Misplaced Pages

Talk:Women and video games

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 58.7.138.14 (talk) at 09:53, 23 July 2012 (→Feminist Hate Men with a Passion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:53, 23 July 2012 by 58.7.138.14 (talk) (→Feminist Hate Men with a Passion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconGender studies Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article was nominated for merging with Gamer in the past. The result of the discussion was to not merge.

Re-add the controversy sub section

Can someone re-add it? I know Girl gamer had some heavy editing yesterday, but the controversy part is actually true. 83.227.24.252 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

WP:PROVEIT Without sources, its just your pet theory. Active Banana (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Then shouldn't a source be provided for the statement that "A girl gamer describes a female who regularly engages in the playing of video games, role-playing games, or other games (colloquially referred to as "gaming").", because everyone I know uses the term "Girl gamer" as a derogatory term to describe girls who play games for the sole purpose of attention-seeking. Everything that's said in this article is also said on Types of gamers so this article should be deleted. 83.227.24.58 (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia method: pretend to be helpful, then don't respond when you've been proven wrong. Stay classy, Active Banana! 209.33.56.103 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous

Hopefully when I check back in a few year's time, wikipedia will have realized the the idiocy of identifying someone who plays video games - one of the most popular pastimes in the world - by their gender.

Delete this thing, for heaven's sake.

It's a Verifiable term. Stop your crying. bridies (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


can we have a black gamer page tho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.170.140 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What about spider gamers? They deserve a page as well.

If you unsigned people want to write something you can hop on over to WP:AFC follow the instructions and write down your ideas to propose an article. spider gamer black gamer would be the names, but someone else must have written about it before to make it notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


I propose a "Couch Gamer" This page will be full of information about people who play video games on couches. This is easily the dumbest article I've seen on wikipedia. Jonapello22 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it verifiable? If you read the article, you can see that there are sources that discuss the topic of girl gamers in depth. That is why Misplaced Pages has an article about the topic. There are far dumber articles on Misplaced Pages, many of them unsourced and unverifiable. Reach Out to the Truth 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "Girl gamer" gets 2,300,000 Google hits and "Girlgamer" 300,000, "girl game" gets 25,000,000 hits. Clearly it's a fairly commonly used term. On the other hand, replacing "girl" with "black", "spider" or "couch" gives me less than 100,000 hits for each...even though "Black games" is the name of a company and "spider games" catches a bunch of web pages about spiderman games. "couch gamer" gets just 14,000 hits - mostly from people who use that as their online 'handle'. Clearly, like it or not, there are a bunch of people who make games specifically for the female market (god-awful Barbie games, for example) - and there are a bunch more people who self-identify as "girl gamers". These gender-specific terms may be unpalatable to some - and I quite understand and sympathize with that perspective - but this encyclopedia cannot shy away from writing about unpalatable things. SteveBaker (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "male model" has 8,530,000 hits on Google - so why is there not an entire Misplaced Pages article explaining that a male model is a model who is male? Maybe it's because it's utterly obvious what a male model is and making Misplaced Pages articles that are simply "adjective noun" is a dumb fucking precedent to set! This page is idiotic. It should be deleted. Babylonian007 (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the article needs to be cleaned up and exanded. The title is already appropriate for an encyclopedia. It does not take an adjective-noun form as you have suggested. The concept behind this article (females in relation to the video game scene) is a notable topic. This much is painfully obvious. The term "girl gamer" is also quite clearly connected to the topic of "women and video games" and because Misplaced Pages is not censored it will appear in the article. If you are interested, you can help here by adding useful material on female roles in the industry, examples of female leadership and innovation in the field, etc. You should model your additions on articles like those that appear here if you wish. Getting over-excited will not be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pics

This article seriously needs some pics. Am I right? ~_^ Osmodius 03:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You get what you want ;) Hołek ҉ 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it could use some names of female professional gamers like Seo Ji-Soo (ToSsGirL). Maybe Vanessa Arteaga, I don't know. Someone out there probably knows some names of well-known girl gamers. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

CAD Comic

Can someone please elaborate on why Ctrl+Alt+Del is listed under the "See Also" section? I see that a female character is a pro-gamer and the comic has story arcs that go into the female gamer stereotype -- is there anything else? Fishtron 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Girl RPG Gamers?

Does anyone have information out there on scholarship regarding female RPG players? Thanks. Mgcady 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Girl working in Industry

I strongly disagree that any female working for a games company is a 'girl gamer'. It is completely contrived, and there is no evidence or reference to back this up. It also implies that every male working in the games industry is in turn, a 'guy gamer', which I heavily dispute. Especially considering if you are working in the industry you are far less likely to have any spare time to be playing games. --Scottdavies 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. 81.155.45.216 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure but why would you go into the games industry if you didn't like video games? 208.106.104.40 (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Programming, art design, writing (just kidding), voice acting, what have you. Furthermore, even if they do like video games, it's an extremely time consuming area and their priorities for what time they have left may change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.19.125 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone who enters the industry has to like games. they may enter in the logic that it's where their talents shine/can be honed or because they see money to be printed(in the case of executives) agreed with scottdavies. Wiilanadapter (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Tautology

How is "girl gamer" a tautology just because the word "gamer" does not imply that one is not a girl? It's a specification. Is "male cat" a tautology now? Seems like a crappy attempt to discredit the article in the first sentence. Then again I never took Definition of Tautology 101 so I guess I wouldn't know. 198.138.40.157 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boys Gamer

If girls can get an article, boys should get one too, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.168.172 (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No. But it does mean that now, Misplaced Pages should make "girl" versions of every single article about people. Get ready, ladies, you've got a lot of writing in front of you, marking the important contributions of girl scientists, girl fire fighters, girl wikipedia editors, girl comedians... the list is endless. RubilacEx (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It's called sarcasm, /v/. RubilacEx (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Guy gamer is up, and it's trying to be deleted as a hoax. Why the sexism? I just don't understand. 71.233.27.40 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Because a google search for "guy gamer" produces about 1/100th the number of hits as "girl gamer" - it's just not a notable term in the global gestalt. Misplaced Pages doesn't write about things for political correctness reasons - it writes about objects and concepts that are notable out there in the real world. This term "girl gamer" is very notable - you see it in web sites and magazines and newspapers. The term "guy gamer" is almost unknown in the world at large. If you want to change the world - go ahead and change the actual world...but until you do, Misplaced Pages must continue to document the world as it actually is and not as we'd like it to be. SteveBaker (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Delete

