Talk:Filipino women writers
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Project Termina in topic Renaming to "Filipina women writers"
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Filipino women writers article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Filipino women writers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,544 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Filipina / Filipino?
editHave I by any chance erred in moving this article from Filipino to Filipina (and correcting the text as well)? I was concerned that the proper (feminine) adjective wasn't being used. But I'm wondering if perhaps it's disfavored as being redundant when used in conjunction with the word "women". I'm not sure why this didn't occur to me until after I was done -- my apologies if I've screwed up. Cgingold (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Filipino women writers is the correct form of the phrase(s). Reverted all back from Filipina to Filipino. - DaughterofSun (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see you've already taken care of this -- and from your edit summary, I see that it was about redundancy, as I (belatedly) suspected. Undoubtedly the silliest mistake I've ever made on Wiki!
- For future reference, could you tell me whether this also applies when the redundancy is implicit, or only when it's explicit, as in this case? For example, I was looking through the sub-cats of Category:Filipino women by occupation (two of which I just added), and there are a few I'm uncertain about. On the one hand, we have Category:Filipina ballerinas -- and on the other we have Category:Filipino beauty pageant contestants, which it seems to me should be changed to Filipina, since there could hypothetically be male contestants. Highly unlikely, to be sure -- but grammatically speaking, I think it ought to be changed. Then there are the sub-cats for nuns, which are so strongly implicit that I would not be inclined to change them to Filipina. But then, what of "Filipina ballerinas"? Cgingold (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- The latter (Filipina ballerinas) seems to be one exception to the "rule" on "usage", but I suggest you consult the creator of the category which is User:Jondel. Cheers. - DaughterofSun (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
noli me tangere characters in expression to nationalism
editim wondering how the characters of noli me tangere express their love for the country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.119.66 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Renaming to "Filipina women writers"
edit- MOS:PHIL says that the preferred expression is "Filipinas" or "Filipina women" -- "Filipino women" should be avoided in Philippine-related articles. I see there was a discussion about this thirteen years ago, which might have been before this was standardized. I propose moving this page to Filipina women writers and replacing "Filipino" with "Filipina" in the article text when it is referencing women.