This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature 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
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
See WP:MOS "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason". The article started out with Authoress there is no good reason to change it. -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi PBS. Sorry for reverting you there. I only just realized that your edit was a reversion of one of my edits from over a year ago. But I do have a good reason. I recognize that some people still use the term "authoress" and even support women who self-describe that way. My hope though, is that here on Wikipedia, we can start to use this term more infrequently. The term "authoress" is currently used 326 times on the English Wikipedia and most of those are cases of self-descriptions or quotations. I'm glad that you brought up WP:MOS, because our manual of style also directs us to "use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision". I think that is the case here. WP:GNL and WP:MODLANG also provide guidance in this instance. As for the use of the term "authoress" please consider that:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, authoress is "now used only when sex is purposely emphasized; otherwise, ...author is now used of both sexes."
World Book Dictionary labels the term authoress "archaic".
I also note that one of the sources used on this article, Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, refers to her as an "author" (and this was written in 1900). Nonetheless, I'm grateful that you started this article in the first place and I hope you'll join us over at WikiProject Women writers. gobonobo+c 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I created the article as part of the clean up of the various dab pages that included links to Wikisource, so I deserve no credit there, although I have created or expanded article on females in the areas in which I am interested.
I am not sure which version of the Oxford English Dictionary to which you have access but the online version states:
"The female writer of a book or other work; a female author.
The gender-neutral author is now often preferred."
In this case authoress is useful because it succinctly informs the reader of the lead that the person described is female (Margery is not exactly a common female name), as well as their notability.
Authoress is no more or less demeaning than author. I do not see anything wrong with identifying the sex of the person through common words. There are some job description that are sex neutral, but there are others which are not. . -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply