Talk:Encyclopedia of female characters - Revision history

Lquilter: Reverted edits by 89.107.104.120 (Talk) to last revision by Lquilter

2010-02-28T17:39:34Z

Reverted edits by 89.107.104.120 (Talk) to last revision by Lquilter

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:39, 28 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~tuZJSa~~ <a ~~href=~~"~~http://onzjwdxtadem~~.~~com~~/"~~>onzjwdxtadem</a>~~, [~~url=http~~:~~//hycykgpxpzwu.com/~~]~~hycykgpxpzwu~~[~~/url~~], [~~link=http~~:~~//hswaroxxsqca.com/~~]~~hswaroxxsqca[/link~~], ~~http://wdvjaspiianq.com/~~		This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

			Does this mean we should get rid of the Notable female characters Category, and other similar things? --[[User:Glory\|Glory]] 11:02, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

			: I think we should get rid of Category:Notable female characters and make a [[List of notable female characters]] instead. That way the list can include the name and a short explanation of ''why'' they're notable. "First this", "Most famous example of this", "influential in establishing a new genre", etc. ... And then we can get rid of all the other "characters by gender" categories. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:40, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

89.107.104.120: cWgUhezx

2010-02-28T16:03:04Z

cWgUhezx

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:03, 28 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers.~~ ~~It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to~~ a "~~Directory of women writer"~~. ~~So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems~~ / ~~issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is~~ "~~woman". --[~~[~~User~~:~~Lquilter\|LQ~~]] ~~13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)~~		tuZJSa <a href="http://onzjwdxtadem.com/">onzjwdxtadem</a>, [url=http://hycykgpxpzwu.com/]hycykgpxpzwu[/url], [link=http://hswaroxxsqca.com/]hswaroxxsqca[/link], http://wdvjaspiianq.com/

	~~Does this mean we should get rid of the Notable female characters Category~~, ~~and other similar things? --~~[~~[User~~:~~Glory\|Glory~~]] ~~11:02~~, ~~26 April 2007 (PDT)~~

	: ~~I think we should get rid of Category:Notable female characters and make a [[List of notable female characters]] instead~~. That way the list can include the name and a short explanation of ''why'' they're notable. "First this", "Most famous example of this", "influential in establishing a new genre", etc. ... And then we can get rid of all the other "characters by gender" categories. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:40, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

Lquilter: Reverted edits by 159.145.15.101 (Talk); changed back to last version by Lquilter

2007-09-27T12:22:55Z

Reverted edits by 159.145.15.101 (Talk); changed back to last version by Lquilter

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 27 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~ousitpasc~~
	This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)		This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

159.145.15.101 at 08:21, 27 September 2007

2007-09-27T08:21:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 27 September 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			ousitpasc
	This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)		This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

Lquilter: cat

2007-04-27T12:40:38Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:40, 27 April 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Does this mean we should get rid of the Notable female characters Category, and other similar things? --[[User:Glory\|Glory]] 11:02, 26 April 2007 (PDT)		Does this mean we should get rid of the Notable female characters Category, and other similar things? --[[User:Glory\|Glory]] 11:02, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

			: I think we should get rid of Category:Notable female characters and make a [[List of notable female characters]] instead. That way the list can include the name and a short explanation of ''why'' they're notable. "First this", "Most famous example of this", "influential in establishing a new genre", etc. ... And then we can get rid of all the other "characters by gender" categories. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 05:40, 27 April 2007 (PDT)

Glory at 18:02, 26 April 2007

2007-04-26T18:02:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:02, 26 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)		This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

			Does this mean we should get rid of the Notable female characters Category, and other similar things? --[[User:Glory\|Glory]] 11:02, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Lquilter: Talk:About the encyclopedia moved to Talk:Encyclopedia of female characters

2007-04-20T20:08:42Z

Talk:About the encyclopedia moved to Talk:Encyclopedia of female characters

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:08, 20 April 2007
(No difference)

Lquilter: experiment

2007-04-20T20:08:05Z

experiment

New page

This is a bit of an experiment. If it works, then I propose doing something similar for women writers. It would be a template that we would append to women writers that would automatically give them an infobox and link to a "Directory of women writer". So more clear that the category system is being used in different ways to create different sets of resources, and help avoid problems / issues of ghettoization or the question of what does ghettoization mean when we have an encyclopedia where the default is "woman". --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 13:08, 20 April 2007 (PDT)