Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24

How about instead of separating the women from the men by subcategorizing the women "American women Novelist" they do not separate them at all because when they do it is like saying we exclude the women from amercia. Which obviously is something we have faught for many years, and do not plan to go back on. Therefore i would suggest that wikipedia does not remove the women into a subcategory. And rather it keeps all it's American novelist under one search result. HannahSims (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should definitely be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandini123 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A very minor contributor to Wikipedia adding two cents: Wikipedia lets all too many instances of sexism and misogyny slide. This one is (or looks?) premeditated and egregious. I hope to hear soon that the editors have come up with subsets of some actual relevance to novels. Promoting ghettoization with groups such as "blue-eyed novelists," "straight-haired novelists," or "tattooed novelists" would never even be considered. So why in hell does some bright bulb at Wikipedia think that genitalia shape is a relevant characteristic? (I may as well add that if this nonsense isn't stopped pronto, you've seen the last of my yearly contributions of money and the last of my edits.) Quixote9 (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss categories
The place to discuss a category is on the project page not the talk page. Comments left here will not be seen by the closing admin and will have no effect on the discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)