Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cartoon artists

Are cartoonists and comics artists included? For example, Aline Kominsky-Crumb. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support including them. WikiProject Women artists doesn't really address the writing aspect of comics/cartoons. INeverCry 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
They have a category at Category:Female comics writers and share an article and list with comics artists (illustrators): Female comics creators and List of female comics creators, respectively.--Cattus talk 14:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that all subcategories of Category:Women writers by format except Category:Female comics writers and Category:Female singer-songwriters‎ are titled "women", not "female". Maybe these two categories should be renamed to match the others.--Cattus talk 14:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cattus: I agree... to Category:Women comics writers and Category:Women singer-songwriters. I don't know that anyone would consider the moves to be controversial, but someone should touch base first with the associated WikiProjects (WP:WikiProject Comics and WP:WikiProject Songs). If they don't object, I'll make the moves. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
That's something I can also help out with, if need be. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon ← See you there!
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 22
  Date: October 11, 2014
  Time: 1-5 pm
  Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll be facilitating an Edit-a-thon next month during Litquake season, focusing on literature and writers: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 22. It's a great opportunity to let people know what we're doing with this project. If it interests you, please sign up (you can edit remotely); if you're busy with other things, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

New categories for women non-fiction writers?

A thought: I've been doing some other AWB work lately, and one thing I've noticed is that there are articles in women writers in categories such as "American essayists" or "American memoirists" that could be captured in a general category such as "American women non-fiction writers". Maybe with subcats such as "American women journalists". Thoughts? --06:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk • contribs)

I was once going through some uncategorised biogs and came across somebody who was clearly a journalist (I forget which country they were from, let's call it Foo). There was no cat for Fooian journalists, so I put the page in Category:Fooian writers, which did exist, although was very small. I got stamped on for that, because "journalists are not writers", apparently. How strange. I wonder what Katharine Whitehorn would think. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
If in doubt, run it up the flagpole on this talkpage. IMO, 'women non-fiction writers' is much too broad. Be aware of WP:EGRS. Mention approximately how many articles would fit in the new category. If you can think of possible objections (i.e. the journalist example), mention them. Being bold and just going for it is ok, too; I created Category:Women food writers and Category:Women cookbook writers in the last week. I think we need Category:Women memoirists (exclude those in Category:Women diarists unless it's clear the person wrote a memoir and a diary). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Women memoirists should be doable - perhaps I'll tackle that tonight. What about Category:Women essayists? Catscan indicates that that could be a potentially large category. (353 articles.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I created Category:Women memoirists and started filing it with the few women who were in Category:Memoirists. (a) Can you add the women from all the subcats, except the Diarists (as they're in Category:Women diarists)? (b) Can you go through Category:Essayists by nationality and add the women to Category:Women essayists? Thx--Rosiestep (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If I can't do it tonight (got some English composers to finish with) I'll do it tomorrow. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've begun memoirists: they should be finished tomorrow sometime. I may get a few diarists in there - I'll run AWB over the category when I'm done to make sure they're cleared out. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Recatting memoirists is done. I'll get to essayists later this evening. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! After the essayists, and when you have time, here are others:

That should take me through tomorrow, too. Getting started on it now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Finished 'em up last night. Anything else? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created Category:Women columnists. Please recat from Category:Columnists and its subcats. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll do so when I can - CatScan appears down at the moment, so it may take a while to set it up. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
CatScan is back up. I've made the list and will begin working it up shortly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. It went by more quickly than I expected. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've created Category:Women newspaper editors. When you have a chance, can you please recat from Category:Newspaper editors and its subcats, but omit Category:Fictional newspaper editors? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If not tonight, then tomorrow I'll get to it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Went quicker than I thought. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've created Category:Women military writers. Please recat from Category:Military writers and its subs. I think it'll be a small group but interesting nonetheless. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I will try, but CatScan is being unpleasantly slow at the moment, so it may be a little while. I'll update once it's been done. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have caught them all. If I can get CatScan working in good shape again I may take another look. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Women humorists

Was going to do this one earlier today, but I got sidetracked with some cleanup work I was doing on actors. Anyone feel like having a go at it? I may be able to get onto it tomorrow night, but I'll be a bit busy with other things over the next couple of days. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Women writers for children

I've set humorists aside for the moment. (Don't worry - I'll get back to them soon.) Far more pressing is this one. I had considered using the category "Women children's writers", but that sounds peculiar to me. So I've decided on Category:Women writers for children instead - if anyone has any objections that can be changed pretty easily. Catscan indicates that there will be 800+ articles in the category, so perhaps some by-nationality subcategorization wouldn't go amiss. (I'll leave that open for discussion for the moment.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Women bloggers would probably fill up. Others to consider: Category:Women science writers and Category:Women nature writers, which I'm currently checking using CatScan. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I have created Category:Women bloggers and Category:Women science writers, both of which should fill out respectably, according to CatScan. I'm holding off on Category:Women nature writers for now, as I suspect there's a lot of overlap between that and Category:Women science writers. I'll run CatScan for them over the next couple of days to fill them up. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. Category:Women writers for children, Category:Women bloggers and Category:Women science writers have all been populated. I'm moving on to the already-created Category:Women science fiction and fantasy writers, which I might suggest splitting by genre. (I will deal with that more below, and give it its own header.)
More to consider: Category:Women romance writers and Category:Women mystery writers...maybe Category:Women crime writers? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've filled in Category:Women science fiction and fantasy writers and Category:Women mystery writers, and created and begun filling Category:Women romantic fiction writers. I think that about takes care of the major genres, though I could be missing something. Probably am. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
One more to populate: Category:Women critics. I'll run AWB over it in a day or so, soon as I can. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope

I see you've now broadened this to include works. I thought this was intended to be purely women's biographies. Wouldn't it be more appropriate then to rename WP:Women's literature as a broader name?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Women's literature" is a bit ambiguous; literature by women or directed at women? It makes me think of my mom's Good Housekeeping subscription, or on a higher level, a work like Herland. I think the current name is fine, as the writers are at the center of everything. INeverCry 06:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If being under the scope of the project will improve content then I support it but it makes no difference to me whether a book is written by a woman or a man in the same that it doesn't really matter on wikipedia. When people start articles on things like crime novels or something, do they really stop to think if the author is male or female? Generally? I'd think it pretty sad if a person had any form of bias towards writing articles on books just because the author was female. Of course feminist literature and related stuff where the gender of the author really matters then it would be important. To be honest it doesn't quite seem right covering what is already under the scope of WP:Literature just because a woman wrote it. We wouldn't have a project for books written by males would we? Who was it who decided to include all literature too? I saw this as a project primarily dedicated to biography in getting female writers of developing countries onto wikipedia which is why I joined it. I'm not sure I want to be a part of this now if we're going to include anything just for the sake of scaling the project. Where do we draw a line? What about magazines which are half-3/4 written by women, do we include those too? What I liked so much about this was that there was very clear scope and I liked the prospect of focusing on the biographies in a genuinely poorly covered area on wikipedia. Now things are giving me a headache in scope..♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with adding works (and they are not always books) by women writers to the project's scope. Often times creating the article on the work engenders one on the author and vice versa. WikiProject Literature does not focus on individual works [1] but rather leaves them to multiple other projects e.g. Novels (and its Short Story task force), Children's Literature, WikiProject Poetry, etc. WikiProject Books does not tend to banner things like plays and poetry collections (even when they have been published) and seem to be largely focused on improving the structure and layout of book articles, infoboxes, etc. If a group of editors want to focus their efforts specifically on the biographies of women writers and their works under one "banner", it doesn't mean that every member has to work on both. Members of all projects tend to pick and choose their sub-area of work. Provided this project subscribes to the Article Alert bot, bannering works also has the advantage of notifying members when these works are under GA/FA review, the subject of requested moves or merges, nominated for AfD, Prod, etc.—all areas where members might want to make some input. Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue of including works within Scope was addressed maybe 3 times already on this talkpage. Some members want to include works, some don't. Being the project creator didn't turn me into a dictator -- I've said I'll "go along with the consensus" -- but my personal opinion is that the Scope is large enough with just the writers. The writers -- fiction and non-fiction -- have written a lot of works. I created a new cat recently, Category:Women cookbook writers, so if works are part of this project, their cookbooks are included, right?

Now that our project has gained traction, it's apparent to me that we need to address Scope more systematically than this talkpage has afforded, giving an opportunity for all Members' voice to be heard and considered. WMNHIST did the same thing awhile after its start-up, per this which lead to this... a good read. I suggest we hold a Request For Comment on Scope on a project subpage; notify the project Members within the next few days; run it during the month of October. If others think this is a good idea: (a) I'll send the Invites; (b) we'll need a coordinator or two to organize it, describe objectives, set goals, keep comments on track, write up the conclusion, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this page, I wasn't aware of any previous discussions about it. But from what you say it seems like others also disagree with the scope currently so I'm not sure how we came to a consensus. I think it would be a good idea to do just what you say, so long as everybody is aware of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought I had seen a discussion about excluding songwriters from the scope. I notice that April Lavigne and Courtney Love are both included in the project, and listed in the Good Articles section (as is Madonna, but she has actually published books.) Is this an oversight, or did I misunderstand? Should this also be covered in the RfC, or would that become unmanageable? Pburka (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Songwriters are not included in the scope. Those artists were included because they are in women writers categories (perhaps erroneously). gobonobo + c 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should start with a clean slate at the Request For Comment on Scope, addressing any/all Sope-related points which Members bring up for discussion. But the more organized the subpage, the better. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC is best I think. Personally I'd like to keep the writers part central with a clear focus and any other stuff like literature of whatever in a sub task force or something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As one of the "facilitators" of the WikiProject Women's History scope workshop three years ago, I think a discussion on a separate page to get a clearer idea of the project's scope and the consensus for it is an excellent idea—in fact essential for a new project. But I would strongly caution against a formal RFC process. The RFC format and structure does not lend itself to the kind of collaborative discussion and planning required here. It is also mainly designed as form of dispute resolution (re article content and related issues, policy issues, and user conduct issues) and is a way of bringing in "outside opinions". This is different. It's not dispute resolution. It's about planning and setting up a new project with a consensus to be reached by its own members. Only a project's members can and should decide what the scope of their collective work will be. Per the WikiProject Council Guide: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project". Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to some sort of formalized process, but I think we could come to a consensus through discussion on this talk page as well. The primary scope issue seems to be whether or not to include works. Other scope-related concerns seem more marginal and easier to resolve.
Excluding works entirely might make for a more manageable project in some regards, but it neglects the fact that biographies of writers go hand in hand with the articles about their works. A good biography is going to include a discussion of an author's works anyway and it is likely the same editors who work on women writers' articles who are going to be working on articles for their works. I think that Dr. Blofeld's suggestion to place literature under the purview of a task force has some merit. Maybe we could incorporate an optional parameter for works (i.e. |work=yes) into the project banner. gobonobo + c 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if it matters, there are over 9,000 articles tagged for WikiProject Horse racing. I don't see a problem with a big project. Categories are what we use for narrowing things down. Montanabw(talk) 00:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Task force

