Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Terminology of transgender anatomy/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Terminology of transgender anatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC) and Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe)[reply]
Me and Tamzin cooked up just what it says on the tin; terminology associated with the body parts of trans folks.
This is pretty heterodox form for a list, but since its main purpose is to explain and list a set of terminology, I feel it's a bit closer to the list side of things, even though it could potentially fit into either camp. A demi-list, so to speak. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought from QoH
[edit]Nice work on this list by both of you. I added col headers while this list was still in draft, but was reverted as "not needed". I'd think all tables should have col headers, but couldn't find any guidnance on this and would like to hear other's thoughts. Queen of Hearts (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. So, typically both row and column headers are required, but also typically the tables are more complex than two columns. Working through "how does it sound with a screen reader", the 'Attested replacement words' table is fine- it reads like "Menstruation. Menstruation: bleeding, shark week", so it's pretty clear that it's standard term: alt terms. For the 'Medical terminology' table... I think it's fine? It honestly works a bit better audibly than visually, where it sounds like "term: alt1, alt2, alt3. term2: alt4, alt5, alt3", so the repeats/merged cells on the right are clear. Visually, it's a little messy- you typically want the combined cells to be on the left and get more diffuse as you go across to the right, but the genitals/gonads combos make that messy, and column headers wouldn't make that better. I guess what I'm saying is: I think in this case it's okay to not have column headers. --PresN 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source check by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath
[edit]I will be doing a source check for this article. I will update this as I check. To be comprehensive I'm going to break down my source check by section and also include any sources I could not access.
| Section | Status | Sources I couldn't access | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Context | Verified | None | I just want to ask for clarification regarding the statement "Prior to the 2010s, there was little research on the social aspects of transgender bodies". I'm assuming you got the year 2010 from the sources cited in the reference you gave. I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here. Otherwise I was able to access and verify all the sources used
|
| Colloquial terminology | Pending | Steinbock, Eliza (2017). "Representing Trans Sexualities". In Smith, Clarissa; Attwood, Feona; McNair, Brian (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Media, Sex and Sexuality. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315168302.
Bellwether, Mira (2013). Fucking Trans Women: A Zine About the Sex Lives of Trans Women. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 9781492128939. |
I'm not able to verify the statement "Some transmasculine people refer to their clitorises as a dick or cock" from either of the sources listed in ref 9. Fielding 2021 does discuss alternative terms for the vulva but doesn't reference the clitoris or list dick or cock as alternative terms.
|
| Medical terminology | Done | Rider, Nic G.; Caso, Taymy J.; Czech, Spencer; Karasic, Dan H. (2022). "Terminology in Transgender Medicine". In van Trotsenburg, Mick; Luikenaar, Rixt A. C.; Meriggiola, Maria Cristina (eds.). Context, Principles and Practice of TransGynecology: Managing Transgender Patients in ObGyn Practice. Cambridge UP. doi:10.1017/9781108899987. ISBN 9781108899987. | Was not able to access one source however the rest of the citations I was able to verify. |
Finished on August 18 2024 with one minor issue of some refs containing sources that do not contain the information the article is claiming to cite. All but 3 sources have been verified. The people working on this page did an excellent job of putting things in their own words and clearly put a lot of time and effort into this article. Well done! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I did the source review for this article and I wanted to show my support for the article based on that. I only found one very minor sourcing issue that was immediately addressed by the nominators. I was able to access almost every single source they used. Everything was put into the writer's own words and there were no plagiarism issues. The nominators clearly put significant time into finding several unique and reliable sources. I've never voted for any featured article or list before so hopefully I did this right. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620
[edit]I'm going to disclose upfront that I was informed over Discord that a prose review was still needed here – I should be able to do one in the next day or two. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. I've read this list quite closely twice over. I've got nothing. I did make a bold attempt at a minor capitalization fix, but the original turned out to be in line with one of MOS's nooks and crannies with which I was unfamiliar. Excellent work, Tamzin and Generalissima. For what it's worth, if either of you have the time or interest, I have a rather old FLC that could still use some feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airship
