Talk:Women and video games/Archive 1

Re-add the controversy sub section
Can someone re-add it? I know Girl gamer had some heavy editing yesterday, but the controversy part is actually true. 83.227.24.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC).
 * WP:PROVEIT Without sources, its just your pet theory. Active Banana (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't a source be provided for the statement that "A girl gamer describes a female who regularly engages in the playing of video games, role-playing games, or other games (colloquially referred to as "gaming").", because everyone I know uses the term "Girl gamer" as a derogatory term to describe girls who play games for the sole purpose of attention-seeking. Everything that's said in this article is also said on Types of gamers so this article should be deleted. 83.227.24.58 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia method: pretend to be helpful, then don't respond when you've been proven wrong. Stay classy, Active Banana! 209.33.56.103 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous
Hopefully when I check back in a few year's time, wikipedia will have realized the the idiocy of identifying someone who plays video games - one of the most popular pastimes in the world - by their gender.

Delete this thing, for heaven's sake.
 * It's a Verifiable term. Stop your crying. bridies (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

can we have a black gamer page tho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.170.140 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What about spider gamers? They deserve a page as well.


 * If you unsigned people want to write something you can hop on over to WP:AFC follow the instructions and write down your ideas to propose an article. spider gamer black gamer would be the names, but someone else must have written about it before to make it notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose a "Couch Gamer" This page will be full of information about people who play video games on couches. This is easily the dumbest article I've seen on wikipedia. Jonapello22 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it verifiable? If you read the article, you can see that there are sources that discuss the topic of girl gamers in depth. That is why Wikipedia has an article about the topic. There are far dumber articles on Wikipedia, many of them unsourced and unverifiable. Reach Out to the Truth 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Girl gamer" gets 2,300,000 Google hits and "Girlgamer" 300,000, "girl game" gets 25,000,000 hits. Clearly it's a fairly commonly used term.  On the other hand, replacing "girl" with "black", "spider" or "couch" gives me less than 100,000 hits for each...even though "Black games" is the name of a company and "spider games" catches a bunch of web pages about spiderman games.  "couch gamer" gets just 14,000 hits - mostly from people who use that as their online 'handle'.  Clearly, like it or not, there are a bunch of people who make games specifically for the female market (god-awful Barbie games, for example) - and there are a bunch more people who self-identify as "girl gamers".  These gender-specific terms may be unpalatable to some - and I quite understand and sympathize with that perspective - but this encyclopedia cannot shy away from writing about unpalatable things. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "male model" has 8,530,000 hits on Google - so why is there not an entire Wikipedia article explaining that a male model is a model who is male? Maybe it's because it's utterly obvious what a male model is and making Wikipedia articles that are simply "adjective noun" is a dumb fucking precedent to set! This page is idiotic. It should be deleted. Babylonian007 (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the article needs to be cleaned up and exanded. The title is already appropriate for an encyclopedia. It does not take an adjective-noun form as you have suggested. The concept behind this article (females in relation to the video game scene) is a notable topic. This much is painfully obvious. The term "girl gamer" is also quite clearly connected to the topic of "women and video games" and because Wikipedia is not censored it will appear in the article. If you are interested, you can help here by adding useful material on female roles in the industry, examples of female leadership and innovation in the field, etc. You should model your additions on articles like those that appear here if you wish. Getting over-excited will not be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pics
This article seriously needs some pics. Am I right? ~_^ Osmodius 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You get what you want ;) Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it could use some names of female professional gamers like Seo Ji-Soo (ToSsGirL). Maybe Vanessa Arteaga, I don't know. Someone out there probably knows some names of well-known girl gamers. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

CAD Comic
Can someone please elaborate on why Ctrl+Alt+Del is listed under the "See Also" section? I see that a female character is a pro-gamer and the comic has story arcs that go into the female gamer stereotype -- is there anything else? Fishtron 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Girl RPG Gamers?
Does anyone have information out there on scholarship regarding female RPG players? Thanks. Mgcady 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They're probably poopsocking majors like other rpg gamers. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Girl working in Industry
I strongly disagree that any female working for a games company is a 'girl gamer'. It is completely contrived, and there is no evidence or reference to back this up. It also implies that every male working in the games industry is in turn, a 'guy gamer', which I heavily dispute. Especially considering if you are working in the industry you are far less likely to have any spare time to be playing games. --Scottdavies 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 81.155.45.216 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure but why would you go into the games industry if you didn't like video games? 208.106.104.40 (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Programming, art design, writing (just kidding), voice acting, what have you. Furthermore, even if they do like video games, it's an extremely time consuming area and their priorities for what time they have left may change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.19.125 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone who enters the industry has to like games. they may enter in the logic that it's where their talents shine/can be honed or because they see money to be printed(in the case of executives) agreed with scottdavies. Wiilanadapter (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tautology
How is "girl gamer" a tautology just because the word "gamer" does not imply that one is not a girl? It's a specification. Is "male cat" a tautology now? Seems like a crappy attempt to discredit the article in the first sentence. Then again I never took Definition of Tautology 101 so I guess I wouldn't know. 198.138.40.157 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boys Gamer
If girls can get an article, boys should get one too, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.168.172 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But it does mean that now, Wikipedia should make "girl" versions of every single article about people. Get ready, ladies, you've got a lot of writing in front of you, marking the important contributions of girl scientists, girl fire fighters, girl wikipedia editors, girl comedians... the list is endless. RubilacEx (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called sarcasm, /v/. RubilacEx (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy gamer is up, and it's trying to be deleted as a hoax. Why the sexism? I just don't understand. 71.233.27.40 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because a google search for "guy gamer" produces about 1/100th the number of hits as "girl gamer" - it's just not a notable term in the global gestalt. Wikipedia doesn't write about things for political correctness reasons - it writes about objects and concepts that are notable out there in the real world.  This term "girl gamer" is very notable - you see it in web sites and magazines and newspapers.  The term "guy gamer" is almost unknown in the world at large.  If you want to change the world - go ahead and change the actual world...but until you do, Wikipedia must continue to document the world as it actually is and not as we'd like it to be. SteveBaker (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Delete
Games have no gender,age, sex, creed, religion. While "girl gamer" may be important in pop culture or gaming culture it has little need for an article, this is one reason why wikipedia is becoming a joke Thanatos465 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You believe it has little need for an article. Why does that make you want to delete the article? Can't you format your hard disk instead? Then people like me who do care about this article can still read and improve it, while you still get to delete stuff. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So according to you I can make any article I want, such as a Boy Gamer article, and you should just ignore it because I want to keep it active. If you can adequately explain to me why this article should not be merged with the gamer article I will not complain. 173.171.176.114 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article itself holds very little substance; it just speaks about a demographic. At the very least, merge it into Gamer. 75.3.245.75 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Word. At the absolute most, there should just be a section under "Gamer" talking about girl gamers, but an entire article is ludicrous.
 * This definitely does not deserve its own article. Merge with "Gamer" at the most. 76.240.81.178 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why merge? It's an article about a section of a population of hobbyists. Should there be a subsection of tall woodcarvers, suburban stamp collectors, or roboticists who enjoy Tabasco? I say flat out delete. 71.233.27.40 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For all those who say "just delete this piece of ridiculous crap", I direct your attention to WP:AFD, the place to start that process. Ranting on this talk page will not help...only the formal deletion process can get an article deleted. So don't waste your time here. DMacks (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
No one else seems to want to formally discuss merging this article with Gamer (despite the fact that the tag is already there), so I guess I'll do it myself. There really isn't much in the article that explains why female gamers are unique, and separate from gamers in general, aside from the fact that they're a minority. Furthermore, there is plenty of room in the Gamer article to discuss differences between male and female gamers, if there are indeed any substantial differences at all. I'm aware that "girl gamer" is a real term, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to have its own article. --Wikivader (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres no sourced content in the generic Gamer article let alone enough for splinter articles. Merge em all. Active Banana (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no reason for a girl gamer page to exist, and either speedy deletion or merger with the gamer article is the way to go. (Niyou77 (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
 * This aricle does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Feel free to start the standard deletion discussion. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Gamer article has a whole "Types of gamers" section, summarizing and linking to specific articles for various subpopulations of gamers (but not to this article here?). Each of those articles appears to have sources specific to it. If Girl gamer is to be merged, that's the section where it would go. But I see cites in here that demonstrate "girl gamer" is a discussed topic itself (just like each of the others) so each one demonstrates notability for a stand-alone article. Merging lots of info about specific types into the parent article would make that article even more heavily just about specific types than it already is. If there's really nothing to say about gamers in general (i.e., that article's topic), then rip out the stuff there that's uncited. Or split out a Types of gamers or somesuch that can discuss the various types (that would be a viable target to merge if it were to be merged--avoid undue weight on the types in the parent). However again, the gender issue has a bunch of cites specific to gender issues, so I think the topic is well-defined and sufficient material for an individual article. Maybe it should be Gender and gaming, since it seems to discuss both sides, not just the women-as-a-minority issue? DMacks (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * RE WP:SUMMARY there has to actually be something to summarize first! Active Banana (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd settle for renaming the article to something like Gender and gaming. It sounds more professional, and it gets rid of the perceived gender-inequality issue which prompted someone to create a new Guy Gamer article (which is now up for deletion). Furthermore, I think a title like "Gender and gaming" (or perhaps "Gender and video games") more accurately describes the issues already being addressed in this article. --Wikivader (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are sources, I am not opposed to a gender and gaming. Thats an actual concept for which there may be legitimate sources whereas "girl gamer" is a made up term. Active Banana (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of merging, certain articles, such as hardcore or casual gamer, are barely acceptable due to the fact that they are both recognized and accepted terms. The industry itself classifies that way.  Girl gamer on the other hand is merely a gender minority.  The demographic is not important enough to warrant it's own article.Equinn (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: In general, I'm a deletionist; but this article has quite a number of reliable sources, and the topic is both culturally and academically legitimate. The title may warrant changing, as User:Wikivader mentions.  Gendered analysis of topics is a regularly accepted part of modern academic discourse; I can't think of any reason why WP shouldn't follow this trend.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am ambivalent towards merging the article in it's current state. It should not simply be moved to "Gender and gaming" however. Such a title would be arbitrary and/or original research until someone provides the secondary research to support it. bridies (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is less arbitrary than "girl gamer" which several of the sources I looked at do not actually use! Whereas the sources are clearly discussing gender and gaming. Active Banana (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again (copy-paste from the AFD), here is a sample of sources which use the term:
 * http://www.edge-online.com/node/18579
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9862344-1.html
 * http://www.casualgaming.biz/news/28088/505-enters-the-girl-gamer-market
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3496963.stm
 * http://news.asiaone.com/Just%2BWoman/Style%2BGuide/Fashion%2BTrends/Story/A1Story20080624-72633.html
 * http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/digital-life/games/girls-play-games-too-explains-pro-gamer-jinx-20090924-g41i.html bridies (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Regardless of whether the term "girl gamer" is legitimate and/or widely used, I think it's unnecessary to give this single term its own article &mdash; and somewhat ironic, especially when it seems that girl gamers want to be seen as regular gamers, not pushed into a different category because of their gender. (Then again, I could be wrong about this, and perhaps it's besides the point.) In any case, I think it would be more appropriate to bring up the term "girl gamer" in a broader article about gender in gaming, which is basically what we already have here. (See DMacks' Gender and gaming suggestion above.) To be fair, it is worth noting that singling out women (while assuming that men are the default) seems to be the trend in academic articles, and Wikipedia is no exception. See, for example, Women in politics and Women in the military; there are no articles for Men in politics or Men in the military, and there never will be. Therefore, the creation of an article like Girl gamer is not unprecedented, but that doesn't mean I agree with it under all circumstances. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing those other two articles moved to Gender and politics and Gender and the military, respectively. --Wikivader (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources I have seen pertinent to this topic "single out" the female angle as you say. Any title such as "Gender and gaming" does not reflect the weight of evidence at least as has been presented and until some one starts references these hypothetical scholarly articles titled "gender and gaming" (or words to that effect) this proposed title remains at best arbitrary and badly pushing original research and WP:NPOV. bridies (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * bridies please don't take this the wrong way but you're really coming off like you've got some kind of axe to grind here and you appear to be digging your heals in for a fight which is creating a perception of bias that's going to weaken any argument you put forth. BcRIPster (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly, I'm simply stating an argument, supported by evidence at that. Keep your baseless "perceptions" to yourself. bridies (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, touché. ;) But it seems that your evidence supports the idea that this term is used to qualify a group or demographic. Should we have a dedicated page for every term for a group of people? BcRIPster (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it passes the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:N, bearing in mind the additional guidelines for neologisms) then yes. This was covered in the AfD. I agree that "Women in gaming" is a more likely title than "Gender and gaming" but still the weight of evidence at least as has been presented points toward "girl gamer". There's also the concern that "Women in gaming" or indeed "Gender in gaming" may inevitably be broader i.e. there will be complaints if "gaming" does not include role-playing and table top gaming or whatever else. With a self contained neologism such as "girl gamer" it's easy to check whether the sources use it solely with respect to video games or not (which going by what has been put forth so far they would seem to). bridies (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I would instead opt for this being renamed to a page such as Women in gaming or Women in games as that seems to be more the norm for this type of distinction and there is long established use of the term within the development community. Then you could address the various terms to define the community/demographics such as "Girl gamers" or "Women in games" of which there is a formal organization that carries that term named Women in Games International or WIGI for short. The page could then also expand to cover distinct groups promoting gaming to the female community such as UbiSoft's Frag Dolls. BcRIPster (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: for what it's worth both Microsoft and the IDGA feature "Women In Gaming" awards presentations for leading female members in the industry. BcRIPster (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who protected this article?
Okay I was going to add a deletion tag to this article but for some reason it cant be edited, what gives?--Bob Lulz (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was semi-protected by User:Barek a because a bunch of people were vandalizing it. --Wikivader (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, write your brief rationale here and I or another editor can transfer it to the article for you. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

