Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Nobel prize laureates

Maybe the project could give a special place to the 44 female Nobel Prizewinners, especially Marie Curie (GA), Mother Teresa (former GA), Barbara McClintock (FA), Malala Yousafzai (GA)? We could also encourage work on raising more of the biographies to GA or FA, perhaps concentrating on the more recent laureates?--Ipigott (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Fictional women

I see no reason why we wouldn't include fictional women in the scope -- Cinderella, Wonder Woman, Lisbeth Salander - but I think it should be addressed here. I ask as WM Sweden has run a series of editathons on the fictional woman theme. I'd recommend that this English language Wikiproject support that effort, but how do others feels? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool, bring it on I say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Another project under the umbrella. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

FA and GA of the week

The idea is that this is regularly updated to keep content interested and exciting. Perhaps SusunW would be interested in updating it every week with a random article for each. Basically all you have to do is copy the article lede and add a photo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I can try to do this. I'm going to assume there will be photos on articles at this level because hunting for them is uffff. SusunW (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Nope, confused. Are you copying and pasting the text of the article instead of a link? If I paste over the one that is there will it in any way damage her article? I am so not technical on Wikipedia and its instructions are non-existent. SusunW (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
All you have to do is copy and paste the ledes of a random FA or GA article into the main page of Wp:Women.13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Example, for the new FA of the week:

Julianne Moore

Julianne Moore (born Julie Anne Smith; December 3, 1960) is a British American actress and children's author. Prolific in cinema since the early 1990s, Moore is active in both art house and Hollywood films. She is particularly known for her portrayals of emotionally troubled women, and has received many accolades including the Academy Award for Best Actress.

After studying theatre at Boston University, Moore began her career with a series of television roles. From 1985 to 1988, she was a regular in the soap opera As the World Turns, earning a Daytime Emmy for her performance. Her film debut was in 1990's Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, and she continued to play small roles for the next four years – including in the thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1992). Moore first received critical attention with Robert Altman's Short Cuts (1993), and successive performances in Vanya on 42nd Street (1994) and Safe (1995) continued this acclaim. Starring roles in the blockbusters Nine Months (1995) and The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) established her as a leading actress in Hollywood, although she continued to take supporting roles.

Moore received considerable recognition in the late 1990s and early 2000s, earning Oscar nominations for Boogie Nights (1997), The End of the Affair (1999), Far from Heaven (2002; winning the Volpi Cup at the Venice Film Festival), and The Hours (2002; winning the Silver Bear for Best Actress at the Berlin Film Festival); in the first of these she played a 1970s pornography actress, while the other three featured her as an unhappy, mid-20th century housewife. She also had success with the films The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia (1999), Hannibal (2001), Children of Men (2006), A Single Man (2009), and The Kids Are All Right (2010), and won a Primetime Emmy and Golden Globe for her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the television film Game Change (2012). The year 2014 was key for Moore, as she joined the popular Hunger Games series, was named Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival for Maps to the Stars, and won an Oscar for her role as an Alzheimer's patient in Still Alice.

In addition to acting, Moore has written a series of children's books about the character "Freckleface Strawberry". She is married to the director Bart Freundlich, with whom she has two children.

@SusunW: I think we should change the articles every Sunday, so remember next week!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld That's what I thought too. A schedule, what a novel idea, but I'll try to adhere to one. (I actually posted a note on the wall above my computer. LOL) SusunW (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Design

I thought this looked really pretty and that was part of the appeal having a mix of images.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody?

I guess they worried the one design was intimidating. It's like I liked how List of Christian thinkers in science used to look, but others found it too cumbersome or whatever so much of the picture content was removed and the like. I liked the old design enough though I archived, then slightly altered, a version at User:T. Anthony/List of Christian thinkers in science (classic style).--T. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I wanted the page to look more like a women portal than a project, but I guess there's millions of women to choose from and some might not agree on the choices, whatever we add. I'd rather keep quality content nearer the top and the less attractive bulleted lists further down the page though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added one image of Mary W. as a sort of dedication to User:Wadewitz. Probably won't last for very long though ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I really like the image that's there now of Wadewitz herself, sort of in memorium to a rock-climbing, FA-writing, well-respected woman Wikipedian. Thanks for that, Dr. B. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Should United States say anything about relative wealth of minority women?