Do you support the creation of a Works by women writers task force within WikiProject Women writers? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - The task force idea (first suggested by @Dr. Blofeld:) seems to be a reasonable way to accommodate works within the project Scope. The optional banner parameter (suggested by @Gobonobo:) would make it technically feasible to identify the articles within the task force's purvue. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The taskforce idea is a good one per Rosiestep. I just hope we never end up with as many taskforces as WikiProject Russia. I always have to look at the template because I can't remember all of them... INeverCry 02:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yup, and it would separate the biographies and make things much more organized I think, and not make editors working on biographies feel obligated to work on works too. As far as I was concerned this is a biographical project, but I can see why some think it's a good idea to cover literature too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Deadline: This conversation will close on October 27th. Add any additional comments before then. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Non-diffusion

I'd like to address the question of non-diffusion of categories, now that we have a comprehensive Wikiproject dedicated to women writers.

Personally, I'm in favor of doing as has been done with actor/actress categories; leaving the main categories (such as Category:American poets) empty and sorting everything into by-gender categories under them (to wit: Category:American male poets and Category:American women poets). I know a stab has been taken at this with Category:American male novelists, for instance, and I'd like to continue along those lines, due mainly to the fact that otherwise the parent categories are going to be too large to manage. Thoughts? I can run some fairly easy fixes using AWB before getting to the meat of the matter. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridging the cat gaps between Writers by nationality and Women writers by nationality

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks for the AWB support. I've created some national categories. This should polish off Central America:

Sure thing. I'll look into it ASAP. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this topic into its own section. I think we should be systematic at bridging the cat gaps between Category:Writers by nationality and Category:Women writers by nationality. Reminder to anyone new at this: review WP:GHETTO. CatScan seems to be down at the moment, but it would be helpful if we had a bulleted redlist of the missing cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. But CatScan only goes so far - and the above categories were small enough that I was able to go through manually last night and find a few extras to fill in. I think I've finished will all four of them.
CatScan is being spotty - in my experience it works a lot better in the evenings and late at night. Sometimes you can get it going in the morning, too (I've been able to a few mornings this week.) It requires a lot of patience right now, which is a bit annoying. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm slowly making my way down Central America: I've been working some on Category:Nicaraguan women writers, and have Costa Rica yet to plumb. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Great to see the work being done with new cats. Remember, if you create any new cats for this project, you should mention them here as we'll need to itemize the new cats for the next bot run.

I've created two more just now: Category:Ecuadorian women writers and Category:South Korean women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should aim to cover every country with this. I created Category:Sierra Leonean women writers. A pathetic two entries. Also created Category:Macedonian women writers,just 4 articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we had a list of the missing national cats for women writers so we can see what still needs to be created. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I created Category:Bolivian women writers the other day - 4, as I recall. On the other hand, Category:Ecuadorian women writers has filled out nicely. Not sure what else is there - I'm sort of in-and-out on my editing at the moment, for a variety of reasons. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Great job Ser! Just looking at the category I spot Togolese, Guinea-Bissauan, Mozambican, Malawian, Central African Republican, Djiboutian, South Sudanese, Omani, Turkmenistani, Paraguyan, Cambodian, Laotian, and probably a fair few Caribbean/Pacific islands. Perhaps Rosie could find some entries for those to blue link the categories.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at Category:Maltese writers - there are no women there I can find, nor do there appear to be any in the corresponding category on the Maltese Wikipedia. So there's one, at least, that could use some work. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have created and populated Category:Rwandan women writers. Tried to do the same for Malawi, but I couldn't find any women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Created Category:Malagasy women writers last night - we had two, actually. Anyone fancy a stab at Category:Comorian women writers? Considering we only have one person in Category:Comorian writers in the first place...(though I may change that shortly.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Category:Mauritian women writers. There are a few more likely candidates in French: fr:Catégorie:Femme de lettres mauricienne --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anna Tambour‎

The by-gender categories ascribed to this article have been reverted by User:Falinquin. I inquired as to why, and the user stated that she is Ms. Tambour, and that she does not like to define herself by her gender. I have left the article un-reverted pending further discussion.

My question: is this something of which we should potentially be aware? Should we take such concerns into consideration when performing categorization? I remain neutral on the subject for the moment.

I have invited User:Falinquin to participate in this discussion as well. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This kind of issue must have come up before; does anyone know how it was handled? I'm of the mindset that if Falinquin says she's Anna, she is, and if she doesn't want gender-specific categories, the request should be honored. And for transparency, the comments on Falinquin's talkpage about this issue plus the comments in this section should be copied over to Anna's talkpage, or maybe add a permalink on Anna's talkpage to the 2 discussions. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
With all respect to WP:AGF, impersonation is a common phenomenon on the internet. Is Tambour's preference on this something she's talked about elsewhere (interviews, social media, etc.) where she could be positively identified? If not, what I would suggest is referring Falinquin to the Volunteer Response Team. They can ask her to verify her identity in a way that provides some privacy, and if confirmed they can officially document her preference on the article Talk page with a link to an OTRS ticket. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So she gets to opt out of being a woman writer, an Australian writer, WP:COI, WP:OWN, and still available free images... Perhaps we should add a warning to the talkpage that only Falinquin/Anna ‎can edit the page, or that edits have to be approved by her on the talkpage. INeverCry 11:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to have not seen this discussion earlier, and thank you for the opportunity to participate. I am indeed Anna Tambour, and although I appreciate all the work you have put into this project, I feel that it is more beneficial to have lists of writers, say, who are women, writers who identify themselves as Australian, etc., than classifying them as such and thereby separating broad classifications. So I see the statement "So she gets to opt out of being a woman writer, an Australian writer" in another way entirely. Rather, a group 'gets to' cut up and separate broad categories, thereby reducing the pool of and the chance of people seeing that hey, people of all types and sexes can and do write, become scientists, etc. I am a writer who is a woman, but I'm also a writer with dark hair. I don't want to be classified as a dark-haired writer any more than a friend in India wants to be, as he has been in another cataloguing, classified as a Person of Colour Writer. As for me needing to have spoken of these things elsewhere to be taken as me, I have put the description of my nationality on my blog profile, and quoted it in Wiki. And as for my feelings about being described as a 'woman writer', no, I haven't brought this up in an interview because it hasn't come up, and it's bloody obvious that I am a woman. That I do discuss and write about women's rights and women in many aspects is part of what I write about as a whole, but I shouldn't need to have to object in public to what I see as narrowing instead of increasing fields of vision. Furthermore, if I can't edit these narrowing classifications out, may I ask who allowed this group as well as others, to impose them in the first place? I am not alone in finding them objectionable. A writer is a writer and a scientist is a scientist. Bravo if, by god, that brilliant scientist is, say, Marie Curie, a, gulp, woman. So I hope you will not do what has been suggested: penalise me by "Perhaps we should add a warning to the talkpage that only Falinquin/Anna ‎can edit the page, or that edits have to be approved by her on the talkpage." That seems kind of like a punch in the eye, just because I have said I tried to maintain broad categories, which were perfectly legitimate when Wiki began. Respectfully yours, and I hope I'm signing this right. --Falinquin
I should have added that these lists you are making are wonderful, and important. I would love to see them as lists in some way and place. This is, however, different to cutting up broad classifications, the cutting up of which can end up with a ridiculous mess of subclassif's. And which comes first? Nationality, sex, religion, sexual orientation, political stance (don't laugh. When was the last time you heard a guest on a current affair program introduced as anything minus the 'liberal' or 'conservative'?)... and who's to say? --Falinquin — Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah ha I see the argument. This isn't an objection to her own classification but the method of classification. I can see this. If we sort out all the female writers then there may be seen an implication that "writers" are male unless otherwise classified. However it would appear that given our current method of classification then we should continue with it.... until we agree to change. And I can see why we should. Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Since when does Wikipedia allow subjects of articles to basically write and control their own articles (see my comment above, and the history of the article)? Arbitrarily removing a free image that's still on Commons, dictating categorization, even in regard to location, nevermind the woman writer cat removal, reverting numerous neutral editors, etc. I seriously wouldn't feel comfortable editing this article because of the heavy-handed way its subject keeps control of it, which looks like a clear violation of WP:OWN and WP:COI. I would also point out that Musicaloyster is almost certainly an alternate of Falinquin, and the creator of the article a publicist known to the subject. INeverCry 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
First, yes I am also Musicaloyster but couldn't remember it, so have used Falinquin for a while. And I'm sorry but I don't agree with your description of me having controlled the article about me. In fact, I have done far less than many and I might say most subjects who are 'living people' (I'm surprised you haven't changed this to 'Living Woman People'), especially when they are writers or other creativs. Look at any number of these pages and they are filled with their subjects filling them up and constantly tweaking them with laudatory puff. I have only trimmed information that I have felt unnecessary (old shortlisting for prize), inaccurate (living somewhere doesn't mean being of that nationality--it is inaccurate to say I am Australian. I am not, though I live in Australia) and reverting categories back to their original ones, which were perfectly fine till you deemed they were inadequate--but again, what gave you that right to dictate? As for removing an image that is a free image that's still on Commons, I have repeatedly stated that pictures of writers interfere with their written words, and in this case, I asked the person who took that picture and put on Commons, not to do so. Therefore I removed it. Please note that I didn't replace it with some flattering pic but none, as I prefer authors to have, though many other subjects make sure there is a flattering pic of them in Wiki. If my actions shock you, then I would advise you to take sedatives if you take a serious look around listings and all the people who load theirs. As for me posting publicity on my listing, as many others have for theirs, I've done quite the opposite. I've really only kept things simple and accurate. If you think this is highhanded, then may I ask you to consider this: anyone with an agenda gets to carry theirs out, on anyone they please, especially if the agenda-holder teams up with others. While your agenda is good and wholesome, people and groups you might find repugnant on moral counts would have the same rights as you, unless Wikipedia became democratic, which it is not. But how's this? I will no longer do anything to my listing. Do what you please. I frankly, am dismayed by the unwillingness to respect other points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falinquin (talk • contribs) 01:59, 27 October 2014

