Talk:Woman

Why was it edited from "adult human female" to "adult female human"?
Adult human female is better ShobanChiddarth (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No such change has occurred that I'm aware of. Possibly a Berenstein effect? The sources cited (and various others) tend to use use female as an adjective modifying human or person. "Adult human female" is more common as a TERF/GC slogan. See also . –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 13:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if the other version wasn't in use as a dog whistle the current version is more grammatically correct and there is no reason to prefer the Ferengi version. DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Page edit request
Please let me remove a image from this article Mybirthday647 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mybirthday647, can you please tell us which image you would like removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace should be added to the science section of the article
How is possible that Ada Lovelace is not mentioned in the science section of this article?

Ada Lovelace was the creator one of the first algorithms for modern computers, she had the intention to develop software for multipurpose tasks, not just the first woman, but one of the first humans if not the first in doing that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_published_computer_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Note_G

Thanks.--Zchemic (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The section is meant to be a summary of the articles Women in science, Women in literature, and Women in art. To avoid becoming overly long and cluttered (it already contains 6 paras and 2 images), it cannot hope to include every notable woman in these fields, regardless of her contributions. The Countess of Lovelace is mentioned in  and her portrait appears in an imagebox alongside Curie later in that article.
 * It is for the best that the text of this summary section mostly avoids mentioning women by name, as this begets lots of why does X get included, and not Y, which eventually expands into a WP:BLUESEA of links. For a particularly egregious example of the useless and unreadable text this kind of editing produces, see old revisions of the article Gay icon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

On "wermann"
The page in its current form mentions without sources the supposed existence of the Old English word wermann. This word is, unless I'm gravely mistaken, completely unattested (try finding it on Wiktionary, for example) and possibly fabricated. Unless a good source can be found for the existence of wermann as an OE word (and a cursory internet search reveals only discussions pondering where on earth it supposedly came from), its mention ought to be removed. AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You appear to be correct. For those interested, here are some such discussions . I've gone and made an edit (Special:Diff/1216741813) which replaces the specious wermann with wer (apparently the most common OE word for male/man) and, which is attested occasionally as the analogue to wifmann. I hope this looks acceptable.
 * I think the Dictionary.com link is rotten, as it no longer contains the information we're citing it for. If anyone has access to the OED or another source which verifies this etymology, please verify this text if possible. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why does this page use extended confirmed protection even though Man uses semi-protection only?
... Usersnipedname (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * GENSEX enforcement vs. generic vandalism. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also because trolls and bigots perseverate more on people assigned male at birth who are either gay/bi/pan or trans. Transwomen are targeted more than transmen and thus this article gets more trolls. Here's an article:  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)