Category talk:en:Women

See also RFM discussion linked at Category talk:Female people. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion there links here. Anyway, yes, 100% "category:lang:female person" should just redirect here and "category:lang:male person" should redirect to Category:lang:Men. — LlywelynII  11:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That discussion links here to catch the RFC discussion below which I had expected to be archived relatively shortly to this page, but which has in fact taken until now. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC discussion: December 2020–August 2022
I suggest that the contents of this category be transferred to "Category:Female people", and the category be deleted. It seems redundant to "female people", and there is no corresponding "Category:Men" as a subcategory of "Category:Male people" (and I'm not suggesting that such a subcategory be created). — SGconlaw (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging as the creator of the category. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See WT:RFDO and WT:RFM. I would be much more inclined to delete "Female people" and merge to "Women", as the more natural term; the feeling seems to have been that "women" is only for adults, but I think this is largely mistaken (girls can be young women, and vice versa, something our entries on both girl and woman attempt to cover). - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "Female people" is less ambiguous; as you say, in common usage minor female people are often not called "women" (and minor male people not called "men"). In any case, there is no warrant for having both "Female people" and "Women"; it's confusing and redundant. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also prefer merging to "Female people", not only because it's more inclusive, but also because of the parallelism: CAT:Female family members is a subcategory of CAT:Female people, just as CAT:Family members is a subcategory of CAT:People. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My only thoughts on this matter are pretty much directly aligned with what said. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Societies and thus language do not usually distinguish the sexes before sexual maturity by reason that the sex, in major respects that would motivate different treatment, is not there yet. Hence there are few examples in the categories Women and Men that aren’t targetted towards at least pubescent humans. However for the cases when there are differences, one has also enough terms to warrant categorization of female and male children, as the example of Category:pl:Male children shows, and this can be assumed a priori, too, because humans spend a not inconsiderable share of their times with childrearing, also in so far as brings about verbal communication. So we should have Male people resp. Female people and as subcategories Men resp. Women and Male children resp. Female children, which also dovetails with the fact that we have terms for Male family members‎ resp. Female family members‎ which are terms independent of age. The categorization is distinct based on the question whether a term has a sexual background, a parenting background, or a family relationship background, with other terms left over for a category upwards in Male people respectively Female people. categorized very reasonably. Fay Freak (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think subcategories named “Women” and “Men” would be insufficiently clear and would lead to the current problem we are facing. If it is thought that there should be subcategories for adults, they should be named “Female adults” and “Male adults”. At this time I am not seeing enough evidence that such subcategories (and “Female children” and “Male children”) would be useful in English as they are in other languages like Polish. My proposal would thus be as follows:
 * Transfer the contents of “Women” to “Female people”, and delete “Women”.
 * If there are entries that justify the creation of “Female adults”, “Female children”, “Male adults”, and “Male children”, then have a separate discussion about that at a later stage.
 * — SGconlaw (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This category is all over the place and potentially as useless as Category:en:People if filled. I'd say delete if this were RFD. Ultimateria (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CAT:Female people has been depopulated in all languages now; it's nothing but a holding category for CAT:Female children, CAT:Female family members, and CAT:Women. Depopulating CAT:Women in all languages now would basically mean leaving a lot of entries uncategorized. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about depopulating “Category:Women” but transferring its contents to “Category:Female people”. Does the outcome of this discussion (to transfer to “Category:Female people”, thus keeping it) override the WT:RFDO discussion? J3133 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Transferring the contents out of a category depopulates it, so the discussion is indeed about depopulating "Category:Women". I suspect that if the contents of CAT:Women are transferred to CAT:Female_people, then it won't be long before a person or a bot removes them from there on the basis of the discussion at WT:RFD/O, which will leave the entries uncategorized. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But the basis of this discussion is keeping “Category:Female people”. J3133 (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Should your RFC be closed per the RFDO? J3133 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The removal of all entries from "CAT:Female people" has already happened. It's a fait accompli at this point. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were removed, but they can be re-added (if not, what is the point of this RFC being open?). J3133 (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no easy way for them to be re-added unless the bot operator does a large-scale self-revert. Otherwise someone would have to go through the bot's edit history manually, which would be a very time-consuming and laborious process. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Therefore, should this RFC not be closed? J3133 (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A decision needs to be made whether to take the suggested action or not. I'm in support of closing the RFC and not taking the action, but others may disagree. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * merging into "Female people" "Female". Taylor 49 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Taylor 49 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging Category:en:Women into Category:en:Female people seems completely absurd unless you want to argue that a girls' night out and the women are wonderful effect are female people. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Category:Female (into which Taylor 49 is suggesting to merge)? J3133 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Fytcha Exactly, merge all 3 ie "Women" and "Female people" into "Female". Taylor 49 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, topic categories aren't always taken literally. Category:en:Cheeses contains, Category:en:Potatoes contains , and Category:en:Apple cultivars (which should probably be called Category:en:Apples) contains . Binarystep (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is considered sexist to use the adjective "female" for humans. 98.170.164.88 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would only be sexist if one uses “female” but not “male”, otherwise both are treated equally, i.e., neither is being discriminated. J3133 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally untrue. What's considered sexist (and very incel-like) is using the noun female in place of woman. The adjective is unproblematic. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know if you meant to reply to me (i.e., that what I said is untrue) but we were discussing the adjective; like you, I do not approve the noun. J3133 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe I was wrong above about how the word is perceived when used as an adjective. There is a usage note on the entry saying that its use as a noun (for humans) at least is controversial. I'm pretty sure that I've seen some people say that the adjective should be avoided too, but those people are likely in a small minority. I'm glad it's cleared up and sorry for any confusion (mostly my own). 98.170.164.88 02:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn’t free to comment until now. I still take the view which I expressed on 18 January 2021 that “Female people” is better phrased than “Women”, and so the latter should be merged into the former. I’m thus impliedly saying that “Female people” and “Male people” should be retained. — Sgconlaw (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * So that we're not discussing this in multiple places at once, which led to problems, I'm going to archive this RFC, and anything which is not resolved by the "Female people" RFD, such as the need to merge these categories or delete this "Women" category, should be handled by a new RFD or RFM. - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)