Talk:Alice Oseman

Pronouns
Alice’s pronouns are she/they and I don’t think that is accurately displayed in their Wikipedia article and I was wondering if that could be changed? 82.37.234.215 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Currently, common practice is to pick one pronoun and stick to it (in this case she), and this is for consistency reasons, as it says in [a]. This won't be changed. -- Roundish   ⋆  t c) 02:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate to say for sure that this won't be changed. Yes, it is very unlikely that the article could use multiple sets of pronouns, as Roundish is right that common practice is to stick to one set of pronouns. However, it is certainly possible (if not likely) that consensus could develop to use they/them in this article instead of she/her, if a solid argument and sources were presented. Just putting it out there that some degree of change is not impossible.
 * Also, I'll point out that their pronouns are stated both in a footnote after the first "she" and in the personal life section. Aerin17 (t • c) 03:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My bad, Aerin, I only meant that the pronouns would not be changed in the article immediately, without consensus. -- Roundish   ⋆  t c) 20:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Alice-oseman.jpg

Messy article and Manual of Style flaws
There are several problems with this page, first, there are some “Cite errors” througout the page. Second, there is a disparity between the lenghts of the article's sections, varying between a few lines (“Personal life” section) to lots of paragraphs (“Early life and education” section), making it hard to read. Third, the section “Early life and education” has a lot of unimportant or unrelated information making the section longer than how it should be, this could be fixed by adding more sections to the article as I previously mentioned or by making related articles (as for being more specific, there are lot of synopsis of the author's work in this section, this information should be deleted and be put in the respective opus article, or, be relocated to another, new or old section). Lastly, there is a lot of redundant information in the article which should be deleted for a better reading.

I will try to fix some of these problems, but this requires the collective help of editors if we want to have a decent article. IRRUTIA5 (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

"Osemanverse" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osemanverse&redirect=no Osemanverse] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)