Talk:Nasty woman

"Nasty woman"

Should this page simply be called "Nasty woman"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes...--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Page moved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft

See also: Draft:Nasty woman

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research?

Can someone identify specifically why the 'original research' tag appears at the top of the article? I don't think it's necessary and will remove it unless someone can explains its inclusion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag because I am not alone in my thinking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

POV & notability

Page is written as though Trump coined this term. Usage in the sense of "empowered woman," "she-who-leans-in," "Fearless Girl," and so forth needs to be properly written up, with a history of the origin and and secondary sources explicating the meaning. See WP:NEO. But it also needs context. Among the doubts in re: notability at the recent AfD is the question of whether the use of two common English words in this way is a distinctive and meaningful neologism, or simply a juxtaposition of two words "nasty" and "woman" both of which have shifted meaning over time. Article will need editing to shed its rather intense presentism and reflect previous, relatively stable specific meanings of the phrase ("woman who is physically dirty in her habits; woman who is a vile person; woman who enjoys or is willing to engage in sex; there may be others) this can go in a history section.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability, maybe redirect?

I wonder if the best disposition might be a redirect to Reappropriation#Sex and sexuality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

possible merge with Nasty Woman Movement page?

Hi! Students in my WikiEdu course New Literacies, Cultures and Technologies of Writing created an article this semester, Nasty Woman Movement. There's obvious overlap with your work on this page. Would you be interested in merging your article with theirs or vice versa? My students have completed the assignment, but I did ask if any of them would want to help with the merge. They will reply here if they're interested. Tokyogirl79 was our assigned WikiEd staff member. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Hi! Sorry I didn't see this - I hadn't logged into my main account in a while, it seems! I'll go ahead and work on the merge right now. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Aschuet1: I've merged, or should I say, just moved the content over from the other article and rearranged it slightly for flow. I'm sorry that the two pages couldn't exist independently of one another, at least at this point in time, but the material the students created looks really awesome on this page and provides a lot of much needed material! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed) I think it looks great! And it makes a lot of sense to have a single page where all these references are collated into one spot. Makes it easy to find them for further research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschuet1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested merge with Women's March

The phrase isn't independently notable, merging this with Women's March (where it got the most use) seems logical. Thoughts? Jdcomix (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Nasty guy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Nasty guy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Nasty guy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)