Games have no gender,age, sex, creed, religion. While "girl gamer" may be important in pop culture or gaming culture it has little need for an article, this is one reason why wikipedia is becoming a joke Thanatos465 (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You believe it has little need for an article. Why does that make you want to delete the article? Can't you format your hard disk instead? Then people like me who do care about this article can still read and improve it, while you still get to delete stuff. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So according to you I can make any article I want, such as a Boy Gamer article, and you should just ignore it because I want to keep it active. If you can adequately explain to me why this article should not be merged with the gamer article I will not complain. 173.171.176.114 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. The article itself holds very little substance; it just speaks about a demographic. At the very least, merge it into Gamer. 75.3.245.75 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Word. At the absolute most, there should just be a section under "Gamer" talking about girl gamers, but an entire article is ludicrous.
  • This definitely does not deserve its own article. Merge with "Gamer" at the most. 76.240.81.178 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Why merge? It's an article about a section of a population of hobbyists. Should there be a subsection of tall woodcarvers, suburban stamp collectors, or roboticists who enjoy Tabasco? I say flat out delete. 71.233.27.40 (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For all those who say "just delete this piece of ridiculous crap", I direct your attention to WP:AFD, the place to start that process. Ranting on this talk page will not help...only the formal deletion process can get an article deleted. So don't waste your time here. DMacks (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
no merge

Merger proposal

No one else seems to want to formally discuss merging this article with Gamer (despite the fact that the tag is already there), so I guess I'll do it myself. There really isn't much in the article that explains why female gamers are unique, and separate from gamers in general, aside from the fact that they're a minority. Furthermore, there is plenty of room in the Gamer article to discuss differences between male and female gamers, if there are indeed any substantial differences at all. I'm aware that "girl gamer" is a real term, but that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to have its own article. --Wikivader (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This aricle does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Feel free to start the standard deletion discussion. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Gamer article has a whole "Types of gamers" section, summarizing and linking to specific articles for various subpopulations of gamers (but not to this article here?). Each of those articles appears to have sources specific to it. If Girl gamer is to be merged, that's the section where it would go. But I see cites in here that demonstrate "girl gamer" is a discussed topic itself (just like each of the others) so each one demonstrates notability for a stand-alone article. Merging lots of info about specific types into the parent article would make that article even more heavily just about specific types than it already is. If there's really nothing to say about gamers in general (i.e., that article's topic), then rip out the stuff there that's uncited. Or split out a Types of gamers or somesuch that can discuss the various types (that would be a viable target to merge if it were to be merged--avoid undue weight on the types in the parent). However again, the gender issue has a bunch of cites specific to gender issues, so I think the topic is well-defined and sufficient material for an individual article. Maybe it should be Gender and gaming, since it seems to discuss both sides, not just the women-as-a-minority issue? DMacks (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
RE WP:SUMMARY there has to actually be something to summarize first! Active Banana (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'd settle for renaming the article to something like Gender and gaming. It sounds more professional, and it gets rid of the perceived gender-inequality issue which prompted someone to create a new Guy Gamer article (which is now up for deletion). Furthermore, I think a title like "Gender and gaming" (or perhaps "Gender and video games") more accurately describes the issues already being addressed in this article. --Wikivader (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
If there are sources, I am not opposed to a gender and gaming. Thats an actual concept for which there may be legitimate sources whereas "girl gamer" is a made up term. Active Banana (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm in favor of merging, certain articles, such as hardcore or casual gamer, are barely acceptable due to the fact that they are both recognized and accepted terms. The industry itself classifies that way. Girl gamer on the other hand is merely a gender minority. The demographic is not important enough to warrant it's own article.Equinn (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In general, I'm a deletionist; but this article has quite a number of reliable sources, and the topic is both culturally and academically legitimate. The title may warrant changing, as User:Wikivader mentions. Gendered analysis of topics is a regularly accepted part of modern academic discourse; I can't think of any reason why WP shouldn't follow this trend. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I am ambivalent towards merging the article in it's current state. It should not simply be moved to "Gender and gaming" however. Such a title would be arbitrary and/or original research until someone provides the secondary research to support it. bridies (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually it is less arbitrary than "girl gamer" which several of the sources I looked at do not actually use! Whereas the sources are clearly discussing gender and gaming. Active Banana (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Again (copy-paste from the AFD), here is a sample of sources which use the term:

Comment: Regardless of whether the term "girl gamer" is legitimate and/or widely used, I think it's unnecessary to give this single term its own article — and somewhat ironic, especially when it seems that girl gamers want to be seen as regular gamers, not pushed into a different category because of their gender. (Then again, I could be wrong about this, and perhaps it's besides the point.) In any case, I think it would be more appropriate to bring up the term "girl gamer" in a broader article about gender in gaming, which is basically what we already have here. (See DMacks' Gender and gaming suggestion above.) To be fair, it is worth noting that singling out women (while assuming that men are the default) seems to be the trend in academic articles, and Misplaced Pages is no exception. See, for example, Women in politics and Women in the military; there are no articles for Men in politics or Men in the military, and there never will be. Therefore, the creation of an article like Girl gamer is not unprecedented, but that doesn't mean I agree with it under all circumstances. I honestly wouldn't mind seeing those other two articles moved to Gender and politics and Gender and the military, respectively. --Wikivader (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources I have seen pertinent to this topic "single out" the female angle as you say. Any title such as "Gender and gaming" does not reflect the weight of evidence at least as has been presented and until some one starts references these hypothetical scholarly articles titled "gender and gaming" (or words to that effect) this proposed title remains at best arbitrary and badly pushing original research and WP:NPOV. bridies (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
bridies please don't take this the wrong way but you're really coming off like you've got some kind of axe to grind here and you appear to be digging your heals in for a fight which is creating a perception of bias that's going to weaken any argument you put forth. BcRIPster (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hardly, I'm simply stating an argument, supported by evidence at that. Keep your baseless "perceptions" to yourself. bridies (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, touché. ;) But it seems that your evidence supports the idea that this term is used to qualify a group or demographic. Should we have a dedicated page for every term for a group of people? BcRIPster (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If it passes the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:N, bearing in mind the additional guidelines for neologisms) then yes. This was covered in the AfD. I agree that "Women in gaming" is a more likely title than "Gender and gaming" but still the weight of evidence at least as has been presented points toward "girl gamer". There's also the concern that "Women in gaming" or indeed "Gender in gaming" may inevitably be broader i.e. there will be complaints if "gaming" does not include role-playing and table top gaming or whatever else. With a self contained neologism such as "girl gamer" it's easy to check whether the sources use it solely with respect to video games or not (which going by what has been put forth so far they would seem to). bridies (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I would instead opt for this being renamed to a page such as Women in gaming or Women in games as that seems to be more the norm for this type of distinction and there is long established use of the term within the development community. Then you could address the various terms to define the community/demographics such as "Girl gamers" or "Women in games" of which there is a formal organization that carries that term named Women in Games International or WIGI for short. The page could then also expand to cover distinct groups promoting gaming to the female community such as UbiSoft's Frag Dolls. BcRIPster (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: for what it's worth both Microsoft and the IDGA feature "Women In Gaming" awards presentations for leading female members in the industry. BcRIPster (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who protected this article?