Please see: Talk:United States#RFC on relative wealth of Americans. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a concern about the whole "family section" on that page. It seems to relegate women to the home. It is not talking about families but the status of women. If it were actually talking about family demographics then I'd be less uncomfortable with the entire section. I do think that it is appropriate to talk about the relative wealth of men vs. women, or even minorities in comparison to the majority population in an overview page, but only if all citizens income levels are addressed. SusunW (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of patient with Marfans

There is a question about an image which some people would find shocking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Patient_with_Marfans. Would anyone here care to comment? The issue is about medical models. This comes up repeatedly. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion and it is that, so POV, is that we should not use photographs of minors even with parental approval. If an article absolutely must have an image, a minor should never be identifiable. SusunW (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First GA for Maria Ferrari

We have 469! Thank you @Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, Keilana, Charles01, and Belle: and ‎Montanabw. The article is much better for all of your help and input, insight and edits. Totally appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great achievement, SusunW. --Ipigott (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly think it wouldn't have happened without all of you all. Its a group achievement, no doubt. SusunW (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Only you contributed 99% of the content! We gave you a little guidance, but it's clearly almost entirely your article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Congrats, Susun! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW SusunW, when I say 500 articles the target, I don't mean us to produce as many as 30 GAs. I mean it's inevitable that non project members will produce some. Still, we could aim for 10 GAs ourselves in the meantime as a group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld 10 is certainly doable. Bence should not be horribly difficult since that expansion and I'm working on Sue Bailey Thurman along with Rosie and some others. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
One goal might be a GA for each Latin American country. Our general GA coverage for that area is very poor anyway. A female bio from each country would be a great idea. In fact I'll put up a challenge on the board. But no rush, it's a long term goal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Yes, this is an ambitious project. I think if it was WikiProject Men most people would call it redundant and a daft idea. But given how many editors are interested in female topics and the fact that there is systematic bias against women on here in certain subjects, which is deeply engrained in traditional resources, it's a much needed project. Particularly in fields like science and academia there's a major bias against women on here which really needs to be addressed. Not to mention coverage of women in the developing world overall. I see a lot of sub groups for various women operating on here, but my feeling is that they would run better within a main project which shares a common goal and identity. I think most of the people in the sub groups would agree that the main goal is to improve coverage of women biographies, particularly in areas where most articles are on men. Obviously in a project with a scope as big as this most areas will remain untouched by the contributors, but we can only do what we can. The main focus here, which I'm sure Rosiestep and others would agree with is rooting out missing articles and starting them. The main page will be a way to pick a select few and try to invite collaboration. Hopefully a bot can take care of tagging and listing new articles. So while I can see why some people would object to such a project, long term I think this is the way to go and the best way to drum up the most interest and participation overall.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Women could either be an umbrella project that connects all the WikiProjects related to women together, or it could be a master project that houses a group of task forces focused on the different topic areas that are now WikiProjects related to women, or a combination of both. For now, I think that being an umbrella project that connects other WikiProjects is the best way to go. If a WikiProject related to women losses steam and goes inactive or requests to become a task force of WikiProject Women, then the WikiProject can be converted into a WikiProject Women task force.
The main reason that I see for separating out the topics into WikiProjects is that loads of people are interested in writing on narrow topics, and many lists are made related to a specialty topic. And it is hard to cover everything well on one WikiProject main page. But with a good task force system it would be possible, and maybe even stronger than separate WikiProjects. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I also think it should remain as an umbrella project for the time being but it could also start to address important spheres of interest where there are no WikiProjects specifically addressing women. For starters, what about "Women in leadership" addressing women in politics (and/or government), business (including finance), and maybe even religion? There are countless thousands of women who have contributed to these areas around the world but (unlike their male counterparts) far too few of them are covered anywhere in Wikipedia. Maybe we could open up a series of additional pages (in lieu of actual WikiProjects) in order to compile lists of missing articles as well as lists based on biographies found in the other languages? We could also identify sources such as listings of the most influential women (country by country) and lists from publications such as Fortune, Forbes, Business Week, and their counterparts in other languages. See, for example, how many names from this list of just 100 women are still missing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think MILHIST (and MED) are strong projects because there are many hands working in organized fashion, vs. stand-alone projects on forts and wars. I envision Women in the same way. Let's be welcoming, let's keep writing, let's keep coordinating, let's promote Women, and I believe Women will flourish. "Rome wasn't built in a day". Like others, I'm swamped at work this week, but many of us may have more time over the weekend for coordination, mainpage design, invites, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
So glad you said that Rosiestep, I've been saying for a while now that edit-a-thons for women's history / science / writers etc. are great, but where are the edit-a-thons for women in economics / sociology / politics? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@The Vintage Feminist: I imagine there are others who think the same. :) So what now? I've been mulling this over for the last couple of weeks. Here are my suggestions. Perhaps others agree and if so, will jump in to do some of the work... --Rosiestep (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redesign the project's mainpage; keep it simple.
  • Add a section on the mainpage for edit-a-thons/meetups/events within the project's scope. Transclude from WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red and elsewhere.
  • Add a section on the mainpage for press/articles related to the scope. Transclude from Gender Gap Task Force.
  • Add a section on the mainpage for new article drive with a link to WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. Move WP:WikiProject Women in Red to the this subpage. This move has to be done by the WikiProject X folks as it will otherwise break a bunch of backdoor links.
  • Reduce the FA and the GA sections on the mainpage moving most of the content to subpage(s) for article improvement drive, i.e. FA/GA work.
  • @Rosiestep: @The Vintage Feminist: I agree with most of your comments, especially the need for more focus on women in economics, sociology, politics and leadership in general. Although I compiled much of them myself, I also think we should move the FA and GA lists to separate pages, perhaps highlighting a few names a week (or month) from different sectors on the main page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Vintage Feminist: @Ipigott: Here's a thought... What if we organized "virtual" edit-a-thons for women in economics, and then sociology, and so on? Edit-a-thons which run for only a few hours on a Saturday might be convenient for one person, and not someone else, but to run it for a week or two, as a remote event, would give most everyone who wants to participate a chance to get something started. We could promote it with a notice on the Chapter pages so that others around the world would know about it. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep: Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could also compile lists of women deserving coverage, possibly on a country-by-country basis. How about first devoting the rest of August to compiling lists (maybe with an emphasis on Australia, Scandinavia, Mexico and Poland for starters) then launching the virtual edit-a-thon(s) in September? With Victuallers' assistance, we could also try to promote new articles on DYK. You could also try to rope in some of the enthusiasts from the Mexico conference.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks SusunW. I've suggested it should be moved to WP:Women. Once it's there, you and other editors might like to add to it.--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Branding

