Talk:The Bechdel Test

regarding this change: "contribs) (Removing (mostly-empty) lists of works that do and don't fit pass the Bechdel test, which would between them theoretically include all works ever.)" I don't want to immediately revert a change, but please reconsider...  I disagree with removing the list of works that "do" pass the Blechdel test, and somewhat disagree with removing the "don't pass" list. Reasons: 1. The lists can be relabeled as "Example works" that pass /don't pass the test. 2. The concept is much easier to understand with examples. 3. Over time, the "pass" list would be populated.  Ditto for the sample don't pass list.   I will concede this point:     Although a big nearly-empty "pass" list is itself a pretty funny statement, and even makes a good in-comic reference with Alien, incisive comedy via article-formatting is likely wrong for Wikipedia. --Bazzers 00:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mm, I agree that the concept is easier to understand with examples, but might it not be better to add a few examples to the body of the article itself? If the lists remain, then sure, they'll probably be gradually populated, but not particularly usefully so; given that the lists could never be anywhere near exhaustive (and nobody would want them to be - even the list of works that pass would be massive), they'd just accrete random examples and effectively become "here are a load of works that a few wikipedia users like or dislike, slotted into one list or another", without this indicating anything about the test itself.


 * Looking at the section for X-rated films, which seems a comparable type of subject (in that it covers a category of films that a small minority fall into, based on a set of quantifiable criteria), there's no list, but there is a section covering notable X-rated films, explaining why they're notable and what qualifies them as X-rated. Might something like this not be better for the Bechdel Test than a sprawling list? A few examples of works that pass, and explanations of why. I realise this wouldn't get across how many more works fail than pass, but I don't think lists would do that either (the "pass" list would probably be longer than it should be, because people would be eager to add works that they admire that do pass, and because it's easier to confirm that something passes than that it fails, which pretty much requires watching or reading the whole thing again just to make sure there aren't any appropriate between-women conversations that you missed). Ideally the high failure rates could be demonstrated by an examination of a representative list of popular or high-grossing films/books/etc, with a "only 3 out of 25 pass" (or whatever), but that would take longer than I have time for at the moment.


 * (That said, although neither the article on X ratings nor the article on MPAA ratings in general contain a list, I see that there is a separate article consisting of a list of NC-17 rated films, so perhaps the comparison with the article on X-rated films doesn't support the omission of lists after all.) Exasperated Bees 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)