Okay I was going to add a deletion tag to this article but for some reason it cant be edited, what gives?--Bob Lulz (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected by User:Barek a because a bunch of people were vandalizing it. --Wikivader (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Bob, write your brief rationale here and I or another editor can transfer it to the article for you. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

why is this article titled "girl gamer?"

The entire article is written about women and the video game industry in general. Is there any source or reference indicating that a majority or even large portion of female gamers identify themselves as "girl gamers"? Or any reason or explanation for using the phrase over a more general and appropriate "women and gaming" or "women in the gaming industry" or "women in gaming" or anything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.58.153 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Girl_gamer#Merger_proposal Active Banana (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you mean where most of the people opposed to a merger still suggested a name change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.20.251 (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

The controversy article didn't have sources, and it was deleted so I went ahead and deleted everything in the article without sources to save you all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are all good people

This article should be turned into a "Women and Gaming" subheading in the gaming page. If we leave this like it is, we might as well have Girl Carpenter, Girl Scientist, Guy Make-up Artist, etc.

Better yet, it should be completely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

BEFORE YOU DELETE EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE THAT DOESN'T PRAISE THIS ARTICLE TO THE HEAVENS, READ THIS

The reason you provided for deletion was "trolling". Do you honestly even know what trolling is? What I posted was a legitimate argument for deletion of this pointless, sexist article - NOT trolling.

Also, I brought back the controversy section. It was deleted for having no sources, but almost nothing in this entire article does, so I don't see why it was deleted, while nothing else was?

I either want a complete deletion of this article, or the resurrection of the Gamer Guy article which was deleted for no reason, or a new article encompassing both genders called "Gender In Gaming" or something of the sort. Anything's better than keeping Gamer girl and deleting gamer guy for no reason other than the fact that you hate males.

In fact, this article could be deleted under the same reasoning that the gamer guy one was deleted.

No explanation of the subject's significance.

To the deleter of this section: This thread was already nominated for deletion, and there have been plenty of reasons for it, but it hasn't, and it's just not clear to me why this article is still here. Also, I've already read the Civility article and I'm being perfectly civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knovevmber (talk • contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has stepped up to file an WP:AFD for the article. Unless someone does, there is zero chance this article will be deleted. Repeated "delete this article!" comments here are becoming disruptive to those of us actually participating in discussions about actual content. Stop it.
One proposal is to rename/refocus the article to be just "gender" not "girl", which completely avoids your worry about "why if a girl article not a guy article". But WP:WAX: you're wasting your time rationalizing one article's existence (or not) by whether another does (or not). Each article needs to stand or fall on its own. Again, please help us improve this article by finding sources and adding content if you think there is something to be said about gender issues, or at least flagging particular issues that others should address. Add a comment on your thoughts about renaming it (above). Otherwise, we're all now well aware of your position on this article's existence. While you're waiting for others to continue that discussion, you can stop posting here and go read about the AFD process to get that started if you think it's needed. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so where does the question of rename, etc.. stand?

The conversation kind of ground to a halt and everyone wondered off without a resolution other than to not AfD the page. Unfortunately as I read it, everyone seemed in agreement other than the main page sponsor that a rename/restructure would probably be in order. BcRIPster (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You read it incorrectly, and there's no such thing as a "page sponsor". There has been little argument supported by any kind of evidence to move the page, and certainly no consensus reached on anything. bridies (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Do not move the article as there was no consensus, the title is good as it stands, and if anyone wants a different title they are welcome to make a redirect to this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
During the time of the AfD, there were references found that supported this topic as-is (focus on or specifically related to female side, not just "gender issues", and refs supporting that as an actual viable topic). So I no longer see a need for move or rename or editorial-merger. DMacks (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting a male gamer/guy gamer article

This article is clealry sexist on it's own. There should be a male gamer and/or "boy gamer" article. I don't see why this article is really here. Gamers are a group, there is no need to divide them based on gender. There are female artists and male artists. Why, then, is there no separate article for them? Actually, why is it that almost every other sport, hobby, or activity does not have a separate article for women?

I view this as extremely sexist. Before anyone makes the point that this is a "verifiable term", so is "Male gamer", because that term has also been published in many gaming magazines, gaming websites, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.50.236 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD spoke on the issue. It exists because there are sources for it. Every article must stand on its own, regardless of wahtever WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or not. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
If you can find sources that support such an article, then go for it. If not, sorry, but academic research is not there to make the world a "fair" place. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be expanded dramatically with better sources or merged with Gamer

I know it has been discussed in the past, but the article is unacceptable as it is now. Please open this discussion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XeF4 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I just have to point this out: it seems a little odd for a user's first edit to be something procedural like proposing a merge. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
That being said, it doesn't lessen the seriousness of the discussion, and as always I assume good faith :) So more power to you. But I feel like this discussion has happened before and that we came to a consensus that this article has been studied enough to warrant its own article. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
After two failed AfD's (1st and 2nd - the most recent only four months ago), plus a merge proposal less that five months ago here - I would say community consensus is clearly demonstrated. The new proposal raises no new issues, nor even point to any policy. The article contains multiple reliable sources; and as stated by Qwyrxian in the prior merge discussion, "the topic is both culturally and academically legitimate". I simply see no reason or justification for a merge other than a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the discussion. I find that most of the information on this page is trivial or irrelevant(specifically the part on women accounting for game purchases.) I don't think the whole article needs to be deleted, but the trivial info should be cut out and the relevant information moved to a sub topic on Gamer. --XeF4 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I second Barek's sentiment. There is just nothing new to discuss here which wasn't already stated. I see XeF4 also proposed to merge Hardcore gamer and I left that discussion for the interested. --Muhandes (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Late addition to "Merger" discussion

