Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Terminology of transgender anatomy/archive1

Terminology of transgender anatomy

Featured list candidates/Terminology of transgender anatomy/archive1

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC) and Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe)[reply]

Me and Tamzin cooked up just what it says on the tin; terminology associated with the body parts of trans folks.

This is pretty heterodox form for a list, but since its main purpose is to explain and list a set of terminology, I feel it's a bit closer to the list side of things, even though it could potentially fit into either camp. A demi-list, so to speak. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought from QoH

Nice work on this list by both of you. I added col headers while this list was still in draft, but was reverted as "not needed". I'd think all tables should have col headers, but couldn't find any guidnance on this and would like to hear other's thoughts. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So, typically both row and column headers are required, but also typically the tables are more complex than two columns. Working through "how does it sound with a screen reader", the 'Attested replacement words' table is fine- it reads like "Menstruation. Menstruation: bleeding, shark week", so it's pretty clear that it's standard term: alt terms. For the 'Medical terminology' table... I think it's fine? It honestly works a bit better audibly than visually, where it sounds like "term: alt1, alt2, alt3. term2: alt4, alt5, alt3", so the repeats/merged cells on the right are clear. Visually, it's a little messy- you typically want the combined cells to be on the left and get more diffuse as you go across to the right, but the genitals/gonads combos make that messy, and column headers wouldn't make that better. I guess what I'm saying is: I think in this case it's okay to not have column headers. --Pres N 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath

I will be doing a source check for this article. I will update this as I check. To be comprehensive I'm going to break down my source check by section and also include any sources I could not access.

Section	Status	Sources I couldn't access	Comments
Context	Verified	None	I just want to ask for clarification regarding the statement "Prior to the 2010s, there was little research on the social aspects of transgender bodies". I'm assuming you got the year 2010 from the sources cited in the reference you gave. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here. Otherwise I was able to access and verify all the sources used Yes, that's per Edelman and Zimman's description of the state of the art at the time they wrote their paper (2014). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they\|xe) 02:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquial terminology	Pending	Steinbock, Eliza (2017). "Representing Trans Sexualities". In Smith, Clarissa; Attwood, Feona; McNair, Brian (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315168302. Bellwether, Mira (2013). Fucking Trans Women: A Zine About the Sex Lives of Trans Women. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781492128939.	I'm not able to verify the statement "Some transmasculine people refer to their clitorises as a dick or cock" from either of the sources listed in ref 9. Fielding 2021 does discuss alternative terms for the vulva but doesn't reference the clitoris or list dick or cock as alternative terms. Ref 10 cites Zimman 2014, pp. 14–15 which doesn't exist as the reference provided for Zimman 2014 cites pages 673–690. I think you mixed this up with the Zimman 2011 source as it verifies the information present. The statement "at the time Zimman documented its usage in 2014" isn't verified either for the same reason. If you did mean to use the Zimman 2011 source then this also needs to be changed from 2014 to 2011. In re ref 9, I have added a cite to Zimman 2014. In re [what was previously] ref 10, I think you might have the sources mixed up? If you click on "Zimman 2014", it'll take you to (Terminology of transgender anatomy#CITEREFZimman2014), which is the one paginated 1–24. Edelman & Zimman 2014 is 673–690, but is not what I'm trying to cite there. And there is no Zimman 2011. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they\|xe) 02:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] My mistake I did get the references confused, I will cross out that part of the comment. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I noticed a couple statements had refs to sources that don't actually back up what's being said. Most of the examples I found were borderline however in the table "Attested replacement words" the term front hole references Hill-Meyer & Scarborough 2014 however this source doesn't mention the term front hole.CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's at the bottom of p. 355. You've gotta sorta massage Open Library on this, but go to https://archive.org/details/transbodiestrans0000unse/mode/2up?q=355, then click the first result that says "Page 355". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they\|xe) Thank you for pointing this out, I don't know how I missed it. I will cross out that part of my check! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medical terminology	Done	Rider, Nic G.; Caso, Taymy J.; Czech, Spencer; Karasic, Dan H. (2022). "Terminology in Transgender Medicine". In van Trotsenburg, Mick; Luikenaar, Rixt A. C.; Meriggiola, Maria Cristina (eds.). Context, Principles and Practice of TransGynecology: Managing Transgender Patients in ObGyn Practice. Cambridge UP. doi:10.1017/9781108899987. ISBN 9781108899987.	Was not able to access one source however the rest of the citations I was able to verify.