[edit]This seems quite far away from a list to me. A couple of embedded lists in an article does not mean it becomes a stand-alone list, which is FL is for. As a comparison, none of the five "Terminology of..." articles I just spotchecked are classified as lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AirshipJungleman29: Plenty of majority-prose articles are classified as lists; for instance, Moons of Uranus. I also don't think similar articles are a good judge, as Moons of Mars and Moons of Pluto are not classified as lists. (Or for another example, Cartography of Jerusalem vs Cartography of China). I feel the ultimately quality of a list is enumerating the notably attested members of some set, which this article does; it just has to do this with large amounts of context in prose or it'd be nonsensical. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the addition of large amounts of text in "Moons of Uranus" make it no longer a simple list of astronomical bodies, typically lacking prose? How much supplementary context a given list needs varies dramatically, and there are numerous examples of lists with similar prose lengths to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I wouldn't consider "Moons of Uranus" a list either, and the same with other "lists" like Emirates Cup which I brought up here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the addition of large amounts of text in "Moons of Uranus" make it no longer a simple list of astronomical bodies, typically lacking prose? How much supplementary context a given list needs varies dramatically, and there are numerous examples of lists with similar prose lengths to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no, it could be a glossary, which would have no prose. Instead, this article has been structured to require the large amounts of context in prose, which makes it ... not a list, in my eyes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AirshipJungleman29: I'm coming at this from a different direction than you or my coäuthor. I do think it's a list, but not for quite the reason that Generalissima does. The relevant variable isn't the amount of prose, but rather to what extent does the article serve to list things rather than describe them. A list should be about the breadth of examples more than the depth of context. A list should be more about the items in the set than the set itself.Apart from the lede and the Context section, both of which have the standard amount of prose for an FL, most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth. Most of the prose in §§ Colloquial terminology and Medical terminology is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the tabled lists and discussing them in greater detail. By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them. The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do." that is fundamentally altering the definition of a standalone list on Wikipedia, viz. "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list". It's an interesting thought, but just not how lists currently work."most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth" this is the case for most articles. Biographies are devoted to listing the events of lives (in chronological order). It would be a bit odd if I were to slap a timeline at the end of each section of Tolui and say "Most of the prose ... is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the timelines and discussing them in greater detail"—why look at it like this, and not the reverse, the default way?"By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them." and added to the 200 words in the context section that's more than half the prose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really follow your logic. The thing that makes it a list is that it is primarily devoted to listing things, and there's nothing in any guideline giving another definition. If we want to wikilawyer this, then from WP:SAL there's
Glossaries are usually titled Glossary of X or Glossary of X terms, though if they contain substantial non-list prose about the nature or history of terminology relating to the topic, as well as a glossary list, a title such as X terminology may be more appropriate.
So that's the controlling guideline, the one that WP:FLCR incorporates by reference, saying that this kind of article is a list. If you want to open up a general discussion of whether a list can have too much prose to count as a list, then I think that's reasonable, although per Generalissima it might lead to a few existing FLs getting delisted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]- For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin on this being a list. It's not a traditional one, but it is still an article with the intent of listing relevant terminology. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll trust your judgement. Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting Airship, it was not clear to me based on your earlier comments that this had your support. I'll proceed with this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll trust your judgement. Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin on this being a list. It's not a traditional one, but it is still an article with the intent of listing relevant terminology. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really follow your logic. The thing that makes it a list is that it is primarily devoted to listing things, and there's nothing in any guideline giving another definition. If we want to wikilawyer this, then from WP:SAL there's
- "The prose in these sections constitute lists just as much as the tables do." that is fundamentally altering the definition of a standalone list on Wikipedia, viz. "articles composed of one or more embedded lists, or series of items formatted into a list". It's an interesting thought, but just not how lists currently work."most of the rest of the prose in the article is still devoted to the act of listing things, not to exploring the overarching subject in depth" this is the case for most articles. Biographies are devoted to listing the events of lives (in chronological order). It would be a bit odd if I were to slap a timeline at the end of each section of Tolui and say "Most of the prose ... is devoted to pulling out specific examples from the timelines and discussing them in greater detail"—why look at it like this, and not the reverse, the default way?"By my count, both sections have about 100 words each that discuss the set rather than the items within them." and added to the 200 words in the context section that's more than half the prose? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
[edit]I was surprised to see this nomination is still pending! Comments to come in the next few days. I'm here from a neutral invitation to review that I saw on the Wikimedia Discord server, if that matters to anyone. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.