I don't know the specific etiquette involved, but I am removing a comment added to the closed discussion and placing it here. If there is a more acceptable alternative to my change, then please have at it. Thanks. Tiderolls 02:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree: Why does this page even exist? Shouldn't it just be an extension of a regular "gamer" page? Why must we separate woman from man?--76.116.228.175 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Agree: Let's open this discussion back up. The term Girl gamer literally means a girl who games. What's been presented is far too simplified to warrant a full article on the matter. Not to mention that it overlaps with the terms Gamer and Video game controversy. Furthermore, women gamers are as relevant to females who work in the industry as my pre-med roommate is to the software engineer; there's little to no connection between the specialist and consumer. Merge it with Gamer or Controversy. Perhaps an article about minorities in games or gender and race in games would be specific enough. 24.63.125.204 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Voicing your opinion now is futile. Here's what you need to do if you care so much about this:
  1. Not mandatory: open an account. It is hard to take seriously someone who wouldn't bother the 5 seconds to open an account.
  2. Not mandatory: make a few hundred valid edits. While not mandatory, it does help to show you know what Misplaced Pages is about. And again, it is hard to take seriously someone who has made virtually no contributions outside the discussion (read WP:SPA)
  3. Mandatory: Start a proper merge discussion. Help:Merge will show you how.
  4. Mandatory: Present your opinion based on sources, policy and common sense, not on like and dislikes, the existence or non existence of other stuff and other falacities.
Good luck.

--Muhandes (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So at what point does this become 'voicing your opinion now is futile because we decided it was'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.20.251 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Never. You can always take the two mandatory steps I pointed out above. --Muhandes (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHA, OH WOW!

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/Guy_gamer - ChibiVegito (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, every 3 months or so they apparently get some form of testosterone poisoning and go into a vandalistic rutting stage. Active Banana ( 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Those are just a bunch of trouble makers unaffiliated with the constructive discussion. Your comments are very prejudiced and I'm asking you nicely, please keep this constructive. The reason there's continuously talk "every 3 months" is that this article should not stand. Merge it with one of the other articles dealing with gamers or controversy within games. 24.63.125.204 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on ....?? As the previous deletion and merge discussions have concluded, the article clearly meets the inclusion criteria of having been the subject of significant third party coverage in reliable sources. The fact that contingents of hoodlums regularly vandalize the site based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and OTHERCRAPDOESNOTEXIST is not in any way substantive or persuasive. Active Banana ( 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Why some editors appear threatened by this subject is a realm of speculation into which I won't engage - however, the ongoing vandalistic behavior around the article demonstrates clear long-term abuse that deserves swift action. Consensus has been repeatedly demonstrated that this article meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines for notability and related inclusion criteria. Arguments against simply revolve around "I don't like it" rather than anything founded in Misplaced Pages content guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That or the fact that somehow boy gamer isn't a viable article when boy gamers are the majority and have done much more for the industry, and are of more note. Though the problem here isn't actually the discrimination against male gamers that has been shown, but the fact that this article exists, and is a template for more and more of these gender based articles, filled with white knighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.206.198 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 11 January 2011

Quit whining and find reliable third party sources that use the term in a substantive way. Active Banana ( 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As has been stated repeatedly; this article exists because there are multiple reliable sources that use the term. You claim it's a template for other gender-based article; however, other articles would need reliable sources of their own - in otherwords, its an irrelevant argument. This article does not define what goes in other articles, but instead it's what is said in multiple verifiable reliable sources that establish a subject's notability for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. --- Barek (talk) - 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to ], as this is what article's topic actually is at the moment. Should anyone wish to start a Girl gamer article about that term, or a Gender and video gaming article which deals with that broader issue, that's fine. Aervanath (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


Girl gamer → Gender and video gaming – I think that something along these lines might be the most sensible solution to the problems this article has faced. It's certainly not normal for an article to face multiple RfDs and a request for merge. There is obviously something about this article that bothers readers and I think that all evidence points to the title. My gut instinct is that "Misplaced Pages is Not Censored" and so it would be fine to leave it as is. More recently, though, I've had a change of heart. Here are my thoughts:

  • I'm completely against the wholesale deletion of the article because regardless of any claims of gender bias, this is a notable topic inasmuch as it is frequently discussed around the world by reliable sources.
  • I am also largely against making it into a subsection of "gaming" as there is quite a bit of information on this subject and the article should really be expanded.
  • As for the title, I have come to agree with the complainers that the term "girl gamer" is not particularly encyclopedic. It's certainly a term that is in common use and under WP:UCN this is an argument to retain the title as is. There are I think stronger arguments for changing the article's name and for making "girl gamer" a redirect here. Primary among these is that academic studies of the topic tend to prefer avoiding the term, opting instead for more gender-neutral expressions like the one offered by Knovevmber above (i.e. "Women and Gaming"). As for which is the best title, I think we should decide between the following two options based on an argument of closest consistency with other similar Misplaced Pages articles.

