This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I've noticed how there has been no discussion of negative opinions of those that are against Sarkeesian, which is questioning seeing as there are plenty of people notable people in the video game industry that oppose of her more extreme opinions. A minor question, but something I think is worth pointing out. Traptor12 (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with DQ. The issue with this is that literally any opinion she has on any subject will be nit-picked / analysed for weakness, but so is Gary Lineker and we don't obsess over that either unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, are we saying that opposing Sarkeesian's extreme opinions, whatever those may be, is the same as being against Sarkeesian? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Reversion
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello @Sangdeboeuf: You used the edit summary see MOS:CAPLENGTH. Why do you think this is a special situation? Invasive Spices (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not Sangdeboeuf, obviously, but I was looking up the cited policy when they reverted your edit, and I would have reverted if they hadn't. You cited MOS:CAPTION, which says In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone, but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject (emphasis mine). I see that Sangdeboeuf cited MOS:CAPLENGTH, which gives plenty of examples of biographical infobox captions, all of which include the subject's name—save for Elvis Presley, where it mentions an iconic film and scene that he is known for. It seems to me that the MoS calls for "Sarkeesian" in the caption, both explicitly and implicitly. Woodroar (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, the image does not simply depict the year "2011". Per WP:CAPTION: One of a caption's primary purposes is to identify the subject of the picture ... Be as unambiguous as practical in identifying the subject. "2011" does not tell the reader who the subject of the image is. The existing caption "Sarkeesian in 2011" does so succinctly and practically. It's normal to caption portraits of biographical subjects this way. MOS:CAPLENGTH gives the example "Cosby in 2010" for Bill Cosby. Not a special situation at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Active Years
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Pinging @Sangdeboeuf and JeffSpaceman: I saw your reversions and figured we should discuss it here especially since this page has Contentious Topics measures in place. The "Years active" section in the infobox (copied here for reference) specifically refers to the YouTube channel feministfrequency and is under the "YouTube information" section of the box. Its "About" page links to the official Feminist Frequency websites and social media only, not Sarkeesian's personal website or social media. The channel is specifically part of the FF organization, not Sarkeesian's personal channel (I don't think she has one of her own that I can find, unlike other social media where there is one for her and one for the organization).
Given that, we should either consider the channel to be part of the shutdown of FF organization and mark that in "Years active" for the Youtube channel, or alternatively remove the youtube from the infobox entirely as it is not used by the BLP subject directly. Thoughts? The WordsmithTalk to me 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: I think that we should remove YouTube from the infobox, given that as you note, it is not directly used by Sarkeesian. Thus, we can keep the years active as running through the present. I don't know if I was looking right at the YouTube information section, I merely thought it was talking about her activity in the world of media criticism, hence why I changed it to "2009-present." I think removing YouTube from the infobox would probably be our best bet here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, "years active" is ambiguous in a biography of a person, since it could seem at first glance to refer to the person or their website, blog, YouTube channel, etc. I understood "years active" to refer to Sarkeesian herself. In any case, the latest video was posted a little over a month ago, so it seems premature to call the channel inactive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
