Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
So what criteria is used to tag articles with this category?
Suddenly hundreds of female tennis players are being tagged with "WikiProject Women." Is there some criteria used to tag 1/2 of all tennis articles or do we have to also add "WikiProject Men" to all our male players? It seems very odd and general unless the player is really something very special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) We are trying to determine whether the figures that say that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are women are accurate or not. In that vein, we are tagging articles about women as well as creating them under the various branches that go under the umbrella of this project (see front page). Women's sport is the umbrella part of this project which I have been tagging for athletes, but others may well be using WikiProject Women. The point is to be able to receive better notifications. If articles are being proposed for deletion, promoted, etc. The criteria is women or women's works. Pretty straightforward. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- But any category that tags every single women is far far too broad. That's like tagging every men's and women's article with project homo sapiens. That should not happen. Where was this audacious category tagging brought to the attention of the wikipedia community so I can read about it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Right here (and on the tagged pages). That's how WikiProjects work. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I guess my question, and I am NOT trying to be flippant is why do you care? If it gives an article you have created more eyes, why is that a bad thing? If it helps clarify whether there is a gap in articles that cover men and women, isn't that a good thing, rather than repeated articles being written about the "gap" without accurate data? If it is helping new quality articles be created and improving those that are incomplete, why would that not be a plus? Aren't all say, biographies, tagged as biographies? Do you think that then makes that category too broad? The whole purpose of any project is to slice out a segment and work on only that segment. As was said earlier, if you want to create a WikiProject Men, define its purpose and go for it. Ours is pretty straightforward. It isn't in the least discriminatory nor saying don't create articles on men (or buildings, or dogs, or anything else you might wish to write about). This project is trying to quantify and improve the coverage on women. Very simple goal. SusunW (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just a question of "who cares." It's what is right. Many many times we have had to remove categories on tennis articles because of category bloat or overly generalized categories. This looks to be another one to me... at least enough to be discussed wiki-wide before adding to countless thousands of articles. Anyone who looks at category "WikiProject Women" trying to find the woman they want listed, may be dead before they read to the end of the list. To me that's ridiculous. I care because I edit thousands of tennis articles and I don't want frivolous categories being added with due process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- WikiProject banners add talk pages, not articles, to categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly RockMagnetist. Only time categories are added is if there is a banner saying there are not any on the file. I also find it weird that Fyunck(click) says "hundreds of tennis articles" have been tagged. I have only processed maybe 3 new tennis files and added no categories to any of them. It's a mystery to me, as I don't look at anything but new creations or files with alerts. To my knowledge there have been zero AfDs we have been alterted on who were tennis players. SusunW (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like these? Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I don't see the person who made those changes as signed up for this project. Our policy has been that if the page has one of the umbrella tags on it, others aren't necessary, unless someone fits in multiple categories, say is a scientist and a writer, etc. As I said, the ones I have tagged do not have multiple tagging. But, be that as it may, I'm pinging Rosiestep who created the project for guidance here. SusunW (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it's one thing to have a player listed with wikproject Women's Sport, or for special player Wikiproject Women's History...or something like that. But I could also label every US president with wikiproject Mammals, wikiproject Homo, wikiproject primate. I think it's just far too broad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, since this person literally dared me to contact an administrator I did so, and these additions are being talked about at the an/i board. So I don't have to repeat myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) as was explained to you both here and at that link, you misunderstand the purpose of a WikiProject. It is not a category to help readers find an article. It is a talk page notice to help Project members find articles within their scope. If you are not part of this project, then the banner will alert you to nothing nor hinder your work in any way. I did not ask Rosie to step in because I thought that adding the WikiProject was a bad thing or nor because I concurred with your assessment that our project is overly broad, but because you were escalating pushing your POV. Breathe, be calm, maybe it is best to just walk away from fights that don't really effect you in the long run. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm breathing and I'm calm. And this could easily affect me since I edit 1000's of tennis articles a year and half of them are being tagged with an overbroad project that doesn't help anyone. I don't base my fights on what's best for me, I base them on what's best for wikipedia and our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out, the purpose of the tagging is to aid in people who are working on content related to women not to aid readers in finding the content. Because of the difficulty of finding articles related to women, tagging them with WikiProject Women is the easiest and most reliable way, and one that I encourage people who create new articles or find articles without WikiProject templates to do. Because there is a strong push to improve content related to women, we need a reliable way to find the content. And there is absolutely no harm from doing it. I encourage you to go with the flow, and not over react to these harmless edits. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm breathing and I'm calm. And this could easily affect me since I edit 1000's of tennis articles a year and half of them are being tagged with an overbroad project that doesn't help anyone. I don't base my fights on what's best for me, I base them on what's best for wikipedia and our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) as was explained to you both here and at that link, you misunderstand the purpose of a WikiProject. It is not a category to help readers find an article. It is a talk page notice to help Project members find articles within their scope. If you are not part of this project, then the banner will alert you to nothing nor hinder your work in any way. I did not ask Rosie to step in because I thought that adding the WikiProject was a bad thing or nor because I concurred with your assessment that our project is overly broad, but because you were escalating pushing your POV. Breathe, be calm, maybe it is best to just walk away from fights that don't really effect you in the long run. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I don't see the person who made those changes as signed up for this project. Our policy has been that if the page has one of the umbrella tags on it, others aren't necessary, unless someone fits in multiple categories, say is a scientist and a writer, etc. As I said, the ones I have tagged do not have multiple tagging. But, be that as it may, I'm pinging Rosiestep who created the project for guidance here. SusunW (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- You mean like these? Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly RockMagnetist. Only time categories are added is if there is a banner saying there are not any on the file. I also find it weird that Fyunck(click) says "hundreds of tennis articles" have been tagged. I have only processed maybe 3 new tennis files and added no categories to any of them. It's a mystery to me, as I don't look at anything but new creations or files with alerts. To my knowledge there have been zero AfDs we have been alterted on who were tennis players. SusunW (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- WikiProject banners add talk pages, not articles, to categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not just a question of "who cares." It's what is right. Many many times we have had to remove categories on tennis articles because of category bloat or overly generalized categories. This looks to be another one to me... at least enough to be discussed wiki-wide before adding to countless thousands of articles. Anyone who looks at category "WikiProject Women" trying to find the woman they want listed, may be dead before they read to the end of the list. To me that's ridiculous. I care because I edit thousands of tennis articles and I don't want frivolous categories being added with due process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I guess my question, and I am NOT trying to be flippant is why do you care? If it gives an article you have created more eyes, why is that a bad thing? If it helps clarify whether there is a gap in articles that cover men and women, isn't that a good thing, rather than repeated articles being written about the "gap" without accurate data? If it is helping new quality articles be created and improving those that are incomplete, why would that not be a plus? Aren't all say, biographies, tagged as biographies? Do you think that then makes that category too broad? The whole purpose of any project is to slice out a segment and work on only that segment. As was said earlier, if you want to create a WikiProject Men, define its purpose and go for it. Ours is pretty straightforward. It isn't in the least discriminatory nor saying don't create articles on men (or buildings, or dogs, or anything else you might wish to write about). This project is trying to quantify and improve the coverage on women. Very simple goal. SusunW (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Right here (and on the tagged pages). That's how WikiProjects work. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- But any category that tags every single women is far far too broad. That's like tagging every men's and women's article with project homo sapiens. That should not happen. Where was this audacious category tagging brought to the attention of the wikipedia community so I can read about it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) We are trying to determine whether the figures that say that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are women are accurate or not. In that vein, we are tagging articles about women as well as creating them under the various branches that go under the umbrella of this project (see front page). Women's sport is the umbrella part of this project which I have been tagging for athletes, but others may well be using WikiProject Women. The point is to be able to receive better notifications. If articles are being proposed for deletion, promoted, etc. The criteria is women or women's works. Pretty straightforward. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
In general I sympathise with the question about tagging. Though I feel this project is necessary, I am not convinced that tagging all women's biographies as female is particularly useful, especially since this is done on Wikidata anyway. Even subprojects like female artists or female tennisplayers are somewhat confusing to me, because what if you have a retired female tennisplayer who takes up photography or filmmaking and becomes an artist? Are we sure we want to do this for all female biographies? Maybe we do, but it has already been done on the German Wikipedia so maybe we should ask them how that is working for them before we try it here. Jane (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- But multiple tagging can be useful. I have no issue with tagging someone with wikiproject female tennis player and if they later take up photography also letting that project tag them with female photographer. It helps wikipedia and both projects. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a bit of an old hand regarding matters of tagging, ask @Dr. Blofeld: if you want confirmation, it is worth noting that WP:PROJSCOPE indicates that it is basically up to each individual project to determine what falls within or without its scope. I would grant that it might be possible for the WikiProject Women parameters to perhaps be added to the WikiProject Biography banner, if that were wanted, or, alternately, that the WikiProject Women banner could be adjusted like Template:WikiProject Christianity is to provide assessments both for the Women project and any more directly related subprojects. But, in general, if a project wants to place its banner on any talk page, and can presumably find a reasonable cause to do so, they are free to. If banners begin to take up too much space on the article talk page, there is always Template:WikiProjectBannerShell available then. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok that is the talk page tagging bit, but on German Wikipedia they also tag these biographies by adding "Frau" as a category on the wikipage itself. Do we really want that too? Jane (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here we have a remarkable number of extant subcategories of Category:Women, with 51 current direct subcategories and I have no idea how many more removed subcategories, although it looks to be about 200 or so minimum. Certainly adding the most appropriate categories, which probably don't include the women category itself very often, is probably reasonable. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Listing hundreds of thousands of articles on one page would be unworkable. Also see discussion of ghettoization below. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok that is the talk page tagging bit, but on German Wikipedia they also tag these biographies by adding "Frau" as a category on the wikipage itself. Do we really want that too? Jane (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a bit of an old hand regarding matters of tagging, ask @Dr. Blofeld: if you want confirmation, it is worth noting that WP:PROJSCOPE indicates that it is basically up to each individual project to determine what falls within or without its scope. I would grant that it might be possible for the WikiProject Women parameters to perhaps be added to the WikiProject Biography banner, if that were wanted, or, alternately, that the WikiProject Women banner could be adjusted like Template:WikiProject Christianity is to provide assessments both for the Women project and any more directly related subprojects. But, in general, if a project wants to place its banner on any talk page, and can presumably find a reasonable cause to do so, they are free to. If banners begin to take up too much space on the article talk page, there is always Template:WikiProjectBannerShell available then. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Back to tagging: we don't make clear recommendations for where to add {{WikiProject Women}}. We should probably encourage people to substitute tags for the more specific women-related projects, where possible - just a recommendation, not a firm rule, so the project can concentrate on neglected categories of women. Something could be said about that on the wikiproject page and in the documentation for {{WikiProject Women}}. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @RockMagnetist: Now that makes a bit of sense. Where you don't already have a tag such as "Wikiproject Women's sport" or "Wikiproject Women's History" (which we do on many many tennis articles), at least "Wikiproject Women" is a catchall that could be used when nothing else seems to fit well. If a new project comes along that would more narrowly define the subject in question, it could replace the added "Wikiproject Women" banner. This would be a good thing to follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There are some 3500 articles tagged. These include 229 that mention the word "tennis". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC).
Anybody interested in helping me get this up to GA next month? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck with that Dr. B. I haven't been very successful in getting people to help with GA. Still waiting for anyone to give input on Eloísa García Etchegoyhen and though Violeta Chamorro was nominated the first part of September, it's still hanging out there. My November is shaping up to be a bit crazed, so I cannot make any promises right now. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I know, but after the Bence article I thought it's probably best to let you work on them by yourself. I didn't want to tread on your toes with things like sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no earthly idea what that means Dr. Blofeld. It seems like some kind of statement about ownership, which is certainly not the case. I have zero amount of ownership of any article which has not been vandalized. I could care less what changes someone makes to an article as long as they are sourced. If you are referring to your manner of insistence on harv references, get over it. I certainly have. Rosie took the time to show me a simpler way without all the up down back and forth which I explained was a physical limitation. Had you taken the time to notice, all of my output since that file have been in harv references. I didn't help you with Sinatra because from the get go it was apparent there was going to be a drama fest. I don't do drama, nor hold grudges. If you are hanging on to some notion that there is a problem between us, you are mistaken. I have always had the utmost respect for your work and when I have a problem with your manner, I tell you. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think ownership is the problem at all. But I just thought it best to let you get on with it as you were doing a great job without me and didn't need me to check the article and interfering. I've been busy with the Sinatra article anyway. I can read Chamorro if you like within the next week?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld That'd be cool. Someone on an IP put a bunch of POV stuff in about the Sandinistas last night. Weird because she has been idle for years and the GA nomination has been sitting waiting for a reviewer for over a month. Anyway I removed them and I hope that doesn't qualify as "destabilized" so that she is now ineligible. SusunW (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think ownership is the problem at all. But I just thought it best to let you get on with it as you were doing a great job without me and didn't need me to check the article and interfering. I've been busy with the Sinatra article anyway. I can read Chamorro if you like within the next week?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have no earthly idea what that means Dr. Blofeld. It seems like some kind of statement about ownership, which is certainly not the case. I have zero amount of ownership of any article which has not been vandalized. I could care less what changes someone makes to an article as long as they are sourced. If you are referring to your manner of insistence on harv references, get over it. I certainly have. Rosie took the time to show me a simpler way without all the up down back and forth which I explained was a physical limitation. Had you taken the time to notice, all of my output since that file have been in harv references. I didn't help you with Sinatra because from the get go it was apparent there was going to be a drama fest. I don't do drama, nor hold grudges. If you are hanging on to some notion that there is a problem between us, you are mistaken. I have always had the utmost respect for your work and when I have a problem with your manner, I tell you. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I know, but after the Bence article I thought it's probably best to let you work on them by yourself. I didn't want to tread on your toes with things like sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck with that Dr. B. I haven't been very successful in getting people to help with GA. Still waiting for anyone to give input on Eloísa García Etchegoyhen and though Violeta Chamorro was nominated the first part of September, it's still hanging out there. My November is shaping up to be a bit crazed, so I cannot make any promises right now. SusunW (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
My new project [1]. You can pick any Golden Hollywood actress bio you want and order books from Amazon under it. Core articles on some of the top actresses.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The wikipedia Signpost zeroes in on the gender gap
This week the Signpost published three articles relating to the gender gap:
- Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching
- "Wikipedia's hostility to women"
- One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus Ottawahitech (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Women stubs
I don't remember ever seeing any kind of stubs relating to women on Wikipedia. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- hey @Ottawahitech: There are only two sets that I know of {{Women-hist-stub}} which links here Category:Women's history stubs and {{feminism-activist-stub}} which links here Category:Women's rights activist stubs. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could propose one at WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I thought they did away with stub proposals a while ago, but must admit I have not been paying much attention recently to this area of Wikipedia. Another thing to add to my ever growing to-do list, sigh... :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The one they did away with was WP:SFD - deletion of stub templates is now handled at WP:CFD, along with deletion of stub cats. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I thought they did away with stub proposals a while ago, but must admit I have not been paying much attention recently to this area of Wikipedia. Another thing to add to my ever growing to-do list, sigh... :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- hey @SusunW: I checked some of the stubs in the categories you provided and it appears to me that some of these articles are no longer stubs. For example: Joan Acker, Jennie Adamson and Wanda Alston. Just wondering if anyone is looking after these categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't babysit them, that's for sure. I personally update a minimum of 10 articles from stub to at least start class or higher each month. Between that, maintaining the women metrics with Rosie and writing another 20-30 start class or above articles per month, I've got about all I can have on my plate. If you want to clean them up, it'd be fantastic. Joan Acker is still a stub, though, as has only 476 char, clearly not 1500 minimum I use for start class. Adamson is over 1500 chars so apparently when BrownHairedGirl did the 2014 expansion she did not remove the stub tags, that can clearly be done by anyone. Same with Altson. Looks like it exceeded 1500 chars with 21changs 2014 expansion. SusunW (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- You could propose one at WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Helping with stubs
I think I know how you feel, SusunW. There is definitely no lack of work required around here, LOL. I would like to help (when I can), but am not sure how you find out how many chars an article has. I am assuming that is the only criteria used to determine id an article is still a stub? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Please ping me
- Ottawahitech I run the DYK scanner on it. You have to install it. Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck#Using DYKcheck if you have a username. Then it appears as an item on your menu guide to the left. And thank you! That would be GREAT! I check chars, add {{authority control}} and make sure that there is a banner relating women on the talk page {{WikiProject Women}} if born after 1950 or {{WikiProject Women's History}} if born before 1950. I do not input those if there is a WikiProject for Women scientist, artist, sport, etc. already there. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Stubs are not determined purely by character count. See WP:STUB and also WP:CL-RULE. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose64 I didn't actually realize there was a rule, but I guess I should have since Wikipedia is inundated with rules. I assumed that one would first read the article to see if the coverage was adequate for the subject and that it was sourced before one would remove any tags, including stub tags. How do you all learn where all these rules are? No, don't tell me, that was rhetorical. If I think a situation is iffy, I ask a more experienced editor, but common sense seems to me to be the best guide. I did enjoy reading the Croughton-London rule, seems very sensible. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- When I do something that isn't quite right, somebody will hopefully point me at a doc that shows the correct way. I remember some of them, and pass the advice along. Plenty of time (like six years unemployment) helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redrose64 I love that. Yes, I agree that many of us have mentors on here that have helped tremendously. I can never find documents here though I am a crackerjack researcher off-Wikipedia. I am not now or ever will be good at the technical aspects and for that, I am very grateful for those who have those skills. :) SusunW (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Ottawahitech! I use this tool for character count. Hope it helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Redrose64 I love that. Yes, I agree that many of us have mentors on here that have helped tremendously. I can never find documents here though I am a crackerjack researcher off-Wikipedia. I am not now or ever will be good at the technical aspects and for that, I am very grateful for those who have those skills. :) SusunW (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- When I do something that isn't quite right, somebody will hopefully point me at a doc that shows the correct way. I remember some of them, and pass the advice along. Plenty of time (like six years unemployment) helps. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose64 I didn't actually realize there was a rule, but I guess I should have since Wikipedia is inundated with rules. I assumed that one would first read the article to see if the coverage was adequate for the subject and that it was sourced before one would remove any tags, including stub tags. How do you all learn where all these rules are? No, don't tell me, that was rhetorical. If I think a situation is iffy, I ask a more experienced editor, but common sense seems to me to be the best guide. I did enjoy reading the Croughton-London rule, seems very sensible. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Stubs are not determined purely by character count. See WP:STUB and also WP:CL-RULE. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you user:Rosiestep, I was hoping for a simple char counter. Now that I have it, may I ask two more questions:
- 1. I assume that to use his tool one must cut&paste the text into the box under the text “Example” then press Calculate Characters and the result appears to the right? — not sure what to use the box under “Directions:” for.
- 2. If my assumption in #1 is correct, then the next question is what part of an article does one cut&paste — should the introduction, table of contents, references, external links, categories, etc. be copy&pasted as well as the rest of the article when counting the number of characters?
- Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC) thanks for pinging me
- Only the actual body text and lede counts. No info box, no bullet points, no table of contents. The DYK check looks complicated, but it isn't. If I can install it anyone can. And it automatically excludes all the stuff it needs to exclude. Just press the link above, copy the one line, hit the link that says your skin, paste the line and hit enter. Then refresh and you should see the dyk check on the left side. Fingers crossed that works for you, but you can use Rosie's box too, just have to work around the stuff you must exclude. SusunW (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If you run WP:AWB over these categories it will de-stub any that meet it's fairly conservative requirements. I would do it myself but... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
15.5%
It would be helpful if the tag had a biography parameter (female biography = yes) as a way of keeping track. Someone said wikidata is doing this, but does anyone here know how? Looking at some women's bios I've worked on, there's nothing in the infoboxes, categories, wikiproject templates or other metadata to signal that they're women.
I've therefore wondered how we know that, for example, only 15.5 percent of our 1,445,021 biographies were of women as of January 2015. This source references DBPedia, which compiles its information from metadata in infoboxes, categories, etc, but given that those often don't signal that subjects are women, I'm puzzled. Sarah (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Sarah: yes, that's where the 15.5 percent comes from.
- All: It would be better if there were other independent sources, statistics, etc. which would either validate or invalidate the DPedia results. It's my understanding that the Wikipedia Gendergap Index (WIGI) -- driven by Wikidata metadata -- will be able to provide weekly statistics once it's up and running. We have to remember, thought, that Wikidata metadata does not account for all articles on English Wikipedia, and does not include gender values for all biographies. It's disconcerting to say that in 2015Q4, we aren't generating routine gender-based statistical reports across all language Wikipedias. Reliance on 2014 DPedia metadata from infoboxes, categories, etc. is suboptimal. Is our content gender gap work making a statistical difference? Are there other reliable sources which correlate with or dispute the 15.5 percent? When will WIGI Beta be up and running? Is there another option to running these reports aside from WIGI? I don't know. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rosie. I can't offhand think of an infobox that includes gender. The "deghettoization" process appears to have led to the loss of female categories. And the project tags I've looked at (including WikiProject Women) don't include whether an article is about a woman. So where are WBPedia, the Wikipedia Gendergap Index and Wikidata getting their data about women from? Sarah (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Sarah: I assume that the person who creates the Wikidata entry looks at the Wikipedia article and makes a decision from this grouping Wikidata: a human/fictional character /man/woman/intersex/transgender male/transgender female /duo options. But I'm not a Wikidata expert so, again, this is an assumption and I could be way off. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rosie, I've asked the question on Wikidata. Sarah (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
See d:User:Jane023/Gendergap report. I will update this occasionally based on wikidata query. Jane (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science
| You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
|---|---|
 
| |
Ghettoization
Jane broached the subject of putting each category in Category:Women, a practice that the German wikipedia has adopted. This reminded me of an interesting discussion at Women scientists, now archived, where Obi-Wan Kenobi introduced the concept of ghettoization, the idea being that gender should be one of the last characteristics that should be applied in categorization. For example, women scientists should be classified as scientists first; otherwise they are made out to be a special kind of scientist instead of a scientist who happens to be a woman. See a more extensive discussion at Women's categories survive many deletions?. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the solution – "deghettoizing" – was to make women disappear. We should highlight female historians, etc, but do for men what we do for women, rather than make women invisible – for example, Category:Female novelists (which for some reason is called Category:Women novelists) and Category:Male novelists. More discussion (from 2014) here. Sarah (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Ghettoization remains a problem (not just for biographies). I don't think this is spelled out anywhere, but that is probably because by the time a Wikipedian has even noticed categories, that person has already figured out that they are a bit complex. We probably should talk about why we even want to make this countable on Wikipedia (I mean the only reason you have the female categories is so you can count them up - there is no real need for it on the page itself, where gendered pronouns make it clear in any case). Theoretically, Wikidata removes this need to categorize these things, no? Jane (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jane, it's interesting to look at which female philosophers we have articles on. Unfortunately, we seem to have no male philosophers, only philosophers. Sarah (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a strictly personal opinion, and that of a project outsider at that, my own preferred way to handle this might be based on making for the easiest access to sources. If someone is notable enough as a "scientist" of whatever sort to be included in a biographical dictionary of scientists, there would be no particular reason for adding the "female" to the category. If someone is perhaps included at useful length in only reference works dealing with "female" scientists or whatever, then the inclusion of the work in the category might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- It could be argued that gender is always a defining characteristic of a person because, if the name doesn't settle the gender, there is bound to be a pronoun that will. From that point of view, every biographical category should be separated into male and female. The ghettoization question would be - at what level? Should it be Male philosophers, Male Italian philosophers, or Male 21st-century Italian philosophers? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- As a strictly personal opinion, and that of a project outsider at that, my own preferred way to handle this might be based on making for the easiest access to sources. If someone is notable enough as a "scientist" of whatever sort to be included in a biographical dictionary of scientists, there would be no particular reason for adding the "female" to the category. If someone is perhaps included at useful length in only reference works dealing with "female" scientists or whatever, then the inclusion of the work in the category might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jane, it's interesting to look at which female philosophers we have articles on. Unfortunately, we seem to have no male philosophers, only philosophers. Sarah (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- It should be male philosophers and female philosophers, then people can categorize further if they want to. The problem with categories on WP, and the reason it's often so hard to find things, is that we're prevented from placing names in multiple cats. If a "male Italian philosophers who specialize in Kant" cat exists, we're stopped from also placing that name in "male philosophers." The result is that our category system is less useful than it might be. Sarah (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's tricky. overcategorization can be a problem, with some bios seemingly ending up in every possible combination of categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- It should be male philosophers and female philosophers, then people can categorize further if they want to. The problem with categories on WP, and the reason it's often so hard to find things, is that we're prevented from placing names in multiple cats. If a "male Italian philosophers who specialize in Kant" cat exists, we're stopped from also placing that name in "male philosophers." The result is that our category system is less useful than it might be. Sarah (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- A different point of view would be that a person's gender, per se, is generally not something they are notable for. And, as this NY Times article demonstrates, putting women in a separate category can be a bad idea. Some possible solutions:
- Have a category for men whenever there is one for women.
- Always have women in the parent category as well as the women-specific category.
- Make gender a hidden category or restrict it to wikidata.
- The appropriate solution may depend on what people actually use categories for. I mostly use them when I'm acting as an editor; when I want information on a subject, I start with Google. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- A different point of view would be that a person's gender, per se, is generally not something they are notable for. And, as this NY Times article demonstrates, putting women in a separate category can be a bad idea. Some possible solutions:
- I can't see why over-categorization would ever be a problem. Being able to find something in lots of different categories makes it easier to find, and easier to count. Re: the notablility point, whether someone is notable for X needn't be the point of a category. A notable photographer might also be a non-notable academic historian; it's fine to place her in both cats. But yes, the point is that having female X and male X categories would be less sexist than the current situation, where "male" is viewed as the default. Sarah (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the place to discuss whether overcategorization can be a problem - there's an editing guideline for that (I recommend reading the lead). RockMagnetist(talk) 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't see why over-categorization would ever be a problem. Being able to find something in lots of different categories makes it easier to find, and easier to count. Re: the notablility point, whether someone is notable for X needn't be the point of a category. A notable photographer might also be a non-notable academic historian; it's fine to place her in both cats. But yes, the point is that having female X and male X categories would be less sexist than the current situation, where "male" is viewed as the default. Sarah (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- I cringe every time I see editors calling women “females”, but I won’t belabour the point here.
- As far as the topic of this thread user:Gobonobo should get a wp:barnstar for putting the wp:non-diffusing subcategory banner on many/most women categories. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- And some cringe at those who get upset with others for using terms such as men, male, women, female, ladies, etc... There are more important things to worry about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Early Wikipedians I think, had an idealized view that gender was irrelevant, hence we had for many years no male/female subcats. However some of these, notably Women US senators (or words to that effect) were continuously re-created.