Adrianne Wadewitz

I've been thinking a lot about what would be a good image to represent this project. This is not easy as there are so many historically notable women! Another option would be to have a work of art depicting women as the logo. Or a work of art by a woman depicting something. And, of course, there are other possibilities for a logo! While there have been at least two previous images in the Women NAVBOX so far, just now, I switched out the image to one of Adrianne Wadewitz. In a world full of notable women and notable works by women, Adrianne stands out for this reason: she was a Wikipedian. I'm a firm believer in seeking consensus for things of this sort -- the image which will represent WikiProject Women -- so what are your thoughts and/or what image would you suggest? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I like and promoted her work but am afraid that I am not comfortable with having her greet as if she was alive. I liked the several, who could change every month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the same reaction, not knowing her, but it is why I believe the figures should be abstract depictions. People seem to have very strong reactions to pictures of real women, either in support or strongly against, regardless of whether they are living or not. I have looked through commons, but I can never find anything there. SusunW (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I had not known her, but knew some of her work, was shocked that she died, also how she died (accident at a place I love), would think of that every time I see the image. As part of a montage: yes. As the woman whom I face when meeting the project, which would lead me to think that woman is a representative, perhaps initiator of the project, someone to talk to: no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd thought the same thing, that's why I added a picture of Mary Wollen as a tribute originally without actually picturing her herself Gerda. Would be prefer to restore Mary W. or the montage of images which can be changed every so often? I'd prefer the montage, we can have one of Adrianne in it among the others without it looking like a tribute project. I really loved the image in the navbox BTW, let's not part with that!! We can't have two images of her! A subtle one among the montage would be best I think and keep the previous nav box image as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I quite like the current one of her. I think it looks fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've switched out the image. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

cat?

I would like to identify as a member of this project by a category on my user page, showing a red one now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, we'll get the cat organized, plus templates, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the cat! I am proud to be first in it, but would prefer company. See my talk for usage of the hear icon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I'm in! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thurman

Talk:Sue Bailey Thurman/GA1 Now at GAN. Excellent job SusunW and others! Let's try to clear the red links for Amelia Bence now and focus on also getting that to GA by the end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

working on it. Also wondering if because we will be focusing on leadership next month, if an appropriate GA candidate wouldn't be one of these: Violeta Chamorro, Michelle Bachelet, Laura Chinchilla, Dilma Rousseff. Anyone interested? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Those seem like excellent choices yep, and in-fitting with the GA goal for Latin America. Those presidents are really core articles though and I think might be more difficult as they'll need more research and reading to really understand the politics of them, and many sources might be in Portuguese or Spanish. BTW Bence I think will need sourcing improvement before it is promoted. In looking at it, even though the content seems to be largely all there, there's probably a bit too much reliance on her own book. I think I can sort it though but may take a bit more time than I'd thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld On Bence, I did not write the article. If you remember, it was a translation of the Spanish. I was very surprised that one actually had sourcing. I verified sourcing and if I could not open their sources, I obtained alternatives.