Of these two options, I think that the second would be preferable because the first is easily confused with the concept of female characters in video games. More specifically, I like the sound of "Gender and video gaming". With the ideas of merging and deleting the article off the table for now due to the AfD and Merge discussions as well as the actual merits of the topic, let's discuss a renaming of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - I also wanted to mention that I'm not in favor of stripping the term out of the article either. Even if the article is renamed, the term "girl gamer" is nearly as common in some circles as "gays in the military" and as stated before, Misplaced Pages is not censored. The uses of the term within the body of the article should remain even if the article is renamed. -Thibbs (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Skimming over the various discussions including the AfD, I think it was clear that "girl gamer" passes the notability guidelines for neologisms; but then looking at this article now, which consists of demographic information (as opposed to "Girl Gamer" as a marketing ploy; profiles of "girl gamers", looking at the sources I linked in the AfD) and cites academic publications which don't use the term, I'm not sure the title and the content is the best fit. I still think that a big part of the problem is that the article is really not very well developed and neither is the gamer article which people have suggested it be merged with. bridies (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. I think that changing the title to a more general term, though, would encourage expansion and development of the article. The girl gamer as an archetype receives substantially less coverage in academia than the girl gamer as she relates to the video game culture. And this typically necessitates comparisons to the counterpart of the "girl gamer" - the male video game player - a figure who does not really fit well into an article restricted by title to female gamers. So in a word, I think that the proposed name change will actually help the article to grow. -Thibbs (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
On the one hand I prefer a specific expression over a descriptive term but on the other, those are some good points. So I'm going to sit on the fence for now... bridies (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would request that the article stays where it is. The suggested changed titles look to be political titles rather than ones in common use, and it is not clear what they mean. The current title is very clear. The requests to delete have been attacks on the topic and should not be considered as any reason to rename. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the nominators in the AfDs addressed the content of the article which is why the AfDs rightly failed. Their rationales were restricted to criticisms of the name of the article. In fact they used the material covered in the article as a means to criticize the title. E.g. Quoting the nom in AfD#2: 'There is nothing unique about "girl gamers" other than the fact that they are a smaller percentage than gamers that are guys'. And regardless of whether the AfD failed or not, I think it is relevant to note that many participants in these AfDs supported the idea of a rename. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if the current title accurately reflects the content of the article better than "gender and gaming" (or "women and gaming") would, though. The fact of the matter is that all content in the article apart from the 2-line lede discuss girl gamers only in relation to their market penetration and their industry impact. Both of these are socio-economic topics bearing only tangential relation to the "girl gamer" as a persona. In other words, they don't serve to define the girl gamer - they are really discussions about society's and the game industry's relation to the girl gamer rather than the other way around.
To use examples of articles titled similarly to this one, you can turn to Flapper, Hippie, or Farmer. These articles are really nothing more than encyclopedically expanded dictionary definitions where the facets and characteristics of the archetype are emphasized over their greater societal context. If this were wiktionary then I think that the current term would be perfect. It succinctly describes solely the archetype or subculture. But there's a big difference between recognizing the validity of employing a verifiably notable neologism in related articles and using the term to restrictively title an article that seems to be about a larger issue when there appear to be alternatives that are more commonly used in academia.
Given the greater academic use of alternative terms, I don't think that precedence alone can justify retaining the current title. I would be interested in hearing arguments that "girl gamer" is a more adequate title for the article than "gender and video gaming" or "women and video gaming", though. -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A related question worth considering is whether an article on the notable topic of gender's role in video gaming would be a content fork of this one. If it would, then are we supposed to shoehorn information and statistics regarding male gamers' facets and characteristics into this one? Or should a "male video gamer" article be recreated? Or does this information not belong on Misplaced Pages? -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As a Gamer myself, to me, a "Girl gamer" (which I dunno anyone who uses it) is just a gender specification of "Gamer" and nothing more. The article's so-called infomation (or whatever) is basically already covered on the Video game article found (here) anyway, so we could put what info we want there and delete this one. On another note, we should make a link to the Gamer and Portrayal of women in video games articles on the that page, as I can't see their mention anywhere on the page. AnimatedZebra (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about deletion or merging. Several AfDs have already been filed and the current consensus is that the article is worth keeping. This shouldn't turn into an informal discussion for deletion/merging. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yusufh I think the article is fine. Maybe someone could make a BOY gaming article to make it even. What are u guys talking about!!! The article is perfectly fine!!! Please consider this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusufh (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not really a complex or technical issue relating to video games, so I've filed a request for more feedback on this discussion with RfC. -Thibbs (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said that "Girl gamer" was a more common term by RS standards. I don't believe that it is. As I said earlier, it appears to me that the term is less commonly used in academia than the alternative terms. This is probably due to the fact that it is a loaded, non-neutral term that some consider offensive, and most academic sources try to avoid such terms. According to Misplaced Pages's titling policy we should also avoid non-neutral terms where far more encyclopedia alternatives are obvious. I didn't contrive the terms "gender and video gaming", "women and video gaming", etc. I drew the from other RSes. They sound far more encyclopedic than "girl gamer" if indeed the content of this "girl gamer" article here at WP is about the girl gamer's role within the context of video gaming (as it seems to be) and not just about her characteristics as a stand-alone entity. -Thibbs (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not that unusual for the most common term to be less commonly used to refer to a topic than all the alternative terms combined. Are you suggesting that one of the alternatives is more common than "girl gamer"?

And I didn't know "sounds encyclopedic" was one of the criteria we were supposed to use to title articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting "gender and video gaming". As for using encyclopedic titles, see WP:POVTITLE (point #2). -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
POVTITLE #2 says, "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". That does not translate to, "use the more encyclopedic sounding alternative". I don't see how "gender and video gaming", or any other alternative, qualifies as "obvious". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It's an obvious alternative because it's a synonymous neutral expression commonly used by the RSes. And neutrality is one of Misplaced Pages's core principles. Look at the examples they use in WP:POVTITLE. Why do you think it says that "octomom" and "antennagate" are inappropriate titles despite the fact that they are in more common use than "Nadya Suleman" and "iPhone 4"? The reason is clearly because they are pov titles for which obvious neutral alternatives exist. This is an encyclopedia we're crafting, not a pop culture guide where common slang should trump the neutral tone. -Thibbs (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this debate is not about whether this article has the wrong name - but rather about whether it has the wrong content. Retitling it and then rewriting it to be an article about gender roles in the video game industry in general makes about as much sense as looking at the election results and renaming the article about George Bush to "Barrack Obama" - then rewriting the article to match. I'm strongly in favor of starting a new article with the proposed title - and it might be that in the fullness of time, that we might consider merging this article into it...or perhaps having a "Main Article" link from the new article back to this one when specifically discussing the concept of "girl gamers" - who are a distinct section of the gaming world who self-identify with that label. SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on a fundamental level that the current content is about the "girl gamer" as a figure. The entirety of the current article after the first 2 sentences is about the girl gamer's impact on and role within the industry. Otherwise I agree, though. Two separate articles would be a good solution. -Thibbs (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint

I notice that there are beginning to be a number of comments suggesting merge or making arguments regarding deletion/non-deletion of the article. I think it should be pointed out that this is an article retitling discussion and so the result will not be a merge or a deletion. The article is staying as it is for now. I am interested in giving it a new title. For this reason I think it may be a good idea to refocus the discussion specifically on the issue of the problems the current title causes for Misplaced Pages's title policy.