why is this article titled "girl gamer?"
The entire article is written about women and the video game industry in general. Is there any source or reference indicating that a majority or even large portion of female gamers identify themselves as "girl gamers"? Or any reason or explanation for using the phrase over a more general and appropriate "women and gaming" or "women in the gaming industry" or "women in gaming" or anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.58.153 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Girl_gamer Active Banana (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean where most of the people opposed to a merger still suggested a name change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.20.251 (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed
The controversy article didn't have sources, and it was deleted so I went ahead and deleted everything in the article without sources to save you all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are all good people
This article should be turned into a "Women and Gaming" subheading in the gaming page. If we leave this like it is, we might as well have Girl Carpenter, Girl Scientist, Guy Make-up Artist, etc.

Better yet, it should be completely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE YOU DELETE EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE THAT DOESN'T PRAISE THIS ARTICLE TO THE HEAVENS, READ THIS
The reason you provided for deletion was "trolling". Do you honestly even know what trolling is? What I posted was a legitimate argument for deletion of this pointless, sexist article - NOT trolling. Also, I brought back the controversy section. It was deleted for having no sources, but almost nothing in this entire article does, so I don't see why it was deleted, while nothing else was? I either want a complete deletion of this article, or the resurrection of the Gamer Guy article which was deleted for no reason, or a new article encompassing both genders called "Gender In Gaming" or something of the sort. Anything's better than keeping Gamer girl and deleting gamer guy for no reason other than the fact that you hate males. In fact, this article could be deleted under the same reasoning that the gamer guy one was deleted. No explanation of the subject's significance.

To the deleter of this section: This thread was already nominated for deletion, and there have been plenty of reasons for it, but it hasn't, and it's just not clear to me why this article is still here. Also, I've already read the Civility article and I'm being perfectly civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has stepped up to file an WP:AFD for the article. Unless someone does, there is zero chance this article will be deleted. Repeated "delete this article!" comments here are becoming disruptive to those of us actually participating in discussions about actual content. Stop it.
 * One proposal is to rename/refocus the article to be just "gender" not "girl", which completely avoids your worry about "why if a girl article not a guy article". But WP:WAX: you're wasting your time rationalizing one article's existence (or not) by whether another does (or not). Each article needs to stand or fall on its own. Again, please help us improve this article by finding sources and adding content if you think there is something to be said about gender issues, or at least flagging particular issues that others should address. Add a comment on your thoughts about renaming it (above). Otherwise, we're all now well aware of your position on this article's existence. While you're waiting for others to continue that discussion, you can stop posting here and go read about the AFD process to get that started if you think it's needed. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so where does the question of rename, etc.. stand?
The conversation kind of ground to a halt and everyone wondered off without a resolution other than to not AfD the page. Unfortunately as I read it, everyone seemed in agreement other than the main page sponsor that a rename/restructure would probably be in order. BcRIPster (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You read it incorrectly, and there's no such thing as a "page sponsor". There has been little argument supported by any kind of evidence to move the page, and certainly no consensus reached on anything. bridies (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not move the article as there was no consensus, the title is good as it stands, and if anyone wants a different title they are welcome to make a redirect to this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * During the time of the AfD, there were references found that supported this topic as-is (focus on or specifically related to female side, not just "gender issues", and refs supporting that as an actual viable topic). So I no longer see a need for move or rename or editorial-merger. DMacks (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a male gamer/guy gamer article
This article is clealry sexist on it's own. There should be a male gamer and/or "boy gamer" article. I don't see why this article is really here. Gamers are a group, there is no need to divide them based on gender. There are female artists and male artists. Why, then, is there no separate article for them? Actually, why is it that almost every other sport, hobby, or activity does not have a separate article for women?

I view this as extremely sexist. Before anyone makes the point that this is a "verifiable term", so is "Male gamer", because that term has also been published in many gaming magazines, gaming websites, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.50.236 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD spoke on the issue. It exists because there are sources for it. Every article must stand on its own, regardless of wahtever WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or not. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources that support such an article, then go for it. If not, sorry, but academic research is not there to make the world a "fair" place. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded dramatically with better sources or merged with Gamer
I know it has been discussed in the past, but the article is unacceptable as it is now. Please open this discussion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XeF4 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have to point this out: it seems a little odd for a user's first edit to be something procedural like proposing a merge. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That being said, it doesn't lessen the seriousness of the discussion, and as always I assume good faith :) So more power to you. But I feel like this discussion has happened before and that we came to a consensus that this article has been studied enough to warrant its own article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * After two failed AfD's (1st and 2nd - the most recent only four months ago), plus a merge proposal less that five months ago here - I would say community consensus is clearly demonstrated. The new proposal raises no new issues, nor even point to any policy.  The article contains multiple reliable sources; and as stated by Qwyrxian in the prior merge discussion, "the topic is both culturally and academically legitimate".  I simply see no reason or justification for a merge other than a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding to the discussion. I find that most of the information on this page is trivial or irrelevant(specifically the part on women accounting for game purchases.) I don't think the whole article needs to be deleted, but the trivial info should be cut out and the relevant information moved to a sub topic on Gamer. --XeF4 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Barek's sentiment. There is just nothing new to discuss here which wasn't already stated. I see XeF4 also proposed to merge Hardcore gamer and I left that discussion for the interested. --Muhandes (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Late addition to "Merger" discussion
I don't know the specific etiquette involved, but I am removing a comment added to the closed discussion and placing it here. If there is a more acceptable alternative to my change, then please have at it. Thanks.  Tide  rolls  02:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree: Why does this page even exist? Shouldn't it just be an extension of a regular "gamer" page? Why must we separate woman from man?--76.116.228.175 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — 76.116.228.175 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Agree: Let's open this discussion back up. The term Girl gamer literally means a girl who games. What's been presented is far too simplified to warrant a full article on the matter. Not to mention that it overlaps with the terms Gamer and Video game controversy. Furthermore, women gamers are as relevant to females who work in the industry as my pre-med roommate is to the software engineer; there's little to no connection between the specialist and consumer. Merge it with Gamer or Controversy. Perhaps an article about minorities in games or gender and race in games would be specific enough. 24.63.125.204 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC) — 24.63.125.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Voicing your opinion now is futile. Here's what you need to do if you care so much about this:
 * Not mandatory: open an account. It is hard to take seriously someone who wouldn't bother the 5 seconds to open an account.
 * Not mandatory: make a few hundred valid edits. While not mandatory, it does help to show you know what Wikipedia is about. And again, it is hard to take seriously someone who has made virtually no contributions outside the discussion (read WP:SPA)
 * Mandatory: Start a proper merge discussion. Help:Merge will show you how.
 * Mandatory: Present your opinion based on sources, policy and common sense, not on like and dislikes, the existence or non existence of other stuff and other falacities.
 * Good luck.