- American Novelists was sub-catted by male and women (contrary to the current Atlantic article) but also sub-catted by century.
- Arguably if we had a gender marker (ideally a cat) on every biography page, then we could generate m/f subcats using catintersect whenever we wanted them.
- One of the reasons that women get subcatted sometimes is that the study of (for example) women writers is a thing, far more than the study of men writers.[2]
- Incidentally the m/f split of American novelists is 4490/3033/3 which would have been hard to find without the gender sub-cats.
- The "non-diffusing" templates are a labour of love, sadly the term is wrong, it should be "non-diffused" (diffusing categories were traditionally those that became empty through diffusion to sub cats) and it is somewhat misleading in the case of American novelists.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
- Whatever else happens, the main categories must remain NON-DIFFUSED, lest women be relegated to "separate but equal" status. If people want to create "men and women" (or male and female, but for God's sake, not "men and females" - we aren't breeding stock!) as parallel categories, I won't kick. I have mixed feelings about a separate category for women alone; it makes the articles on women easier to find, so that's a plus, but it's also troll bait for those who want to diffuse all the women into a ghetto... Mulling... Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Ghettoization & works by women
I am increasingly interested in the potential of creating/improving articles related to "works by women", the categories associated with those works, such as {{cl|Category:Literature by women}}, how this area of WP:WikiProject Women writers might grow, and how it might be perceived by academics. I can't find similar cats ("Art by women") in art categories, perhaps because of a fear of ghettoization? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Redundant tagging?
Dimadick (talk · contribs) has been adding {{WikiProject Women}} to lots of talk pages, but in some cases I think it's redundant. Consider for example this edit - the page already had a {{WikiProject Women writers}}, I don't think that it needs both. What is this WikiProject's view? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is a loooooooong discussion about it above. The project has always been of the bent that if one of the tags of the umbrella group is present, the others don't need to be there, unless it fits 2, for example, women scientists and women writers might both apply, but one would not need to add then, women. Dr. Blofeld thinks all articles should just be tagged with {{WikiProject Women}} and then a sub-project affixed. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes like WP:Women|Writers=yes I'd opt for. Agree on too many templates being cluttered. John Carter I think was going to set up all the sub parameters. Rosiestep's call primarily on whether we're OK on merging banners as WP:Women writers is still a separate project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind the redundant talkpage templates as some people only keep an eye on one Wikiproject, e.g. Women writers, Women scientists, or Women. There's redundancy on Jane Austen's talkpage, and I'm fine with it. Adding @Keilana and Missvain: as they may have alternate viewpoints. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's one or the other (and not every woman gets added to WP Women's history, either). THere are too many darn WikiProjects after all :) Missvain (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not picky about templates or whatever. I'm happy with any solution as long as we're not losing track of articles. Keilana (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Missvain: and others? Should we start merging some of the wikiprojects under the WP:Women one like the Women in Red one then? As Ipigott said it shouldn't be rushed and existing projects respects but we are seeing a lot of redundancy and project template clutter. As long as they remain fully functional and don't scare off existing editors associated with them we should be OK. Rosiestep What do you think about the Women writers project, separate or merge into here? I know Ipigott wasn't keen on the idea originally, I'll accept whatever people want here. Of course we can merge the project tag templates all into WP:Women umbrella without merging any wiki projects yet but I think over time it would be the best thing to do. We do have to respect those who feel more associated with history or whatever than women in general and might not want to merge though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to press my point once more. When we are dealing with a specific area of interest (such as the current Women in Science), I find it helps a lot to add a more specific template (here WP:Women scientists) to the talk pages of new articles rather than simply WP:Women with some kind of additional task force. As Megalibrarygirl has pointed out, it takes a fair amount of additional time and troube to add the task force data with importance criteria to each new article. Keeping the separate projects also makes it easier to monitor progress, not just on new articles but also on work requiring enhancement. I tend to agree with Missvain that there are too many darned Wikiprojects anyway but some of those about women are among the most active for the time being. One area in which there are a huge number of new articles every month is WP:Women's sports which has about 25,000 articles (of which about half are stubs). I don't think that project would benefit very much from becoming part of WP:Women. WP:Women's history and WP:Writers have almost as many (but far fewer stubs) and have a close and increasingly well-established following. In my opinion, they will make more progress individually than as part of a conglomerate. On the other hand, small WikiProjects such as WP:Health, WP:Women of psychology, WP:Women in technology and WP:Women in warfare and the military are so small and inactive that they might well benefit from the WP:Women umbrella. WP:Women artists is a borderline case. It is relatively new and seems to have considerable potential. If Women in Art was to be promoted by Women in Red or in connection with next year's Women's History Month, I think it will expand considerably. It would be interesting to hear the views of some of our more active contributors on the whole issue, for example @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, 97198, Alafarge, Yoninah, and Big iron:.--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my perspective is... who cares if there are extra tags on a talk page, at least someone cares enough to try to categorize something. Also more projects mean more eyes. Ideally it's great if you can get people to categorize correctly, but communicating that effectively with no hurt feelings seems important. And I'd concur with Ipigott about keeping tags as simple as possible. Make it easy for folks to participate and they will. Make it fun and welcoming and they will stay. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, WikiProject Women writers is doing well as a stand-alone project so I would not support merging it with WikiProject Women at this time. I think the smaller or less-active women's projects might be better suited for merging discussions. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion about whether there are too many WikiProjects, or which ones might usefully be merged due to inactivity. I do agree strongly with Megalibrarygirl that in general it's a good idea to keep things easy and encourage anyone who cares enough to make tags; and most newer Talk pages are bare rather than cluttered in any case. Slightly off topic, I will also admit that I am doubtful about the value of visible 'importance' tagging, since while it may help WikiProject editors prioritize their to-do lists, 'low-importance' tagging (very common) sends a rather strongly negative message about the page in general to readers. Sure, only some fraction of readers ever see a Talk page, but those who do might come away with a general sense that a page is barely worth noticing, when technically it is only a case of the page not being of high importance to a specific WikiProject. I see it as a case of the message overwhelming the frame.Alafarge (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- What Megalibrarygirl said. I see no harm coming from additional WP being added though I typically do not add duplicate projects that fall under this umbrella. No drama, not anything to get worked up over. If a project is active, its members should decide whether or not they want to merge. For me, WP Women works because I have not gotten much response from some of the other projects when I posted there. This is a more active group and if one puts a hand up, someone will answer. That's what I want. Things to be easy, conducive to producing good content, and a positive atmosphere. And yes, Alafarge I have expressed the same. You are either notable or you are not. If you are notable enough to have a page, it is ridiculous to then say you are low importance. I see no reason for that marker to be there and rarely answer it. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I guess my perspective is... who cares if there are extra tags on a talk page, at least someone cares enough to try to categorize something. Also more projects mean more eyes. Ideally it's great if you can get people to categorize correctly, but communicating that effectively with no hurt feelings seems important. And I'd concur with Ipigott about keeping tags as simple as possible. Make it easy for folks to participate and they will. Make it fun and welcoming and they will stay. