Category talk:Women

Difference between "Women" and "Females" categories

There are many categories starting with "Women" overlapping with, and often subcategories of, categories starting with "Female". What is the difference? That Female categories also include girls? Or female animals? Same question for "Men..." and "Male..." categories. Longhairadmirer (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a difference ether, and think they should be merged. However, that is just my opinion. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

After doing some move digging, I think that the difference that the original creators was looking for was "Female" include female children, however, I may be wrong. It's still a bit confusing. There need to be some clarification.

Sometimes I get the impression that "women..." sub-categories might include nudity or models that are known for nudity, which is not okay in the "female..." categories. Am I wrong? Longhairadmirer (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with nudity in female categories. — LlywelynII 07:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Defining ages

The way this Category is set up and the "by age" subcategories are set up, the ages are getting confuses. We can easily find an image of a 16 year old categories right next to an image of a 30+ year old in a “Young Women” catagory.

As such, I am proposing that the following category renamings and an age definition. I am using, but slightly modifying, the Physical stages of human life section found on the en:Human development (biology) wikipedia page.

Definitions

1. Girls (birth – 13 (puberty))

2. Adolescent girls (13 - 18 years) instead of "Young Women"

3. Women (or perhaps Adult Women) (19 - 59 years)

4. Old women (60+ years)

This will also match how w:Category:Images of young people as "Young people" falls into w:Category:Childhood and w:Category:Adolescence

Obvously this can be modified with input from other editor. My logic on using 19 is that some images that (such as nude images) need to be denoted as "Adult" at 18, instead of the 19 as used in the stages of human life.

Since this is a big change, I will wait to get input for two weeks. If no one objects I will set up this scheme. If there is some objection after a consensus as to what, if anything (if I'm just way off), should be done is reached.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge Womem by topic and Women by subject

does exist or should be any kind of difference? Merge?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 04:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

I don't understand the order of the categories. "Footballer's wives and girlfriends" shouldn't be the first category to find, why don't we list them under "F"? What about the categories "#", "*" and "+"? I have seen them on other sides too but I couldn't find an explanation what this means. Thank you --Digital Mi (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

#, *, & + indicate that the user thinks the category is general and deserves to be at the top of the directory but finds them somewhat more specific than the categories indicated by | ]]. They can always be removed if they don't actually merit inclusion in the | ]] section. — LlywelynII 07:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Individuals

Please do not add here cats of individual women. I see that someone added many women from "former" countries, as if "citizenship" was the only categorization possibility... All those women are here because they have some other quality. Add them to Category:Actresses, Category:Female musicians, Category:Female educators etc. My fingers are aching trying to correct this absurdity. Please. --E4024 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@E4024: cat-a-lot allows to move categories also. We also have category:Women by name. But definitely, regular maintenance is needed here--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Cat photo

Pip pip

Includes various ultrafamous white/black women along with 'representative' ethnic photos. Aside from the fact that we can actually include notable women from minorities or replace some famous white women with "random girl in leiderhosen" or "at American mall",

(a) No, China isn't actually covered by "random geisha" or Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma and someone in hanfu or (better) Cixi herself or a modern actress like Gong Li should be included. The animated (not live action) version of Mulan could also work.

(b) There should be some image like File:A_Dandy.jpg of entirely obnoxious women from 19th-century Europe.

(c) Sexualized images of Black women should probably be limited to 1 (one) for the set, if there's any reason to include any at all. (Yeah, keep Josephine Baker if it is necessary.)

(d) In Vice’s words, "Mother Theresa Was Kind of a Heartless Bitch". Not saying the phrasing is spot on, but as copiously documented by Hitchens & al. yeah she kinda sucked and doesn't need inclusion here... unless "mistakenly praised" women is what OP was going for. In that case, I'd say choose her or Evita instead of including both.

 — LlywelynII 07:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)