Wikipedia

Talk:Woman warrior/Archive 1

< Talk:Woman warrior
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Zythe in topic New page format

Pern

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It says Moreta and Lessa are women warriors. Is that right? They don't go around figthing people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.48.143 (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More additions

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where would you put in Leeloo from The Fifth Element (played by Milla Jovovich). Saemikneu (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What a mess

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a huge pile of original research. I have made an initial stab at bringing some order, and plan to be back shortly to continue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Archetype???

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moving from article - there is no information or criteria items would need to be included or where they should be included. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Women warriors as archetype

This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.

Action films

Blaxploitation
Spy films and television, police drama, and the James Bond (film series)

Gangs

Animated cartoons

Horror films and television

Literature

Misc.

Science fiction and cyberpunk

Children's Programs

Prime Time Television

Sports films and television

Discusion re Archetype

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
You have removed far too much stuff from in here. Horror films characters as well as most of the star trek characters(excluding Kira since she's in there) needs to go back. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 04:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I have not. Wikipedia is NOT a random collection of information. This also applies to WP:LIST articles. The items need some type of identifiable criteria. "Archetype" is so vague and subjective that any entry will need to have a thrid party source identifying the character as such. Lists also need to have an identifiable structure - grouping items by 'genres' such as 'horror' or 'anime' is not a workable structure due the the inherrent subjectivity (where would and editor or reader look for an item that was 'anime' AND 'horror'). I moved the material here so editors might review and come up with a way to add it to the article that meets Wikipedia article standards.-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Well fine but can you at least find a place in the new way of ordering this list. Selene, Tasha Yar, Nancy, and Jadzia Dax has every right to be on this list as much as Buffy and Beatrix. Without them and several others that's been removed, this list is not complete....or not as close to complete. EDIT Side note: Thank you for at least talking about this. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My view is that the secondary groupings such as science-fiction, television, etc are going to cause trouble because they overlap and are open to argument. I propose a simple alphabetical list which would be subdivided by letter of the alphabet. Each entry would contain links to articles about the woman warrior and the work(s) in which she appears. So, the entry for Buffy, say, would go under the letter B with links to Buffy Summers and major works such as the movie, TV series, comic, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I further suggest that any character which is not sufficiently notable to support its own article should be excluded. I.e. blue links only. This will help keep the list to a manageable size. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
So what your saying is basically the one's we can include is Selene and no to Cherry Darling from Planet Terror? FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The large section that I moved to the talkpage was all under some type of category/seperate list called "Archetype" of which there has still been nothing to clarify what makes a character an "archetype" so that they would be included. The article as it stood in at this point contained the list of "This list of women warriors offers figures in live action film and television, animation and anime, video games, as well as literature, manga and folklore who have been portrayed as being in combat" which is a fairly objective standard. The list was then organized by objective categories of media type (print, live action, animated, etc.) (I had not yet had the chance to identify and remove the 'manga' to 'print'). Since any particular "source" (ie Buffy the TV series or the BattleTech books) might contain numerous Women Warrior characters, sub-ordering the categories by the source name and then listing the particular characters after seemed to be the most logical way to continue the ordering. (I had not yet applied this structure to anything but the live action and animation sections) Any of the above "archetype" listings which fit the defined criteria could be moved from the talk page to the article. If anyone has other types of organizational structures, please feel free to offer them, but the article as it now stands is a complete violation of WP:LIST.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So maybe not exactly an archetype but a lot of the removed characters belongs someplace in this article. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 14:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the inaccurately named, undefined, and redundant "Archetype" section. The content from this section has already been added to this talk page by another user, so anyone wanting to put one of the removed entries back into the main section of the article can do so easily. However, please note that several of the characters listed as archetypes (e.g. Buffy) were already under the main list. There is no reason to have the same character listed twice in different places. Also please note that while the term "warrior" can be used in a fairly broad sense, this article is on "women warriors" not "women who are independent or possess strength of character". Including every fictional female detective or forensic scientist is inappropriate, and attempts to do so have already made this entry unwieldy. CKarnstein (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