--Muhandes (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So at what point does this become 'voicing your opinion now is futile because we decided it was'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.20.251 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never. You can always take the two mandatory steps I pointed out above. --Muhandes (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA, OH WOW!
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Guy_gamer - ChibiVegito (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, every 3 months or so they apparently get some form of testosterone poisoning and go into a vandalistic rutting stage. Active Banana    (bananaphone  00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are just a bunch of trouble makers unaffiliated with the constructive discussion. Your comments are very prejudiced and I'm asking you nicely, please keep this constructive. The reason there's continuously talk "every 3 months" is that this article should not stand. Merge it with one of the other articles dealing with gamers or controversy within games. 24.63.125.204 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on ....?? As the previous deletion and merge discussions have concluded, the article clearly meets the inclusion criteria of having been the subject of significant third party coverage in reliable sources. The fact that contingents of hoodlums regularly vandalize the site based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST is not in any way substantive or persuasive. Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why some editors appear threatened by this subject is a realm of speculation into which I won't engage - however, the ongoing vandalistic behavior around the article demonstrates clear long-term abuse that deserves swift action. Consensus has been repeatedly demonstrated that this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and related inclusion criteria.  Arguments against simply revolve around "I don't like it" rather than anything founded in Wikipedia content guidelines.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That or the fact that somehow boy gamer isn't a viable article when boy gamers are the majority and have done much more for the industry, and are of more note. Though the problem here isn't actually the discrimination against male gamers that has been shown, but the fact that this article exists, and is a template for more and more of these gender based articles, filled with white knighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.206.198 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2011
 * Quit whining and find reliable third party sources that use the term in a substantive way. Active Banana    (bananaphone  01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As has been stated repeatedly; this article exists because there are multiple reliable sources that use the term. You claim it's a template for other gender-based article; however, other articles would need reliable sources of their own - in otherwords, its an irrelevant argument.  This article does not define what goes in other articles, but instead it's what is said in multiple verifiable reliable sources that establish a subject's notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk) - 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to [Women and video games, as this is what article's topic actually is at the moment. Should anyone wish to start a Girl gamer article about that term, or a Gender and video gaming article which deals with that broader issue, that's fine. Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Girl gamer → Gender and video gaming – I think that something along these lines might be the most sensible solution to the problems this article has faced. It's certainly not normal for an article to face multiple RfDs and a request for merge. There is obviously something about this article that bothers readers and I think that all evidence points to the title. My gut instinct is that "Wikipedia is Not Censored" and so it would be fine to leave it as is. More recently, though, I've had a change of heart. Here are my thoughts: Of these two options, I think that the second would be preferable because the first is easily confused with the concept of female characters in video games. More specifically, I like the sound of "Gender and video gaming". With the ideas of merging and deleting the article off the table for now due to the AfD and Merge discussions as well as the actual merits of the topic, let's discuss a renaming of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm completely against the wholesale deletion of the article because regardless of any claims of gender bias, this is a notable topic inasmuch as it is frequently discussed around the world by reliable sources.
 * I am also largely against making it into a subsection of "gaming" as there is quite a bit of information on this subject and the article should really be expanded.
 * As for the title, I have come to agree with the complainers that the term "girl gamer" is not particularly encyclopedic. It's certainly a term that is in common use and under WP:UCN this is an argument to retain the title as is. There are I think stronger arguments for changing the article's name and for making "girl gamer" a redirect here. Primary among these is that academic studies of the topic tend to prefer avoiding the term, opting instead for more gender-neutral expressions like the one offered by Knovevmber above (i.e. "Women and Gaming"). As for which is the best title, I think we should decide between the following two options based on an argument of closest consistency with other similar Wikipedia articles.
 * Women in video gaming - Endorsed by Jamyskis and Bletch in the first AfD, Teancum in the second, and BcRIPster in the above Merge discussion. This title mirrors the titles of articles like Women in the military and Japanese people in India
 * Women and video games or Gender and video gaming - Endorsed by Robofish, Claritas, Hasteur, and Buddy431 in the second AfD and DMacks, Wikivader, and Active Banana in the above Merge discussion. A title like this would mirror article titles like Black people and early Mormonism and Sexual orientation and military service.
 * Addendum - I also wanted to mention that I'm not in favor of stripping the term out of the article either. Even if the article is renamed, the term "girl gamer" is nearly as common in some circles as "gays in the military" and as stated before, Wikipedia is not censored. The uses of the term within the body of the article should remain even if the article is renamed. -Thibbs (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Skimming over the various discussions including the AfD, I think it was clear that "girl gamer" passes the notability guidelines for neologisms; but then looking at this article now, which consists of demographic information (as opposed to "Girl Gamer" as a marketing ploy; profiles of "girl gamers", looking at the sources I linked in the AfD) and cites academic publications which don't use the term, I'm not sure the title and the content is the best fit. I still think that a big part of the problem is that the article is really not very well developed and neither is the gamer article which people have suggested it be merged with. bridies (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. I think that changing the title to a more general term, though, would encourage expansion and development of the article. The girl gamer as an archetype receives substantially less coverage in academia than the girl gamer as she relates to the video game culture. And this typically necessitates comparisons to the counterpart of the "girl gamer" - the male video game player - a figure who does not really fit well into an article restricted by title to female gamers. So in a word, I think that the proposed name change will actually help the article to grow. -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the one hand I prefer a specific expression over a descriptive term but on the other, those are some good points. So I'm going to sit on the fence for now... bridies (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would request that the article stays where it is. The suggested changed titles look to be political titles rather than ones in common use, and it is not clear what they mean.  The current title is very clear. The requests to delete have been attacks on the topic and should not be considered as any reason to rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither of the nominators in the AfDs addressed the content of the article which is why the AfDs rightly failed. Their rationales were restricted to criticisms of the name of the article. In fact they used the material covered in the article as a means to criticize the title. E.g. Quoting the nom in AfD#2: There is nothing unique about "girl gamers" other than the fact that they are a smaller percentage than gamers that are guys. And regardless of whether the AfD failed or not, I think it is relevant to note that many participants in these AfDs supported the idea of a rename. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the current title accurately reflects the content of the article better than "gender and gaming" (or "women and gaming") would, though. The fact of the matter is that all content in the article apart from the 2-line lede discuss girl gamers only in relation to their market penetration and their industry impact. Both of these are socio-economic topics bearing only tangential relation to the "girl gamer" as a persona. In other words, they don't serve to define the girl gamer - they are really discussions about society's and the game industry's relation to the girl gamer rather than the other way around.
 * To use examples of articles titled similarly to this one, you can turn to Flapper, Hippie, or Farmer. These articles are really nothing more than encyclopedically expanded dictionary definitions where the facets and characteristics of the archetype are emphasized over their greater societal context. If this were wiktionary then I think that the current term would be perfect. It succinctly describes solely the archetype or subculture. But there's a big difference between recognizing the validity of employing a verifiably notable neologism in related articles and using the term to restrictively title an article that seems to be about a larger issue when there appear to be alternatives that are more commonly used in academia.
 * Given the greater academic use of alternative terms, I don't think that precedence alone can justify retaining the current title. I would be interested in hearing arguments that "girl gamer" is a more adequate title for the article than "gender and video gaming" or "women and video gaming", though. -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As a Gamer myself, to me, a "Girl gamer" (which I dunno anyone who uses it) is just a gender specification of "Gamer" and nothing more. The article's so-called infomation (or whatever) is basically already covered on the Video game article found (here) anyway, so we could put what info we want there and delete this one. On another note, we should make a link to the Gamer and Portrayal of women in video games articles on the that page, as I can't see their mention anywhere on the page. AnimatedZebra (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A related question worth considering is whether an article on the notable topic of gender's role in video gaming would be a content fork of this one. If it would, then are we supposed to shoehorn information and statistics regarding male gamers' facets and characteristics into this one? Or should a "male video gamer" article be recreated? Or does this information not belong on Wikipedia? -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about deletion or merging. Several AfDs have already been filed and the current consensus is that the article is worth keeping. This shouldn't turn into an informal discussion for deletion/merging. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yusufh I think the article is fine. Maybe someone could make a BOY gaming article to make it even. What are u guys talking about!!! The article is perfectly fine!!! Please consider this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufh (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not really a complex or technical issue relating to video games, so I've filed a request for more feedback on this discussion with RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gender and video games if it is expanded to discuss male gamers (how about a merge with Gamer?). Otherwise, Women and video games sounds best. Salvidrim (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I was under the impression that the phrase was "Gamer girl". Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Oppose. I'm with Graeme.  I'm not persuaded that the current title is in violation of any policy or guideline, and the nom concedes it is the most common name.  For people who are "bothered" by the title, I suggest they get over it.
 * I'm not crazy about descriptive titles contrived by WP editors even when they're necessary because the topic in question has no name; we should always try to follow usage in the reliable sources. But here the choice to go with a descriptive title rather than the common name is elective.  Here are some relevant hits from Google Scholar:
 * Girl Gamers and their Relationship with the Gaming Culture
 * Would the ‘real’ girl gamer please stand up? Gender, LAN cafés and the reformulation of the ‘girl’ gamer
 * The Turbulent Rise of the “Child Gamer”: Public Fears and Corporate Promises in Cinematic and Promotional Depictions of Children's Digital Play
 * Being a Girl Gamer - A Correspondence with Caitlin Martin V1.0\
 * There are many more scholarly references that use the term. I see no reason why Wikipedia should shy away from using it. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said that "Girl gamer" was a more common term by RS standards. I don't believe that it is. As I said earlier, it appears to me that the term is less commonly used in academia than the alternative terms. This is probably due to the fact that it is a loaded, non-neutral term that some consider offensive, and most academic sources try to avoid such terms. According to Wikipedia's titling policy we should also avoid non-neutral terms where far more encyclopedia alternatives are obvious. I didn't contrive the terms "gender and video gaming", "women and video gaming", etc. I drew the from other RSes. They sound far more encyclopedic than "girl gamer" if indeed the content of this "girl gamer" article here at WP is about the girl gamer's role within the context of video gaming (as it seems to be) and not just about her characteristics as a stand-alone entity. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that unusual for the most common term to be less commonly used to refer to a topic than all the alternative terms combined. Are you suggesting that one of the alternatives is more common than "girl gamer"? And I didn't know "sounds encyclopedic" was one of the criteria we were supposed to use to title articles.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting "gender and video gaming". As for using encyclopedic titles, see WP:POVTITLE (point #2). -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * POVTITLE #2 says, "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". That does not translate to, "use the more encyclopedic sounding alternative".   I don't see how "gender and video gaming", or any other alternative, qualifies as "obvious".  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious alternative because it's a synonymous neutral expression commonly used by the RSes. And neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core principles. Look at the examples they use in WP:POVTITLE. Why do you think it says that "octomom" and "antennagate" are inappropriate titles despite the fact that they are in more common use than "Nadya Suleman" and "iPhone 4"? The reason is clearly because they are pov titles for which obvious neutral alternatives exist. This is an encyclopedia we're crafting, not a pop culture guide where common slang should trump the neutral tone. -Thibbs (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this debate is not about whether this article has the wrong name - but rather about whether it has the wrong content. Retitling it and then rewriting it to be an article about gender roles in the video game industry in general makes about as much sense as looking at the election results and renaming the article about George Bush to "Barrack Obama" - then rewriting the article to match.  I'm strongly in favor of starting a new article with the proposed title - and it might be that in the fullness of time, that we might consider merging this article into it...or perhaps having a "Main Article" link from the new article back to this one when specifically discussing the concept of "girl gamers" - who are a distinct section of the gaming world who self-identify with that label. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree on a fundamental level that the current content is about the "girl gamer" as a figure. The entirety of the current article after the first 2 sentences is about the girl gamer's impact on and role within the industry. Otherwise I agree, though. Two separate articles would be a good solution. -Thibbs (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint
I notice that there are beginning to be a number of comments suggesting merge or making arguments regarding deletion/non-deletion of the article. I think it should be pointed out that this is an article retitling discussion and so the result will not be a merge or a deletion. The article is staying as it is for now. I am interested in giving it a new title. For this reason I think it may be a good idea to refocus the discussion specifically on the issue of the problems the current title causes for Wikipedia's title policy.


 * Non-neutral - I concede the point that the use of a non-neutral but common name is acceptable according to WP:POVTITLE. However I think that this article may violate point 2 in that section of the policy. Specifically, I think that "girl gamer" is a slang colloquialism where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.
 * Although this goes to precision as well, the word "girl" to mean "female" improperly introduces age into the expression. As far as I understand it the term is really a colloquialism for "female gamer" even if the female is an adult woman.
 * Imprecise - Or really, inaccurately precise. The current title is being used as a blanket term to describe the effects of gender impact on the video game industry and culture. An article on the "girl gamer" alone needs to primarily discuss this subculture's history, ethos, and characteristics, and only secondarily touch on its gender-linked impact within the context of video gaming. In my opinion, sociopolitical and industry impact would be better covered in an article titled "gender and video games" where it could be balanced by a discussion of the male gamer's impacts. While the "girl gamer" article may yet grow to include history, ethos, and characteristics, I think that reliable sources on these subtopics might difficult to find.

Addressing WP:UCN specifically, I find that this argument is kind of undermined by the fact that not a single one of the sources currently used for this article refer to "girl gamers" as anything other than "female gamers" or "women gamers". The more common use of "girl gamer" may only really go to its appearance outside of academia. Of course I acknowledge that it is used in actual reliable sources as well, but from researching the topic it looks to me like the term is avoided more commonly than embraced. This may have to do with the popular conception that it is an offensive term (though this is not a primary consideration at Wikipedia, I know).