It will be difficult, I know little of the politics. Looking at the four of them, I'm thinking maybe it should possibly narrow to Chamorro and Chinchilla, as Bachelet and Rousseff are still in office, thus might become unstable and Rousseff's specifically states it can be contentious. Maybe I'll see if sourcing can be found. SusunW (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be best to leave Bachelet and Rousseff yup, best to leave to people who are up on their politics. Presidents are complex people who really need to be impeccably researched and understood to do the articles justice. Perhaps it would be best to pick some less prominent people in the arts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


The project for the month is leadership, not the arts. I think we stick with the category of the month. I've read what is there and read several other president's pages. There is no serious analysis going on. Besides which, Wikipedia doesn't allow actual analysis, just restating secondary sources. Chamorro seems the likely candidate. She was a successful journalist and was the head of La Prensa (newspaper office) before becoming president. Since she did not become president until she was nearly 70, she had a long career before that. First female head of state in the Americas. Her presidency followed the Iran-Contra scandal, ended the Dirty War and created a lasting peace for Nicaragua. Definitely worth exploring further, IMO. There are plenty of sources in both English and Spanish. SusunW (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

New navbox for women in politics

Hello everyone. The other day I came across this requested move and it dawned on me that a navbox for female representation in various companies may be a useful addition to the bottom of some articles, e.g. women in government. So for example, a reader at women and government in Australia can easily navigate to women in Canadian politics if they are interested in how the two countries compare.

I have prepared a sample navbox here. This is my first time attempting this, so I am placing this note here to garner opinions on the usefulness of the template, and whether it is ready to be used on articles. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. If there is a more approriate place for me to seek comment, pleasde let me know that too. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 09:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Women said she's very grateful for the editathon invitation Ipigott and informs me that as she's a newbie herself she'll need all the editing assistance she can possibly get to write articles for us! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Songs

Do we include Ghosttown (Madonna song) and One Child (Mariah Carey song) as Women GAs?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They are works by women. I'd say yes. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Departments

I'd like to sort out the mainpage in a different way, and I'm hopeful you'll let me give it a go, and if you don't like it, we can change it back or try something else. To me, it feels too heavy with GA/FA. What I propose is to create sections called "Departments". There would be one for Article improvement (which would link to a subpage which focuses on GA/FA and other article improvement measures); Missing articles (which would link to the Women in Red); New articles; Artists, Scientists, Writers (etc.) would be individual departments, each linking to their Wikiprojects; Leadership (which would be a new "department"), and so on. There would also be a section for Templates, and we need to create some Templates, such as Barnstar, an Invite, etc. I'd recommend we place an image next to each of these departments where it seems practical to do so; if a department already has an image associated with it (such as Marywollstonecraft.jpg for Women writers), we'd use that image. My logic behind this is that the Woman wikiproject page is (or should become!) valuable real estate. Different readers and editors will land on it seeking different things. I think it should come across as a directory of lots and lots and lots of areas which fall under the purview of WikiProject Women, and not make any one area more prominent than any other. I think we could have a short paragraph, prose form, describing the "department" ("WikiProject Women writers was founded in August 2014 during a training course hosted by Wikimedia D.C. In it's first month, the project developed x new articles about women writers. Members discussed whether or not to include women's works of fiction within the project's scope; the consensus was to do so.") Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I agree it has way to much stuff to scroll through on the FA and GA and think "departments" will make it easier to find information. SusunW (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the FA and GA of the week selection though, but I guess we can list the featured and good articles on sub pages. Can we please retain the article of the week feature and have a "see more articles" link to a list?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I like the FA and GA of the week too, but find the long lists to be distracting. I'd also like to have the DYKs of the week (as long as they automatically flow there), so maybe that could be a whole "department"? SusunW (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we need a DYK department (and how in the world did I forget to give DYK a mention)?! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already suggested that the FAs and GAs should be moved to separate pages but they still seem to be there. As things stand at the moment, there is a lot of clutter on the main project page which makes it difficult to focus attention on how the project is evolving. It would still be possible to link to the lists from the more dynamic FA and GA features. I would also suggest we give more attention to new events and challenges, inviting the other WikiProjects on women to contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies: I see the main project page has now been tidied up with links to the lists of FAs and GAs on separate pages. Great move in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to do a bunch of duplications, so do we list DYK which are submitted after GA or not? Gerda Arendt Did you see that a DYK area has been created? How did you do all those lists for women's month? Do we want to do something like that, or just list articles? SusunW (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the mainpage is still too "full" and would benefit from further minimizing. I think a link to one subpage for FA/GA/DYK where we can have all the "article improvement" info, would make sense. I don't think article improvement needs a lot of subpages at the moment unless someone wants to maintain a separate one for FA, another for GA, another for DYK. As this project matures, and if it then makes sense to separate these into their own pages, so be it. @Gerda's suggestion of one list with FA, GA, DYK next to the article name seems wise. I'd also say we add a Navbar like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Navigation to help editors get back and forth between subpages; I'd be glad to create it, just haven't gotten to it yet. Don't think it needs to be any more difficult than that. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: look below. Someone created a Navbar, could that be adapted? SusunW (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I really think it's important to have a place to showcase quality women articles which get promoted, and Susun's GAs can be displayed for anybody visiting the WP:Women page for a week. I think it's good for morale and that the focus really should be on quality, perhaps the GA and FA articles of the day should be shortened to less than the lede though so they look less bloated?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: they aren't really mine as so many people contribute to creating them, though I guess I am sort of pushing to do them. I do like having the bios on the project page of ones we have recently accomplished, as it does show we are making progress. Not sure how you trim it other than to just use the first sentence and the photo, but if that's what is decided, I can do it that way. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are the primary author! And you will likely be on forthcoming GAs too as I've begun drafting an article on Sinatra which is going to take months to complete haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Susun: the one they created is for women in leadership. I was thinking we need one like this to help jump around project pages. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 1 September 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)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gwendolyn Lizarraga