Ach, I can't just bow out without saying that the line "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" needs editing if what you really mean is, some. Your project says "This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia." However, improving the coverage of women writers, in my opinion, is vastly more improved by calling us 'writers', 'orchestra conductors', 'physicists','Nobel laureates', etc., than by putting us in what in other cultures would be called purdah, imposed by some, condemned by others. Separating in the name of lifting up still separates. Anyone who doesn't want to read female writers can so much more easily avoid even knowing they exist when there's no common listing. And since I'm at it, as a writer, 'woman' used as an adjective irritates my editor's finger. If you must, 'Female writer'. And finally, I'm not surprised if I'm the only person who has objected to Wiki about this classification. Both posting to Wiki and discussing anything with editors here is both scary and offputting to so many that it's no wonder that the 'Wiki community' isn't exactly thriving with new life. However, I've tried to make my responses respectful here because I appreciate your altruism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falinquin (talk • contribs) 02:44, 27 October 2014

Trying to put this behind me, but just came across a line in the rambling text of Nests: The Art of Birds, by Janine Burke. She quotes Frost's poem, "The Exposed Nest": "We saw the risk of doing good,/But dared not spare to do the best we could." We have differing views on how to do good. I don't know if you have discussed the risks of your activism. Another group could easily feel it imperative to take action to 'do good' by eliminating your actions to achieve non-gender and non-genrified classifications. If only the ghost of Barbara Shermund could speak. (see my post on my blog http://medlarcomfits.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/barbara-who-great-cartoonist.html )She was a cartoonist great, her works appearing in The New Yorker and Esquire. It took years, and a challenge by another female cartoonist, for the default of 'cartoonist' to be changed in the National Cartoonist Society, its rules having stipulated "NCS' constitution which specified that 'any cartoonist (male) who signs his name to his published work' could apply for membership." See her cartoon "Well, I guess women are just human beings after all." So it's ironic that the achievement of a default including both sexes is not recognised as such by this group.

Finally, there was some outrage here at my having removed a photograph. I know that Wiki asks for photographs of people, and when the person is someone whose appearance is intrinsic to the reason the listing occurs--be it a supermodel, performer, or politician, or other person having put themselves in the public eye--this is quite in order. When the person is a writer or a scientist or other person whose work has nothing to do with their looks, this interest is frivolous, and can be seen, as I see it, as both an intrusion upon my fiction, and an invasion of my privacy. There is an increasing assumption that we must all give up our privacy, but why submit to this bullying, and where does it stop? If someone wants to publish your address and phone number and email address, they can say this is in the public interest, too. Wikipedia can be an invaluable resource, but it doesn't need to be invasive to be so. Well, I've said more than you will feel that I have a right to, and I've also said, under duress, I feel, that I won't do anything to that Anna Tambour site--and I'll keep my word about that, but I hope that you'll seriously discuss and disseminate some of the issues I've brought up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falinquin (talk • contribs) 06:18, 27 October 2014

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance... It works! I'm quite baffled! Should I even try banging my head against the forbidding wall of text above? My bed looks so much more inviting... The bed wins, and you by proxy - I relinquish the field, and bid you good night. INeverCry 07:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing female encyclopaedists

List:

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks for the names. Any chance you know their nationality? We can add the redlinks here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles. If the bluelinks were created in 2014, they can be added here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rosie. Here's a bit of background on these women.

  • Blanche Catherine Saward (British, amongst other works co-wrote Encyclopedia of Victorian Needlework, 1887 with Sophia Frances Anne Caulfeild)their
  • Florence Hartley (American, The Ladies’ Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness, 1870)
  • Sarah Annie Frost (American, multiple works of fiction and non fiction, including Frost's Laws and By-Laws of American Society, 1859)
  • Jane Gaugain (British, wrote 16 knitting books from 1837 to 1854, including The Lady's Assistant for Executing Useful and Fancy Designs in Knitting, Netting, and Crochet Work)
  • Eliza Warren (British, numerous books on household and family management, including How I managed my house on two hundred pounds a year, 1864
  • Matilda Marian Pullan (British, numerous books on needlework and household and family management, including The lady's dictionary of needlework, 1856)

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Update I've gone ahead and added them all to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles under the relevant country headings, although I suspect some of these will require considerable research to obtain biographical details, especially Florence Hartley, see [2]. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Voceditenore.
I read a post on this talkpage last night by another editor discussing why separating out women's biographies from the general population of writers is problematic, and it's important that we are aware of that point of view, and that we listen carefully and with kindness to everyone's voice. However, there's this list of "Missing female encyclopaedists" and it exemplifies exactly why this project should exist (shine a light on a subset of articles) and why we have cats to corral (no pun intended, Montanabw) the subsets belonging to the project. Maybe someone [who?] would have taken an interest in B.Saward, F.Hartley, S.Frost, J.Gaugain, E.Warren, M.Pullan on their own and created those articles without their mention here. But I'm of the mindset that this project and the gender-based cats which fall under its purvue are not only useful to Wikipedia, but are important academically, and I'll bet that academics agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Heh, herding cats again, are we? My view is for a project, "the more the merrier." If someone wanted to spin off a task force for whatever sub-group they wanted to focus on, that is doable as well, be it Science Fiction, biographies, cookbooks, whatever. I see no need to restrict the scope in this fashion. Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As an academic I want to +++1 Rosiestep's concept of the value of these cats: I am actually very close to writing an article about the treatment of Women writers as part of literary history on Wikipedia. So keep discovering and classifying please! Sadads (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much, Sadads for that positive response; you made my day! And yes, WMNWRITE will keep on doing the important work described in its scope... shining a light on women writers and their works. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

I've started archiving but this function should be automated. Can someone who uses bot-archiving get it set up for this project? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you want it to be done by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) or lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs)? I'm most familiar with the latter, which has replaced MiszaBot II (talk · contribs) and uses the same setup, see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. The main thing to decide are how long threads should be left before they are archived, also, if all threads are "old", how many should be left behind. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone what the standard is on other projects? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I would use lcsb III because (IIRC) it is a little more flexible. I would suggest setting it to one month, and a minimum of 7 threads. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
When a thread is archived by ClueBot III, it will look for links to that thread on other discussion pages, and amend them so that they link to the archive page (example). However, ClueBot III sometimes removes threads from a main talk page without adding them to the archive, so they are lost altogether; sometimes it does the opposite, so after two passes of the bot, the archive contains two copies of the archived thread. It also seems to occasionally stop working for several days.
lowercase sigmabot III is quite reliable (cases of unpaired add-to-archive/remove-from-main are much rarer, and stoppages are fewer), but has the disadvantage that inward links from other discussions are not amended to point to the archived thread.
Given no information about the number of threads to leave, the default for lowercase sigmabot III is for at least 5 to be left. I don't think that there is a default setting for the minimum age, and on that, WikiProjects vary greatly. In some slow-moving projects it's set to 90, 180 or even 365 days; several are significantly shorter. In the case of WT:GM, which isn't particularly fast-moving, it's 30 days; and since that talk page is also set to leave a minimum of one thread behind, it's often the case that there is only one thread there. WT:UKRAIL also has 30 days, but the minimum to leave is 5 - there are often more than 5 threads on the page, because it's quite active. Personally I would set 90 (or even 180) days and reduce if the main talk page gets too long. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
ClueBot III (talk · contribs) has been editing logged-out for some days, as 10.68.16.32 (talk) and has also been having problems as a result of which it was blocked less than an hour ago (see Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Bot edits from IP address). Not knowing when this bot will return, I've set up automatic archiving to use the only archiving bot that is still running and that I'm familiar with - lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). Threads will be archived provided that (i) there has been no activity on that thread for 60 days; (ii) there are at least two threads that qualify under rule (i); (iii) at least five threads are left behind whether they qualify or not. These may be adjusted, see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 Now in operation, see this edit and this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Redrose64 for setting up the archiving. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#2)

