Talk:List of biographical dictionaries of women writers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there any way to organize the info here to make it more readable on the page? Perhaps by some sort of categorizing scheme? I am glad that the exact entries are listed, but on a purely visual level I'm finding it hard to read. What do you think? --Susiebowers 19:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that it might be an idea to have separate articles for each (most? some?) text listed here, rather than listing all the individual names under the title, particularly as there are already some such list-articles on the go, specifically The Bloomsbury Guide to Women's Literature and Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing. The difficulty will be using the names uniformly, given that many of the same ones recur and different editors sometimes use different permutations; perhaps Wikipedia has a set format on how to refer to people, I don't know, I haven't looked. Of course the question of referring to women is particularly vexed given the plethora of names many have. If there is not some policy, perhaps we could draft some? Crikey, always more to do! scribblingwoman 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, agree - both that separate articles would allow the page to be much more readable, and that it would make coordinating name variants more difficult. Hmm. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) basically recommends 'the general rule of the form of the name that is most common for referring to the person in question, so ... Virginia Woolf, but: Vita Sackville-West (and not, after her husband, "Vita Nicolson" - English nobility rules had allowed her to keep her maiden name after marriage, and that's the name that appeared most often on her publications, even after marriage)'. Dsp13 23:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I suppose whenever one of us is working on a writer it wouldn't hurt to search for a few variations of their name and either clean them up or make redirects. I've noticed, looking through some of the basic anthologies and biographical dictionaries, that there is quite a variation, particularly with the less well-known figures. I will try to do some of this, though I will have irregular computer access for the next ten days or so. scribblingwoman 01:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a page-long discussion of the question of naming in Jane Stevenson et al (eds.) Early Modern Women Poets: an Anthology, xxxvi-xxxvii (here). Their uniform solution: for English-language writers, use the name taken on their first marriage (since that's most likely to be what they were known by at the time - though they admit this throws up weird anomalies for royals, multiple marriages, Scots and Americans) - and provide an index listing all name variants! I've recently had a go at listing the entries for George Ballard's Memoirs of British Ladies, & found name variants a real headache. Dsp13 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Women's literature" as an area of study

(I am posting this message on the discussion pages of several likely articles and lists; sorry for the cross-posting):

I'd like to invite anyone interested in women's writing to read and comment on a draft article, " Women's literature in English." It began in response to the recent removal of " Woman Writers" as a category. It's close to being finished, but a few more eyes would be really helpful. Thanks! scribblingwoman 16:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 15:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)