If anyone needs a DYK QPQ this one should be easy. I'm trying to get it published on Belizean Independence Day, 21 September. SusunW (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating articles

After creating an article on the lists of women in leadership, science, etc., should we note the date we created the article (as I've been doing), or simply delete the name from the list? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: simply delete, or someone else will come along later and delete it so no worries if you don't delete it. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Roadmap

In my opinion, you want the following things. Let's call this a provisional roadmap.

  1. Decide what the scope of the project is exactly, and where to centralize. If the goal is to catch everything remotely related to women on Wikipedia, you'll likely want to centralize at WP:WOMEN.
  2. Get a |woman=yes/|women=yes implemented in {{WP Biography}}. If you're not sure what to do exactly, asking for help at Template talk:Metabanner will have someone good with templates take care of it.
  3. Decide what to do with {{WikiProject Women}}. Personally, I think you'd be much better of with {{WP Biography|woman=yes}}/{{WP Biography|women=yes}} as your primary banner, because you'd have all the benefits of BLP notices and the like built-in the banner. {{WikiProject Women}} could be saved for pages that aren't biographies, and don't fall within the purvue of {{WP Feminism}}. I can't come up with any examples at the moment, so I'd be enclined to just delete it and save everyone the confusion. But a case could possibly be made for its use too. So basically I'm saying a discussion needs to happen about what exactly is the point of the {{WikiProject Women}} template. If it's redundant, let's get rid of it. If there's a point, let's document how the template should be used.
  4. Have every banner related to women like {{WikiProject Women}}, {{WikiProject Women artists}}, {{WikiProject Women scientists}} and {{WP Biography|women=yes}} populate a 'master' category, probably Category:WikiProject Women articles, but it could be something else too. If you're not sure what to do exactly, asking for help at Template talk:Metabanner will have someone good with templates take care of it, although they'll likely need a list of all banners that need to be modified in this fashion.
  5. Make a WP:BOTREQ for a bot that tags women biographies with {{WP Biography|woman=yes}} (and/or any other banners you feel is appropriate) and someone will pick up on it. This bot can make use of Wikidata, or any other criteria you give it. I'd do it, but my coding skills are abysmal.
  6. Subscribe to AALERTS via the talk page category option, giving it that 'master category'.
  7. Subprojects (like Women's writers) can subscribe via their own banners, or via any other option they feel is appropriate.