  • Non-neutral - I concede the point that the use of a non-neutral but common name is acceptable according to WP:POVTITLE. However I think that this article may violate point 2 in that section of the policy. Specifically, I think that "girl gamer" is a slang colloquialism where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious.
    • Although this goes to precision as well, the word "girl" to mean "female" improperly introduces age into the expression. As far as I understand it the term is really a colloquialism for "female gamer" even if the female is an adult woman.
  • Imprecise - Or really, inaccurately precise. The current title is being used as a blanket term to describe the effects of gender impact on the video game industry and culture. An article on the "girl gamer" alone needs to primarily discuss this subculture's history, ethos, and characteristics, and only secondarily touch on its gender-linked impact within the context of video gaming. In my opinion, sociopolitical and industry impact would be better covered in an article titled "gender and video games" where it could be balanced by a discussion of the male gamer's impacts. While the "girl gamer" article may yet grow to include history, ethos, and characteristics, I think that reliable sources on these subtopics might difficult to find.

Addressing WP:UCN specifically, I find that this argument is kind of undermined by the fact that not a single one of the sources currently used for this article refer to "girl gamers" as anything other than "female gamers" or "women gamers". The more common use of "girl gamer" may only really go to its appearance outside of academia. Of course I acknowledge that it is used in actual reliable sources as well, but from researching the topic it looks to me like the term is avoided more commonly than embraced. This may have to do with the popular conception that it is an offensive term (though this is not a primary consideration at Misplaced Pages, I know).

Any further thoughts about retitling the article? -Thibbs (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I listed some academic sources above that not only use the term, but they use it in their titles. For WP to be so PC that we avoid terms that are used in academic works is beyond the pale. I, for one, could not be more opposed to having WP get like that.

That said, if there is a better term that is used more commonly in RS to refer to this topic, I would support moving to that. But nothing proposed here appears to fit that bill. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that stripping the term out of the article is a bad idea. As a notable term within the subject, "girl gamer" should obviously be used in the article. Its use as a title, however, is improper for an encyclopedia considering that alternative terms are used more commonly in academia. -Thibbs (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support rename I would argue that if the topic of the article is females who play video games, "girl gamer" may not be an adequate title. This PhD thesis on the topic points out (p 12 ff) it's usually applied to pre-adult females, or often sexualised images of women - and that it's problematic when applied to older women. "Women gamer" also appears in a hundred or so scholar-found articles - not quite as many as girl gamer. A large proportion of these articles appear to get by without even mentioning "girl gamer" once, as far as scholar tells me. "Gender and video gaming" is probably a more stable topic, given that "girl gamer" is a contested term (ie that its meaning is disputed, not that it's sexist per se).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The difficulty here is that this is an article about the specific term "girl gamer" - which is notable as a term that's used out there in the real world. An article about the nature of gender in the video game industry would be a very different article - it's talking about a quite different matter. So renaming this article is the wrong solution. We should start a new article with the proposed name - and let both it and this one flourish or die depending on its' merits. It might one day be considered appropriate to merge this article into the new one - but that would be mostly a matter of article length and stubbiness. SteveBaker (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree, although I think that you are misinterpreting the content of the current article. To me it looks like the content that belongs in a "gender and video gaming" article. (NB. Interestingly, none of the sources currently used in the article employ the term "girl gamer"). It makes more sense to rename this one first and then start a new one on the "girl gamer" as a stand-alone figure. -Thibbs (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
@SteveBaker: the article as it stands is about women who play video games. "Girl gamer" is, in one sense, a subset or subsets of that group, applied to female gamers below a certain age, or to those who identify as "girl gamer". (It also refers to fantasy figures for young male gamers.) If you have the time, go beyond google hits, which is a really, truly, lousy way to understand usage, and actually read some of the articles to be found on google scholar. As a game developer you might find some of it very interesting. You'll see, by the way, that it's not particularly about some girly games market for women (loved your Barbie comment - I can see you passed Women 101 with flying colours ;-).) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it ironic that the Barbie title for the GameBoy is called "Barbie Game Girl" SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment There are two key advantages to using a somewhat more inclusive title: First, it will end some of the reasons for opposition to this material; second , it will have greater opportunity for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

support I support the name change, girl gamer would make a good sub section (refering to young women playing video games) to a broader, more inclusive article. Are there any other name suggestions then Gender and Video games? Meatsgains (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Opppose per most of above concerning the most commonly used term, etc. I would also like to point out that "Gender and video games" is neither encyclopedic, nor accurate. A more correct term would be "Sex and videogames" since gender still technically refers to societal roles of male and female, and not specifically to someone's biological sex.AerobicFox (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to use the most common neutral term used by reliable sources, though? If you examine the sources currently used in the article you'll notice that not one of them employs the term "girl gamer"... As for the claim that gender doesn't mean sex in this context, I think the sources again demonstrate the opposite. Considering its common use in the reliable sources, how can you say that it is "neither encyclopedic nor accurate"? Of course, an appeal to UCN also ignores the fact that the term "girl gamer" is not a neutral term and thus violates WP:NPOV. As I see it, the neutral term "gender and video games" is more encyclopedic than the apparently offensive slang term that is currently used as the title. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
These sources do not demonstrate knowledge of the difference between gender and sex which despite the current popular usage of the two as synonyms they are still in the "technical" or "encyclopedic" sense two different words, one referring to gender roles within a society, and the other to biological sex.(you can go here for some more explanation of the differences). The source entitled "The Gendering of Computer Gaming: Experience and Space" is using the term correctly since it is implying gender as a cultural construct and not a biological one. I am perfectly fine with an article about "Females and gaming", "Female gamers" or "Females and videogames" with as the above user mentioned, "Girl gamer" a possible subsection. I do however oppose "Gender and gaming", especially since such a topic would therefore be burdened with discussing men as well which it currently does not.AerobicFox (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention chromosomes or genital configuration, so "gender" is certainly the kind of thing we're dealing with here, not "sex". As has been pointed out, the article at the moment doesn't deal with "girl gamer" either. If we restate the topic as "gender and gaming" we can include information on men if it is there in the secondary literature on gender and gaming. The current title refers to a contested term that in the secondary literature appears to be embedded in discussions of gender and gaming. As for the article being mainly about women: it's inevitable that articles about "gender" tend to focus more on the feminine: it is still the tendency even in liberal democratic societies to implicitly define men as standard and women as different in all sorts of areas. Having an article called "women and gaming" but not one called "men and gaming" would, ironically, be a good example of this.