List organization

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The categories currently given for this list are awkward and inconsistent. Some refer to a media type (games), others a genre of fiction (science fiction), and still others a class of women warriors (superheroines). Within the categories some characters are listed by name, others by the title of the work in which they appear. Many characters or works could be listed under multiple categories (e.g. a science fiction action film or novel). Some of the categories have alphabetized entries while others do not. This is terrible. If we're going to have categories at all, they should be clear and fairly objective -- I'd propose media types such as "literature", "movies", "television", and "comics". The list should be arranged alphabetically by either character name or title of the work in which she appears. I'd be in favor of the latter, although I'd be fine with Colonel Warden's above suggestion that it be done by character name instead. It would be nice to get some other opinions on this before I spend the time on rearranging the whole article, but I am prepared to go ahead and edit boldly. CKarnstein (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert. I agree the article needs a great deal of help; I'd be happy to work with you to clean this up. If you want me to work on a specific section, just ask. Westrim (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to apply a new organization scheme around Aug 12 but was soundly reverted by people who insisted on returning what to me is completely undefined "Archetype" section without applying any definition to it. Now that there are multiple voices calling for change, perhaps we can move forward. There are two proposed organizational schemes outlined in the Discussion re Archetype section. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I am personally in favor of organizing the list by the title of the work, in part because I think readers are more likely to remember the title of the movie/book/whatever than the character's name, and in part to avoid multiple one-line entries for characters from the same work. It would also make alphabetization easier as it avoids first name/last name issues. CKarnstein (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The list is of women warriors, not books and movies with characters that are women warriors. The works will nearly all be highlighted by their link to the main article, so a reader shouldn't have a problem finding, say, Sarah Connor of the Terminator series. If a particular media has several eligible characters (such as Star Wars), we can make a subsection for it. The only problem with that is that media like Star Wars wouldn't go under any single media heading, due to being stretched over several types of media. Westrim (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
If we get it set up under one structure, we can then translate it into a sortable table and meet most people's wishes (well, how to handle works with multiple women warriors might be an issue). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A lot of characters will have appeared in different types of media, e.g. Buffy in the movie, TV series, and comic books, but I think it should be easy enough to class characters under the original or best-known media. So Princess Leia under movies, Tank Girl under comics, and Buffy under TV. I'd argue that a character that appears only in the Star Wars novels or only in the Buffy comics isn't notable enough to be listed here anyway. I think we REALLY need to prune minor/obscure characters from this list -- there are plenty of notable examples without getting bogged down with every female character in every fighting game ever or an Amazon who appeared in a single episode of Xena. CKarnstein (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking of the series themselves. Leia is from the movies, but the series has many women warriors, to the point that it is counterproductive to try to sort them into all the different media categories. Same goes for Buffy characters, with the comics and such. I disagree vigorously with your dismissal of the other media these series are available in. As long as the character is canon and is more than a one shot, they should be included. Melaka Fray, for instance, is a character from the comics created by Whedon himself and definitely canon, yet would be excluded by your standard . This article needs pruning, but be careful not to snip off whole branches or leave bare spots. Westrim (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what being canon has to do with anything. Just because something is canon in a particular series doesn't make it notable. There are already lots of pages devoted to "minor characters in (series)". You could certainly make a case for the notability of Melaka Fray because she had her own spin-off series, but "canonical and more than a one shot" is far too broad a standard to use for inclusion in an article of this type. CKarnstein (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Then add notable, that's fine. Just don't dismiss the expanded universe of a series simply because it's the expanded universe. I'm not concerned about the minor character lists, I'm concerned about this page and making sure characters aren't omitted because they aren't a main character of the original medium. Westrim (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thought: we should rearrange the page into a chart with columns for character and the property they came from, segmented into the media types and a last segment for those who appear significantly in two or more media types, with a third column in that segment for what the media types are. Westrim (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical and Legendary

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that Historical and Legendary would be a fitting category for women such as Rosie the Riveter, Joan of Arc (who is currently placed under film but whom many films are made about), and Calamity Jane. Currently these women are listed under misc or film, but I think a listing under film is better suited to a character who was created for a film, rather than a legendary or historical person whom 1 or more films have been made about. Therefor, Mrs. Smith and Princess Fiona who are created for a movie would go under film, while Joah of Arc, Calamity Jane and Fa Mulan for whom such movies movies where created, but who existed in history and ledgened prior to the film would go under history and legend. Characters such as "Gwenevier" who existed in history and legend, but who were never concieved of as a warrior before a specific film would go under film. And characters who were invented for tv or film as a secondary character of actual historical or legendary figures in those films (such as Xena) would go under film or tv. A good test of this is: Is the character property of some company or author (Elizabeth Swan is property of Pirates of the Carribean; Sarah Connor is property of Terminator). I think that historical and legendary women diserve their own category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.242.121 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It seems like someone has asked to add citation to define if the women mentioned is a warrior or not, but most of them actually got their own wikipedia articles where their fighting acts are described, and also they are known in popular culture and accesible media, wouldnt be redundant to add citations for all of them?

No it is not redundant to add citations. 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2) Each article must stand on its own - "evidence" that is currently shown in a particular Wikipedia article today, that supports a claim in this article could easily be removed from that article tomorrow. 3) Just because a female character one time slaps or shots someone does make her a "warrior" 4) without a source, all inclusions on this list are original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask... exactly what type of sources are wanted for this list? Anything (reliable) mentioning the warrior aspect of a female character, or something more specific? What if the series revolves around the fact that the character is a warrior, does it still need a source then (for instance, in the novel Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit and its anime adaptation of the same name, Balsa is a bodyguard by profession and is even referred to as "Balsa the spear-wielder" multiple times)? 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget I asked, since the page was restructured. ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New page format

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I actually approve of this. I think it should stay this way. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 05:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty bold of me to delete all the listy stuff, but it had descended to "list of heroines and badass villains in all media" with no inclusion criteria. Then it struck me the list was pointless! The article should be constructed around the third party and academic sources, describing the archetype and its evolution which in the course of doing so will aptly name any female characters who explicitly belong to this heading (i.e. Wonder Woman, Xena, Buffy).~ZytheTalk to me! 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Scream, Popular Culture, and Feminism's Third Wave: I'm Not My Mother"
  2. ^ Steiner, Wendy (27 April 2000). "Lost in Amazonia". The Nation. Retrieved 2008-04-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. ^ AN INTERPRETIVE STUDY OF VISUAL CUES IN ADVERTISING
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woman_warrior/Archive_1&oldid=1136390252"