Any further thoughts about retitling the article? -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I listed some academic sources above that not only use the term, but they use it in their titles. For WP to be so PC that we avoid terms that are used in academic works is beyond the pale.  I, for one, could not be more opposed to having WP get like that. That said, if there is a better term that is used more commonly in RS to refer to this topic, I would support moving to that.  But nothing proposed here appears to fit that bill.   --Born2cycle (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that stripping the term out of the article is a bad idea. As a notable term within the subject, "girl gamer" should obviously be used in the article. Its use as a title, however, is improper for an encyclopedia considering that alternative terms are used more commonly in academia. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support rename I would argue that if the topic of the article is females who play video games, "girl gamer" may not be an adequate title. This PhD thesis on the topic points out (p 12 ff) it's usually applied to pre-adult females, or often sexualised images of women - and that it's problematic when applied to older women. "Women gamer" also appears in a hundred or so scholar-found articles - not quite as many as girl gamer. A large proportion of these articles appear to get by without even mentioning "girl gamer" once, as far as scholar tells me. "Gender and video gaming" is probably a more stable topic, given that "girl gamer" is a contested term (ie that its meaning is disputed, not that it's sexist per se).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The difficulty here is that this is an article about the specific term "girl gamer" - which is notable as a term that's used out there in the real world. An article about the nature of gender in the video game industry would be a very different article - it's talking about a quite different matter. So renaming this article is the wrong solution. We should start a new article with the proposed name - and let both it and this one flourish or die depending on its' merits. It might one day be considered appropriate to merge this article into the new one - but that would be mostly a matter of article length and stubbiness. SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, although I think that you are misinterpreting the content of the current article. To me it looks like the content that belongs in a "gender and video gaming" article. (NB. Interestingly, none of the sources currently used in the article employ the term "girl gamer"). It makes more sense to rename this one first and then start a new one on the "girl gamer" as a stand-alone figure. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @SteveBaker: the article as it stands is about women who play video games. "Girl gamer" is, in one sense, a subset or subsets of that group, applied to female gamers below a certain age, or to those who identify as "girl gamer". (It also refers to fantasy figures for young male gamers.) If you have the time, go beyond google hits, which is a really, truly, lousy way to understand usage, and actually read some of the articles to be found on google scholar. As a game developer you might find some of it very interesting. You'll see, by the way, that it's not particularly about some girly games market for women (loved your Barbie comment - I can see you passed Women 101 with flying colours ;-).) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that the Barbie title for the GameBoy is called "Barbie Game Girl" SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are two key advantages to using a somewhat more inclusive title: First, it will end some of the reasons for opposition to this material; second, it will have greater opportunity for expansion.  DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * support I support the name change, girl gamer would make a good sub section (refering to young women playing video games) to a broader, more inclusive article. Are there any other name suggestions then Gender and Video games? Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Opppose per most of above concerning the most commonly used term, etc. I would also like to point out that "Gender and video games" is neither encyclopedic, nor accurate. A more correct term would be "Sex and videogames" since gender still technically refers to societal roles of male and female, and not specifically to someone's biological sex.AerobicFox (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make sense to use the most common neutral term used by reliable sources, though? If you examine the sources currently used in the article you'll notice that not one of them employs the term "girl gamer"... As for the claim that gender doesn't mean sex in this context, I think the sources again demonstrate the opposite. Considering its common use in the reliable sources, how can you say that it is "neither encyclopedic nor accurate"? Of course, an appeal to UCN also ignores the fact that the term "girl gamer" is not a neutral term and thus violates WP:NPOV. As I see it, the neutral term "gender and video games" is more encyclopedic than the apparently offensive slang term that is currently used as the title. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These sources do not demonstrate knowledge of the difference between gender and sex which despite the current popular usage of the two as synonyms they are still in the "technical" or "encyclopedic" sense two different words, one referring to gender roles within a society, and the other to biological sex.(you can go here for some more explanation of the differences). The source entitled "The Gendering of Computer Gaming: Experience and Space" is using the term correctly since it is implying gender as a cultural construct and not a biological one. I am perfectly fine with an article about "Females and gaming", "Female gamers" or "Females and videogames" with as the above user mentioned, "Girl gamer" a possible subsection. I do however oppose "Gender and gaming", especially since such a topic would therefore be burdened with discussing men as well which it currently does not.AerobicFox (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't mention chromosomes or genital configuration, so "gender" is certainly the kind of thing we're dealing with here, not "sex". As has been pointed out, the article at the moment doesn't deal with "girl gamer" either. If we restate the topic as "gender and gaming" we can include information on men if it is there in the secondary literature on gender and gaming. The current title refers to a contested term that in the secondary literature appears to be embedded in discussions of gender and gaming. As for the article being mainly about women: it's inevitable that articles about "gender" tend to focus more on the feminine: it is still the tendency even in liberal democratic societies to implicitly define men as standard and women as different in all sorts of areas. Having an article called "women and gaming" but not one called "men and gaming" would, ironically, be a good example of this.
 * In short: "Gender and gaming" is quite clearly attested in the academic literature as an area of study. I really, truly, struggle to see how it can be seen as "unencyclopedic".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be baffled by your lack of comprehension if you actually tried to learn the differences between the two words. Gender is a societal role that men and women fulfill, things are engendered when a society determines them to be "masculine" or "feminine". Sex is the biological definition of male or female. If an article(as the one above) describes the "gendering" of videogames then it is describing videogames as being perceived by society as masculine or feminine. I will just post an explanation if you do not want to click on a link:


 * It is important to understand gender as different from sexuality. Sexuality concerns physical and biological differences that distinguish males from females. Cultures construct differences in gender. These social constructions attach themselves to behaviors, expectations, roles, representations, and sometimes to values and beliefs that are specific to either men or women. Gendered differences—those that society associates with men and women—have no necessary biological component. Instead of biology, socially agreed upon and constructed conduct, and the meanings cultures assign to that conduct, constitute the area of gendered difference. Oxford Companion to African American Literature
 * This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined., American Heritage
 * A social classification of people, attributes, and activities into categories such as male, female, and neuter. Gender is frequently based on anatomical differences between men and women, but does not necessarily coincide with them. Gender is socially and culturally determined; it is not biologically determined. Oxford Food & Fitness Dictionary
 * etc
 * Also an article should not be given an inclusive title is there is not known to be any inclusive sources out there. There are many sources that discuss females in games, enough for it to be its own topic, until there is any actual information on males the article's title should reflect its focus on females.AerobicFox (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be anthropomorphising "society". These gender definitions are not handed down from on high. Gender is used to refer to the social construction of male and female - which is what is important here. The literature refers to gender and gaming - perhaps you should write to the publishers and tell them where they're going wrong in letting this kind of thing through. You are also mixing up games and gaming. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article currently discusses females as a demographic, and whether someone belongs to the female demographic is determined by their biological sex. The article you have pointed to discusses the "gendering of videogames", or the making of videogames into something that is masculine or feminine. An article that is about females playing videogames should be entitled "Females and gaming", an article about videogames being masculine would be better titled "Masculinity and videogaming", or "Emasculation of videogames" to describe videogames as being perceived less as applying to guys. Since this article is primarily about females playing videogames, and not societal perceptions of videogames as masculine or feminine, the title of the article should reflect the sex of female gamers, and not societies gender associations towards videogames.AerobicFox (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 2
Again we seem to be drifting far from the issue at hand. Whether or not the sources properly use the term "gender" goes to their strength as sources but not to the question of the appropriateness of the current title. I maintain that the current title is: There are neutral alternatives to the current title and there are more precise alternatives as well. Such titles would be decidedly more encyclopedic.
 * 1. non-neutral (in violation of WP:POVTITLE), and
 * 2. that it fails to adequately describe the content of the article as it stands (in violation of WP:TITLE).

If those who are objecting to the move request are objecting to using any other title than "girl gamer" then that's a valid opinion. If those who are objecting to the move request are objecting to using the newly suggested title "gender and video games" then please suggest an alternative as a simple "oppose" vote implies support for the current title. -Thibbs (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case I support a change to something along the lines of "Female gamers" or other similar derivatives since that would include both young girls and older women, and since the article is about that demographic of gamers.AerobicFox (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We already have Video game if the article is about the number of biologically female people who play video games broken down by age etc. We shouldn't be a fork from that. My impression is that most editors do not see the scope of this article limited to demographics. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression is that this article is discussing a variety of issues related to women and gaming, from why so few play, to the cultural phenomenon of why more women are playing now, how it is becoming more of an accepted activity for females, the types of patterns females play compared to men(they play less often usually, but when they do they play for really long bouts), how female gamers are viewed fat, ugly, or slutty, etc. You can call it what you want, it does all broadly fall within the study of demography, but fundamentally it is about females playing video games.AerobicFox (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, demography is population stats. What you're talking about there towards the end are identities and perceptions of male and female (ie male and female as played out in a social context): that's why gender is the term used here in academic research and not sex. "women/females and video gaming" would be POV, because it would stress women as "different" and "other". The editors who protest that there isn't a page about Men/males and video games have a good point. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, demography is a broad sociological discipline that encompasses—in addition to many other things—analysis of social and cultural trends, which would include analysis of video games and women. Analyzing societal perceptions concerning femininity and masculinity of playing video games would be a subset of analyzing why women play video games which is what this article is about(the motivations of a demographic, females, participating in a cultural/social activity, video games, the analysis of a demographic's trends being demography). Also, if there should be an article about Men/males and video games then that article should be created separately unless sources discuss the two together, otherwise putting them together would be WP:SYNTH.AerobicFox (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did you do your social science? Demographers measure the size and composition of populations. They don't (as demographers) do qualitative analysis. Demography supplies only part of the story for the topic of this article. I'm not suggesting a separate article for males and females, I'm suggesting that "gender and video gaming" is the better, neutral term for an article containing material on "girl gamer". A google scholar search suggests the term "gender and gaming" is far more widely used than "women and gaming". Articles and books on gender and gaming often deal with both genders, such as this article, this chapter (it also has a nice short primer on the difference in social science between sex and gender), or this article all of which popped out of google searches so readily, I'll bet there's a whole lot more than that around. What appears to be the seminal work on this topic is called Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender and gaming., not "...on women and gaming". It is not WP:synth to have an article on a field of study that is clearly established in secondary sources. It would be more closely following the sources to take "gender" as part of the title rather than "women".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote the source you just gave: Also, while demography was originally purely quantitative, it is developed numerous subbranches which deal with qualitative analysis.
 * While in everyday conversation, "gender" is often used interchangeably with "sex" to refer to the state of being male or female, in the social sciences gender tends to be defined in social terms, as a set of attributes or indentures associated with masculinity and femininity in the context of particular cultures and societies...
 * ... The literature on gender and gaming often tends to equate gender with biological sex; in the following discussion I will try to distinguish between the two as they relate to scholarship on gaming.
 * Issues in Social Demography:

