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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

I think the argument behind deleting this category is WP:MYSPACE, which isn't really sexist. I mean, I think it's taking WP:MYSPACE too far, personally, but still. Just FYI, I just tried to search for "male wikipedians" and couldn't find it. Anyone have better luck?

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Netha Hussain &lt;nethahussain(a)gmail.com <mailto:nethahussain@gmail.com>> wrote: I think Sarah's point was that one could add this category to the Wikipedia articles on women Wikipedians, and not on their userpages. Of course, I do not want anybody to put any category on my userpage too. But if an article about me existed on Wikipedia, it is not under my control to choose which category that page should belong to. And yes, I added Category : Female Wikipedians to my userpage a few minutes ago :) Netha On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com <mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com>> 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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com <mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com>> wrote: Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* today <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><< _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Netha Hussain Student of Medicine and Surgery Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode Blogs : /nethahussain.blogspot.com <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com> swethaambari.wordpress.com <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>/ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today

Don't forget, you can also add the category to any women you might know who have Wikipedia articles and are Wikipedians. Such as Sue or Valerie! -Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow* << _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today<https://donate.wikimedia.org/>

I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place). To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content. Tom Morton On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 17:10, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow* << _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 18:29, Risker &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: I'd suggest having a different category for that. (although I am not sure it is utile in the first place). To avoid the mix up of back end admin and academic content. Tom Morton On 9 Sep 2012, at 23:21, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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. Risker/Anne On 9 September 2012 18:25, Thomas Morton &lt;morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Valerie Aurora &lt;valerie(a)adainitiative.org <mailto:valerie@adainitiative.org>> wrote: I don't know enough about Wikipedia conventions to talk about this specific topic, but I can talk about the value of lists of "women in X." When we have few role models because there are few women in a field, one of the ways to increase women's participation is to show women or girls considering joining examples of women who are part of the field. -VAL Hi Val, I agree, and although I don't have my user page listed in any other categories, I added it to this category yesterday when I saw the cat was up for deletion. It's looking a little sparse at the moment, with just eight entries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians It would be wonderful if women would start adding themselves so that we get a good overview of how many women are active. You can do it either by adding [[Category:Female Wikipedians]] to the bottom of your user page, or by adding to your user page one of the user boxes listed on the category page. Sarah