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to press my point once more. When we are dealing with a specific area of interest (such as the current Women in Science), I find it helps a lot to add a more specific template (here WP:Women scientists) to the talk pages of new articles rather than simply WP:Women with some kind of additional task force. As Megalibrarygirl has pointed out, it takes a fair amount of additional time and troube to add the task force data with importance criteria to each new article. Keeping the separate projects also makes it easier to monitor progress, not just on new articles but also on work requiring enhancement. I tend to agree with Missvain that there are too many darned Wikiprojects anyway but some of those about women are among the most active for the time being. One area in which there are a huge number of new articles every month is WP:Women's sports which has about 25,000 articles (of which about half are stubs). I don't think that project would benefit very much from becoming part of WP:Women. WP:Women's history and WP:Writers have almost as many (but far fewer stubs) and have a close and increasingly well-established following. In my opinion, they will make more progress individually than as part of a conglomerate. On the other hand, small WikiProjects such as WP:Health, WP:Women of psychology, WP:Women in technology and WP:Women in warfare and the military are so small and inactive that they might well benefit from the WP:Women umbrella. WP:Women artists is a borderline case. It is relatively new and seems to have considerable potential. If Women in Art was to be promoted by Women in Red or in connection with next year's Women's History Month, I think it will expand considerably. It would be interesting to hear the views of some of our more active contributors on the whole issue, for example @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, 97198, Alafarge, Yoninah, and Big iron:.--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Missvain: and others? Should we start merging some of the wikiprojects under the WP:Women one like the Women in Red one then? As Ipigott said it shouldn't be rushed and existing projects respects but we are seeing a lot of redundancy and project template clutter. As long as they remain fully functional and don't scare off existing editors associated with them we should be OK. Rosiestep What do you think about the Women writers project, separate or merge into here? I know Ipigott wasn't keen on the idea originally, I'll accept whatever people want here. Of course we can merge the project tag templates all into WP:Women umbrella without merging any wiki projects yet but I think over time it would be the best thing to do. We do have to respect those who feel more associated with history or whatever than women in general and might not want to merge though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not picky about templates or whatever. I'm happy with any solution as long as we're not losing track of articles. Keilana (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's one or the other (and not every woman gets added to WP Women's history, either). THere are too many darn WikiProjects after all :) Missvain (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind the redundant talkpage templates as some people only keep an eye on one Wikiproject, e.g. Women writers, Women scientists, or Women. There's redundancy on Jane Austen's talkpage, and I'm fine with it. Adding @Keilana and Missvain: as they may have alternate viewpoints. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes like WP:Women|Writers=yes I'd opt for. Agree on too many templates being cluttered. John Carter I think was going to set up all the sub parameters. Rosiestep's call primarily on whether we're OK on merging banners as WP:Women writers is still a separate project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is a loooooooong discussion about it above. The project has always been of the bent that if one of the tags of the umbrella group is present, the others don't need to be there, unless it fits 2, for example, women scientists and women writers might both apply, but one would not need to add then, women. Dr. Blofeld thinks all articles should just be tagged with {{WikiProject Women}} and then a sub-project affixed. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Importance rating
Regarding importance/priority tagging, I've found that the best way to do that is to, basically, find the best and most comprehensive reference source regarding the project's scope, if there is one, and say that anything in that reference source which has either a separate article or constitutes an unusually long subarticle is of "Top" importance to that project. Basically, indicating that the project wants to cover everything that the best extant reference work on the subject does. So, as a sort of hypothetical unrelated case:
- Augustine of Hippo - Top importance to Christianity, because he both has an article in the top relevant reference source and it is even one of the longer ones
- Philosophy of Augustine of Hippo - an article we should have, describing his thought, which is the most important aspect of his notability, reasonably "High" importance
- City of God (book) - Maybe High, maybe Mid, depending on how much separate material it has that can't be included in the above
- Harmony of the Gospels (Augustine) - probably Low importance, as it is a work I've never actually heard of.
- City of God (book) - Maybe High, maybe Mid, depending on how much separate material it has that can't be included in the above
- Philosophy of Augustine of Hippo - an article we should have, describing his thought, which is the most important aspect of his notability, reasonably "High" importance
Some will complain that this sort of structure overbalances to the higher importance ratings. I tend to myself think it the more reasonable, however, because there are a huge number of topics of sufficient notability to have pages, many many more than we now have. But the ones we do have at this point are probably the most important, so the proportion of the high importance articles at this time will probably be off due to the lack of existence of a lot of the lower importance articles yet. For those articles which are not included in the main reference, but in more focused reference work, they would probably fall in the same sort of "degree of spinout" orderings as above for that project. Having said that, if it has an individual project, which itself has a similar comprehensive reference work, for that project the same sort of arrangement as the above could be used. Then, maybe drop the assessments for the broader project according to the number of spinout steps the articles are removed from the main article. So, if the main article is a High, and a subarticle is a Mid to the more focused project, it would be a Low to the broader project, subtracting two levels from the main article for the broader project just like it did for the more focused project. The Top importance articles for the child project other than the main article itself would probably be counted as one step lower than the main article by the broader project. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about overbalancing to higher priorities. Wikipedia-wide, top-importance articles are 1% and high-importance articles 3% of the total. So far, this project has just two articles rated top-priority - Woman and Cate Blanchett (say what?). RockMagnetist(talk) 17:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the value of the rating system is in identifying the priorities for a project. What are the core articles for this project? One tool that I have found helpful in other projects is a list of articles by their "selection score", which is a tool the Version 1.0 team use to select articles for releases (see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Article selection). The list for this project is certainly revealing, at least as a view of our culture or what people in the project are tagging: the vast majority of the articles with top scores are about entertainers (although Elizabeth II, with about 3 million views per year, comes out on top). Woman places no. 22 and aside from Girls Aloud is the only non-biographical article in the top 250. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sad commentary on the societal addiction to celebrity. I for one, will probably continue not to rank them in importance as other than Elizabeth II and a few others the first 250 people on that list are not people who have made significant change to our world or made humanity a better place. It will be my gesture toward non-ownership. Someone else can mark them and feed into the cultural celebrity worship syndrome, but I will not. SMDH at a world where Emily Dickinson doesn't even make the top 20 and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, Emmeline Pankhurst, Harriet Tubman, Valentina Tereshkova, Michelle Bachelet and so many others did not even make the list. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- On the other hand, you could rate some of those women top priority to redress the balance. And I wouldn't feel too bad about their treatment - between them they have 4 FA's, 2 GA's and 2B-class articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sad commentary on the societal addiction to celebrity. I for one, will probably continue not to rank them in importance as other than Elizabeth II and a few others the first 250 people on that list are not people who have made significant change to our world or made humanity a better place. It will be my gesture toward non-ownership. Someone else can mark them and feed into the cultural celebrity worship syndrome, but I will not. SMDH at a world where Emily Dickinson doesn't even make the top 20 and the likes of Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, Emmeline Pankhurst, Harriet Tubman, Valentina Tereshkova, Michelle Bachelet and so many others did not even make the list. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Project merging/independence
