This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amanda Filipacchi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This category eventually ended up empty, which is a standard fate for "diffusing" categories. leaving aside the amusing conceit that, according to the original argument, there are now no American novelists any more, it would be rather good if the story could be completed. Of course RS would be needed to do so. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
Seems like they could also make it a non-diffusing category that includes everyone AND has the spinoff categories, that is perfectly within WP guidelines and sometimes necessary. Montanabw(talk)20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever way it's done, maybe every bio category needs a note explaining how these categorizations come about. Love it or hate it, at least you'd understand it - and so would editors... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think editors do understand it. And there is a note:
on all these categories. We have apparently 29,512 novelists in 1,537 novelist categories. And 7,170 American novelists in 52 American novelist categories. (Apparently - because there are always flaws in the category tree.)
We will never know what would have happened if Filipacchi hadn't written that article and emailed all her friends, but previous experience suggests either that would have happened (diffusing), or the gender subcats would have been upmerged.
As I say I would like to see a RS for what actually happened at the end of the day.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
I like the idea of a talk page explanation, though. There are many different reasons for making categories difusing or non-diffusing. Those that were the result of a significant dispute or issue should be so noted. Montanabw(talk)20:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah for the notes!! Last time I looked at some writing related major category, maybe 6 weeks ago, if there was a note, it wasn't obvious with all the names of individuals listed below the subcategories which I went straight to looking for.
I do see there is another note which is on Novelists (i.e., template {{catdiffuse}}) which reads in greater detail:
Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories.
That's even better because it encourages editors to remove the inevitable listings from editors who don't know any better or are too lazy to search for appropriate categories and just dump the name in the main category. Anyway, I hope this means we don't have to hear any more discussion of "ghettoization" and this is now the standard categorization regime. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion has nothing to do with the use of "female" as an adjective. You are mistaken if you think there is anything controversial about it. Two editors have already reverted you, please either accept that you are wrong or make your case before edit warring over this. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You believe that the use of "female" as an adjective is derogatory. I disagree and respectfully suggest that you have misunderstood the difference between referring to women as "females" and the use of the word "female" as an adjective to describe a person's gender. In any case, an IP editor reverted your change which was the signal for you to start a discussion instead of editwarring. If you want to make a case for your assertion that "female" as an adjective is derogatory, you should start that discussion somewhere else, such as a manual of style talk page, not here. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Moriori: Are you asking if men novelists should be used as opposed to male novelists? If so, yes I believe this is much preferable. Just as when one uses the adjective female, there are negative connotations associated with the use of male as an adjective. For example: male strippers / male prostitutes, etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
