Talk:Womyn's land

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Womyn's land article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Women in Red: Celebrating LGBTQ Women and Wiki Loves Pride (2018)

This article was created or improved during the Celebrating LGBTQ Women and Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in June 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2018.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Changing the article's established reference/citation style

No editor can suddenly change how sources are cited in an article. (a) Per WP:CIT: "Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way...editors should not...change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus"; (b) WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change....When an article is already consistent, avoid: switching between major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags".
On 9 March 2019, User:Woodsy lesfem added content, for the first time, with parenthetical referencing, using Template:Sfn -- which was contrary to the existing inline citation style that was used in the article. Even WP:PAREN > Consistency states: "If you choose to use this style...it should be used for all citations in the article, not merely a selected subset....you should not use inline footnotes (using <ref> tags) for reliable sources that are websites, and parenthetical citations for those reliable sources that are books."
It wasn't until today that I took a closer look at the citations in source screen. I did so after seeing the redundancy of the same citation ("[80]") that was added 3x to the introductory sentence in Fiction.
There's more to editing Wikipedia than having good intentions; you also need to follow policies and guidelines ... and there are many. When it comes to citing sources, the guidelines are unambiguous. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't utilize the talk page/get consensus before I switched them, but I'll switch them back if it's really disagreeable. The point was to be able to reference the key sources without severely bloating the reference section. Some of the sources I've switched to sfn probably won't be used that often so that's a mistake on my part. I just figured citing, for example, Shugar or Keridwen for ideas expressed over the course of their books would create an unwieldy reference section, in terms of a full citation for each time I use another page from the book. WP:IBID describes what I was trying to do--even if I didn't go about it the right way, I still think there's merit in using sfns. WP:SFN, two sections down on that page, helps me understand it a little, but I still am unclear on how sfns and long footnotes coexist. I've seen a lot of articles set up like Winston Churchill#References, where sfns and long citations are together in the notes section. This was what I was trying to do by converting the heavily referenced sources (or sources I hope to reference heavily as I expand the article--I understand this puts the cart before the horse though) to sfns. I understand it's a little late now, but I'd like to discuss it further before switching everything back if it can be useful Woodsy lesfem (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR guideline is clear: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it...." The citation style that existed before you began to edit the article -- {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} -- did not hinder the understanding of the article's text and sources used for content verification.
You may consider the use of parenthetical references as less "bloating", but many non-academic and scientific readers may find them obtrusive and interruptive. Whatever an individual editor's idea may be regarding their preferred referencing style, in Wikipedia the referencing style within an article must be consistent with the already-prevailing style. You discovered this article 10 months after it was created, made 3 edits within the same month, then returned 13 months later (almost 2 years after article was established), rearranged content, and started editing the article using parenthetical references.
In regards to citing "Shugar or Keridwen for ideas expressed over the course of their books", there's also the risk of citation overkill. So instead of the bloating you think may occur, you instead create citation clutter; and as in the case of the no."80" reference for "Luis 2018" that was repeated 3x (side by side), you also create senselessness in the article.
I've observed that you are an intelligent editor and I do not doubt that you mean well, but when it comes to using parenthetical references, sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary and Woodsy lesfem: I volunteer to bring it back to the original citation style. It's a simple find and replace operation after all. But first, I have a suggestion:

Can we please use {{rp}}:

However, as each group developed distinct ideologies, tension formed between radical feminists and lesbian separatists.^[1]^: 39 Lesbian separatists used the separatist ideology as a way to "test one's feminist commitment,"^[1]^: 40 which resulted in a divide.

References

^ ^a ^b Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0803242449.

instead of repeating the full footnotes literally dozens of times:

However, as each group developed distinct ideologies, tension formed between radical feminists and lesbian separatists.^[1] Lesbian separatists used the separatist ideology as a way to "test one's feminist commitment,"^[2] which resulted in a divide.

References

^ Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0803242449.
^ Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0803242449.

Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources used more than once are supposed to use refnames. For book sources with more than one referenced page, using "|ref name=XYZ" along with "|pages=1, 2" is sufficient. Using individual {{rp|p=1}} {{rp|p=2}} etc. can confuse less experienced editors and create clutter. I stick to the templates, which are provided in the editing toolbar under Cite > Templates > cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal. Adding an extra layer to how it's done is not the goal of WP:CITEVAR, which is to have a uniform citation style for all editors to follow. The only time citations deviate from the uniformity is when newer editors dive in without bothering to review how sources are cited, and when students are assigned articles without their teachers instructing them on how to edit Wikipedia. (Thankfully, Wikipedia has also moved away from using Harvard style citations, since W is not an academic project.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source

In the current year's first issue of Women's History Review (Lesbian Nation issue) several articles are open access. Among these is "‘A meeting of different tribes’? Travelling women and mobility between European and Australasian women’s lands", doi:10.1080/09612025.2021.1954336 by Rebecca Jennings. There's new info in this article on 'Amazon Acres' in Australia, 'Kvindelandet' in Denmark and 'Cefn Foellat' in Wales. Jennings also writes about the many women travelling to visit these and other womyn's lands, almost leading a nomadic lifestyle. (I always thought the Van Dykes were kind of unique in their itinerancy. Well, they were not.)

One of the sources of this article is the very readable "Sisterhood and Squatting in the 1970s: Feminism, Housing and Urban Change in Hackney", doi:10.1093/hwj/dbx024 (2017) by Christine Wall, about the dozens of (lesbian) women squats in the London borough of Hackney in the 70s. SanderO (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 9 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fvreeves (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Fvreeves (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Shugar1995-1] Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0803242449.

[2] Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0803242449.

[3] Shugar, Dana R. (1995). Separatism and Women's Community. University of Nebraska Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0803242449.

[1]

[1]

[2]