Since the last bot run, WMNWRITE has created many new categories. Please review "New categories within the scope of this WikiProject - October 2014" and add or subtract as applicable to the project scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: You mention these cats -- Category:Women satirists, Category:Women romance writers, Category:Women crime writers -- but they are still redlinks. I'd be glad to create them unless you found issue with them? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I did and I didn't. Category:Women satirists I didn't get to because I let myself be sidetracked. (Maybe tonight I'll actually do it.) The other two do exist, but under different titles. Category:Women romantic fiction writers covers the former; as to the latter, I know its scope would be a bit different from Category:Women mystery writers, but I haven't considered going with it because I think the mystery category about covers it. Unless you think otherwise? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have now recreated and populated Category:Women satirists. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I created Category:Women soap opera writers and started populating it, but I stopped short before pushing through American soap opera writers, figuring AWB would be a better way. Also, I didn't create Category:Women librettists; seeking a second opinion before proceeding. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Category:Women librettists would have more than I expected, actually - so it might be worth creating. Two more I thought of earlier today: Category:Women letter writers and Category:Women religious writers. Would these be worth creating, do you think? I'll get cracking on Category:Women soap opera writers shortly. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Created Category:Women religious writers; it would benefit from AWB. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Gobonobo I'd value your thoughts about Category:Women librettists. In my mind, a librettist is a type of songwriter, but not exactly. And songwriters are excluded from our project scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Rosiestep Well, librettists and songwriters are writers. My concerns about including songwriters centre on the volume of entries. So many musicians are songwriters that I fear their inclusion would overwhelm this project with biographies that are peripheral to our main focus. But I wholeheartedly support the creation of Category:Women librettists. I imagine we don't have too many articles for women librettists, and it does seem strange that we would include writers of musicals while excluding writers of opera. So I would support their inclusion. gobonobo + c 00:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Category:Women religious writers has been populated. (Sort of...I excluded the "writers-by-religion" subcats because a lot of the people in those aren't religious writers so much as they are writers who are religious.) Regarding librettists - to me their role is closer to that of dramatists and playwrights than to that of songwriters, so I would think they are within our scope. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Gobonobo for your feedback; I've created Category:Women librettists and started populating it, but AWB would be the best way to finish it off. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be off for a week doing family stuff as my son is getting married. In the meantime, if a project member can put in the request for a bot run on the new cats in this list, that would be appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to your son! I've just populated Category:Women librettists. There are a couple more of which I am aware that need to be added manually; I will do so now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Added one more - Category:Gambian women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
And one more: Category:African-American women journalists. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Has the bot run occurred on the new cats? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Was Anomie (talk · contribs) asked to start a tagging run? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I put in the request here: User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 7#WikiProjectTagger run #2 for women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The bot run is done, adding almost 3,000 additional articles to WMNWRITE. Thanks to everyone who worked on that! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I created Category:Women bibliographers and started populating it but it would benefit from AWB. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

CatScan only found the four. Am I missing something? I likely am; I usually do. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I thought there would be more. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm sure it can be populated rather quickly. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
New categories within the scope of this WikiProject - October 2014

No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel

I've started a new article on the book by Janice Dickinson — No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Feel free to help out with additional secondary sources, and/or chip in with collaborative discussion at Talk:No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

National categories, redux

Just created Category:Chadian women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

hmmm. Nice to see all these new categories and the offer of a bot run. However I look at the unassessed articles and the number gets bigger and bigger. I cleared out all those beginning with A,B, C or D but new ones keep arriving. (Any help??) In many cases these "new" articles are already labelled as stubs or starts from other projects. Can we populate these "new" cats please with class=stub or whatever? .... and if they are people then can we add the WPBIO template too? Thanks for listening Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Victuallers, you bring up good points. Do you think AWB would be good for that, vs. another bot request? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh I think you know more than I do here Rosie. I'm just hoping that we can improve the labelling of our articles. I dont know how to make it happen. All the best. Victuallers (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been giving it a go, too, Victuallers, and it's so much work by hand! @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, can you please take a look at this and see if AWB would make sense to assess importance for thousands of articles? I've been going through the Start class bios (skipping past the works articles) and assessing them for importance, and without AWB, it's quite time consuming, although, it's worked out ok with the Sunday morning news' shows squawking in the background. However, there are thousands of articles which needs to be assessed for importance alone. Your thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think AWB isn't the best choice for this sort of thing; it's better done either manually (to weed out mistakes) or using a full bot with specially-constructed parameters. I could see a way of doing some of it if it could be keyed to other assessments; for instance, search for anything already assessed as "C-class" in another WikiProject and assess accordingly. But I'm not sure of the best way to do that with AWB - I think a bot would be better. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of articles on the Articles created page

Victuallers brings up a good point here... chron order makes more sense than alpha. What do you think about re-sorting the Articles created page in chron order? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per Victuallers. Early on after this project was created, there was limited discussion about new article ordering (by nationality? by genre? etc.) on this project talkpage with no consensus. Alpha seemed easiest, but in retrospect, it's not the common choice... most projects list their new articles in chron order. Re-sorting by month will take some effort but not insurmountable. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Berry

The naming of the articles Mary Berry, Mary Berry (food writer), Mary Berry (writer) are under discussion, see talk:Mary Berry (food writer) and talk:Mary Berry (writer) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Popcat

If you notice a cat with few entries -- you be the judge of what's "few" -- please add {{popcat}} to the cat. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Category discoveries

I discovered Category:Female Togolese writers while looking for categories to create earlier today. At the very least it needs retitling to bring it into line with the others under the project, no? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to Category:Togolese women writers. Thx! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Any time. I'm on the lookout for anything else we should be aware of. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images at Eleanor Hibbert

There's currently a dispute on how many non-free images should be used in the article on Eleanor Hibbert, focusing on whether those images meet the non-free content criteria. Community input at Talk:Eleanor Hibbert#Non-free images would be appreciated (as well as more general help with that article, I believe). Huon (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Question at the Village Pump

There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women bloggers at Categories for Deletion

See here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-diffusing subcategory

A big thank you to Gobonobo for adding Nondiffusing subcategory templates to the appropriate women writer cats. It definitely needed to be done. If any of our project members aren't familiar with a "nondiffusing subcat", please do read up on its importance. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncatted women writer stubs

(I've moved this conversation from our user talkpages to the project talkpage.)

Hi Rosie. I've been doing some WPWW tagging of stubs in some of the subcats of Category:European writer stubs. I've found quite a few stubs that had no WPWW tag, and others that looked to be bot-tagged with WPWW. Is there a bot that tags new stubs in Category:Writer stubs, Category:Poet stubs, Category:Journalist stubs, etc, on a regular basis? INeverCry 02:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I think the only times it's automatic is when someone requests a bot run. Thanks for adding the WPWW talkpage template to those stubs. I've been working on adding it, too. It would be a sweet if a bot did it automatically on a routine basis, though. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I really don't know much about bots. Does anyone have an idea of how to make this happen? Like INeverCry, I've spent a lot of time recently adding the WPWW template to article talkpages so how do we get a bot to do it automatically/routinely? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I set up a feed for women writers at User:AlexNewArtBot. Feel free to change the rules for the feed. Different rules can be applied to change which articles the feed will pick up. I only felt competent enough to borrow/modify the rules that WikiProject Women artists uses. Once the bot runs, we'll see if it works. gobonobo + c 13:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Gobonobo, awesome and thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice and invitation

  1. There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group.
  2. Have you heard of the Kaffeeklatsch? It is a test area for women to hear and support each other. The idea came about as a result of a discussion at meta regarding my IdeaLab proposal (yet open) for WikiProject Women.
Now that the klatsch has survived an MfD and WMF legal has said that it does not violate the non discrimination policy,[3] I am looking for women editors who might like to join.
Although I have started a couple of discussions, they are not urgent. For now, the "Please introduce yourself" discussion is more important! I want to take it slow at first and build a small group before trying to address heavy topics or come up with big goals. For now, the klatsch is there as a sort of refuge. I hope you will consider joining, and invite other women editors, too, if you wish.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ina Garten FAR

I have nominated Ina Garten for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Borita Casas

Hi, i was looking at orphaned children's lit articles and came across Borita Casas. after a bit of a rewrite i deleted the categories of borita being a woman as the biography i came across is confusing referring to borita as 'he' in some spots and 'she' in others.[1] Is anyone able to confirm one way or the other? (or should i ask the spanish project) thanks:)Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ url=http://thebiography.us/en/casas-regueiro-liboria
Hi Coolabahapple. She's a woman. That article at thebiography.us is quite obviously a machine translation from some Spanish source. Machine translations often produce pronoun errors and inconsistencies, especially from languages like Spanish and Italian which do not require an explicit pronoun subject (it's implied by the verb). See The Feminist Encyclopedia of Spanish Literature which has a lengthy entry on her, and is a much more suitable reference for the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thanks Voceditenore:)Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Table of contents

Discussing TOC placement with Redrose64 and Graham87, over coffee and doughnuts, with thanks!

I really don't think that the {{TOC left}} template should be placed after a section heading (see WP:LEADORDER and WP:TOC). This may give rise to accessibility problems; it is known that text between TOC and first heading is an accessibility issue, and it may also be that where the {{TOC left}} has now been placed, the content from that point down to the "Assessing importance" subheading - i.e. the "Women writers articles by quality and importance" grid - is similarly inaccessible. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this Redrose64 and hoping the issue got fixed? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it's still the same as it was when I left this note. I'll call in an expert. Graham87, are there any problems with the positioning of the table of contents at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Rosiestep: Yep, as said above, it should be moved so there should be no text between the table of contents and the first heading. Graham87 01:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I moved it around but if the current spot isn't the best, please be bold and re-situate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I've moved it to the right spot – I'm not sure how it looks there though as I'm blind and can't see it. If you need to adjust something, please make sure the TOC is in that position (or just before the first header). Graham87 06:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Graham87: looks just right. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. I mention this WikiProject in the proposal as I'm proud of what we do and how we do it. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Resources of interest

Hi all – received the following and thought it might be of interest if it hasn’t already circulated (apologies if it has!) Might be useful? Not sure how long the articles will be available for free, unfortunately:

To celebrate International Women’s Day 2015 on 8 March, the editors of Contemporary Women’s Writing have made a number of articles from the journal freely available online.

This collection is a celebration of a global range of female writers and includes work on authors from the USA, New Zealand, and Japan, as well as an excellent piece on The Feminist Press.

If you have enjoyed these essays you might also like read CWW’s collection of interviews with contemporary female authors, also available for free online.