Pretty much all purely mathemetical and quantitative disciplines have, in recent decades, branched off into sub disciplines which focus on qualitative analysis of the topic. As for what is more commonly used, sex is used to refer to a gamers biological sex, where as gender is used more often to describe societal perceptions of gender roles with regards to playing video games. Stating that gender brings up more results than female ignores that most works contain both sex and gender in them. Studies that focus on sex-correlations on gaming trends will often describe and go into the gendering of videogames, but that does not mean that the two are conflated, but rather that they discuss two different things. As far as this article is primarily concerned it is about female gamers, their gaming habits, their importance tot he market, their influence on gaming, societal perceptions of female gamers, and while the gendering of video games would be a legitimate discussion for the article it is not the primary focus. Whether or not the article should be inclusive of males depends on a variety of factors, but if there aren't sources discussing males and females in depth, but only mention males to describe the gender gap in games, then I think an inclusive title wouldn't be appropiate since the topic primarily concerns women.AerobicFox (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It[Social demography] concentrates on the interface between sociological and demographic factors; and, theoretically, it is both a sociology of demographic trends and a demography of social structures
 * Sex Differences in Video Game Play:
 * That quotation at the beginning of your post simply establishes that there is a difference between "sex" and "gender", which no one is disputing. It doesn't give any support to your definition of gender, which appears to be way more limited than is used by professional academic researchers. It would, for example, exclude gender identity, which is a pretty big area to miss out, and which is highly relevant here. One problem is that you continually write about society or use "societal" as if society is something with agency and separate from people. Society is the aggregate of people. How people view and talk about themselves and others as male and female in anything other than a physiological context is gender. "Girl gamer" is not a technical term for a gamer with a vagina. It is a particular kind of female gamer, with a particular identity, both taken on by the gamers themselves and as perceived by other gamers. There may possibly be people who identify as "girl gamers" who are biologically male. That's what makes this a gender, not a sex issue.
 * Of course, when talking about gender we also need to talk about biological sex, as unsurprisingly there's something of a high correlation between the two, and biological differences impact on gender differences (and vice versa). To be honest, much of the tone of what you write gives the impression that you've only just found out the difference between gender and sex and that like someone born again, you excitedly presume that (a) you've understood it perfectly and (b) no one else does. One reason I say this because you don't seem particularly au fait with how widely the term "gender" is actually used in the sociological literature. Of the ten in the list of articles citing the one about "sex differences", six either use gender in the title, or the abstract, or as a key indexing term. As far as I can see, none use sex as a lead term. You might argue they're wrong to do this, but they're the ones with articles published in peer review journals and you're an anonymous keyboard hitter on Wikipedia. Finding articles here and there in google that use "sex" more broadly and gender less broadly is just data fishing. You need to look at the general usage in high quality sources.
 * A better source (because it addresses the issue head on) for the role of qualitative research in demography would be this article from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. It details the struggles and mistakes of demographers - formally trained in quantitative methods - when trying to incorporate qualitative methods into research projects when there isn't a sociologist or anthropologist working on their team. Formally qualitative methods are used where quantitative survey instruments are not feasible, primarily with clandestine or illegal activities. As you will see if you read the article, it's still done to create a picture of a population rather than analyse individual experiences in any depth (and you'll also read about the elementary difficulties many demographers have in using qualitative techniques). Demographers have always had to rely on the results of qualitative research to inform their interpretations of statistics. That doesn't take away from the fact that the bread and butter of demography is the measurement of population-level phenomena and the statistical relationships that can be found between them. It's a highly complicated subject; one shouldn't be surprised at the degree of specialism.
 * A demographer working on her or his own turf might look at how many "game girls" there are (if the concept can be properly operationalised to be countable), where they live, what games they play. This article presumably wants to cover more than that, such as "what is a game girl" and related issues of perception and identity in video gaming. Otherwise we can just stick the numbers we have in to Video game and delete this page.
 * Having a title that includes "gender" would broaden the topic, but it would make for a more stable, NPOV, high quality RS-based article than using "females".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing links from "See also"
I've acted boldly and removed links to the following topics: The reason is that there is nothing intuitively obvious that links a game like Pac-Man to the topic of this article - Women and video games. These topics may well have connections - e.g. the character Lightning from FFXIII was reportedly designed with a "less feminine nature" than previous female characters from the FF series. But since these connections are not clear from a simple listing in the "see also" section, I'm moving these links to talk for the time being until they can be integrated as prose in the body of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Golden age of arcade video games
 * Pac-Man
 * Final Fantasy XIII
 * Hyperdimension Neptunia

Feminist Hate Men with a Passion
They believe all men are chauvinist pigs, potential rapist, bad writers, useless as fathers husbands and sons, all support the wage gap, all ignore teenage girls when they are in trouble, all are perverts and favour their own gender over the other. They all agree that all males are like that and thus Separatist Feminism the oldest form of feminism represents the entire movement because all splinter groups carry the traits of the separatist. When they say look up "Nerds and Male Privelage" they mean that all boys and men are oppressive towards women simply because we are male. They all are in favour of false rape allegations, castrations, hate speeches, hateful vandalism that they praise themselves for and never question any real life straw feminist. So we have every right to fear them, they are out to get us and there is nothing we can do bout it be fear and despair since we are automatically the oppressor when born. If they truly wanted equalized then 90% of women shouldn't be calling themselves feminist and hate men with a passion but instead equallist so they they are not so intimidating and hostile. 58.7.138.14 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So there needs to be a anti-feminist perspective in this article since they don't allow us to play any games any more because they believe they are targeted at violent chauvinist. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see from your talk page history at other articles that you've been warned several times about using Wikipedia as a forum for you to soapbox, and you've also recently admitted that you are editing with an IP in order to evade a block that was imposed on you by the community. So I'll make this brief:


 * If you want to include information in this article you have to provide reliable sources along with the information.
 * Even with reliable sources, coverage of a topic must not be undue
 * Inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this article and using Wikipedia's voice to pronounce it is strictly forbidden per WP:POV.
 * I hope this clears matters up for you. I've collapsed the portion of your rant above that had nothing to do with this article. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether you, personally, are or are not being "blamed and hated" for your gender is not important to this article. That would be contrary to our rules about "No Original Research". An individual may feel as you do for many reasons - but that does not somehow prove or justify some position about the state of the world in general - which is what this article is about. In order to be dispassionate and unbiassed, we all have to put our personal experiences to one side and look at the situation from a "neutral point of view" - which means that for any statement that may be contested or in any way controversial, we must have "reliable sources" to show that this statement is held more generally - and we must be especially careful about not giving controversial statements "undue weight". That doesn't mean that we can't write "female gamers are blamed and hated" - but it does emphatically mean that we have to have a ton of reliable, uncontrovertiable evidence in mainstream media, scientific papers and other scholarly writings to prove that this is a true statement. SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just fell I'm being blamed and hated for my gender and I would like a response for that statement. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's OK to feel that way, but it's not OK to use Wikipedia as a forum for your opinions. I encourage you to start a blog/vlog to share your views or join an online forum where you can discuss your ideas with other people. If you intend to participate at Wikipedia then please keep in mind that we are here to craft a neutral, reliably-sourced encyclopedia. If you don't intend to stick to these policies and/or to help build the encyclopedia then please stop posting here. -Thibbs (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's evident that you do indeed feel this way - we don't need to be convinced of that. Sure, it's unfortunate.  But Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of information into articles is not "truth" but "evidence" (See: Truth) Without strong evidence, backed by reliable sources, we can't write about it. The reason for this is that it is far from being true that all girl gamers hate boy gamers. I work in the computer game industry and I know many girl gamers who fell in love with and eventually married boy gamers. So whatever your personal experience is...or whatever evidence I may have from friends and co-workers with contradictory claims to yours...we need WP:RS..."reliably sourced evidence" for whatever we write here. I strongly suggest that you read our guidelines at No original research. SteveBaker (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More soapboxing by the same IP troll
If girls play games then they say that they are targeted at boys and if girls don't play them then they say they are targeted at boys so either way we are fighting feminist extremist and I'm not even torching male the trolls who are violent chauvinist which are what the video games are targeted at threaten rape and say they should stay in in the kitchen. --124.169.46.148 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've already shared your original research and opinions with us here before. Good luck getting them published in a reliable source. Please don't waste our time. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I deleted this section. --124.169.215.165 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

About 50% of gamers are female
The first paragraph should be rephrased imho as "While composing close to half of the population at large, female gamers represent a distinct minority of total gamers." is not true today. According to ESA, 48% of the gamers were female in 2012. See page 5 of http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.70.162 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the lede here. What do you think? Does that address the issue? -Thibbs (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious article quality.
The article strikes me as extremely biased, imbalanced and altogether opinionated in its perception of the video game industry, rather than something formed of academic discussion or scientific study.

This is indicated by the immediate introduction of "disparity as problem", portraying said opinion as objective instead of just as an opinion, little thought given to the history of video games or its conception, the roles women and men have within the video game industry, and as usual no attention paid to the difference between eastern and western industries (this is more endemic to video game study as whole, however). And of course the general absence of of opposition to the various viewpoints doesn't help the article's quality. The audience breakdowns and research showing preference for genders are possibly the most insightful parts of the article, and should be focused on, and more elaboration of "games as art" and the importance of equal gender contribution (if it is indeed proclaimed) needs to be conveyed before diving into the "problems" identified.

I'd understand it being part of the page "Gender representation in video games", thereby exploring the ideas of masculinity and femininity, and the placement/history of different sexes within the Video Game Industry, but really this whole article reads like a platform. for one particular viewpoint. Unfortunately, the Gender article possess the same problems also, so merging is hardly a solution.

