Talk:List of women writers

message: This list is overwhelming focused on 20th century American women novelists; I've added several earlier writers, a bunch of poets, and a number of women from other countries, but the list is still very short. Smawnmahlau—Preceding undated comment added by A Musing (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added quite a few...thinking of more...  --Regeane Silverwolf 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently added names from the List of early-modern women playwrights (UK). Still Eurocentric, but from an earlier period, and from the UK. scribblingwoman 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome! Will do more later. I won't remove any of the dead links. HMAccount 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann M. Martin, Ann Brashares, Holly Lisle, to name a few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.94.145 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As some of you will have noticed, "Women writers" has been removed as a category.  Here is the discussion. I  posted something here, but so far, no-one has responded. I looked at the article " Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality" and it says: 
:Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as :Category:LGBT writers or :Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. You should be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category should be seen as not valid. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but it must be at least possible to create one.
So, I have begun to draft such an article. It's not quite ready for prime time, but when it is, people friendly to the project of expanding Wikipedia coverage of women's writing are invited to stop by and help. (So far it's just a pile of links, many if not most of which I intend to discard but which link to items that might be helpful in drafting the article and arguing the case that "women's writing" is a legitimate area of literary study.) scribblingwoman 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, semantics.  I agree with you, scribblingwoman, and have said as much on the discussion page.  I wonder if we should perhaps advertise it elsewhere to attract more attention from various sources?  Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, perhaps? María: (habla ~ cosas)  20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, María. I just left a message over there, on the Talk page. scribblingwoman 01:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: María, if you (or anyone else reading this) wants to stop over and take a look at the draft-in-process on  women's literature in English, I would appreciate the extra eyes (and brains!). scribblingwoman 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's writing as an area of study 

message: Can we leave this as women writers?  I realize that "women" is not an adjective, but the term "women writers" can be a compound noun.  A quick google search will confirm that "women writers" is preferred. Portia1780 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Women writers v. Female writers

message: This is one of those pages that I am pretty positive would be deleted at WP:AFD, and the only reason I'm not nominating it is sympathy for the people who put so much work into it. But honestly, this list is totally useless, and would be useless even if it did approach a semi-reasonable level of completion; I searched for five writers off the top of my head (Philippa Gregory, Ann M. Martin, Caroline B. Cooney, Tracy Chevalier and Judy Blume) and only the last of them was included. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not planning to make the nomination; I posted mainly as a warning to those who are still putting effort into the list that I suspect it would be deleted if someone else nominated it for such. (Granted, I could certainly be wrong.) I haven't added the ones I mentioned, and you're free to add them if you haven't already. But I don't think making the list more complete is going to resolve the bigger problem of the information's value. That's just my view. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for existence 

message: ...who, judging from his edit history, has a "conflict of interest" here. Stephanie Adams is listed as a model and author on Wikipedia and according to her biography as well as Amazon and other sources, she is the "author of two dozen publications" so what's going on here? She was listed as a writer for a while now and is definitely a writer. 74.101.6.200 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author of 24 publications keeps getting removed by one person... 

message: Purpose: To correct the format in 'W' list.
Details:
Please change
* [[Wallada bint al-Mustakfi (ولادة بنت المستكفي‎, 1001–1080), Andalusian poet writing in Arabic.
to 
* Wallada bint al-Mustakfi (ولادة بنت المستكفي‎, 1001–1080), Andalusian poet writing in Arabic.
Redneck2u (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Thank you for pointing it out. I think you should be able to do this instead of having to take all the time to post here, though. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 April 2012 

message: Is this supposed to list all women writers from every country that have an article? Because if it is, it will get very long and so maybe it should be split by letter (ex: List of women writers: A).--Cattus talk 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of women writers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051212213839/http://www.sawnet.org/books/ to http://www.sawnet.org/books/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sukanya Venkatraghavan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sukanya Venkatraghavan" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Is there a standard that the country abbreviations are following, or was it invented just for this page? If the latter, I think there are a few mistakes:
* Ancient Sumeria and Austria/Austria-Hungary are both (A)
* Saudi Arabia and Somalia are both (Sa), and South Africa is (SA)
* Salvador and Slovakia are both (Sv) (and Sv is a common abbreviation for Sweden)
* Salvador (Sv) should be El Salvador
* Byzantium (By) gets its own code: Why not just use Ancient Greece or Turkey?
pburka (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't have any ancient Sumerians, then the list must be missing Enheduanna (fl. 23rd C. BC)! pburka (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you put her in? Bmcln1 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was already there, in fact. I updated her A to AS. pburka (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, I'll make that change.  For reference there is a standard, ISO 3166.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the ISO 3166 code for Byzantium? :) pburka (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviations 

message: For many living authors, we know their birth date, so the list has something like (b. 1999). But for others we're missing that information, and the list simply says (living). This is going to be a challenge to maintain: if we don't know their birth date it's likely that their death might not widely reported, either, and we don't even have a clue in the list as to how old they might be. I propose that we replace any (living) entries with (fl. 19xx–), where 19xx is the date of their first known significant publication. If they're retired, or their last publication is more than a couple of decades ago, we might wish to add a closing date, as well. This is essentially what we would do for historical authors whose birth and death dates are unknown, it provides more relevant and accurate information than (living), and it seems like it will better stand the test of time. I've already done this to the E section, but can revert it if there are objections. Should I start making this change the remainder of the list? pburka (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace living with [[Floruit|fl.]] 

message: Regarding the recent change from "young adult" to "youth": this does make the list more succinct, but it may be less precise. Young adult fiction is a recognized category in publishing, while youth is somewhat ambiguous. What about using the abbreviation "YA" instead? It's widely used in publishing, it's more precise than "youth," and it's even more concise. pburka (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thank you. I think I'll just do it, it's fairly easy to change back if someone objects.Bmcln1 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young adult vs. youth vs. YA 

message: This article is currently the third largest on enwiki, at just under 520k, and needs to be broken down. I propose splitting it into articles covering A-C (~120k), D-H (~107k), I-M (~115k), N-S (~112k), and T-Z (~62k). pauli133 (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a real question about whether this is a tenable list at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think there's a real case the article will never be complete / ultimately satisfactory. User:Heyoostorm_talk! 21:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Splitting is certainly a good idea.  It seems worth expanding a lot of the other abbreviations before doing this.  The only ones I would keep are 'b' for born, c. for circa, and fl. for floruit.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I think splitting is best, if the article is being kept. User:Heyoostorm_talk! 21:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I have split the article in two, but the article may still be split further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to split