Talk:List of female fellows of the Royal Society

List of female fellows of the Royal Society is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 25, 2012	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 8, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hertha Ayrton's 1902 candidature to be the first woman elected Fellow of the Royal Society was turned down on the basis that as a married woman she had no standing in law?

Women in Red: Celebrating Women Scientists (2016)

This article was created or improved during the Celebrating Women Scientists edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in 2016. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Women scientists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Nicole Grobert

I am not familiar enough with the organisation of this list to add Nicole Grobert. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is what they call a "Research Fellow" rather than an actual fellow, so doesn't qualify for this list. Follow the link on her page. Give it 15 years maybe. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They make it not easy for a German to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Gagandeep Kang.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed rename

Yet again, we see an undiscussed rename of an article to remove capitalisation [1]

And yet, what does the sourcing say? List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660 – 2007 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor has done the same thing to the List of Fellows of the Royal Society. Again, without discussion. Oronsay (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I linked the relevant discussion in the edit summary. Did you check? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - I took part in that discussion. But I don't believe it's relevant here. They're not presidents, they're not in the US. Also, this was still undiscussed here. You can't simply pull an unrelated discussion from months ago, on a different group, out of the air and then just use it as a justification without even offering the chance for discussion to the audience for this article who are likely to be different and to have different sources and opinions leading to a different consensus. If you had at least noted on this talk: page "I am planning to rename this page, based on another discussion <here>" before moving it, that would have been a start. But, as always, you simply have zero respect for the views of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's called WP:BOLD. When the pattern and consensus are well established, as here, there's no reason not to just do it. If you object, revert, per WP:BRD. Then we'll discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and restore capitalisation

Support Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent relevant discussion was at Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_27_July_2019, after which the consensus principle has been applied to hundreds of other articles without incident. The use of "fellows" here is just like "presidents" there. Why would you capitalize? Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely in support of AD's annoyance at Dicklyon's typically high-handed approach, but on this occasion I think he is (for once) right. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"high-handed" means "using power or authority without considering the feelings of others." But I have zero power or authority here, and I did consider the possibility that others might feel like capitalizing. I consider such possibilities any time I move an article. Usually, though people will see the consensus, especially if I provide a relevant link, and I seldom get any pushback. If you look at my move log you'll see nearly 100 article moves of this sort, with lists of chancellors, vice-chancellors, vice-admirals, vice-presidents, governors, admirals, administrators, acts and measures, top 40 albums, depression-era outlaws, delegates, and fellows. I didn't really expect more reaction from fellows than from the others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's done it again - List of fellows of the British Academy! Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is your concern something about the word "Fellows"? Or about British societies? Or the Royal Society and British Academy in particular? Is there some pattern to which caps you will find necessary? Not sure where to take this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fellow of the British Academy"/Fellow of the Royal Society" and similar "Fellow of leaned society" are honours/awards and not positions/jobs. So they should maintain their full capitalisation. MOS:JOBTITLES doesn't apply to them. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"When the pattern and consensus are well established, as here,"

Do you seriously believe, having seen the comments here in previous days, that there was some "consensus" to support your page move this morning?

This is time for a TBAN and removal of PageMover rights. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Rosalind Venetia Pitt-Rivers (1907-1990) - Restoration.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Anne Treisman.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Fiona Watt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Bonnie Bassler.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]