In short: "Gender and gaming" is quite clearly attested in the academic literature as an area of study. I really, truly, struggle to see how it can be seen as "unencyclopedic".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be baffled by your lack of comprehension if you actually tried to learn the differences between the two words. Gender is a societal role that men and women fulfill, things are engendered when a society determines them to be "masculine" or "feminine". Sex is the biological definition of male or female. If an article(as the one above) describes the "gendering" of videogames then it is describing videogames as being perceived by society as masculine or feminine. I will just post an explanation if you do not want to click on a link:
  • It is important to understand gender as different from sexuality. Sexuality concerns physical and biological differences that distinguish males from females. Cultures construct differences in gender. These social constructions attach themselves to behaviors, expectations, roles, representations, and sometimes to values and beliefs that are specific to either men or women. Gendered differences—those that society associates with men and women—have no necessary biological component. Instead of biology, socially agreed upon and constructed conduct, and the meanings cultures assign to that conduct, constitute the area of gendered difference. Oxford Companion to African American Literature
  • This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined., American Heritage
  • A social classification of people, attributes, and activities into categories such as male, female, and neuter. Gender is frequently based on anatomical differences between men and women, but does not necessarily coincide with them. Gender is socially and culturally determined; it is not biologically determined. Oxford Food & Fitness Dictionary
  • etc
Also an article should not be given an inclusive title is there is not known to be any inclusive sources out there. There are many sources that discuss females in games, enough for it to be its own topic, until there is any actual information on males the article's title should reflect its focus on females.AerobicFox (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be anthropomorphising "society". These gender definitions are not handed down from on high. Gender is used to refer to the social construction of male and female - which is what is important here. The literature refers to gender and gaming - perhaps you should write to the publishers and tell them where they're going wrong in letting this kind of thing through. You are also mixing up games and gaming. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The article currently discusses females as a demographic, and whether someone belongs to the female demographic is determined by their biological sex. The article you have pointed to discusses the "gendering of videogames", or the making of videogames into something that is masculine or feminine. An article that is about females playing videogames should be entitled "Females and gaming", an article about videogames being masculine would be better titled "Masculinity and videogaming", or "Emasculation of videogames" to describe videogames as being perceived less as applying to guys. Since this article is primarily about females playing videogames, and not societal perceptions of videogames as masculine or feminine, the title of the article should reflect the sex of female gamers, and not societies gender associations towards videogames.AerobicFox (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Breakpoint 2

Again we seem to be drifting far from the issue at hand. Whether or not the sources properly use the term "gender" goes to their strength as sources but not to the question of the appropriateness of the current title. I maintain that the current title is:

There are neutral alternatives to the current title and there are more precise alternatives as well. Such titles would be decidedly more encyclopedic.

If those who are objecting to the move request are objecting to using any other title than "girl gamer" then that's a valid opinion.
If those who are objecting to the move request are objecting to using the newly suggested title "gender and video games" then please suggest an alternative as a simple "oppose" vote implies support for the current title. -Thibbs (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, in that case I support a change to something along the lines of "Female gamers" or other similar derivatives since that would include both young girls and older women, and since the article is about that demographic of gamers.AerobicFox (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We already have Video game#Demographics if the article is about the number of biologically female people who play video games broken down by age etc. We shouldn't be a fork from that. My impression is that most editors do not see the scope of this article limited to demographics. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
My impression is that this article is discussing a variety of issues related to women and gaming, from why so few play, to the cultural phenomenon of why more women are playing now, how it is becoming more of an accepted activity for females, the types of patterns females play compared to men(they play less often usually, but when they do they play for really long bouts), how female gamers are viewed fat, ugly, or slutty, etc. You can call it what you want, it does all broadly fall within the study of demography, but fundamentally it is about females playing video games.AerobicFox (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No, demography is population stats. What you're talking about there towards the end are identities and perceptions of male and female (ie male and female as played out in a social context): that's why gender is the term used here in academic research and not sex. "women/females and video gaming" would be POV, because it would stress women as "different" and "other". The editors who protest that there isn't a page about Men/males and video games have a good point. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No, demography is a broad sociological discipline that encompasses—in addition to many other things—analysis of social and cultural trends, which would include analysis of video games and women. Analyzing societal perceptions concerning femininity and masculinity of playing video games would be a subset of analyzing why women play video games which is what this article is about(the motivations of a demographic, females, participating in a cultural/social activity, video games, the analysis of a demographic's trends being demography). Also, if there should be an article about Men/males and video games then that article should be created separately unless sources discuss the two together, otherwise putting them together would be WP:SYNTH.AerobicFox (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Where did you do your social science? Demographers measure the size and composition of populations. They don't (as demographers) do qualitative analysis. Demography supplies only part of the story for the topic of this article. I'm not suggesting a separate article for males and females, I'm suggesting that "gender and video gaming" is the better, neutral term for an article containing material on "girl gamer". A google scholar search suggests the term "gender and gaming" is far more widely used than "women and gaming". Articles and books on gender and gaming often deal with both genders, such as this article, this chapter (it also has a nice short primer on the difference in social science between sex and gender), or this article all of which popped out of google searches so readily, I'll bet there's a whole lot more than that around. What appears to be the seminal work on this topic is called Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender and gaming., not "...on women and gaming". It is not WP:synth to have an article on a field of study that is clearly established in secondary sources. It would be more closely following the sources to take "gender" as part of the title rather than "women".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote the source you just gave:

  • While in everyday conversation, "gender" is often used interchangeably with "sex" to refer to the state of being male or female, in the social sciences gender tends to be defined in social terms, as a set of attributes or indentures associated with masculinity and femininity in the context of particular cultures and societies...
  • ... The literature on gender and gaming often tends to equate gender with biological sex; in the following discussion I will try to distinguish between the two as they relate to scholarship on gaming.

Also, while demography was originally purely quantitative, it is developed numerous subbranches which deal with qualitative analysis.

Issues in Social Demography:
  • It concentrates on the interface between sociological and demographic factors; and, theoretically, it is both a sociology of demographic trends and a demography of social structures

Pretty much all purely mathemetical and quantitative disciplines have, in recent decades, branched off into sub disciplines which focus on qualitative analysis of the topic. As for what is more commonly used, sex is used to refer to a gamers biological sex, where as gender is used more often to describe societal perceptions of gender roles with regards to playing video games. Stating that gender brings up more results than female ignores that most works contain both sex and gender in them.