To share an opinion; it's really quite distressing to see such a potentially interesting subject hijacked by one view. Many academics deride the potentially interesting field of gender studies and it is becoming increasingly clear why, there are few people willing to give it the clarity it needs as more than just a soapbox for feminism. N-Denizen (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to keep in mind that non-neutral topics are certainly allowed on Wikipedia as long as they're presented objectively. But as your comments suggest, non-neutral claims within all Wikipedia articles must be attributed to reliable sources and reliably sourced counterpoints should also be presented if they're not fringe perspectives. This article currently contains a number of neutral claims that are reliably sourced and one frequently RS-discussed but potentially non-neutral perspective—that the minority position of women as gamers and as game designers/developers is a problem. If there are reliable sources suggesting that this is not a problem or that it is a good thing, or possibly that women haven't made up a minority of the gamer or game designer/developer populations, or some other perspective contradicting the sourced views presented in the article, and if these contradicting claims aren't fringe theories, then they should be included in the article by all means. But this information shouldn't be stripped out of the article simply to render the coverage neutral. What you seem to have identified as the feminist perspective covered here is a notable aspect of the topic and if the article were to fail to duly cover it then it would not be providing full coverage. Expansion of the article with reliably-sourced information is always welcome though. -Thibbs (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely if the point of the article was "the issue of under-representation of Women in Video Games", that would be the title of the article, though? If I wanted an article on woman and videogames, I would expect a format as such: History, Reasons For, Current State, and then the argument that it's something that needs addressing contained within another section altogether, with opposing viewpoints - instead the article seems desperate to dive into "this is objectively bad" portrayal as soon as possible, despite this not being the intention conveyed in the article's title. If the removal of imbalanced information is discouraged, this does not however mean the article's opinionated structure is still acceptable. N-Denizen (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed the article's topic is "women and video games" broadly, not just the issue of "under-representation of women in video games." In order to cover the topic properly, the article's coverage should duly reflect all notable perspectives related to the topic. So if there are a significant number of reliable sources claiming that this is a problem then this should be reflected in the article. And if there are a significant number of reliable sources claiming that this is not a problem, or that it is a confusion of problem for symptom of a bigger problem, or whatever other notable perspectives exist then of course these should also be included in the article. The removal of sourced information is discouraged, but the balancing of information is encouraged as long as it's done according to WP:DUE and as long as it doesn't violate WP:FRINGE. So for an article like cigarette, there is no need to search high and low to find evidence of a minority viewpoint that smoking is good for the health, but for an article like global warming it is important to discuss the controversies attending the political dimensions of the otherwise scientific topic. -Thibbs (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Work Towards Getting More Women in Gaming
This article only talks about the issues of women in gaming. It would be helpful and relevant to talk about work done to get more women involved in the video game world (i.e. the people who have worked towards getting rid of the gender distribution gap in gaming). RedTech14 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's some coverage of this topic under the "Future outlook" section (efforts by Sega and Nintendo, and the creation of female-oriented games by HerInteractive, GirlGames, GirlTech, Silicon Sisters, and Purple Moon), but this could certainly be expanded. I know there have been some conferences on the topic for instance. Did you have anything specifically in mind? -Thibbs (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article needs updating for 2013
This article has become out of date and needs a serious refresh. For example, the opening paragraph claims that "While composing 47% of the population at large, female gamers have traditionally represented a distinct minority of total gamers." (I note that this claim has no citation), and later it states that women "only constitute a small percentage of video game players". That is in direct contradiction to current 2012 studies from the Entertainment Software Association, which show that "Forty-seven percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent)." These are referenced later in the article almost as a footnote, which doesn't seem right. -- Mecandes (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Specific figures definitely do go out of date and need to be kept current in this article. If you have more recent figures than the 47% listed in the lede, then please update the article. Per WP:LEADCITE, however, the lede need not have the same degree of citations as it is intended as a summary of the article and the citations will appear within the article's body. We should also be cautious of making changes in the article that are too dramatic, because some sources have pointed to aspects like the clear minority of female game designers and the lack of female players in the so-called "hardcore" game genres as indicative that gender disparities still exist. Critics of studies (such as the ESA study) that show closer to 50/50 gamer gender ratios have repeatedly suggested that these are skewed by the all-inclusive concept of the game that underlies them. For these critics, there is a substantive difference between "casual" games like Minesweeper and Farmville where gender ratios are close to equal and games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto where ratios are considerably more stacked toward males. This could be introduced to the article to expand it. -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Not neutral
"Part of the problem comes from the difficulty in juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game.[13]" - this is a direct violation of NPOV, since it sides totally with feminism (an ideology) and is a definite statement. One would get the impression that the Wikipedia article states that good video games NEED feminism - Vorpal Saber (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no violation of NPOV with this mild statement, which comes from Erin Hamilton of GameSpot. Hamilton is saying that females will not be attracted to gaming until more female characters are designed with feminist qualities. This is not a surprising or unusual opinion, and it does not break Wikipedia's rules for presenting published opinion in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment needs attribution Binksternet - it needs to mention that this is Hamilton's POV. Also the phrase "academic study" in the sentence before it should be replaced with something less tautological-- Cailil  talk 22:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're completely misunderstanding the meaning of that line, Vorpal Saber. The point is not that proper juxtaposition of femininity and feminism is required to make a good game, but rather that it is difficult to properly juxtapose femininity and feminism and still end up with a good game. -Thibbs (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the line was vague enough to be interpreted so differently, I'd argue that it had no place there. I am very suspicious, being old enough to remember communism in my country, of any attempts to put an ideology into something that is recreational in nature. - 85.221.153.78 (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not vague at all. There is only one plain meaning. If the word "feminism" is causing suspicions that interfere with understanding the line for you, try using different words in the sentence. Consider the following:
 * "Part of the problem comes from the difficulty in juxtaposing educational content and replay value in a good video game."
 * That doesn't mean that only games with educational content are good. It means that there is difficulty in balancing educational content and replay value and still coming up with a good game. As I explained yesterday, the same pattern of construction applies for the line used in the article here. Obviously this single plain meaning requires proficiency in the English language but that's something that is already expected of readers at en.wikipedia. There is a sister site available at simple.wikipedia for English-language readers who are having difficulties with reading comprehension. -Thibbs (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're so condescending to me personally that you refer me to simple.wikipedia for "English-language readers who are having difficulties with reading comprehension" just because I don't agree with YOUR interpretation? Contrary to YOUR beliefs,there isn't any need to cram an ideology like feminism into a game, so there is no need to write that "difficulty in juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game" is a problem at all. And I think I have read somewhere about PERSONAL attacks on dissident people on talk pages. Why did you do that? Why did you insult me? - Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're also going as far as to suggest that I don't have any place on en.Wikipedia at all, simply because I don't agree with YOU while doing it politely. Is that an exemplary behaviour of someone on Wikipedia? - Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, you seem to have spectacularly missed the point, Vorpal Saber. The reason I brought up simple.wikipedia was because that is a place where English-language proficiency of the reader is a matter of concern. Simple.wikipedia strives for simplicity and the perceived ambiguity of a sentence by a goodfaith reader is prima facie evidence that the sentence is not in fact "simple". I was not making a personal commentary on your grasp of English which I readily acknowledge to be advanced. I completely refute your repeated slanderous suggestions that my last comment was posted for nationalistic or xenophobic reasons, and I can assure you that the condescension you've read into my words is non-existent.
 * I also find offensive your implication that non-native speakers who do need to use simple.wikipedia are somehow so shameful that even to be compared to them (as I have NOT in your case) causes you to froth at the mouth. Do you not remember your early days of studying English? It's not the easiest language in the world. Simple.wikipedia provides a valuable service for its readers and for you to take reference to it as a deep personal insult is far more haughty and dismissive than my repeated explanation to you that there is only one way to understand the line you believe to be so ambiguous. Again, there is no "MY interpretation" versus "YOUR interpretation". There is only one interpretation supported by English construction. I'm explaining to you what the speaker of the quote is unambiguously saying, not arguing that she is correct. Do you grasp the difference? -Thibbs (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then all I can say is I am sorry for the confusion. I honestly read that as a personal attack on me. I have been recently told many times that what I say does not matter (by interlocutors on other wikis, coming from the "academic perspective" from a position of extreme condescension. I have read your words as a personal attack, casually dismissing my point (as I have experienced in the past). I admit to being wrong here. I apologize to you, Thibbs, personally. I will do so on your talk page also. You were not xenophobic, not condescending or dismissive. I have misinterpreted your intent. Again, I am very sorry for my mistake. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I could probably have phrased it better somehow anyway. I'm sorry for any part I played in the confusion. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * While you mask your flawed logic behind your clear insult about my English (is it because of my Polish nationality?), your line of reasoning is still invalid. "difficulty in juxtaposing educational content and replay value in a good video game" is not parallel to "juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game". Why? Because "educational content" and "replay value" are intrinsic values of video games (albeit present in differing quantities). "juxtaposing femininity and feminism in a good video game" has as much sense as saying "juxtaposing masculinity and socialism in a good video game". It is good to be able to discern ideologies from intrinsic properties objects and concepts have. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You seem to have changed the argument now. Previously we were discussion ambiguous construction. Now we seem to be discussing the content claim of the RS quotation. My analogy was a language construction analogy, but you're arguing that it is defective for the underlying logic of the claim. Maybe this would make it clearer. Consider the following:
 * "Part of the problem comes from the difficulty in juxtaposing X and Y in a good video game."
 * Now can you see how this is not an argument that only good games have a balance of X and Y? Can you see how that sentence is really saying that it is difficult to balance X and Y and still produce a good game? I hope you can. -Thibbs (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cailil's attribution version is fine. I don't think we need to discuss this any further. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Cailil's change is fine. However I'd like to point out that Thibbs' unneeded personal attack was made AFTER that revision, and it wasn't me who provoked it. I will end this discussion, but I will still point out that telling me to go to simple.Wikipedia (presumably because I'm Polish) should be an unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And again I'm stung by your insistence that I'm anti-Polish. I refute that completely and I can assure you that in the past I have worked hard to strengthen ties between en.wikipedia and pl.wikipedia specifically. I can furnish proof of this on my talk page if you want to continue this slanderous discussion there. Please cease attempting to defame me on this article talk page, though. It's completely unfounded. -Thibbs (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You insulted me personally first without any provocation whatsoever, told me in no uncertain terms that I don't belong on en.wikipedia at all and now I'm defaming YOU? -Vorpal Saber (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize to Thibbs and say I am sorry for misinterpreting what she said. I read it as a personal attack and a casual dismissal of my point. I take back anything bad I said about Thibbs, it was a mistake on my part. I am very sorry for this entire confusion and for my misinterpretation. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. No harm done in the end. -Thibbs (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists
Category:Video games featuring female protagonists, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently added sources for the "girl gamer" subsection
I've just reverted this edit on the basis that the grammar has actually been made worse in spots and the sources are irrelevant to the topic of the subsection. The sources seem to be reliable, however, so it would be a pity to lose them completely. So I'm migrating them here to talk so they can be incorporated later into appropriate subsections. The first source might also be a good candidate for inclusion in Gender representation in video games as well. -Thibbs (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this reversion I'd like to once again reiterate that the sources that have been added have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the subsection they have been inserted into. For reference the topic of this "Girl gamers" subsection is the term "girl gamer" and its use and reactions to its use, etc. In contrast, the first source listed is about the lack of female player characters in video games and the second is about gender and technology. In neither of these sources is the term "girl gamer" used even once. These sources may have something to do with the overall topic of the article, but they should not be shoehorned into this subsection because they literally have nothing to do with the subtopic. They currently serve nothing but decorative purposes. As far as the "citation needed" tag that has been entered, it is also inappropriate. The previous versions was this:
 * "[critics] have described the term ['girl gamer'] as unhelpful,[1][2] offensive, and even harmful or misleading. The word 'girl', for example, has been seen as an inherently age-linked term. . .[3] The term 'girl gamer' rather than simply 'gamer' has also been described as perpetuating the minority position of female gamers."
 * It has been changed to this:
 * "[critics] have described the term ['girl gamer'] as unhelpful,[1][2] offensive, and even harmful[Citation Needed] The word 'girl', for example, has been seen as an inherently age-linked term. . .[3] The term 'girl gamer' rather than simply 'gamer' has also been described as perpetuating the minority position of female gamers."
 * The effect of this edit is to simultaneously remove the sourced examples of the general statement and to demand proof of the general statement's claims. The problem is that the sourced examples previously part of the same paragraph were the citations that are needed. The first example shows how the word "girl" in "girl gamer" is misleading, and the second example shows how the word is unhelpful or harmful. By breaking the paragraph in two at the point where examples of the general statement are made, the current version complete disrupts the flow of the idea. In English, each paragraph is intended to function as a miniature self-supporting claim with an initial proposition, support, and a conclusion. In this new version, the second paragraph starts out with the "self-supporting claim" that "The word 'girl', for example, has been seen as...". The question is what this is an example of. If we as readers have to refer back to the previous paragraph to determine what we're giving examples of then it's a good indication that the paragraph should not have been split at this point. I'll again restore the original version and suggest that we use discussion here in talk to resolve this issue. I have no interest in edit warring, but the article is distinctly degraded by these recent edits. -Thibbs (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Language
I am going to attempt to add a simple English section to this page.JBculkin (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the cited statistics are doubtful
For instance, the ESA reports (ref 29 and 31) do not give a single word about the methodology they used to determine, for instance, that 45% of gamers are female. The report only provides the numbers as is, and requires readers to take them at face value, without even properly define what they count as online games, and more importantly how they assessed the gender of the gamers.

In my opinion, it is not rigorous enough methodology, for those numbers to be used on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.41.129.7 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend bringing the issue up at WT:VG/RS. -Thibbs (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Original Research
I encountered a lot of original research/opinions, which was summarily deleted, but there's probably a lot more unreliable sources in the article:

Many of the attempts to reach the female demographic have fallen short, though, in recent years. –Your personal opinion, but not wiki material – unless you can cite a reliable source.

''Games like Project Runway have been seen as insulting and degrading. The commercial shows a women in heels walking on a Wii balancing board while the narrator states that this game is the future of women gaming.'' –Original research. The citation provided is a mere blog post, and even then, it doesn’t claim that the game or commercial was insulting/degrading.

Also, the recent revamping of the game Tomb Raider has been seen this way as well. –Who said this? There is no citation.