The essays are available via OxfordJournals.org

Cheers, ACrockford (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Ed "Editing Women's Studies" Brochure: Feedback requested

Hello all, Wiki Ed will be distributing a brochure to Women's Studies courses in the USA and Canada that edit Wikipedia as part of their classroom assignments. It will also be available on-wiki and as a pdf for anyone to read or use. I'm hoping to get some feedback on the brochure's contents -- if anyone has some time to review it, I've uploaded a Wiki draft here. We're looking to have it ready to print by March 3, so feedback would be most useful before then. Thanks everyone!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Eryk, thanks for stopping by. it looks good to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Donations

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of two recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Women Writers Online and WP:Project MUSE. Both are excellent resources for editing around Women on Wikipedia, just in time for Women's History Month in the United States. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them: your enthusiasm will help cement the need for future partnerships with Women Writer's Project, the digital humanities group creating WWO. Enjoy! Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Dorothy Richardson

Dorothy Richardson (novelist)|Dorothy Richardson]] is a major (underrated) novelist – words like woman or modernist don't need to be added. The article on her badly needs expanding. I have raised her to a high importance category, in the hope that this will focus some attention on her. Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox controversy

You may be interested in the discussion regarding the addition and subsequent removal of an Infobox at the Lulu Wang article, which just appeared at DYK. I don't think WPWW has discussed using or not using IBs for articles within our scope, so the Lulu Wang IB discussion may spill over here. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Feminism-focused Inspire Campaign proposal for distributed editing

Dear WikiProject Women writers:

I wish to invite you to review an Inspire Campaign proposal and offer feedback if you wish:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Full_Circle_Gap_Protocol:_Addressing_the_%E2%80%98Unknown_Unknowns%E2%80%99

What's special about this proposal is it looks to (re)value sporadic editing and respectfully honor the expertise of subject matter experts, without asking them to be responsible for 'fixing' Wikipedia's problems. This is a novel approach that perhaps could gain traction with edit-a-thons and WikiProject initiatives because it comes from a feminist pedagogical perspective for analysis in order to generate re-usable lists to share/work on. It's brings an offline alternative to "pinging" edit suggestions back to project pages. The topic for the pilot is not yet set, though it will connect to gender studies and/or feminist theory, but however I wanted to ping the WikiProject Women writers as the initiative could be of interest and I would look forward to your feedback

Best

Monika Shameran81 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Something new: --Rosiestep (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3)

Just created Category:Basque women writers and Category:Communist women writers; also Category:Women lexicographers which could use AWB instead of going through all the nationalities by hand. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

OK - I won't have a chance until later today at the earliest, but I'll look at it with AWB and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
All three have been filled out with AWB. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just recreated Category:British women screenwriters which had been previously deleted. I added some bios to it but if you can flesh out the rest of them from Category:Women screenwriters, that would be great. I wanted to recreate Category:French women screenwriters as many of the bios in Category:Women screenwriters are French... maybe later this week, and maybe Category:Australian women screenwriters and Category:Canadian women screenwriters later this week also. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll give 'em a look when I can. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
British and French are done. I'll look at the other two when I have a future moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Canadian and Australian are done also. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Good job. We could also use Category:German women screenwriters. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Done and done. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I created Category:Norwegian women novelists; can you AWB it? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Also created and done: Category:Norwegian women poets. They need some cleaning up yet, but I'll get to that later. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I created [[:Category:|Category:]]; can you AWB it? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get to it in the next day or so sometime. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created Category:Namibian women writers. Category:Central African Republic writers is ripe for expansion. At the moment I can find no women writers from the country to write about...that would be an interesting choice to follow up on. Especially as fodder for a DYK entry, perhaps? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 10:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll do some research and see if we can rectify that. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Another: Category:Swazi women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And a Christmas present: Category:Gabonese women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Equatoguinean women writers is now up and running as well. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Over the weekend, I'll start on Category:Australian women short story writers, Category:Canadian women short story writers, Category:French women short story writers, and Category:German women short story writers in the next few days; if it makes sense to create additional ones, I'll do that, too, and add here. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll run behind you with AWB, then. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
First run of AWB done. I'll run through and try to pick some other stuff up later. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've created Category:Nigerien women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I created Category:Spanish women short story writers and I filled it with a few but AWB might find others. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Didn't find many. Added a few. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
A new creation: Category:Ethiopian women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Four more: Category:Vanuatuan women writers (a bit surprising), Category:Fijian women writers, Category:Nauruan women writers (also a bit surprising), and Category:Papua New Guinean women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And Category:Cape Verdean women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It's been a little while - but I created Category:Jordanian women writers and Category:Kuwaiti women writers today. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ser. I created Category:Galician women writers. This weekend, I'll pull together all the new cats for another bot run. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Bot run #3 hasn't been requested yet, so this conversation should be moved up into New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3). --Rosiestep (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:Kuwaiti women novelists. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the list within this section to include all (I hope) of the newly-created cats. Please review and if the list looks ok, I'll make a request for Bot Run #3. Does anything need to be added or removed? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Singaporean women writers created. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:Flemish women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:Montenegrin women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've put in a request at User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 7#WikiProjectTagger run #3 for women writers to add these talkpage banners to the articles within these new cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

List of women in Bloomsbury Guide to Women's Literature

I've proposed on the talk page of this article that it be moved out of article space and made into a subpage of this project. While the women included in the list are, beyond a doubt, notable, it's not clear that the list itself is notable. Additionally, the list only made it to 'A', so it's quite incomplete. I'd appreciate feedback on this proposal. Pburka (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Pburka. Let's see if there are any comments on the article talkpage within, say, 30 days. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds sensible - it's what happened with the similar Who's Who in Contemporary Women's Writing which was more complete (though I think also missing some letters of the alphabet). I put both pages up back in the day, before the existence of this wonderful wikiproject :) Dsp13 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton

Interested project members are welcome to join WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to Hillary Rodham Clinton. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Authority control

Most of the articles within the project's scope -- biographies and book titles (but not organizations/awards) -- should include Wikipedia:Authority control at the bottom of the article. With >21,000 articles in our scope, I'm wondering what's the expeditious way to add {{Authority control}} to all the articles which don't have it but should? Have other projects, i.e. WP: WikiProject Women scientists (pinging Keilana) or WP: WikiProject Women's History (pinging Missvain), tackled this? Should this be a bot request? or AWB? I started working on this today, going through List of Albanian women writers and adding {{Authority control}} if it was missing. (P.S. I also added the VIAF # to the Wikidata item if it existed but was missing; I didn't deal with GND, LCCN, ORCID, etc. Very time consuming.) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what the process is. I would ask User:Maximilianklein, he created the original VIAF/Authority Control bot and can probably lend some insight about getting the AC template on articles. Missvain (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Missvain: Cool! I will. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Eep, yeah, I have no idea how that works. Metadata is not my forte at all! Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Emily. I hope in the "future", the AC template (or its next iteration) would be "automatically" added to the pages which have a foo category. But till then, I'm thinking a bot request rather than AWB. Let's see what Max says. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, it's not too difficult if you want to add just the text {{Authority control}}, to all the pages in a category. The AC template does not show any text if there are no parameters and no information in Wikidata. I'd be happy to just add the text. However it's also important to know which ones don't have any AC in wikidata of any kind. I might also be able to create a report on this if you were interested. Let me know. Maximilianklein (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Maximilianklein, sounds like this might actually be doable; thank you. We'd want to include most of the subcats within Category:Women writers, but not all of them, i.e. not Category:Organizations for women writers and Category:Lists of women writers, etc. So task #1, I'll work on sorting out cats. If you were to generate a report on which articles don't have any AC in Wikidata, where would it be housed, i.e. a WPWW subpage(s) or on Wikidata? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein: How is it best to add the authority control stuff these days? As an empty authority control template on the wikipage, and then the parameters in wikidata? If so then it sounds like a very good idea to add the template to the right pages. As far as adding the parameters goes, is there any tooling to help do this automatically? (The most useful parameter btw is the library of congress one, since this allows a worldcat identities link to show up, which gives a list of works for readers of the page.) Dsp13 (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dsp13:, the best way to add AC these days is an AC-template with no parameters, and then adding the statements to Wikidata. As for tools. I guess AWB isn't a bad idea for doing this. There could be a Bot that constantly monitors a category and adds the AC template when a new page is created, but as per Rosiestep and @Missvain:, I think since there are exceptions to the whether every page in the category Women Writers is in fact a Woman Writer, then its best to keep this "semi-automatic" for now, using a user-driven tool. Maximilianklein (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, Ok, I'll generate a report about the pages and subcats that have AC and not, and post it here. It's on my todo-list. Maximilianklein (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Missvain:, I know this is not a very dynamicly updating list, but I believe this is the report you wanted. We can chat more about how to generate it more automatically. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_writers/AC_Status_201504 1189 AC-having pages of 1878 total, as of today. Maximilianklein (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein: cool and thank you! But 1,878 is a very small number -- not at all what I was expecting -- as WikiProject Women writers contains >21,000 articles within its scope, albeit some are about books, awards, etc. Can it be that there are so few women writer biographies accounted for in Wikidata? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, hmmm 21,000, I must have made a mistake somewhere in the scope. I'll reinvestigate where this discrepancy comes from. I thought there were this many in the all the subcategories of Women Writers. Back to the drawing board. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Maximilianklein: Yes, yes... in all the subcats. I think I'm misunderstanding the 1878 number; help? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Maximilianklein: Here are some longer lists (each takes a minute or so to generate by hitting ‘Do it!’, and the server is not always robust in my experience): 2201 dead women writers lacking authority control + 181 more using a shorter template, 5071 living women writers lacking authority control + 220 more using a shorter template. Dsp13 (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ohhhh, ok, got it! Thank you, Dsp13. With CatScan, I can visualize what Max was talking about. Now comes the hard part... actually adding it to thousands of pages. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can run AWB over it if need be, long as I have a simple template and a list of articles that require it. Personally, I think a bot would be a better way to go, but I can do it if you think it would be better. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#4)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#4)

Just created Category:Cypriot women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request‎ to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided because this article is listed as being of interest to this project. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A pair of deletion discussions that might be of interest

Category:Women historians is up for a deletion discussion; also up for discussion is Category:Male historians. The latter was the springboard for the former, which is why I mention it here. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the creator of Category:Male historians). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Writing about women