Studies that focus on sex-correlations on gaming trends will often describe and go into the gendering of videogames, but that does not mean that the two are conflated, but rather that they discuss two different things. As far as this article is primarily concerned it is about female gamers, their gaming habits, their importance tot he market, their influence on gaming, societal perceptions of female gamers, and while the gendering of video games would be a legitimate discussion for the article it is not the primary focus. Whether or not the article should be inclusive of males depends on a variety of factors, but if there aren't sources discussing males and females in depth, but only mention males to describe the gender gap in games, then I think an inclusive title wouldn't be appropiate since the topic primarily concerns women.AerobicFox (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That quotation at the beginning of your post simply establishes that there is a difference between "sex" and "gender", which no one is disputing. It doesn't give any support to your definition of gender, which appears to be way more limited than is used by professional academic researchers. It would, for example, exclude gender identity, which is a pretty big area to miss out, and which is highly relevant here. One problem is that you continually write about society or use "societal" as if society is something with agency and separate from people. Society is the aggregate of people. How people view and talk about themselves and others as male and female in anything other than a physiological context is gender. "Girl gamer" is not a technical term for a gamer with a vagina. It is a particular kind of female gamer, with a particular identity, both taken on by the gamers themselves and as perceived by other gamers. There may possibly be people who identify as "girl gamers" who are biologically male. That's what makes this a gender, not a sex issue.

Of course, when talking about gender we also need to talk about biological sex, as unsurprisingly there's something of a high correlation between the two, and biological differences impact on gender differences (and vice versa). To be honest, much of the tone of what you write gives the impression that you've only just found out the difference between gender and sex and that like someone born again, you excitedly presume that (a) you've understood it perfectly and (b) no one else does. One reason I say this because you don't seem particularly au fait with how widely the term "gender" is actually used in the sociological literature. Of the ten in the list of articles citing the one about "sex differences", six either use gender in the title, or the abstract, or as a key indexing term. As far as I can see, none use sex as a lead term. You might argue they're wrong to do this, but they're the ones with articles published in peer review journals and you're an anonymous keyboard hitter on Misplaced Pages. Finding articles here and there in google that use "sex" more broadly and gender less broadly is just data fishing. You need to look at the general usage in high quality sources.

A better source (because it addresses the issue head on) for the role of qualitative research in demography would be this article from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. It details the struggles and mistakes of demographers - formally trained in quantitative methods - when trying to incorporate qualitative methods into research projects when there isn't a sociologist or anthropologist working on their team. Formally qualitative methods are used where quantitative survey instruments are not feasible, primarily with clandestine or illegal activities. As you will see if you read the article, it's still done to create a picture of a population rather than analyse individual experiences in any depth (and you'll also read about the elementary difficulties many demographers have in using qualitative techniques). Demographers have always had to rely on the results of qualitative research to inform their interpretations of statistics. That doesn't take away from the fact that the bread and butter of demography is the measurement of population-level phenomena and the statistical relationships that can be found between them. It's a highly complicated subject; one shouldn't be surprised at the degree of specialism.

A demographer working on her or his own turf might look at how many "game girls" there are (if the concept can be properly operationalised to be countable), where they live, what games they play. This article presumably wants to cover more than that, such as "what is a game girl" and related issues of perception and identity in video gaming. Otherwise we can just stick the numbers we have in to Video game#Demographics and delete this page.

Having a title that includes "gender" would broaden the topic, but it would make for a more stable, NPOV, high quality RS-based article than using "females".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Coolblimpguys.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coolblimpguys.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing links from "See also"

I've acted boldly and removed links to the following topics:

The reason is that there is nothing intuitively obvious that links a game like Pac-Man to the topic of this article - Women and video games. These topics may well have connections - e.g. the character Lightning from FFXIII was reportedly designed with a "less feminine nature" than previous female characters from the FF series. But since these connections are not clear from a simple listing in the "see also" section, I'm moving these links to talk for the time being until they can be integrated as prose in the body of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Feminist Hate Men with a Passion

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox

They believe all men are chauvinist pigs, potential rapist, bad writers, useless as fathers husbands and sons, all support the wage gap, all ignore teenage girls when they are in trouble, all are perverts and favour their own gender over the other. They all agree that all males are like that and thus Separatist Feminism the oldest form of feminism represents the entire movement because all splinter groups carry the traits of the separatist. When they say look up "Nerds and Male Privelage" they mean that all boys and men are oppressive towards women simply because we are male. They all are in favour of false rape allegations, castrations, hate speeches, hateful vandalism that they praise themselves for and never question any real life straw feminist. So we have every right to fear them, they are out to get us and there is nothing we can do bout it be fear and despair since we are automatically the oppressor when born. If they truly wanted equalized then 90% of women shouldn't be calling themselves feminist and hate men with a passion but instead equallist so they they are not so intimidating and hostile. 58.7.138.14 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So there needs to be a anti-feminist perspective in this article since they don't allow us to play any games any more because they believe they are targeted at violent chauvinist. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see from your talk page history at other articles that you've been warned several times about using Misplaced Pages as a forum for you to soapbox, and you've also recently admitted that you are editing with an IP in order to evade a block that was imposed on you by the community. So I'll make this brief:
  • If you want to include information in this article you have to provide reliable sources along with the information.
  • Even with reliable sources, coverage of a topic must not be undue
  • Inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this article and using Misplaced Pages's voice to pronounce it is strictly forbidden per WP:POV.
I hope this clears matters up for you. I've collapsed the portion of your rant above that had nothing to do with this article. -Thibbs (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just fell I'm being blamed and hated for my gender and I would like a response for that statement. --58.7.138.14 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to feel that way, but it's not OK to use Misplaced Pages as a forum for your opinions. I encourage you to start a blog/vlog to share your views or join an online forum where you can discuss your ideas with other people. If you intend to participate at Misplaced Pages then please keep in mind that we are here to craft a neutral, reliably-sourced encyclopedia. If you don't intend to stick to these policies and/or to help build the encyclopedia then please stop posting here. -Thibbs (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Feminism holds to patriarchy is best done through focusing exclusively on women and girls. Feminists do not believe that men can make positive contributions to the feminist movement and that even well-intentioned men replicate the dynamics of patriarchy. Author Marilyn Frye describes feminism as "various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this feminism being initiated or maintained, at will, by women." In a tract on feminism published in 1972, the Hyde Park Chapter of the Chicago Women's Liberation Union similarities between feminism as an "ideological position", and as a "tactical position". In the same document, they further compared feminism as "personal practice" and as "political position". --58.7.138.14 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Women and video games Add topic