On 7/18/12, Tom Morris wrote:
> Funny you should mention DBpedia. DBpedia can only work based on the things
> in Wikipedia and given that we don't include gender in Wikipedia info boxes
> or category structures, there won't be anything in DBpedia.
>
> But, DBpedia links into Freebase, and Freebas
On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 at 13:18, Delirium wrote:
> I'm not sure if that's the best way to do it, but I think that asymmetry
> in interest and navigational usefulness is why we have some asymmetries
> in the category structure. As for changing it, I think it'll have to be
> looked at on an area
On 7/18/12 11:47 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
The English Wikipedia categorises biographies by gender in some
circumstances (eg athletes), but not systematically in the way that
German does - there are no supercategories of "Men", "Women", etc,
designed to list all members of those groups, and plenty o
On 18 July 2012 13:03, Charles Matthews wrote:
> On 18 July 2012 12:32, wrote:
> > "Actress" is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would
> suggest it is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language.
>
> The point here is whether "occupation" is gendered, though, in th
On 18 July 2012 12:32, wrote:
> "Actress" is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would suggest
> it is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language.
The point here is whether "occupation" is gendered, though, in this
case. Cf. firefighter, seafarer and so on.
Charles
"Actress" is certainly not obsolescent in common usage, and I would suggest it
is not the role of Wikipedia to redefine the English language.
At least until the Academy changes the name of its award for performance by an
actress in a leading role...
On 18 Jul 2012, at 12:13, Charles Matthews
On 18 July 2012 12:13, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Well, OK. As far as I can see, the standard infobox for people does
> not include a field M/F. Within [[Category:Actors]], where the
> WikiProject specifies use of an infobox, it seems that the gendered
> occupation "actress" is still widely used.
On 18 July 2012 11:56, Carcharoth wrote:
> And I don't think the cases where it is
> unclear or a matter of privacy (a vanishingly small number) should
> preclude the obvious cases being done. It doesn't seem quite right
> that the potential for arguments over edge cases and how to handle
> them
On 7/18/12, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> I remember it being referred to many years ago as long-standing
>> practice, but I've dug around a bit in the discussion archives and
>> can't seem to pin it down. It's probably pre-2004, maybe even pre-2003
>> - any
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> I remember it being referred to many years ago as long-standing
>> practice, but I've dug around a bit in the discussion archives and
>> can't seem to pin it down. It's probably pre-2004, maybe
On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray wrote:
> I remember it being referred to many years ago as long-standing
> practice, but I've dug around a bit in the discussion archives and
> can't seem to pin it down. It's probably pre-2004, maybe even pre-2003
> - anyone remember?
As with almost all our c
On 18 July 2012 10:47, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The English Wikipedia categorises biographies by gender in some
> circumstances (eg athletes), but not systematically in the way that
> German does - there are no supercategories of "Men", "Women", etc,
> designed to list all members of those
Hi all,
The English Wikipedia categorises biographies by gender in some
circumstances (eg athletes), but not systematically in the way that
German does - there are no supercategories of "Men", "Women", etc,
designed to list all members of those groups, and plenty of biography
articles have no "gen
13 matches
Mail list logo