The game developers stated that they wanted to make Lara Croft weaker in order to become more relatable.[25] –I looked at the citation and found no mention of the developers wanting to make the Lara Croft character “weaker.” In fact, I found the exact opposite, where the developer states that “I don’t feel I consciously ‘opted’ for a female character, it is just the story I wanted to tell that drove the decision. Whether the main protagonist is a male, a female, a plastic toy or a blue alien, it doesn’t matter.” Another developer says, “We kept the traits that were central to her character: she’s a Brit, she’s smart, resourceful and brave.” Eyeofpie —Preceding m comment added 09:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an important issue. I'll take a look at these in more depth tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I am still very new to wikipedia editing, but I will try to fact check sources for this article and make needed changesJBculkin (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Clean Up Required?
A large portion of this wiki on "Women and video games" seems to be constructed from a single source -- Joystiq.com -- and it's a blog. Wikipedia articles shouldn't manufacture content based on the opinions of one group of people. Frankly, this entire article needs cleaning up because of the pervasive use of blogs (e.g. Joystiq) to justify a viewpoint. If you can cite some of these statements with more reliable sources, cite those sources instead. Eyeofpie —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just like an editorial or an interview, a blog is a form of media and doesn't say anything on its own about the reliability of the source. The question to ask is whether the author is reliable. In this case the author, Kevin Kelly, appears to have has been frequently cited as authoritative on video games by reliable 3rd party sources, and he has been used on Wikipedia for more than 70 articles including featured content. Joystiq is listed at WP:VG/RS as a "conditional" source that is usable provided that the author is authoritative. I think the burden has been met, but if you are still concerned, the place to file for a second opinion is at WT:VG/RS. If you want to replace some (or possibly even all) of the Joystiq-cited claims with superior sources that claim the same thing then that sounds like a good plan too. I say go for it. -Thibbs (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have spent time reviewing the sources used as well as the context in which the sources have been used. There were a few sources that seemed questionable. In the next week or two I will spend time trying to locate a few primary sources to support or replace the questionable ones as you have mentioned.JBculkin (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be cautious replacing vetted secondary sources with new primary sources. There are some important pointers on the topic at WP:PRIMARY that you might want to look over first, and if you need help locating reliable sources then please refer to WP:VG/RS. Good luck with your research. -Thibbs (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I will try to be careful. I will start out with the sources that don't really support the information represented in the article.JBculkin (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK sounds good. It may have simply been a terminology problem too. I see the sources you're adding include government publications, Forbes, and The Boston Globe. No problem with any of those. They're all secondary sources as far as I can see. -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The male perspective
This article seems to be mostly researched from the female perspective which gives the article a non neutral tone. I found a few sources from my research that I am planning of using to create a section that supports this artice from the male perspective to help balance out the female versus male data sampling.JBculkin (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out the strict guideline WP:No original research, which would prevent you from bringing your own research to this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I read JBculkin's statement as locating new sources to complement the article. I did not take WPOR as a presumed situation. Sheesh.BcRIPster (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. I welcome any new reliable sources that JBculkin can bring here. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what female perspective we're talking about here... From a quick look at the sources I count 19 unambiguous male writers and 20 unambiguous female writers. (I'm not counting people like H. Jenkins or Jesse Meixsell whose genders I can't immediately ascertain.). Anyway I don't think it's helpful to try to divide the sources by gender. That's essentially the same as claiming that bias should be presumed in the source based only on the author's gender. I'm not sure that's a tenable position. I welcome the introduction of new sources, but maybe it would be good to discuss major edits to make sure there's consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the inaccuracies of my reason for the new addition. I suppose that I got the impression that a lot of the sources that were used had information taken for use to support the female perspective on women in video games. I really only ment to add an opposing viewpoint on the subject to supplement what I percieved as the female point of view. I welcome improvments by others as well as ideas for improvements for myself to make on this section.JBculkin (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to think more about this issue, but my initial thoughts are these:
 * 1 - This article has been and probably will continue to be attacked by those who find the ideas challenging to their worldview. (See for example Talk:Women and video games/Archive 1). I worry that the existence of the new subsection may by an invitation for these kinds of people to introduce their own personal POV as males.
 * 2 - I think we need to start reconsidering some of the sources we are using here. Basically all refs after ref#44 in the current article are incorrectly formatted (no author or publisher is listed, no date, etc.). And secondly we have to be sure the sources are all reliable. Blogs and other user-submitted content, for instance, can't be assumed reliable unless the author is an established expert in the field. Good places to verify that sources are reliable in this context include WP:VG/RS and WP:RSN.
 * I'll try to think about it some more when I get some free time. -Thibbs (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with you on point number one. My hopes are that the section gets a chance to supplement the information in this article. If it is too much for the public to remain objective on the topic then I would not be heart broken if the section needed to be removed due to an internet battle based on original research on how men feel about females in the industry. I stopped my source research at about that same point because it started close to the notable women in the video game industry. I really didn't want to do much with that section because I felt that the section wasn't really the primary focus of the article, but still important enough to keep the section. I believe that the only edits that I made to that section was to attach photos to the names that already had photos associated with them in their personal article. It was my original intent to add a photo to represent each of the notable women to help show diversity of women in the field, but because I am new and had not made enough edits on my account I had a difficult time with adding photos that did not already exist as a part of this site. I am undecided as to whether or not I am going to go through the process of uploading new photos to commons in order to add new content to this article. I would still agree that some of the sources beyond my stopping point could use some adjusting and updating.JBculkin (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Split Off the Notable Women
I'd like to suggest splitting off the 'Notable Women' section into a 'Women in Video Games' category (assuming one doesn't exist already.) The inclusion of just a few women in that section, who don't necessarily represent the most notable or influential female developers, strikes me as problematic, and updating to make it a more accurate list would require so many additions that the section would become ungainly. (Not to mention the weird disconnect between the 'Notable Women' section and the 'See Also' section.) Andrhia (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I'd like to hear some other thoughts on the idea, but I think you make a good point. -Thibbs (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am ambivalent about a separate article for that list (title would be "List of..." per MOS for stand-alone lists, to distinguish it from this article of prose about the topic?). Lots of articles have a section of this sort of thing in the main article (typically each one annotated, as if a WP:DAB page) to separate them out of the clutter of a seealso. Are there sufficient others to include that a separate section here would overload this article? DMacks (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are sufficient others. On top of the many notable women in the history of games (the most notable as listed in this write-up) there's been a Fortune write-up of the 10 most powerful women in gaming and periodic Gamasutra articles of the top 20. Note also that I'm talking about creating a category and not a list-of page; many of these women already have their own Wikipedia articles and write-ups here are redundant. You could make a case that if they're notable enough to be included here at all, they should have their own pages to begin with. Andrhia (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to locate and add photos for the notable women section.JBculkin (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Any reason why Roberta Williams isn't mentioned here? She's arguably one of the most famous/important female game designers in game history. HaiDeaf (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * She is actually mentioned briefly, she's just not spotlighted with her own subsection like some of the other women in the article. There was originally no coverage of individual women in the article at all. This changed in October 2013 when User:152.33.61.191 added subsections on the 5 individuals we currently see in the article. I have no idea why Roberta Williams wasn't given a bigger subsection. Frankly the whole idea of spotlighting a handful of particularly notable women seems like it might be a mistake. There will always be disagreements about who are the most important individuals in any field. A category as suggested by User:Andrhia above might make the most sense. -Thibbs (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support just cutting this section and creating a category or a list, and adding any appropriate information to the prose. Per normal process on articles vs lists vs categories. Almost the entire Heather Kelley article is duplicated here, for example. And listing all these women's respective game credits is definitely WP:NOTDIRECTORY. bridies (talk)
 * I support splitting off Reine Abbas and Julie Uhrman into their own articles at least. Then just having a nice list of people and quick blurbs as to what made them important would be appropriate. This section feels a bit too long. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean an embedded list or a Stand-alone list? I see the same kinds of inclusion problems potentially plaguing an embedded list. I think a history subsection might work better with notable women worked into it in prose. A separate list article might be an interesting way to accommodate a list, but I still prefer categories because they are dictated by common sense whereas a list article would have to demonstrate notability as a topic. Of course we could also do both. -Thibbs (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've found this image, which is a compilation and Who's who of notable women. It may be used to look for references and start that list. Diego (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice find, Diego. I started a list of redlinked women in video game BLPs just the other day and the idea of a list article is growing on me. I think a category would also be helpful, but with moderation a list article could serve as an article creation guide in this area where WP:VG has a bit of a gap in coverage. -Thibbs (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving several entries from the "See also" section here into talk for now: These are mostly specific women (and in one case a specific game that apparently marketed well with women) who should appear together with the other notable women in the "Notable women in the video game industry" section if at all. I'm still in favor of turning that section into a category or splitting them all into a separate list article as suggested by bridies. There seems to be bare consensus that this is a good idea so I'll try to tackle it pretty soon. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Frag Dolls
 * Amy Hennig
 * Brenda Brathwaite
 * Corrinne Yu
 * Jade Raymond
 * Anita Sarkeesian
 * Sheri Graner Ray
 * Roberta Williams
 * Heavy Rain

Graphs and tables
(NOTE: Shifted into a new section from above -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)) The numbers in the chart also vary from year to year, some years its console gaming, some years its online gaming, some years it's not specified. The same measurement (console, online, whatever) needs to be used every year. 65.130.114.65 (talk) 10:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IDSA stats for 1998 through 2003 reflect PC gaming. ESA stats for 2004 through 2014 reflect gaming in general. Console, online, whatever stats only appear in the notes to provide additional information not appearing in the chart. This is explained in the note at the top of the chart, but perhaps this should be made yet clearer. How does this edit look? Even if it's apparent by looking at the graph itself, I hope this modification should provide an additional alert for readers that the figures listed in the notes are additional and don't match the numbers in the graph. Does that seem reasonable? -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment to this new section to discuss the new tables and graphs generally. I believe that they are essential to enable digestion of the barrage of figures found in the many gender ratio studies. The IP commenter above brings up an issue that I tried to make central to the graphs/tables: "The same measurement needs to be used [throughout]." So with this in mind,... I've also had to make some pretty ugly workarounds in creating the graphs in particular so I have no prejudice against them being recreated properly by someone who knows the wikicode better than I. I think this makes the demographics section much more comprehensible than the previous version which was just a random collection of factoids from a wide variety of sources (gaming magazines, gaming associations, and world news outlets). These factoids are still present in bullet form, and I think we should work on cutting and organizing them into more of a prose style. Any help there would be greatly appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the first two graphs I tried to find the longest possible span of time that used the same figure. This worked out to PC gaming prior to 2004 and general gaming thereafter for the ESA stats and general gaming throughout the ESAC stats. I would have liked to have included other countries too to give it a more international treatment, but most of the relevant non-North-American associations only started studying gender ratios within the last two years or (e.g. in the case of the Australian IGEA) their studies have been irregular (e.g. IGEA stats seem to cover only 2005, 2009, and 2012). So I didn't think they'd provide much of a reflection of how ratios have changed through time.
 * A much more international comparison was possible for the single year 2012 when most relevant associations made a study, but of course there are glaring holes for asia/oceania, south america, africa, and the middle east. If we could find RS data covering 2012 gender ratios in these regions they should be added to the table. Likewise if we could find a more recent set of figures of equivalent breadth then we should update the table accordingly.
 * Also note that the graph's colors follow traditional gender stereotypes which I suppose some may dislike. I selected the colors based on those used here. I don't see any good reason to change them but if there is interest in changing the colors it's easily managed. -Thibbs (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

For several reasons I'm not entirely happy with the way the graphs have turned out. First of all, the workarounds I've used in the bar graphs produce screwy hovertext for the male-gamer percentage. Secondly, I've tried to be clear in the USA ESA/IDSA graph that the early part relates to PC gaming and that the later part refers to gaming in general. I had put them both on the chart in order to extend the timespan, and I used PC gaming because I was under the impression that PC gaming was bigger in the late 1990s than console gaming and thus more likely to reflect the average. More recently, however, I've seen early NPD Group (the tracking agency used by IDSA) reports suggesting that the opposite was true. So now I'm more concerned with the "same measurement" issue from above. I came up the line graph collapsed below as an unambiguous way to display the results for the USA chart: Would there be any objection if I swapped the current USA bar graph for this one (non-collapsed of course)? -Thibbs (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objections I've made the swap. for consistency's sake I swapped the Canadian bar graph for a line graph as well. I'm collapsing the old bar graph below in case anyone wants to revisit that style at a later date.