Finished on August 18 2024 ~~with one minor issue of some refs containing sources that do not contain the information the article is claiming to cite.~~ All but 3 sources have been verified. The people working on this page did an excellent job of putting things in their own words and clearly put a lot of time and effort into this article. Well done! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did the source review for this article and I wanted to show my support for the article based on that. I only found one very minor sourcing issue that was immediately addressed by the nominators. I was able to access almost every single source they used. Everything was put into the writer's own words and there were no plagiarism issues. The nominators clearly put significant time into finding several unique and reliable sources. I've never voted for any featured article or list before so hopefully I did this right. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

I'm going to disclose upfront that I was informed over Discord that a prose review was still needed here – I should be able to do one in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I've read this list quite closely twice over. I've got nothing. I did make a bold attempt at a minor capitalization fix, but the original turned out to be in line with one of MOS's nooks and crannies with which I was unfamiliar. Excellent work, Tamzin and Generalissima. For what it's worth, if either of you have the time or interest, I have a rather old FLC that could still use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

This seems quite far away from a list to me. A couple of embedded lists in an article does not mean it becomes a stand-alone list, which is FL is for. As a comparison, none of the five "Terminology of..." articles I just spotchecked are classified as lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Plenty of majority-prose articles are classified as lists; for instance, Moons of Uranus. I also don't think similar articles are a good judge, as Moons of Mars and Moons of Pluto are not classified as lists. (Or for another example, Cartography of Jerusalem vs Cartography of China). I feel the ultimately quality of a list is enumerating the notably attested members of some set, which this article does; it just has to do this with large amounts of context in prose or it'd be nonsensical. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Does the addition of large amounts of text in "Moons of Uranus" make it no longer a simple list of astronomical bodies, typically lacking prose? How much supplementary context a given list needs varies dramatically, and there are numerous examples of lists with similar prose lengths to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I wouldn't consider "Moons of Uranus" a list either, and the same with other "lists" like Emirates Cup which I brought up here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: I'm coming at this from a different direction than you or my coäuthor. I do think it's a list, but not for quite the reason that Generalissima does. The relevant variable isn't the amount of prose, but rather to what extent does the article serve to list things rather than describe them. A list should be about the breadth of examples more than the depth of context. A list should be more about the items in the set than the set itself.

Apart from the lede and the Context section, both of which have the standard amount of prose for an FL, most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth. Most of the prose in §§ Colloquial terminology and Medical terminology is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the tabled lists and discussing them in greater detail. By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them. The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do." that is fundamentally altering the definition of a standalone list on Wikipedia, viz. "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list". It's an interesting thought, but just not how lists currently work.

"most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth" this is the case for most articles. Biographies are devoted to listing the events of lives (in chronological order). It would be a bit odd if I were to slap a timeline at the end of each section of Tolui and say "Most of the prose ... is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the timelines and discussing them in greater detail"—why look at it like this, and not the reverse, the default way?

"By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them." and added to the 200 words in the context section that's more than half the prose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow your logic. The thing that makes it a list is that it is primarily devoted to listing things, and there's nothing in any guideline giving another definition. If we want to wikilawyer this, then from WP:SAL there's Glossaries are usually titled Glossary of X or Glossary of X terms, though if they contain substantial non-list prose about the nature or history of terminology relating to the topic, as well as a glossary list, a title such as X terminology may be more appropriate. So that's the controlling guideline, the one that WP:FLCR incorporates by reference, saying that this kind of article is a list. If you want to open up a general discussion of whether a list can have too much prose to count as a list, then I think that's reasonable, although per Generalissima it might lead to a few existing FLs getting delisted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]