Bonus/complementary things would be

  1. Set up a 'women' category at deletion sorting (you'll have to ask the WP:DELSORT people for details though, I'm not familiar)
  2. Have the Article Alerts use both the 'master category' and the delsort tagging to create the alerts.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. This is the sort of thing I would want to see. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I like everything about it and I think we should make all of this happen. But is there a downside to any of it? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I like it too. Definitely what I was hoping for. SusunW (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
And now that I've studied it in more depth, the answer to #3 could be buildings, organizations, medical procedures or apparatuses, things to do with the arts: for example Columbia Hospital for Women, Catholic Women's League, Vaginoscopy, not a biography and not a feminist topic but maybe all of these fit into WikiProject Women's History or WikiProject Women's health? But what about things like Soprano, it doesn't really fall into WikiProject Women artists or WikiProject Musicians? It surely isn't health and it seems a stretch to make it women's history, but maybe not. SusunW (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Did we ever follow up on this or is it hanging? Is there something I can do to help it move along, Rosiestep? I'm wondering if Andy Mabbett can help with the template? SusunW (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I would if I could, but I'm not sure how it works. I suggest asking in its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that quite a few of us like Headbomb's roadmap. So let's move it forward. For a start, I'm going to copy this conversation over from WiR to WP:WOMEN. Then let's get to work. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have no clue and am probably going to get in way over my head, but if Andy Mabbett doesn't know and I don't see that anyone has asked, I'm going to initiate the question at WPBannerMeta. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Template talk:WPBannerMeta#women banner SusunW (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I am already in over my head. It was suggested at the WPBannerMeta link above that I ask the question at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#women banner and I did, but he also said in regard to #4 above that we need to "indicate exactly which groups you want added to that banner and how you want them displayed, like what image to accompany each group in the banner appearance." I'm not sure I even understand the question. I thought we were only asking for women=yes to be affixed to the biography template and don't really understand why that would impact appearance? SusunW (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, he clarified and gave an example Template:WikiProject Christianity of what it might look like, but I didn't think we were going to add the other templates to bio, just the field woman as a yes or no question. Rosiestep Am I correct?
I also got a response from WikiProject Biography, that adding |woman=yes/|women=yes to {{WP Biography}} is not a difficult process, but that they would need consensus to make the change. Where do we go from here? SusunW (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think just showing them this discussion would be enough to show consensus. As for the "which groups you want added to that banner and how you want them displayed", I suppose the question is do you want to break things down further with a say |women-artist= in {{WP Biography}}. In my experience however, those sort of things are better handled by local banners. You want {{WP Biography}} to be a simple 'catch all' thing. Taskforces and subprojects, you'll want to handle through your own banner(s). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would rather the parameter was age and gender neutral, e.g. gender=f if it is to go alongside "living" and "listas". Marginalising the young is not cool. Be aware that there are 1,315,110 biographies so gender tagging them is not a small task.
On the other hand if we want a project tag in the biography banner then we would have "women=yes" (not "woman"), and this could be applied to Jean-Paul Sartre, maybe.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC).
Headbomb I linked to this discuss, but whether or not they read it, IDK. I got the feeling she was talking more along the lines of consensus for all of Wikipedia, not just our project? But perhaps Redrose64 can clarify her answer. Rich Farmbrough I don't have a problem with it being gender=F rather than woman=yes nor do I think anyone in the project would, given the previous discussion and consensus on inclusion of anyone who identifies as female or any works of someone who identifies as female. SusunW (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter to me. I used 'women' to a Biography/Women taskforce, or 'of interest to Wikiproject Women'. I don't expect anyone seriously arguing that Malala Yousafzai would be excluded (or would have been excluded a few years ago) on the basis of her age.
However, |gender= opens a can of worms, especially in the case of people who identify as neither female nor male. 'Women' is more neutral, given the wording presented is simply 'This article is supported by the Women Taskforce', and makes no presumption of gender, age or anything. Men could even be tagged by |women= too, not to say they are women, but to say they are of interest to the Women Taskforce. One could certainly make a case that Montesquieu or Marquis de Condorcet be tagged as of interest to the Women Taskforce, for instance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: Re your post here of 02:13, 13 September 2015 - my main point was that {{WikiProject Biography}} is so widely used that any change to that template will put 1.3 million talk pages into the WP:Job queue, so we need to get it right first time. So details need to be discussed and agreed, which in turn means that there needs to be firm agreement on what should be included. Judging by the debate above over whether to use |gender=, |woman=yes or |women=yes, there is not yet such agreement. Further, I am only one person, and cannot claim to speak for WikiProject Biography - a notice was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Re-organization of WikiProject Women but there is nothing about that notice that indicates that the proposal includes a change to {{WikiProject Biography}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no hurry, but I wouldn't worry about the job-queue too much. It is currently at 605,459, and values of several million "are no cause for alarum". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
I specifically wanted to draw that distinction. Both concepts are worthy of consideration. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Potential articles

As I think I might have indicated somewhere else already, I am still working on getting together a list of the reference works listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library sorted by the number of times the individual works in question are included in the bibliographies of the Encyclopedia of Religion articles. It will probably take until closer to the end of the week, if then. But, if anyone wanted to create lists like that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus of the individual biographies included in some of the works at Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies#Women, which could then be used to ensure that those entries are covered here, and, to an extent, accurate, as least as accurate as those reference source might be, that might be rather useful. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Women

I've created this new userbox: {{User WikiProject Women}}. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie. I've already put it on my user page.--Ipigott (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see how things evolve