Hi Rosie, I was wondering whether this new essay, Wikipedia:Writing about women (WP:WAW) would be at all helpful to the project, perhaps to link somewhere. It describes some of the ways in which we can be inadvertently sexist when writing about women. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, and yes, I this this new essay is very good and it would be helpful when writing about woman. I'll add it to the project mainpage, but if the members think another spot would be better, be bold and move it. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosie. Also, if people have ideas for things to add or change, any feedback would be most welcome. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I found this article a very good summary of the style issues that emerge when writing a page about a woman and I will try to follow its proposals. Best wishes, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a discussion at meta, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, that may be of interest to members of the project. Lightbreather (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Classical women writers task force

Interested members are invited to join the Classical Women Writers Task Force. --Jpbrenna (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jpbrenna:, thanks for the heads up. The task force is clearly within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Women writers. Is there a way to anchor it to both? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jpbrenna and Rosiestep: Edits like this and this would be required. Those may need adjustment, particularly since no categorisation is performed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Jpbrenna: Sounds good. Do we want to do this? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I do. Is it necessary to have a vote vote at the Classical Greece and Rome Project page before adding this code? I have never done that before on Wikipedia. I am assuming that its effect will be non-disruptive to the project, but it might a matter of good policy or etiquette to let them know beforehand. --Jpbrenna (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"WIGI: Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index" Survey invitation

Hello WikiProject Women writers,

I am a member of Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index (WIGI) project. WIGI is an Individual Engagement Grant that seeks to automate the production and graphing of statistical presentation of gender in articles by various categories such as date of birth, citizenship, occupation, etc. - in a publicly viewable website with open-data downloads.

We're running a brief survey to find out what kind of information users would like captured, ideally about the state of Wikipedia biographies. We will use it to inform what statistics our portal will show and provide a final report on the observed trends at the end of the year. Please help us out by completing this brief survey, which should take not more than 5 minutes to complete. Simply click on the link below, or cut and paste the bare URL into your browser to access the survey:
Survey link wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3OueVOHoRpezvZH

Thank you for your time and cooperation. Best Regards, —M@sssly✉ 14:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Announcing WP:ROMANCE

Just wanted to let you know that a new WikiProject has been started for romance, which includes author articles, so I thought I'd post a notice here in case anyone's interested in joining. Cheers! plange (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Turbulence: A True Story of Survival, by Annette Herfkens

Hi all, here's a challenge for you - I noticed a deletion discussion (months late, as ususual) on the Dutch Wikipedia for a biography of this writer who was considered non-notable. Meanwhile her bio on enwiki is getting lots of hits see here and her book is now in the top-ten bestsellers list in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, books are not my thing, so I don't feel qualified to write one, but could someone here produce a stub about her book? I already made the Wikidata item see this link in Reasonator. It would be nice if someone could link the Vietnamese documentary to the book stub too (before publication she went back to Vietnam for the first time and this inspired a documentary there). Let me know if you have any tips. Thanks, Jane (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lucas559: thanks. Seems like a good tool. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikithon on women and food at the British Library

People here might be interested that on Monday July 6th there's a wikithon on women and food organized by the Oxford Food Symposium and hosted at the British Library. Dsp13 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dsp13: Thanks for the invite. If there's a Wikipedia meetup page for this event, can you please link to it? Some editors might want to participate remotely, and they could add their work to the Outcomes page more easily if there's a Wikipedia meetup page. Thx. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: The meetup page is here: m:Oxford_Food_Symposium_wikithon_on_Women_and_Food Dsp13 (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
which appears to have been linked in Dsp13's original post. @Rosiestep: Was there something wrong with that link? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
there was a typo when I first added it - sorry! Dsp13 (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dsp13: thanks! @Redrose64: I've heard from some editors that they prefer not to engage on meta, which is why I was wondering if Wikipedia had a meetup page, too. But no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Everybody with a Wikipedia account should also have an account on Meta; if you created your Wikipedia account later than May 2008 you will have had a Meta account right from the start; if your Wikipedia account was created earlier than that, you will have been given a similarly-named Meta account at some point after May 2008; and by the end of April this year, everybody had a Meta account no matter when the Wikipedia account was created. Most of my edits on Meta are in relation to meetups. Meetup pages (at least those concerning events in the UK) are mostly on Meta, I believe it's because they're not dedicated to Wikipedia people but are also aimed at those who primarily contribute to Commons, Wikisource, etc. There are meetup pages on Wikipedia, but they're not so well organised, and many of them link to Meta - for instance Template:Meetup-UK shows sixteen events, fifteen of which link to pages on Meta, only one has a Wikipedia page; and Template:Meetup/July 2015 currently has ten entries: all three of the UK entries link to pages on Meta, the other seven (five USA, one Australia, one Philippines) link to Wikipedia pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: thanks for the clarifiction. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedian in Residence Position at West Virginia University

West Virginia University Library just announced its new Wikipedian in Residence position for Gender Equity. The full time, one year position was funded as an Inspire Campaign Grant. Wikimedians with experience in GLAM-Wiki, the Education Program, working on the Gender Gap, and other related projects are invited to apply for this in-residence position. More information at Wikipedia:GLAM/WVU. I hope that you all share the opportunity with people you think would be interested, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sadads: Hi, and thanks for the notification. I think this is a great opportunity, but as it requires a WV DL, lots of us who'd be interested in applying can't join the applicant pool. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I just pinged our contact for that: she said that the license is "After" you move to the state for the job. You should apply anyway, and we will update the listings, Sadads (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Anna Leahy

Hi! I'd helped edit poet Anna Leahy and it's been languishing in AfD for some time now. Anyone have the time to weigh in keep or delete? Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Randa Jarrar Biography Page

Hello WikiProject Women writers,

Currently Randa Jarrar's Wikipedia page states her occupation as being a "novelist" and I think that because Randa Jarrar has written not only novels, but also short stories, essays, and other forms of prose [1] her occupation should read "writer" or "fiction author".

On her website you can read some of her stories and essays, and her Wiki page should list these titled works as well as her novel A Map of Home. The Wiki page is also missing a citation for the countries where A Map of Home was published.

The Wiki page mentions that she had a second novel coming out soon, and on her website it gives more details about her second novel. "Her new book, 'Him, Me, Muhammad Ali', will be out in 2016." [2]

References

  1. ^ Jarrar, Randa. "Essays and Stories". Randa Jarrar. WordPress. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
  2. ^ Jarrar, Randa. "About". Randa Jarrar. WordPress. Retrieved 16 July 2015.

Thank you, Galla180 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)Galla180

WikiProject X pilot testing

Hello WikiProject Women writers!

Based on the recommendation of Rosiestep, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X has selected this project as part of a round of pilot testing.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 21,551 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Women writers, and a new member profile system. To see what this new setup looks like, you can browse the first round of pilot tests: WikiProject Cannabis, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject Ghana, WikiProject Hampshire, WikiProject Women's Health.

If there is consensus among the participants of this WikiProject, I will proceed with implementing this interface based on the current contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers. Please let me know if you have any questions or requests. Harej (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of support! This is one of the most active (and interesting) projects around right now, and could have some very interesting impacts on diversity :) Sadads (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another great tool by Magnus Manske

Hi all, Magnus has added Project Gutenberg authors to Mix-n-Match. Just browsing what has already been matched I noticed that there are lots of women writers in there. This could be a good way to find open access texts to Wikipedia articles, or maybe to create Wikipedia articles about books with open texts. Anyway, here is the link:Project Gutenberg authors on Mix-n-Match. Jane (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jane: I missed seeing this till now. I clicked on the link but I can't figure out what to do from there to see the women writers or the books they wrote. Could you please give me some guidance? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Rosie:, the link takes you to the overview page for the Project Gutenberg authors matching. To see the whole list of catalogs, click on Catalogs in the upper left. Next click on "the manual" for further instructions. Hope you can figure it out - it's easy once you start matching and the downloadable matches are quite useful for list building. The query engine in autolist is a separate tool, which is how Listeria gets its lists onto Wikipedia. Best, Jane (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jane023: I know I need to get going with Mix-n-Match. Just haven't done so yet. Hoping I have time to sit with someone at WikiConference USA next month who can give me a demo if I don't have it sorted out before then. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually there have already been over 8000 authors matched by others, so this is already a group that you can use to do useful things such as look and see if they have Wikipedia articles or check that their Wikidata items have an English label (if not you can just add these with a bulk upload once you filter for the ones with no label). A lot of the housekeeping work is still manual, though I think most of it could be automated for the euro-languages (e.g. Edith Wharton's name should be spelled the same in all Western Languages). Jane (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:First Nations women writers missing from project

From a quick look, it appears that about half the articles in Category:First Nations women writers are missing the WPWW project template from their talk pages. It was my impression that this template was added by a bot to appropriately categorized pages. What do we need to change to get these pages added? Pburka (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pburka: Good catch. I've gone through and tagged the articles manually for now. Rosiestep might know if we are keeping a master list somewhere for future bot runs. gobonobo + c 07:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pburka and Gobonobo: thanks for that. Restarted a discussion for a 4th bot run. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#4)

Just created Category:Cypriot women writers. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've brought this discussion back to the talkpage from the archives as we didn't request a bot run on it. Have added Category:First Nations women writers. Is anyone aware of any other cats to add here before we request a bot run? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I just created Category:Women erotica writers. If you have time to do the AWB thing, that would be helpful as there seem to be a lot of names. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure - shouldn't be a problem. I'll let you know once I've done it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Aaaaaand I done dood it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: how about a category for women writers of young adult fiction? That's a distinct genre from children's writers, and I suspect it would fill up quite a bit. Which is better terminology, do you think: "women young adult writers", or "women writers for young adults"? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture sponsored by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture
Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015 [[

File:Love_Heart_KammaRahbek.SVG|right|100px]]

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Architecture to participate. As it stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in architecture. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with Wednesday Martin

Hi there. For the last few months, I've been working with another editor to make significant improvements to the article of Wednesday Martin. Martin is probably best known for her memoir published in June called Primates of Park Avenue. There were quite a few tags on the article when we started and I'm pleased to say we've fixed almost all of its issues. The only items remaining are the article infobox and introduction. Since I have a COI (I'm an employee of a company called Beutler Ink which has been contracted by Wednesday Martin's team to make suggestions on Martin's behalf), I do not want to make any edits to the article myself. The volunteer editor who was previously reviewing my drafts is a bit busy at the moment and also believes we should get some others involved in this process. Would anyone here have time to look over my latest Talk page message and give their input? Feedback on any of the work done so far is also welcome! I'm hoping to reach a place where the last flag on the article can be removed. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Just following up to let others know that this request has been completed. Thanks for the help! Heatherer (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New categories

I created Category:Barbadian women writers earlier today, and have populated it some. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Two more: Category:Bermudian women writers and Category:Bahamian women writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not in Front of the Children - at Peer Review

Notifying this WikiProject, as book by female writer Marjorie Heins -- an author and civil liberties scholar.