Shall we strictly keep this women project as an umbrella and keep the very active sub projects separate? I honestly don't mind. Initially I was keen to merge but that was until I've seen how things are running here and the Women in red in organization really does seem to operate by itself. I do think for tagging having them under one template would be better to avoid clutter, but in terms of project organization perhaps we're better off keeping them separate. Did we make a mistake merging Women in Red? WikiProject Women/Women in red is a bit of a mouthful and it isn't great for navigation. Whatever makes things easiest for active editors is the most important thing. Shall we move it back? I think we need some discussion on how to deal with this. It makes sense having active wikiprojects running separately but the lesser/inactive projects not so much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we just leave things as they are. As my husband says the two rules of maintenance, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it and if it is you can't tear it up" apply here. WIR is working, it is active and we work around the navigational issues. As for WP notices, I really do not understand what the big deal is. People go to the talk page to discuss the article. I'm betting 99% do not even look at what WP are on the page. If 100 WP want to be alerted about a particular page, who cares? Just my take. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to create a "sister tree" of related projects that is easy to find and use as a navigational tool. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- The thing is if WP:Women writers is being kept independent it makes little sense to have WP:Women in red, probably even more active, merged in here. What do Rosiestep and Ipigott think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- As SusunW points out the only real problem is navigation. Many of the WiR page designations start with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/... which brings people back to WP:Women rather than WP:Women in Red. This is partly a result of the Project X setup on Women in Red. I would prefer to be able to handle new pages within Women in Red itself if they really depend first and foremost on that project, for example in the case of editathons or announcements. On the other hand, I think it really helps to have all the WikiProjects on Women accessible from the top of the main page of each of the projects, even if some are far more active than others. Another advantage of the relationship with WP Women is that it offers opportunities for announcing featured content, especially GAs and FAs which are outside the scope of Women in Red. It's not clear to me at the moment what will happen if Project X does not receive financial support for the next six months and even if it does, what will happen after that. I think it would be far easier for us all if we could change what needs to be changed ourselves rather than hoping Harej will respond to calls for assistance. But by and large things seem to be working pretty well as they are - so perhaps we should just keep to the status quo for a few months more.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find the navigation for Women in Red difficult since it merged with WikiProject Women, just as Ipigott describes. Subpage naming (we're developing a lot of them and this will probably expand significantly within WiR's first year), navigation, links on Invites/Thankyous, are also issues. I find it awkward to speak about WiR as a department/task force of Women with institutions (Smithsonian, Guggenheim, NYAS), organizations (Art+Feminism, WikiEdu), Chapters, at conferences, and so on, so I don't. Independence would make sense for these reasons, but this isn't my decision alone to make; it has to be consensus driven. Montanabw, can you expand/clarlify on the "sister tree" idea? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like the Women/Women repetition in the title primarily, it wouldn't be so bad if it was WP:Women/Missing articles but it isn't. BTW can somebody archive a lot of this page it's 173kb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I find the navigation for Women in Red difficult since it merged with WikiProject Women, just as Ipigott describes. Subpage naming (we're developing a lot of them and this will probably expand significantly within WiR's first year), navigation, links on Invites/Thankyous, are also issues. I find it awkward to speak about WiR as a department/task force of Women with institutions (Smithsonian, Guggenheim, NYAS), organizations (Art+Feminism, WikiEdu), Chapters, at conferences, and so on, so I don't. Independence would make sense for these reasons, but this isn't my decision alone to make; it has to be consensus driven. Montanabw, can you expand/clarlify on the "sister tree" idea? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think much of the confusion can be ascribed to the summer meeting in Mexico when Project X appeared to be a great new option for Women in Red. I certainly agree that there was considerable support initially for this option but I am not too sure whether the initial enthusiasm has lasted. I have posted some concerns on the project's renewal page. If anyone disagrees with my comments or has other observations on continued support of the project, please post here or there.--Ipigott (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The "sister tree" concept is sort of like the interaction between (Of course you know there's a horse connection here) WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Equine, WikiProject Horse Racing and WikiProject Veterinary medicine; they have a long of overlap but also stuff where they don't. See the "Parentage" tree we created here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Equine#Parentage. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I like Women in Red. It's the first WikiProject that has truly made me feel like I'm part of a group. I know we don't always agree, but we are able to talk, seek opinions and grow together. I'm not sure if that's an aspect of the people here, the way the project is set up or a little of both. I think the navigation is ok for WiR and WP Women. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: ok, got it, and yup, WiR is like that: there's parentage under more than one Wikiproject (Women and Biography), and there are daughter and sister projects, such as WikiProject Intertranswiki, and so on. I'd like to split WiR from Women. I'm unclear if there is support. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rosiestep I'm kinda exactly where I was last time. I really don't care how it is organized as long as it is easy to navigate and the atmosphere continues to remain positive. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- WiR to me seems to be a bit more natural fit with WP:MEA anyway, doesn't it? I personally would love to see that second project a lot more active than it is. Maybe, on that basis, it might be best as either a subproject of MEA, or maybe as a separate entity acknowledging both as "parent" projects. Also, FWIW, if they haven't already been gone through, I have a feeling that at least some of the missing articles in the pages at Category:WikiProject prospectuses are probably potentially eligible for WiR work, and I have at least a few other such pages in various stages of development, and I tend to think some of them are going to have some relevant articles as well. If anyone wanted to go through them, of course. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rosiestep I'm kinda exactly where I was last time. I really don't care how it is organized as long as it is easy to navigate and the atmosphere continues to remain positive. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: ok, got it, and yup, WiR is like that: there's parentage under more than one Wikiproject (Women and Biography), and there are daughter and sister projects, such as WikiProject Intertranswiki, and so on. I'd like to split WiR from Women. I'm unclear if there is support. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
at AFD
Articles for deletion/Nancy Cruickshank — Maile (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think we are okay with her. See comments. SusunW (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Constance M. Rockosi one of the scientists on our list article was just created. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Woot! Got this one handled and withdrawn. Clear case of meeting academic. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your !vote on Articles for deletion/Nancy Cruickshank, SusunW. In trying to flesh out her biography, I resorted to interviews which didn't pass muster with other editors, but The Telegraph and The Guardian refs certainly prove GNG.