@Headbomb, Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, The Drover's Wife, and Gobonobo:@Rich Farmbrough, RockMagnetist, SlimVirgin, Tom Morris, and John Carter: I have looked carefully at the above proposal and discussion on reorganization but I seriously think we should give things more time to evolve before we take any further action. I don't want to blow my trumpet too loud but before I retired some ten years ago I had considerable experience of project development in what we might call "the real world". In a nutshell, experience showed that relatively small, well focused projects usually produced much better results that larger, more ambitious initiatives. Until the new WikiProject Women has actually attracted a large following of users, I think the best way forward would be to encourage all the evolving enthusiasm in the other WikiProjects related to women listed above. I have been pleasantly surprised in recent months at the enormous progress made in developing articles on women writers and women artists and complementing more established interest on women in history and feminism (not to mention sport). Rosiestep mentions our current editathon initiative on women in leadership. Maybe even this area would stand more chance of attracting interest if it became a WikiProject in its own right rather than just one more task force under WP Women? So let's just give things a bit more time, maybe three or four months. In the meantime, we could try to bring some improvements to the presentation of WP Women, maybe as an incentive to work not just on quantity but on the quality of articles in the field. And let's see how WP Women in Red progresses with its focus on creating new articles in important areas (possibly with automated linking to Wikidata).--Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Personally, I'm the most disorganized person in the world, but watching Wiki is like watching a living thing that while it responds to selective pressure, also evolves on its own. In a large system, small changes can lead to big results. Also I hate taskforces... adding a wikiproject banner is enough work, but then you have to remember the task force... ugh. Humans are lazy... the easy way is always the best if you want to retain editors. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a lame argument. A talk page banner would be added whatever the project and it's hardly difficult to add writers=yes or something at the end of it. And by no means are you compelled to actually tag the article anyway.. Sure, why don't we create 100 different women projects each with a different focus and see how well we can coordinate it. Reducing the number of projects and centering the focus in my book would be a move towards simplification and seem like less work than maintaining dozens of separate projects. I'm not even sure to be honest that a lot of them actually need their own taskforces either and we'd be better simply merging them. My observation of wikipedia is that it attracts opposites who will find reasons to argue just the opposite of anything proposed, and in doing so hamper actual progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that projects on that massive scale have ever worked well? We don't do this with science, politics, history, or arts, and the smaller and more specialised projects have invariably gone in leaps and bounds ahead of generalised ones like that proposed here. I don't see how pointless reconstruction "simplifies" much, and zero evidence that it has improved coordination anywhere. You mistake an ill-thought-through idea for "actual progress", and those of us who have observed project development over the years and have seen what has worked have a different take. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I have a lot of experience of what works with wikiprojects here, more than most. In my mind I actually think most of them are a waste of time, but ones which actively host regular collaboration like Intertranswiki and this are much needed. At WP films in all honesty most of the specialized taskforces have been a failure. There'll be an initial interest and setting up but fizzles out. Yet the main WP:Films project is still running strong with a healthy main page discussion. You can't beat a centralized, well functioning project like Military History and Medicine projects. If you want to keep lots of projects (with lots of them inactive) separate that's up to you, it'll have little bearing on the production of content, which is what matters above all. "the easy way is always the best if you want to retain editors" I agree, but for me it's easier to not have a gazillion different sub projects or taskforces and have a well-functioning main project to deal with most of it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
So apparently some large projects like WP films thrive and some like WP politics don't. We don't know which category WP:WikiProject Women falls into yet; it has been around since July and has 85 articles so far. I think that the project is a good idea, and I agree that reducing the number of projects makes sense, but that doesn't mean you need a grand unification. It's a bit early to be telling a project like WikiProject Women's History that they should relabel their 22,000 articles; but you could approach the smaller initiatives and taskforces individually. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'm not "compelled" to do anything on Wikipedia. I just want it to be as fun as possible and make the boring tasks, like tagging articles, as easy as possible. If we don't tag, we can't watch them for AfD's etc. The average editor wants things to be as easy as possible. The Women writer's tag is the best example of simplicity. I'm sorry Dr. Blofeld thinks it's a lame argument, but I work for a city government and I know that if things are too time consuming and confusing people stop trying. Bureaucracy is a killer. That's human nature. Most humans don't want to go the extra mile. Also, I'm always confused why we have to restructure. I really am enjoying things the way they are right now. But... I am flexible and if change must happen, then it will. I just say make it easy to swallow when you do the changes. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, things which are too time consuming and confusing people do stop trying, I agree completely. I'd have thought having one project instead of 24 would make it less confusing for people and give them a single place to comment! I'd argue that some of the projects should simply be redirected and not even become taskforces. We do need to respect ones which are active though of course and see what they think! Some might feel more of an affinity to the subject than overall women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm one of those. I am a member of WikiProject Women Scientists because I am interested in scientists. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to make the best of both worlds until we gain more experience of where we really want to go. I joined WP Women because I can see serious gaps in the coverage of women in certain areas (e.g. leadership, architecture, music, dance, computing, religion and entertainment for starters). I also think it is a sensible idea to have a central point where more general issues of Wikipedia's coverage of women can be discussed. But at the same time, I am also a member and/or supporter of most other women's projects. Recently I have participated actively in WP Women writers (to which I gave special attention during Women's History Month) and WP Women in Red (which is currently supporting my efforts to cover missing articles on women in leadership). I have a feeling these priorities would not have been covered with so much enthusiasm if they had simply been task forces under WP Women. On the other hand, I have found WP Women a useful central address for articles (i.e. banners) on women in areas which have not yet been covered in the other WikiProjects on women and women's interests. That's the main reason why I think we should give things more time before we undertake radical reorganization. "Women" is a huge area. Just like "culture", I think it can still benefit from focus on more specialized areas appealing to the interests of large groups of editors and readers.--Ipigott (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith with this as an administrative idea but I'm with the evolve camp on this.
WP:BLP is clear about being sensitive, this change would work on quite a big assumption that male scientists are scientists, whereas women scientists are women first, and scientists second. For me that would make it fall foul of the Gender Gap too, this is the sort of thing I mean.
The other thing is the scope of WP:WikiProject Women, as a project to coordinate efforts that "addresses the underrepresentation of content on Wikipedia about women..... First and foremost, this project is about creating new "content", including creating new articles and adding coverage of women or women's work to existing articles!" - i.e. a place to highlight / celebrate women, not an Wiki drawing room where we file women out of the way of the 'proper' Wikipedia content, where it can smoke cigars and drink a drop of the hard stuff untroubled. <<< An exaggerated idiom to make a point.
On a technical note, I'm guessing that the taskforces list should have included:
What about articles like Masculinity? It is currently in WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, would WikiProject Gender Studies = men by default, so that we have to add {{WikiProject Women|gender studies = yes}} to the talk page as well? Or would editors revert with a summary saying, "Femininity belongs in {{WikiProject Women|gender studies = yes}} and Masculinity belongs WikiProject Gender Studies." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Lists of FAs and GAs

