —
scribbling
woman
02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Women screenwriters was kindly withdrawn from discussion by the nominator, but then re-nominated here by someone else. In addition, Category:Women television writers is also up for discussion. — scribbling woman 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You know that this is a disputed category, so it would be decent to show some restraint. Subcategorisation will result in some women ending up in half a dozen or more gendered category, which is wildly disproportionate, and makes it so obvious that this particular part of Wikipedia is being controlled by people who are using the project to promote their political views. Abberley2 20:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categorization of people — "Use gender-neutral category names, unless there is a distinct reason and consensus to do otherwise. In that case, please specify the reason on the category page, and record the consensus on its associated discussion page" — I have drafted an introduction for the main category page. Please comment and/or edit! — scribbling woman 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate to bring this up given the recent and ongoing wrangling over this category and its subcategories, but I recently discovered a small mother-lode of sub-categories related to feminist literature. I have tried to place them appropriately within Category:Women writers but frankly they are going to need some work. They are by and large underpopulated and some of them overlap. Thoughts on how best to proceed here? And, should they even be here at all or should we let them languish elsewhere? Commonsense would indicate feminist writers would be an appropriate subcategory of women writers, but my commonsense may not be other peoples'. And how does one determine what is feminist? Presumably some overt engagement with feminist themes and/or politics, but it is arguably a slippery slope. I would suggest at the very least that we think of merging some of them (eg. "feminist novels" into "feminist fiction"). — scribbling woman 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This may or may not be the appropriate place to bring this up, but surely the correct name for the category is female writers? Women is a plural noun, it is not an adjective. This is very different from say the article Women's Writing in English, which is using it as its proper noun form.
I'm not making a gross misinterpretation of the English language here am I? -- Matthew Proctor 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)