 * As I see it the biggest benefit is that the figures are more comprehensible, but the biggest negative is that there's no hover text to give the actual datapoints. From a WP:ACCESS that's bad, but then again no hovertext might be better than screwy hovertext like we had before, and ACCESS issues might be solved via prose in the section above. Anyway I welcome thoughts and opinions on these graphical styles. -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
In the Sexism in video gaming talkpage I proposed to include the content of that article in this one. Please contribute to the discussion! Heinerj (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reworking the bulleted lists
I've just made a bold reworking of the bulleted lists of stats. Considering that we have a large graph showing the ESA and ESAC data I don't think we need to present yet further material from these groups in the bulleted points unless necessary. Although they seem to be the longest-established groups collecting demographic data, I wish to avoid overemphasizing their particular studies over other studies. So I have removed from the list several ESA-based claims including reports by The Washington Times and CNN that were covering the ESA's publication of its yearly statistics. These articles are from RSes and are good sources, but they shouldn't be used to imply that they they there is greater diversity of research on these studies than there actually is. And again I think it is prudent to avoid overemphasizing the ESA-reported studies. I realize that this greatly shortens some parts of the list, but I will be adding further statistics in the next few days. Regarding the overall format I have tried to express first stats about male-female percentages among gamers in general which I understand to be the most basic question in these studies, and then I left one bullet point each for statistics on more specific topics like video game magazine readership; platform, format, and genre preferences; age ranges; and brand loyalty statistics. I added context to the second bulleted list which I think justifies removal of the "Specific" tag at the top. Please let me know if there are ways to further improve the bulleted list section. -Thibbs (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and I wanted to provide a list of the sources I cut so they can be more easily reviewed and perhaps some of them like the Washington Times and CNN reports used more effectively. So here were the bullets I cut out:

bulleted stats & sources

In 2006, The Washington Times reported that 38% of the gaming population was female.

In 2012, "Forty-seven percent of all game players were women. Women over the age of 18 represented a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent)."

In 2013, Entertainment Software Association's U.S. national study found that 45% of game players are female, 2% decrease from previous year's figures. However, women 18 years or older represented 31% of the game-playing population, one percent higher than the previous year, while boys 17 years and younger represented 19% of the game-playing population. Women over 18 were one of the fastest growing demographics in the gaming industry.

In 2010, a U.S. national study by the Entertainment Software Association had found that the percentage of women playing online had risen to 42%, up several percent since 2004. The same 2010 study showed that 46% of game purchasers were female, and this figure increased to 48% by 2012.

In 2013, according to CNN, sixteen percent of gamers played with their parents, 32% played with other family members, and 16% played with their spouse or significant other. The same report stated that thirty-five percent of parents played games with their children every week and 58% of parents played with their children at least once a month.
 * That's all of them. Again I've removed them for purely stylistic reasons. All of the data is accurate, but I think it is unhelpful to the reader to present them as a block of jumbled and hard-to-digest statistics devoid of context. But any one of these could be restored if there is reason to do so. The CNN and Washington Times articles in particular would be appropriate to cite for their own commentary on the ESA stats. -Thibbs (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that one of the sources was misplaced due to an improper 2012 edit that inserted a claim behind a ref that didn't belong to it. So I've fixed the ref, but I've also made redundant another useable RS related to the ESA so I'll add it here just as I did for the above (collapsed) refs.
 * Merripen, Clarinda. "Increasing The Bottom Line: Women's Market Share." Game Developer. 01 Feb 2005. 16. eLibrary. ProQuest LLC. ART INSTITUTE OF SEATTLE. 11 Nov 2009. .
 * No prejudice against its reintroduction if needed. -Thibbs (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Scarlett Transgender
This article may not be aware that Scarlett is actually a transgendered male. I think this is important to the overall picture and makes existing statements in this article need more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.163.29 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I doubt that would be a suitable inclusion in this article. According to the cited article, "The response ot her success from the gaming world was was mixed. Many people celebrated her wins. But a loud minority of fans attacked her gender identity at every opportunity. Hostyn herself rarely talks about this aspect of her life, even going so far as to say it’s disrespectful to even acknowledge the fact in online encyclopedia entries about her." Keeping in mind that WP:BLP is Wikipedia policy, we would need multiple high quality secondary sources illustrating the fact to be important to the overall picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See also the related section below. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sasha "Scarlett" Hostyn
Both § Women in Competitive Gaming and Electronic sports contain this text:"Canadian StarCraft II Zerg player Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett) first gained notoriety in the open qualifiers of IGN ProLeague 4, where she defeated top-tier Korean players. She is well known for being one of the few non-Korean players who can play at the same skill level as male Korean players." I agree with IP 76.115.163.29's statement on this Talk page that we need to mention that Scarlett is a transgender, for the "overall picture". That Scarlett is a transgender is (very) relevant given the context. In these article sections about women - even the section titles include the word "women" - if we use Scarlett as an example, especially for "[...] who can play at the same skill level as male [...]", without mentioning Scarlett is a transgender, then we're leaving out important information that the reader needs to comprehend/assess the entire picture. We're distorting reality. This is similar to the fallacy of exclusion and suppressed evidence. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BB: edit and edit --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE reasons. If we get multiple high-quality sources saying it's important, then we can talk. And if we do add it, it would need serious rephrasing: saying "a transgender" is like calling someone "a black". Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your decision. WP:UNDUE does not apply: that Scarlett is a transgender is factual and not a viewpoint. A fact that is relevant given the context; a required, proportionate detail. The reference is merely included as a reliable source for the fact. WP:NPOV - that includes the WP:UNDUE section - is primarily related to views, not facts. As you can see at WP:YESPOV, the explanation of WP:NPOV focuses primarily on the difference between facts and assertions/opinions. Including that Scarlett is a transgender is acceptable per WP:BLP. The reference makes the material verifiable, and the material and its tone are not misleading, not criticism, the material is not an under- or overstatement, not a viewpoint. The importance of including the fact stems not from external factors but from the use of Scarlett as an example of women in competitive gaming/esports in the Wikipedia articles. If we do not include that Scarlett is a transgender woman, readers will assume that Scarlett is a regular female in terms of biology (two X chromosomes; different type of gamete), which would distort the "overall picture". This is especially true with the related material in the article that Scarlett is "well known for being one of the few" who are similarly skilled as male players. One of the few women who can compete with men is a man biologically. This is fascinating. It is properly sourced too. (See also, for example, GlobalPost and The New Yorker.) All articles from reliable sources that discuss or mention Scarlett that I have been able to find do in fact mention that Scarlett is a "transgender", "transgender gamer", "transgender woman". This is because it's noteworthy. I don't mind rephrasing the material. Feel free to add something you deem (more) appropriate/precise either in the article or, if you prefer, on this Talk page to discuss it further. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well another thing that all of the RSes discuss is the fact that the issue is used as a means to attack and criticize this living person online. So you can understand that it's a sensitive BLP issue and that we need multiple high quality secondary sources that demonstrate the fact to be important to the overall picture. I'll have to review the sources in greater depth later today but from a quick skim I didn't see anything claiming an actual substantive advantage or difference between transgendered women and what you call "regular women", and I certainly don't see anything about the chromosomal details of this living person's body (she could have been born an XX male for all know - I'd need to see scientific or medical RSes to be confident in asserting her genetic composition). I'm not dead-set against including the information if it's needed, but I'm happy to err on the side of caution here. We might consider dropping a note at WP:BLPN if there is disagreement. -Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK so I've just looked over the sources in a bit more depth now. First of all I notice that they all mention the transgender issue. Clearly it's an important fact in relation to Hostyn. So for the article on Sasha "Scarlett" Hostyn, we'd probably want to give due mention of the fact. Regarding the transgender issue's relation to the topic of this article I see considerably less merit:
 * The original Daily Dot article mostly discussed the issue in relation to its use by "a loud minority of fans" who "attacked her gender identity at every opportunity". Hostyn is quoted as saying that she has "always tried to make it a complete non-issue".
 * The GlobalPost piece notes that the transgender issue is particularly important in the realm of "name calling and derogatory comments", but it doesn't go into any detail about how the fact influences Hostyn's performance. In fact it highlights Hostyn's request that "esports fans will focus on her play rather than her gender."
 * The New York Times piece treats the matter similarly, providing Hostyn's feeling that being transgendered has no bearing on her role in gaming, and only vaguely pointing out that some argue "no fair" to set up the fact that eSport tournament director, pHaRSiDE, had dismissed these complaints.
 * The A.V. Club treats the issue in considerably greater depth, discussing the history of attitudes toward transgendered people in athletic events where physiological differences were argued as the main reason to bar transgendered people from competitive events. But the thrust of the The A.V. Club article seems to be that physiological differences play little or no part in eSports, that Hostyn's detractors represent a vocal anonymous set of spectators, and that in Hostyn's words, "In terms of actual play, there is (as far as I know) no advantage to being born male or female. But even if there was, being transgender means you are born with the brain of the opposite gender; so I would not have that advantage or disadvantage". To me this suggests that for the purposes of this article there wouldn't be any more reason to note that she was born anatomically male than for us to make note of other unusual bodily issues (cleft palate, webbed toe, one leg shorter than the other, etc.) of any other women.
 * Again I'd recommend bringing this issue to WP:BLPN. The editors there are very familiar with this kind of issue. -Thibbs (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I have created a new section on the WP:BLPN Talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE is absolutely relevant. In the overall topic of "women and video games", Scarlett isn't all that important. (Though if she keeps playing as she has been lately, this will certainly change.) She gets two sentences, which is about right, and they specifically tie her to "women and video games". What they don't do (and what we won't write) is to use her biology or gender as sly criticism about (to paraphrase) a "biological man unfairly competing against regular women". They don't state that because the theory is bunk. And we won't write it because of WP:BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change my opinion. I disagree with you for reasons I've already stated. As mentioned above, I've asked for (additional) input on the WP:BLPN Talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is about women. It doesn't question how they identify, why, or for how long. She should be treated neutrally, as a woman. In contrast someone such as Chaz Bono is an activist, it is therefore relevant to many articles related to his appearances (such as Dancing with the Stars). Otherwise, everyone else has mentioned many other valid reasons for it not being relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As SPACKlick wrote, it is a gendered article: if dividing gamers by gender and sex is a relevant consideration then the specific gender/sex and gender/sex history of the individuals is relevant. If you and other people do not understand how context works, it's pointless discussing this. You are the majority on this Talk page and you win. Anyway, luckily for all of us - including me - it no longer matters, because there is now an article about Sasha Hostyn that mentions she's a trans woman. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like an eminently sensible way to handle this issue. If the subject of a WP:BLP claim has publicly and repeatedly expressed her view that she considers an emphasis on some issue related to her to be offensive and when the only RSes that cover the issue portray it as an illegitimate criticism only leveled by trolls and bigots and wholly unrelated to her performance in the area to which the claim refers, then there would have to be a very good reason for us to spread it widely across the encyclopedia. It's true the article (by its nature) covers women to the exclusion of men, but I see a strong argument that this matter of disclosing the "gender/sex history" of individuals is less an issue of dividing esports athletes by gender than it is of dividing their gender identities by perceived legitimacy. Anyway it's not helpful for us to think of this discussion as a "win" or a "loss". We're all on the same side here. When BLP concerns are kept to a minimum then it is the encyclopedia that wins. -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly valid for her BLP, where it can be dealt with using the level of accuracy and significance it deserves. In contrast it has no particular context for this article, so its inclusion is forced and does not read well, and puts significant and unwarranted focus upon a negligible matter in terms of "Women and video games". Koncorde (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)