I've requested Peer Review for Not in Front of the Children.

Feedback would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Not in Front of the Children/archive1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olga Ravn for deletion

Posting this here for info and possibly support--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olga Ravn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Ravn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. valereee (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this in some detail but further support would be welcome. I've also added a snippet to the article with an English-language source which might be more meaningful than all the Danish citations.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Early modern women writers in English

Greetings, all! The Women Writers Project, a long-running project which "focuses on making texts from early modern women writers in the English language available online", is currently based at my library. In spite of the COI risk, I wanted to post here because I think some of what the WWP offers is could be quite useful to people working on historical women writers in English. The Women Writers Project produces a database, which is now available from the Wikipedia Library Program. It's largely a primary source database, but can help with things like quote, title, and publication date verification. We've also been developing a small list of "missing" authors, which I'll add to the larger list here, hopefully in the next few days. I should note that our lists are quite slanted towards the UK, because of the nature of the source material. Feel free to let me know if this is verging too close to COI! AmandaRR123 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This all sounds very useful and constructive. I'm sure your data will prove very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Women historians

It's at 672 and growing - perhaps it's time to split out a few countries? I'm looking at creating Category:American women historians, if nothing else. Perhaps British, too.--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. Unless there's objection I'll start working on it after dinner, then. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Done. Any other countries you can think of which might be worth looking into? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Gail Godwin

Discussion participants welcome here David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed to bring Sherry Thomas to GA status

Hi everyone! A few days ago, I began a Good Article review of Sherry Thomas, a critically acclaimed Chinese-American romance writer. Unfortunately, the GA nominator (Plange) has not been active on Wikipedia for the last few months, and she has not responded to the requests for revisions at the GA review. Is there somebody at this Wikiproject who is willing to work on the article to bring it to GA status? I certainly wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to bring this article to GA status. I am also posting this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Improving articles

Hi, all. I've been doing a lot of assessment of uncategorized WP Women writers pages when I only have a little time to for Wikipedia, but looking at our assessment table got me thinking. How about a WikiProject Women writers article improvement push? I propose we select a top-importance article or two and devote some team effort to bringing it up to at least B status, if not GA or BA. Gwendolyn Brooks and Lois Lowry look like good starting points to me.

I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia and have never gone through a good article review, which is why I'm bringing this to the team instead of just working on improving these on my own. Thoughts? Do we want to target a couple articles for a zealous improvement drive? Fuzchia (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There's about 2900 pages in Category:Unassessed Women writers articles which isn't a ton. It shouldn't be too hard to make: Template:Backlog progress bar is all you need. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced biography

Hi there. I can't find any references for Teresa Ferster Glazier. I added two reviews to the linked book she wrote, but there really doesn't seem to be much about her personally. Maybe someone else can do better? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

  • Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Scope of List of women writers

Hi. I've made a proposal/comment at List of women writers regarding the scope of the list and its size. Please comment, thanks :)--Cattus talk 15:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this list is practical. How would we choose who makes the list and who doesn't when Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers has >24,000 articles in its scope, and most of them are women writers' biographies? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's useful as an overall alphabetical list of all women writers, since categories don't do that. There are other similar lists, like the lists of films by alphabetical order (example: List of films: A). As I proposed, I believe it should include all women writers, and since that would make it very long, I also propose spliting it by letter (like the films lists).--Cattus talk 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

De laudibus Christi

I've been working on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for the past few days. It's one of the first examples of a Christian poem, as well as one of the few extant examples of a poem by a women. I'd love it if anyone wants to look over what I've made. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Caged Bird FAR

I've submitted I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings for FAR; see here [4]. Doing what I'm supposed to do and informing this project. Please take a look if you're so inclined. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Alexandra Motschmann

I just deprodded Alexandra Motschmann which was set for speedy deletion because it hadn't been improved for several years. Can anyone who reads German help me add to the article so it won't hit AfD? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Male translators

Is up for deletion, and the discussion has encompassed deletion of Category:Women translators. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_23#Category:Male_translators. I was not notified of this, and have only just discovered it myself by happenstance, which accounts for the late notification. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment request

I didn't see a centralized place to request article re-assessment, but it seems that Wild Seed (novel) was the subject of a class project and has undergone some significant improvements, and should be reassessed. I haven't looked closely, but it's probably C or B class now. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Women historical novelists

Seems like it could be a useful category - if there's no objection I'll create it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty and created both Category:Women historical novelists and Category:Women thriller writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Also Category:Women crime writers and Category:Women crime fiction writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation

Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Genre fiction

Hey all, I am too close to a COI to work on the Patricia Briggs article, but it needs some help. It was pretty fan-written but now someone has come in and removed a huge amount of synopsis material. Someone needs to work on it, and it can't be me. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 00:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women Writers & WikiProject Women in Red virtual editathon in April

You are invited...

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing contest about Valencian poets

Hello. I want to invite you to participate in a new writing contest about Valencian poets because the World Day of Poetry. There are 12 women in the list. The contest is open till March, 27 and you can edit in every language. The information is in Spanish and Catalan, and the contest is organized by Amical Wikimedia and Wikimedia Spain. The rules are very simple: 1 point for each 1000 bytes added and 1 extra point in case the article was new. Page in Spanish and in Catalan. --Millars (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Millars:, and thank you for reaching out to us. We're going to be doing a virtual editathon in April on women writers, including poets. Maybe some editors will be able to contribute at that time. The main talkpage for the month-long event is here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi, "Women are everywhere" is a project about the gender gap problem in Wikipedia, with a focus on Italian Wikipedia. You can find a draft for an Individual Engagement Grant at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great if I could have your help and your feedback on this project to improve it. Many thanks--Kenzia (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Beverly Cleary

I read in the news today about Beverly Cleary turning 100 soon, so I googled her and ended up on her WP article, which it turned out needs some TLC. There were chunks taken verbatim from sources, some decent sources, but for some reason, a lot of them haven't corresponded to the material they're attributed to. I removed the potential WP:COPYVIO stuff that I notice, but I haven't made it all the way through the article. All of the sources basically needed to be verified. I got started, but could use some help if anyone has time. For more info, see some of the comments I left on Talk:Beverly Cleary. PermStrump(talk) 05:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD woes

Sigh: Diana_Pharaoh_Francis. Montanabw(talk) 09:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea, so long as it only assesses class, not importance, and if a rating is manually overridden (I'm thinking of the MilHist criteria, which is often stricter), the bot won't go back and change it? Montanabw(talk) 17:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The bot does not edit any articles where this WikiProject's template already includes class, only those that are blank, have no class parameter, or have a malformed class (i.e. a typo or a value that isn't a class, such as "Unassessed" or a series of question marks). Nothing regarding importance is changed at all. ~ RobTalk 14:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!

You are invited...

Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

The Left Hand of Darkness at FAC

The Left Hand of Darkness, a novel also tagged as being under this project, is at FAC. The review page is here. Additional input would be welcomed. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Just giving this a bump, as participation at the review is rather low: any feedback is most welcome. And while I'm at it, if somebody could give the article an importance rating for this project, that would be good, too. Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed project design

Hello everyone! I have come up with a draft WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/sandbox. The main feature is the new automatically updating worklists, pulled from Wikidata and from other places (with lists shared with Women in Red as well). What are your thoughts on this approach? (Pinging Rosiestep, SusunW, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl.) Harej (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, I like it. But I'm too tired from travel to look at it closely enough to tell if there's a downside. Hoping others can look more closely. One thing I really like is that the article alerts are up high where they are easy to see. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: Looks good to me. Apparently you are using the same design for other women's projects.--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I like it a lot. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive2

In case people are interested... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive

In case anyone is interested, a few of us have put together a drive to write about women philosophers. You would be more than welcome to join. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lesotho women writers

Just created this. It'll be small, but it's there. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Of interest to this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandi Bachom. Montanabw(talk) 21:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Sthers

Is Amanda Sthers notable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I cannot speak french, but based on the sources in the article on French wikipedia, and also on these results, I would guess that she clears GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vanamonde. I agree. Many thanks, my friend! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Strong focus on Women Writers for November

I have suggested on the WiR ideas page that for November we should once again renew our focus on Women Writers, possibly supported by a contest. Please read my proposal on the ideas page and let me have your reactions (either here or there).--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done a fair amount of work on things written by women authors (well, one woman author, but several pages); the level of coverage is not great, and I think this is a great idea. If it does take the form of a contest, I think we would do well to give "bonus points" for stuff that focuses on writers outside countries that have english as a primary language, and also to "reward" expansion in addition to creation. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion: "Good article nomination" - Julia Child article

Greetings, FYI at Talk:Julia Child there is a discussion being started of whether to nominate the article for GA status. Everyone is welcome to contribute. This is my first ever attempt for GA Nomination, so I hope I'm doing it correctly. Cheers! — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Marcia Joanne Bennett draft

I created Draft:Marcia_Joanne_Bennett, which failed notability for lack of sources. I loved her work when I was a teen, and she was published by a major publisher (Ballantine). Nonetheless, I've struggled to find good information, print or otherwise. Maybe she truly is not notable enough for WP, but I thought I'd post this here in case any editors with more research skill than myself are able to dig up any sources about her work to improve the draft. Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Tasha Eurich

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at and assessing Tasha Eurich. It's a newly created article moved directly to the mainspace by an SPA. I tried cleaning up the formatting a bit, but I'm not sure if this person satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC based upon the sources which are provided. There is also a problem with the infobox image which means it's going to be deleted if left unresolved. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Based on the sources currently in the article and a brief search for news sources, I'd say she doesn't meet either of those guidelines. I cannot find any substantive coverage, and her writing does not seem to have gotten that much attention, either. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look Vanamonde93. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasha Eurich. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

How could I delist a Man writer from the list?

