Talk:Woman warrior/Archive 2

message: It says Moreta and Lessa are women warriors. Is that right? They don't go around figthing people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.48.143 (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pern 

message: Where would you put in Leeloo from The Fifth Element (played by Milla Jovovich). Saemikneu (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More additions 

message: This is a huge pile of original research. I have made an initial stab at bringing some order, and plan to be back shortly to continue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: Moving from article - there is no information or criteria items would need to be included or where they should be included. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archetype??? 

message: :You have removed far too much stuff from in here. Horror films characters as well as most of the star trek characters(excluding Kira since she's in there) needs to go back. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have not. Wikipedia is NOT a random collection of information. This also applies to WP:LIST articles. The items need some type of identifiable criteria. "Archetype" is so vague and subjective that any entry will need to have a thrid party source identifying the character as such. Lists also need to have an identifiable structure - grouping items by 'genres' such as 'horror' or 'anime' is not a workable structure due the the inherrent subjectivity (where would and editor or reader look for an item that was 'anime' AND 'horror'). I moved the material here so editors might review and come up with a way to add it to the article that meets Wikipedia article standards.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well fine but can you at least find a place in the new way of ordering this list. Selene, Tasha Yar, Nancy, and Jadzia Dax has every right to be on this list as much as Buffy and Beatrix. Without them and several others that's been removed, this list is not complete....or not as close to complete. EDIT Side note: Thank you for at least talking about this. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what your saying is basically the one's we can include is Selene and no to Cherry Darling from Planet Terror? FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So maybe not exactly an archetype but a lot of the removed characters belongs someplace in this article. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discusion re Archetype

message: The categories currently given for this list are awkward and inconsistent.  Some refer to a media type (games), others a genre of fiction (science fiction), and still others a class of women warriors (superheroines).  Within the categories some characters are listed by name, others by the title of the work in which they appear.  Many characters or works could be listed under multiple categories (e.g. a science fiction action film or novel).  Some of the categories have alphabetized entries while others do not.  This is terrible.  If we're going to have categories at all, they should be clear and fairly objective -- I'd propose media types such as "literature", "movies", "television", and "comics".  The list should be arranged alphabetically by either character name or title of the work in which she appears.  I'd be in favor of the latter, although I'd be fine with Colonel Warden's above suggestion that it be done by character name instead.  It would be nice to get some other opinions on this before I spend the time on rearranging the whole article, but I am prepared to go ahead and edit boldly. CKarnstein (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the revert. I agree the article needs a great deal of help; I'd be happy to work with you to clean this up. If you want me to work on a specific section, just ask. Westrim (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to apply a new organization scheme around Aug 12 but was soundly reverted by people who insisted on returning what to me is completely undefined "Archetype" section without applying any definition to it. Now that there are multiple voices calling for change, perhaps we can move forward. There are two proposed organizational schemes outlined in the Discussion re Archetype section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am personally in favor of organizing the list by the title of the work, in part because I think readers are more likely to remember the title of the movie/book/whatever than the character's name, and in part to avoid multiple one-line entries for characters from the same work.  It would also make alphabetization easier as it avoids first name/last name issues. CKarnstein (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The list is of women warriors, not books and movies with characters that are women warriors. The works will nearly all be highlighted by their link to the main article, so a reader shouldn't have a problem finding, say, Sarah Connor of the Terminator series. If a particular media has several eligible characters (such as Star Wars), we can make a subsection for it. The only problem with that is that media like Star Wars wouldn't go under any single media heading, due to being stretched over several types of media. Westrim (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we get it set up under one structure, we can then translate it into a sortable table and meet most people's wishes (well, how to handle works with multiple women warriors might be an issue). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot of characters will have appeared in different types of media, e.g. Buffy in the movie, TV series, and comic books, but I think it should be easy enough to class characters under the original or best-known media.  So Princess Leia under movies, Tank Girl under comics, and Buffy under TV.  I'd argue that a character that appears only in the Star Wars novels or only in the Buffy comics isn't notable enough to be listed here anyway.  I think we REALLY need to prune minor/obscure characters from this list -- there are plenty of notable examples without getting bogged down with every female character in every fighting game ever or an Amazon who appeared in a single episode of Xena. CKarnstein (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was speaking of the series themselves. Leia is from the movies, but the series has many women warriors, to the point that it is counterproductive to try to sort them into all the different media categories. Same goes for Buffy characters, with the comics and such. I disagree vigorously with your dismissal of the other media these series are available in. As long as the character is canon and is more than a one shot, they should be included. Melaka Fray, for instance, is a character from the comics created by Whedon himself and definitely canon, yet would be excluded by your standard . This article needs pruning, but be careful not to snip off whole branches or leave bare spots. Westrim (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what being canon has to do with anything.  Just because something is canon in a particular series doesn't make it notable.  There are already lots of pages devoted to "minor characters in (series)".  You could certainly make a case for the notability of Melaka Fray because she had her own spin-off series, but "canonical and more than a one shot" is far too broad a standard to use for inclusion in an article of this type. CKarnstein (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then add notable, that's fine. Just don't dismiss the expanded universe of a series simply because it's the expanded universe. I'm not concerned about the minor character lists, I'm concerned about this page and making sure characters aren't omitted because they aren't a main character of the original medium. Westrim (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List organization

