User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2013/May

Nice article
Hi, just saw the article. It's a nice piece of work. A few things So it's not that fair to say we just create articles about porn stars... People *really* don't understand how categorization works here, nor do they understand what sub-categorization of bios means. In any case, probably worth posting a correction, and perhaps slapping Gleick with a trout for sloppiness and facile comparisons (although admittedly he was quoting someone)
 * I think Gleick was wrong about poets vs porn-stars - its a cute comparison, but he got bad data (I assume lazy research, not checking subcats?)
 * 1193 women poets in
 * 1077 female porn stars in
 * But also look at this:
 * - over 11,000 slow link and
 * over 23,000 warning- slow link
 * I've never seen an article about a couple before: Serge_and_Beate_Klarsfeld - it's rather strange. I'm not sure if this an example of sexism, or just of wiki-laziness, wherein what is notable is mostly the work they have done together, rather than individually, and no-one has bothered to split it out per person. That said, it is still odd, so if we were to split it, how might that work? Like a separate bio for each person, then a joint article on the work they've done somehow? Not sure how to do this without lots of duplication, but perhaps we could learn from what the other wikis have done? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in in good faith, I don't know that articles on couples are that rare, if their notability is single subject. See, e.g., Jared and Jerusha Hess, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver.  There are also many articles on family groups (three are more individuals).--Milowent • hasspoken  13:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * d'oh. just found . apparently, we do this all the time. So may also be worth reconsidering whether our nazi hunter is an example of sexism, or if it mostly just follows sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read Gleich's article properly. He never claims that there actually are or have been more articles on female pornstars than female writers. He does say: "He [Gareth E. Kegg] was appalled, he said, 'that there are less Wikipedia articles on women poets than pornographic actresses, a depressing statistic.'" GEK is the guy who originally devised the American women author-category, then voted to merge it with American novelists. And depending on when GEK made this statement, his claim may have been actually true -- back then. 109.193.77.240 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) KV ]
 * Nobody says you guys / gals just create articles on pornstars. But given that there are only 116 (!) more articles on female writers than female pornstars, it shows sufficiently where the focus of interest lies. But to be fair: Perhaps the majority of articles on female pornstars is written by their affiliated companies. The problem then is less about sexism and more about Wikipedia as a convenient tool for marketing. 109.193.77.240 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC) KV
 * Yes, I realize this - which is why I said "(although admittedly he was quoting someone)" - perhaps I should have phrased better. And in any case, the article written by Andreas also quotes this statistic uncritically. We should always confirm something - if someone says "there are more X than Y", we should check ourselves and at least say "I found that to not be the case". And no, when GEK said this (I think in the last few days), I seriously doubt it was true then either. Also, this is about women poets, not women writers. There are 10,243 articles in the tree - 10x as many as there are porn stars. So the whole thing is overblown and a useless comparison.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The likelihood, given the context, is that they are talking about American female pornstars (666) vs American female poets (415). But hey. John lilburne (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment Obi, and thanks for checking the figures. It was lack of time, plus I couldn't think of an easy way to get the numbers for a cat plus all subcats (only ever used CatScan for intersections – d'oh, stupid me, seems obvious now). I'll see to it that we put in a correction ASAP. Andreas JN 466 03:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Informlogosmalla.gif missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Informlogosmalla.gif

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Input request
Hello Jayen466,

I am requesting input from all participants in the discussion from the recent Signpost article on sexism in Wikipedia for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Of American columnists
You seem to have a problem with the placement of people in Category:American columnists and Category:American women journalists. However that is the way we generally do things. For example only a very low percentage of people in Category:American women judges are alos in Category:American judges. Most are in various sub-cats based on the specific court they were judges for, or at least what state the court was in. For example Jennifer Faunce, an article I created (and a person whose campaign I worked on when she ran successfully for the Michigan state house), is in Category:American women judges and Category:Michigan state court judges. On the other hand I added all the women in Category:American war correspondents to Category:American women journalists, and no one has complainedabout that. The first man in Category:American colunists, Dan Ackman, is in that category and not the journalist one. Consdiering we have the article Women in journalism and media professions, I doubt there can be any sustained objection to the category. On the judges front we have an even better article Women in the United States judiciary, which lead me to create the article on Julia Cooper Mack, which still needs a lot of work. It is very frustrating to me that it appears we really do have more articles on American female pornographic film actors than on American women judges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, on further review no one in the whole A section is directly in Category:American journalists. Some are in other subcats of Category:American journalists, but as far as I can tell none are in Category:American journalists directly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For what its worth we also have an article Hispanic and Latino American women in journalism. Why we do not have American women in journalism, African-American women in journalism or other such articles I am not sure (well, I guess it is because no one has bothered to write them).  I am half surprised we lack the article Women journalists in fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It just looks bad to people who don't know how the categorisation system works, John. That includes 100% of our readers. (For lurkers, this is about this.) Andreas  JN 466 20:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps - but the problem is, the fix you're suggesting (e.g. always put people in gendered sub-cats in their parents) is that every time there is a gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality sub-cat created, all of a sudden, all other sibling cats immediately become non-diffusing. So would now have to be full of every single politician, and we'd have to edit 10,000 bios to get us there - not just the women! Trees would turn from diffusing to non-diffusing just by addition of a single gendered category at the top. I really think we just need to explain things better to readers, rather than change the whole system, and move rapidly towards category intersection instead.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the idea to primarily diffuse according to time, or birth dates (e.g. decades). No one could object to a woman bio with "Category:American women novelists" + "Category:19th century American novelists". The other alternative might be to create a gendered subcategory for genre-based diffusing subcategory, so you'd have "Category:American female columnists" + "Category:American columnists" for a bio of a female US columnist. But category intersection is the holy grail, I agree. Explaining to readers is not realistic. Andreas JN 466 23:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "No one could object to a woman bio with "Category:American women novelists" + "Category:19th century American novelists". sorry, I just had to chuckle at that one. Not sure if you're aware, but there is a battle going on over exactly that - JPL (and others) are diffusing into the by-century sub-cats, I've done a bit myself, and I, Devils Advocate, and JPL have all been dragged before ANI for our efforts (it happened when we reached "F" and touched the "special" bio.) But yes, I agree on diffusing by century - but others dont it seems, because "American novelists" is a talisman of incredible power - see Category_talk:American novelists. There is talk of an RFC on this weighty matter. As to your other idea, that would then violate the last-rung rule of WP:EGRS, and may have the perverse effect of ghettoizing further if we genderize every leaf node (not to mention the added complexity in the category structure). What I'd really like to do is this: ...take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Amen. Andreas JN 466 03:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

mail
--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)