Jump to content

Talk:List of female poets

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 15 November 2024 (fix template to actually link to the old peer review. not that there's actually anything there). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

[Untitled]

[edit]

This article is part of WikiProject Poetry. See that page for guidelines.

I think this could be a very useful list for people doing Women's Studies or related courses. Bmills 14:57, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Women poets or woman poets? DJ Clayworth 15:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Explain, please? I mean poets who happen to be women, basically. But I'm just as happy with women who happen to be poets. Bmills 15:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe to be grammatically correct 'women poets' is the plural of 'woman poet'. Francs2000 16:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think Francs2000 is right; I recently added Women Writers Project and wondered the same thing. I resolved it by reasoning that the project's been going for 17 years and they probably know the rules of English pretty well ;)
You may want to look for poets in the list of works they've converted. Tualha 13:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I guess you wouldn't say man poets. Bmills 14:11, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can we move this to List of female poets? —Eloquence

Doesn't this page duplicate what's in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_poets ? Syosset 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe "Women poets" is perfectly correct and normal usage. As in:

etc. etc.

(And I was raised by someone who was very particular in such matters. I'm convinced that the main reason why my mother always bought all my clothing at the County Boys' and Men's Shop is that she was so thrilled that they put the apostrophes in the right places.) Dpbsmith 02:01, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Please create an article for these links before putting on the Article page WayneRay 03:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Media mention

[edit]

This list is mentioned in:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I added this to the top of this of this page: {{press | author=Kleeman, Jenny|date=26 May 2015|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2015/05/wikipedia-has-colossal-problem-women-dont-edit-it |title=The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men? |org=''[[New Statesman]]'' }}

Better list offer

[edit]

@Pigsonthewing: I saw the "bad review" of this list page. I offer an automatically generated and updated list, based on Wikidata, of >4.600 female poets for which English Wikipedia does have an article. That is a factor of 7 compared to the current, manually maintained list. The demo sections by nationality, which could of course be turned off. --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alack! It is a regular browser crasher. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC).

The issue

[edit]

Here is a quote from the New Statesman article. 67.100.125.207 (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The gender disparity has skewed the encyclopaedia’s content – not only which pages are created but also which ones are worked on and improved so that they reach a high standard. Take its “List of Pornographic Actresses”; it is meticulously referenced, with clear sections according to decade. The page is organised, clean and easy to use. Compare it to the “List of Female Poets”: a sprawling dumping ground, organised by name rather than date, unreferenced and of little use to anyone unless they want to know whose name might come after Sylvia Plath in an enormous alphabetical list. The list of poets has been edited 600 times, by nearly 300 editors. The list of female porn stars is a newer page but over 1,000 editors have edited it more than 2,500 times."