This seems like a sensible initiative, coordinating access to the other WikiProjects on women. But the suggested FA and GA lists are likely to run to several pages, listing hundreds of names people have never heard of. Maybe it would be a good idea to start by lists for the year 2015, maybe listed separately for each of the main categories (possibly with links to the tables in each). This would also facilitate updating. If anyone has time, there could always be archives for other years. Any reactions or other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually think there's that many more FAs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. So I'll try to help with your current list. But I still think it would be useful to create categories for them, not just those from the other WikiProjects but for women in general by their main area of interest. Many of them are included in several women projects but it is not always obvious where they excel.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The GA list might have to go on a sub page. We'll see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I support moving the FA and GA article lists to a subpage or collapse them. I use IE at work, and the lists went on forever. Even with Firefox, which I use at home, they go on and on. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rosie, while I use a large monitor and they're all visible on a single page it hides everything else in the periphery. I would argue that just listing accomplishments isn't going to get new editors involved, and it will more likely frighten them away (I was a little overwhelmed here seeing all the FAs). What is much better is to give a clear call to action and just give the number of FAs.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed the style in the FA section to look more like the Wikipedia:Good articles list style. I'm thinking it might be good to reorder into two (Biographies; Other) or three (Biographies; Literature; Other) subject groupings. I haven't made any changes to the GA group yet. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Is this what you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Good Articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Yes, I originally compiled the list on the main project page (it was moved on 26 August) but I never completed it with articles from WPBIO, etc. I agree that it is already too long to inspire further work. It would probably be twice as long if it contained all relevant GAs. I am open to suggestions on how it could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Untagged articles

Following up on the idea of tagging articles that are not yet covered by one of the projects related to women. I have created a list of articles that are in Category:Women but are untagged by any of the existing women-related projects. At category depth 1, there are already 2155 articles. Of course, it would be silly to tag all these manually - a bot should be used. But it provides an example of what this project could do before it absorbs other projects. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this but A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is already tagged in Women's History, Women writers and Feminism. Is this a work in progress?
I was going to say that, if the consensus is against absorbing other projects, that this would be useful to run a bot to put all of these untagged articles in WikiProject Women. However, after flicking through the list I'm afraid it would swamp the project, e.g. Abigail (name). I can see why the article was put into the category 'women', but not everything in the category meets the scope of the project women. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the criteria probably need some tweaking before a bot runs them. I don't know why the exclusion of templates didn't always work. I think disambig pages can also be excluded. But I think the list also illustrates that it's probably too big a job for manual tagging. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your doing this, RockMagnetist, as it confirms what many of us have been saying all along. The technology is there and needs to be utilized. Manual tagging is too time consuming, if content creation and improvement are the goals. But how do we get the technology implemented. Therein lies the unknown. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
One way is to make a request at User talk:AnomieBOT. However, before making a request, a project should agree on the search terms (see Before requesting a WikiProjectTagger run, please read the following at the top of the talk page). Ideally, the search terms I used for WikiProject_Women/untagged_articles should be tweaked until they give satisfactory results. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tweaked the search criteria to address the above concerns, reducing the list to 782 articles. I think it is now an appropriate list to tag. Just for curiosity, I increased the category depth to 2 and got 10,520 articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com

People might be interested in signing up for this, the biggest newspaper archive resource in the world!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant source at wikisource

wikisource:Index:Woman's who's who of America, 1914-15.djvu is a "who's who" type work, back in an era when that meant something about possible notability, which is available at that site for proofreading and, eventually, breaking down in separate pages over there. Theoretically, as a public domain work, it could also have the text reproduced here verbatim, if there have been no significant changes in the view of the individual involved since the time of publication. Anyone interested in developing the content there, for possible use here later, is more than welcome to do so. If you need any help that you think I could offer, drop me a message on my talk page there. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Archive_1&oldid=1146524585"