- I do see a problem with Constance M. Rockosi, though. It is all based on primary sources, and without better sourcing to show notability, it does not pass WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The "Universe Today" article is definitely not a primary source and shows she heads part of that project. My goal was to give the new creator time to develop the article. Literally, it was nominated within hours of creation. The dissertation which shows she is chair of the department, is a primary source, but not created for her benefit in any way. And ... it gives information that the creator can use to search for more documents. I'm still working on metrics, but will try to put in more research on her later. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Woot! Got this one handled and withdrawn. Clear case of meeting academic. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- This thread certainly brings home all the gender bias talk page threads across Wikipedia that claim new articles about accomplished women are more likely to be tagged for deletion as not notable. And we don't need to drag that out here, but classic cases right here. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Request for AfD input for Satu Tuomisto
Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satu Tuomisto. The AfD has been open for two weeks with no input. Thank you. JbhTalk 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ipigott can you help with this one? There is a Finnish article on someone with this name, but I do not even think they are the same person. At least reading the two articles I cannot tie A to B. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- SusunW There is no doubt about who this person is. I've started to expand the article and will continue tomorrow. She is obviously notable and her dance shows have been performed in several countries. It's all too easy to say a person is not notable when a Google search in English doesn't provide much info. There's lots more in Finnish.--Ipigott (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ipigott Thank you Ian. With the few sources I could find from here, she appeared to have some notability. I just wasn't sure if I could separate out the sources of what appeared to be two different people. I certainly get the bias toward English sourcing. It is indeed frustrating. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- SusunW There is no doubt about who this person is. I've started to expand the article and will continue tomorrow. She is obviously notable and her dance shows have been performed in several countries. It's all too easy to say a person is not notable when a Google search in English doesn't provide much info. There's lots more in Finnish.--Ipigott (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ipigott can you help with this one? There is a Finnish article on someone with this name, but I do not even think they are the same person. At least reading the two articles I cannot tie A to B. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
TAFI for Allegra Versace
The article about Allegra Versace which is part of this Wikiproject is this weeks TAFI article. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
ITN to watch
Michelle_Payne#Melbourne_Cup_win. On main page in ITN First woman jockey to win the Melbourne Cup. Will need vandal patrol, particularly because of her post-race comment, "I want to say to everyone else, get stuffed, because women can do anything and we can beat the world." Already some minor debate at the talk page about keeping the quote in the article (I say YES!). Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am woman, hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore!! and Oh yes, I am wise / But it's wisdom born of pain / Yes, I've paid the price / But look how much I gained.. And we thank you Helen Reddy! However...having quoted that, I also believe we must employ a more neutral approach to maintain compliance with NPOV in the encyclopedia. But then again, it's a quote by Michelle Payne, it's properly cited, and it's not stated in WP voice; therefore, it should not be controversial. 😊Atsme📞📧 16:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Women's football/soccer player article up for deletion
The article about Australian player Jessica Humble has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to join the discussion at:
Hmlarson (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
To watch and possible improvement
Tossed a drive-by POV tag on Cult of Domesticity, the article would benefit from some work, but it's a standard treatement of the topic. Tagger was a redlink and no discussion opened on the topic in two months and the edit history tells all. Might be a good article for the project to watchlist and look to adding some additional scholarly sources and perhaps a more "Cliff's Notes" intro so that readers who have never heard of the concept can get a better summary. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Montanabw, I've watchlisted it. The "marker" has made 15 edits in almost 2 years, all to right something someone else did "wrong". *sigh* SusunW (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Women investors has been nominated for deletion
FYI Category:Women investors has been nominated for deletion:
Nominator's rationale: As I noted in the Afd of List of women investors, there's no glass ceiling for investing. If you have money, it doesn't make any difference whether you're a woman, a dwarf, a redhead or a member of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Does no one do WP:BEFORE? On any subject? I get over 154,000,000 results on just the term "women investors". Women's strategies for investing in themselves (money managing) and investing in other women (venture capitalism) are so different from men's practices that they have repeatedly been studied. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- (with sarcasm) obviously we live in a post-racist sexist world so no glass ceiling. (Sarcasm off) all articles seem to be less notable when the word woman or feminism is involved. (Sarcasm)... weird. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
New article (help wanted)
Not ashamed to say I created this article because I think she would make a good DYK, as in: "Did you know that Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville (pictured) wrote a biography of the Irish revolutionary Robert Emmet?" She's fascinating for so many reasons besides. While French Wikipedia has long had a biography of her, which I used at the beginning of my research, she's been surprisingly neglected here despite the near-ubiquity of her Ingres portrait in the 19th C art history curriculum. Time to remedy the neglect to both her person and portrait.
Could someone add an appropriate tag, if necessary, identifying the French Wikipedia article as a source for some of the article (mostly on details like her great-grandchildrens' names, the names and dates of her three kids)? Almost everything else I've successfully verified through English-language online resources, as well as the existing English-language Wiki entries on various members of her family. Still working on this but could use some fresh eyes here ... Many thanks! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I've struggled to discover the names and publication dates of the two(?) earlier(?) novels Louise published, at least one of which used to be listed on the Frick Museum website; I believe they called it Robert Emuret and dated its publication as 1858. But that seems to be the same year her Robert Emmet, a biography of the Irish revolutionary, was published. Could Emuret be just a typographical goof derived from Emmet? Not for nothing did the Frick pull its old bio down, though it was not particularly helpful to begin with. French Wikipedia makes no mention of her novels. Do they exist? Were they actually published? Any help with this would be very welcome. I have no access to the (probably more accurate) 1985 Edgar Munhall monograph on the painting which was issued to accompany the Frick cleaning and re-hanging in that year, but I see the text is probably accessible online to some other Wikipedia users. Any help with this fine point of clarification regarding her novelistic career would be much appreciated. I'd like to get the facts right. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can turn up later though French subjects arent my strong point. I'm sure you'll get a lot of good eyes from editors here. Thanks for helping contribute to Women's biographies on Wiki. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! My old pal Montanabw has supplied a helpful list of immediate suggestions on the article's Talk page. I'm thinking of dropping altogether the description of her as "novelist" pending further research, but it has been mentioned in a number of sources, argh! Very grateful for further help. All best Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I've nominated the article for DYK where it is awaiting verification. It would be my second DYK (and first self-nom). Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! My old pal Montanabw has supplied a helpful list of immediate suggestions on the article's Talk page. I'm thinking of dropping altogether the description of her as "novelist" pending further research, but it has been mentioned in a number of sources, argh! Very grateful for further help. All best Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can turn up later though French subjects arent my strong point. I'm sure you'll get a lot of good eyes from editors here. Thanks for helping contribute to Women's biographies on Wiki. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fascinating article, long overdue indeed. Thanks for writing it.Alafarge (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been featured
 Hello, |