message: I think that Historical and Legendary would be a fitting category for women such as Rosie the Riveter, Joan of Arc (who is currently placed under film but whom many films are made about), and Calamity Jane. Currently these women are listed under misc or film, but I think a listing under film is better suited to a character who was created for a film, rather than a legendary or historical person whom 1 or more films have been made about. Therefor, Mrs. Smith and Princess Fiona who are created for a movie would go under film, while Joah of Arc, Calamity Jane and Fa Mulan for whom such movies movies where created, but who existed in history and ledgened prior to the film would go under history and legend. Characters such as "Gwenevier" who existed in history and legend, but who were never concieved of as a warrior before a specific film would go under film. And characters who were invented for tv or film as a secondary character of actual historical or legendary figures in those films (such as Xena) would go under film or tv. A good test of this is: Is the character property of some company or author (Elizabeth Swan is property of Pirates of the Carribean; Sarah Connor is property of Terminator). I think that historical and legendary women diserve their own category.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.242.121 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical and Legendary

message: It seems like someone has asked to add citation to define if the women mentioned is a warrior or not, but most of them actually got their own wikipedia articles where their fighting acts are described, and also they are known in popular culture and accesible media, wouldnt be redundant to add citations for all of them?
:No it is not redundant to add citations. 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2) Each article must stand on its own - "evidence" that is currently shown in a particular Wikipedia article today, that supports a claim in this article could easily be removed from that article tomorrow. 3) Just because a female character one time slaps or shots someone does make her a "warrior" 4) without a source, all inclusions on this list are original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget I asked, since the page was restructured. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: I actually approve of this. I think it should stay this way. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pretty bold of me to delete all the listy stuff, but it had descended to "list of heroines and badass villains in all media" with no inclusion criteria. Then it struck me the list was pointless! The article should be constructed around the third party and academic sources, describing the archetype and its evolution which in the course of doing so will aptly name any female characters who explicitly belong to this heading (i.e. Wonder Woman, Xena, Buffy).~ZytheTalk to me! 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page format 

message: What about the Assyrian queen Semiramis who commanded an army?  ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrian queen Semiramis?

message: I was searching for a list of female warriors or legendary folk heroines of battles, and this page is where Wikipedia redirects. There obviously is no list, and many famous women including Joan of Arc, Boudicca, Blenda, Zenobia, and others who may or may not have existed in history but definitely exist in folklore, aren't necessarily among the women listed in the lists of historical women who fought in battles or led them. I would like to see an actual list of women in folklore developed. Aramink (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get redirected from the List in folklore. Maybe it was a transient redirect-revert? List of women warriors in folklore still exists, and is linked from the folklore section of this article.YobMod 07:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: List Of Women Warriors in Folklore Redirects Here

message: I find it strange that this article should present Joan of Arc as a sort of prototype of the "woman warrior", seeing that Joan never struck a single blow in her life. I don't want to belittle her courage, but she was more of a mascot than a military leader, and has very little in common with the actual fighting women found in the trenches. But maybe these just aren't interesting enough, seeing that they are essentially indistinguishable from male soldiers.   --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I rearranged the section, putting JoA with the paragraph about leading armies but not fighting. I think historical "common" fighting women would be a great addition, if you have the sources. Actually it seems we already have many many atrticles on this, so i guess this would be best with just a short summary of those (see the section see alsos), with the majority of the article focussing on women warriors as depicted in fiction.YobMod 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Joan of Arc