Aww, Sarah - I see you've already added those categories to Valerie Aurora's and Sue Gardner's pages. Please don't do that. Neither of their articles mentions that they edit Wikipedia, so your edits don't meet the standard.
I understand you wanting to promote women in Wikipedia, but taking what is intended to be a user category and transplanting it into article space does nothing to promote women in editing, but does a great deal to annoy editors who work in categorization, editors who have worked on the articles in question and decided this was not notable enough to include, and editors who don't want to see article space politicized.
See now....I don't see a lot of value in categorizing articles this way. I'm not even certain that being a Wikipedian is a notable enough category to include for an article, let alone being a *female* Wikipedian. The standard for including someone in a category is that the category is representative of something actually discussed in the article. Sure Sue occasionally edits Wikipedia - but it's not even mentioned in her article, so she doesn't qualify for the category from the "article" perspective.
(I'm not sure which Valerie you're referring to, so I can't comment there.)
There is also the longstanding tradition that any category that refers to a person's Wikipedia status/preference/etc is considered a "user" category rather than an "article" category. I don't think the two should be mixed.
Oh, sorry, I meant to say the Wikipedia
articles about people who are Wikipedians :)
Both of them have Wikipedia articles and also state on their
Wikipedian user pages that they are who they are.
-Sarah
On 9/9/12 2:30 PM, Risker wrote:
Umm, please don't do that. Users themselves should be
the sole deciders of what categories they wish to link to. For
example, I hope nobody puts that category on my userpage, and if
they do it will be removed as soon as I can log in.
Some people deliberately choose not to categorize themselves.