Under country Japan, you have Hiroshi Yuki, author of Math Girls, and I am afraid this person is not a woman, per Profile of Hiroshi Yuki at his official site. Could you advise me how to fix the list? --Omotecho (talk) 09:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Omotecho: which list would this be? Depending on that, it might be a matter of editing the list, or of removing a category, or editing a talk page banner. Vanamonde (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers/Missing_articles#Japan and Hiroshi Yuki. --Omotecho (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That's just a manually created list that you can edit, as I have now done. Vanamonde (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I had to remove a male writer from WPWW yesterday. A lot of these tags and categories are added through mass editing via AWB, so mistakes will happen now and then. Don't be shy about fixing these mistakes. Thanks for finding this one by the way. You just helped to improve WP. lNeverCry 04:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Handful of new by-nationality categories

I've been busy over the past few days. :-) We now have, or soon will have, the following:

Category:Djiboutian women writers
Category:Mauritanian women writers
Category:Bissau-Guinean women writers
Category:I-Kiribati women writers
Category:Botswana women writers
Category:Eritrean women writers
Category:Seychellois women writers

I think this means that we'll have a category for every country in Africa save Comoros - I've not been able to find any Comorian women writers, if anyone would like to take a crack at it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

>26K articles!

Milestone! This WikiProject now exceeds 26,000 articles within its scope! I hope that editors, readers, and academicians find it to be useful and relevant. Thank you, Keilana, for the encouragement to create it, seconded by @Montanabw and Figureskatingfan, when we were together in Washington DC in August 2014. #womenencouragingwomen --Rosiestep (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, that's impressive! Hats off to the folks who helped pull it together! Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

More new categories

I have created Category:Comorian women writers - I've found three to fill in there. (Please take a look - I haven't really had a chance to incorporate them into other articles yet.) I also created Category:Bhutanese women writers the other day. I've also checked, and think I can create both Category:Cambodian women writers and Category:Laotian women writers, which I'll do in a bit. This means that we now have a category for every country in Africa except for South Sudan, and I think we can create that as well at some point. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD for Martha deMey Clow

There's a discussion at Articles for Deletion for an article listed under this project. AlexEng(TALK) 08:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Lady Constance Malleson

Hello, I'm hoping to have the Lady Constance Malleson page reassessed. It has undergone significant changes since it was assigned Start-class standing. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This was rated as B class for WPWH and WPWW, and C class for WP Bio. This a well-sourced start article right now, but a much better lead is needed (this one is actually tagged as needing improvement), as well as expansion of coverage of her career as an actress and writer, and more general biographical detail. B and C ratings should usually indicate an article is approaching GA quality, which is definitely not the case here. With a better lead, maybe C class could be considered, but solid start class is where it is now. lNeverCry 04:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi again. I have to apologize - I only saw this comment after leaving a comment on INeverCry's talk page. The comments here are helpful, though I'm still unclear about the lead being the main reason for downgrading the page. The page needs more work, though it's far from the 'incomplete' nature that characterize Start pages. This is one of the first time's I'm working through this type of issue, so I appreciate the patience and assistance. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I've done about 30,000 assessments in my 8 years here. C-class articles are supposed be a stone's throw from B-class and GA. This is why C-class assessments in many project templates are directly connected with the B-class checklist. The article were referring to is tagged as needing a better lead, and contains a few well-written paragraphs. I don't know where you got this start-class is shit idea? DYK articles are start class for the most part. It's stub that's kept down in the dungeon. A solid start-class article like Lady Constance Malleson is a valuable piece of work, though the lead looks worse because of how much it suffers in comparison with the rest. A few day's work and this article could really be something.

Have a look at Mary Lamb for instance. This is right around C-class to me, except that I never added a criticism section. Put a little more work in on Lady Constance Malleson. Expand that lead to a couple of decent paragraphs, and double the article in size. When I rate something C, I mean it. You could talk it up to C here, but it would be a light and phony C like Iron Pyrite. Put some work in and come up with something like George Crabbe, which, while it has some glaring faults, is good enough for a C or B rating. Look at Elizabeth Gaskell. I think C is too good for this old article of mine. It's a start, masquerading as a C... Wilkie Collins is more like a C class article should be but even that's questionable. If you want to see something that's a sure C or B have a look at Zinaida Gippius.

But these ratings are all over the place. I try to be a bit strict to encourage some serious work, but in all reality, Wikipedia is basically made up of FA/GA stuff, half-assed stuff like the Gippius article, and 3.5 million+ articles that're a complete fucking mess. Slapping a C on Lady Constance Malleson would be comforting somehow, but if I were you I'd feel a lot better putting that C on it if it looked like Anastasiya Vertinskaya, though even there the damned lead is just filler. Keep looking around though; I'm sure you'll find somebody that will anoint her ladyship with a C-class rating if that's how you want it served up... lNeverCry 09:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional comments. Any further thoughts from the rest of the group, given the different ratings provided by INeverCry and Vicedomino? --Dnllnd (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have moved ahead with making a series of revisions to the page and have expanded the lead. I believe that it's ready for another assessment. Hopefully the work is enough to move it definitely out of the Start category. Thanks! Dnllnd (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Linda Vero Ban

--Xi371n (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Hi, Linda Vero Ban, a female Jewish writer with four books to date keeps getting PROD tags on it. I have added some references, but it got another PROD tag. I have added even more references to the article. Can some editors give this one a look? Add anything you may want to add, or put any other references you may be able to find. I really think the Prod should be removed. Any opinions? Thanks, Xi371n (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked the person who put the template there to remove it. I really hope they'll do it: good work on writing this article! Laurier (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not good work to write articles when you're a blocked sockpuppeteer as this person is. Luckily enough editing has been done on this article to hold off a G5 speedy deletion for creation via sock. If this sockmaster reads this, either figure out how not to get caught or retire please. G5 deletions can be a complete pain in the ass and a waste of time for anyone involved. lNeverCry 09:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the user, but on the article. It seems legit. I don't intend to interfere with the discussion about the blocking of this user, although they seem to make a good argument on their talkpage. Laurier (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red


February 2017

Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Isabella di Morra

I've expanded this article but it needs a review since I'm not native English speaker. Thank you! --Generale Lee (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for FA support for Courtney Love article

Hello all, I've worked quite extensively on the Courtney Love article, and have nominated it for FA status several times but have failed to garner enough supporters to further it beyond the nomination process. I believe the article absolutely fulfills the criteria, and I have gotten supports for promotion each time, just not enough. If anyone would mind looking it over and leaving comments/supporting if you feel so, I'd be very grateful. There does not seem to be many people willing to do reviews of it during the nomination process—I know she is a divisive figure—but I figure if there is any place on Wikipedia where there may be multiple persons interested, it would be here. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to...
Women's History Month worldwide online editathon
Facilitated by Women in Red
  • March 2017
  • Featuring: "Art+Feminism" and "The Women You Have Never Met"
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages too

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Side issue, for referral to better discussion venues

I recently had my attention called to an anime/manga entitle The Seven Deadly Sins. The irony called to my attention (by a youthful viewer/reader) was the fact that the protagonists in the series are named for the eponymous Sins, while the group of the antagonists in it are referred to as the "Holy Knights." In looking to reference this simple and obvious characterisation I came across Chris Hansell's piece on the series, and was confronted by the groping issue the series manifests, see Hansell, Chris (December 2, 2015). "Seven Deadly Sins Has a Groping Problem". Cultured Vultures. Retrieved March 19, 2017. [Quote:] Meliodas' lecherous groping is played for laughs and is near unavoidable for the first few episodes… [In The Seven Deadly Sins,] the main character is a pervert without even a basic understanding of consent and not once is he called out on this in any meaningful way….

I have added this information to the lede of the article, List of The Seven Deadly Sins characters, and will look shortly for a way to also add it to the main article. I invite others here—and to any other WP project that might be as or more relevant) to read the opening of the Lists article, then the Hansell piece, and then to watch the first episode of the series (which is available on Netflix). You need not worry of a waste in time; the reads are less than 5 minutes, and the issues of the series present themselves likewise, within minutes of the start of the first episode.

I have little long term interest in this genre of work, and little time for any fight that might develop among devotees of the series and the articles appearing here. (Its popularity is evidenced by the fact that a Google search of one character name drawn from broader mythology, "Arthur Pendragon" of Arthurian legend, returns the manga- and anime-related content as two of the top five search results, general Wikipedia results being the other three.) My view is that if a good, thoughtful, fully accurate description of the series and its characters (including this misogyny aspect) does not appear here at Wikipedia, it will likely find its way to the forefront nowhere else (e.g., in the anime or business literatures). Indeed, A Forbes article on the Netflix series dating to the same time as the Hansell piece makes no mention of the obvious issues reported by Hansell.

Have a look in at the List article, the Hansell link above, and the series opening episode at Netflix, and carry this matter foreword however. whereever you see fit. And again, please let other Projects know of the matter, if you will. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

April events at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's
April 2017 worldwide online editathons.
Participation is welcome in any language.



(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_writers/Archive_2&oldid=1245863486#New_categories_within_the_scope_of_this_WikiProject_(#2)"