Talk:Girl

Page move

Due to an edit (not by me) the COTW tag seen via Talk:Girl was absent for some time. Have reinstated the tag there. --Janke | Talk 20:20:14, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Please Add...

• Women in society sidebar
• Feminism sidebar

"Violence against girls" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Violence against girls has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 29 § Violence against girls until a consensus is reached. fgnievinski (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

"Female girl" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Female girl has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 22 §  until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Objection to presumptive removal of Japanese shōjo material (WP:LLMPRVOBJ)

I am objecting under WP:LLMPRVOBJ to the complete presumptive removal of the Japanese shōjo material in this revert. I understand that the objection process requires an editor to take responsibility for the material, check the source-to-text correspondence and rework the text as needed; I am therefore not asking for the removed wording to be restored wholesale.

I do not think the removed section should be treated as unsourced or incapable of being restored in revised form after source review. It cited Imada on the modern social category of shōjo, Ōtsuka on the postwar cultural construction of the shōjo and Galbraith's discussion of Ōtsuka in relation to lolicon. The remaining question, in my view, is not basic verifiability but whether the material should be shortened or folded into the existing "Popular culture" section to satisfy WP:DUE and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.

Nor do I think the mere fact that the removed section linked to Japanese idol, lolicon and bishōjo makes the material out of scope. The existing article already discusses Japanese animation and comics in the "Popular culture" section and already notes that some Japanese cartoon genres include sexualized and objectified portrayals of girls. A concise, sourced sentence on the development of the shōjo/bishōjo image in Japanese popular culture could therefore be relevant here, provided that it remains summary-style and does not duplicate the specialized articles.

The removed version was probably too expansive for this article, especially where it moved from the modern Japanese category of shōjo into idols, lolicon, and the two-dimensional girl. Those points raise due-weight and summary-style questions, and may belong in greater detail in more specific articles such as shōjo, shōjo manga, kawaii, Japanese idol, lolicon, bishōjo or Japanese popular culture. However, I would be willing to restore a shorter version that keeps the source-supported connection between modern shōjo culture, kawaii consumer culture, and later popular-cultural images of the girl, while avoiding excessive detail better handled in those linked articles.

For example, I propose the following narrower version, subject to further checking of page numbers and wording against the cited sources:

In Japan, the term shōjo (少女, 'girl') developed in the modern period as a cultural category as well as a description of female children and adolescents. Erika Imada describes the modern shōjo as shaped by girls' schooling and by a temporary life stage between childhood and adult marital or reproductive roles. Eiji Ōtsuka argues that postwar Japanese culture also reworked the shōjo as an image of purity, cuteness and consumer desire, a development later connected by commentators to kawaii culture, idols and two-dimensional bishōjo characters.

This wording is intended as a concise, summary-style replacement rather than a restoration of the earlier text in full. I would appreciate other editors' views on whether this shorter material is suitable for the article, and whether it should appear under a brief "Cultural conceptions" section or be folded into the existing "Popular culture" section. Ryoske (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Ryoske (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Note to other editors, as this content was removed via LLM presumptive removal, it may only be restored if the steps described at the objection process are followed. This means another editor may assume responsibility for the content which requires first that all content and its sources be closely reviewed, and reworked as needed, to ensure that they comply with polices and guidelines. This means that all content and sources must be checked and corrected to ensure there are no V, OR, NPOV, MOS, etc problems. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)