Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Alerts for articles nominated for deletion?

I cannot find an alerts section for this project, so thought I would notify readers of this talk page that the Pao effect article has been nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This is something I've meant to raise in the past. I haven't looked into the process of adding topics to the deletion sorting list (whether there has to be discussion and agreement about a new category e.g. Women writers). In the past I've always added AfDs to noticeboards on projects including GenderGap but that has drawn nonsense accusations of canvassing. If it is just a case of fixing red links and adding new categories then we should just be bold and do it shouldn't we? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The technology is there to automatically list all pages nominated for deletion that belong to a certain project. It's called Article alerts. Have a look for example at Wp:Canada, where you click on Article alerts in the project header to see this list (and more). Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I have subscribed the project to alerts. Keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts - the alerts should show up in a few days (although with only 166 articles, there may not be any). RockMagnetist(talk) 04:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
For future ref - if you are a member of a WikiProject that doesn't get Article Alerts, but you think that it would be useful to have, the instructions are at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing. Some people are a bit fazed by that, but there are really only two things to do: subscribe, and display the results. For example, WikiProject Women was subscribed by making this edit to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list, and the results so generated are displayed by making this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women. RockMagnetist also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, but that wasn't essential since the bot would have created it anyway. But you can watchlist that page, so that you know straight away when it has been updated, and you don't need to keep checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts - it probably won't be updated every day. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
...and if you want to get really fancy some projects (wish I could remember which ones) also keep a history of all their alerts. This can be very useful, for example, when one notices an anecdotal large number of XfD's nominated for deletion in a certain area. BTW thank you User:Redrose64 for the elaborate explanation posted above. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful. For now I've divided "sexuality and gender" into two in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat#Topical, and added 'deletion sorting' to the project's navigation template. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:DELSORT and WP:AALERTS are different. One is largely manual, the other is fully automatic. They compile their results in different places. DELSORT concerns itself only with WP:AFDs; AALERTS covers XFDs in most namespaces, WP:PRODs and certain other discussable actions as well. An AFD page will show which DELSORT pages it's been listed in, but not which AALERTS. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Just found another wikiproj that has an wp:alerts archive. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts/Archive. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and this WikiProject similarly has Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts/Archive. In case you'd not noticed, it's the "(Archive)" link on the right-hand end of the "Quick links" row at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose64, I have added the alerts archive page to Category:WikiProject Women (where someone like me will usually look to see what "goodies" a wikiproj has). BTW I could not locate Quick links on the wikiproj page - but then I am alway missing stuff that is right in front of me :-)
It's not shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts because that part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts is inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, she's a horse

But anyone want to help me get Beholder (horse) to GA before the Breeders' Cup Classic? Join the fun and excitement of getting GA and FA copilot experience if you want to! Montanabw(talk) 04:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Complete reorganization proposal

I'll spin the taskforce idea in its own section, so it doesn't halt the progress on the {{WP Biography}} thing. I apologize for the tl;dr, but we're talking about organizing some a project dealing with women, and that's a pretty damn wide scope.

The thing we need to think about first and foremost is the general structure of how we want things to be organized from now on. I'll clarify here that while I have years of experience in coordinating both small and large scale WikiProjects, WP Women will likely be the second largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, behind WP Biography, and I can't possibly anticipate and know all the specifics, and my opinion isn't infallible.

So let's talk about taskforces and wikiprojects, and initiatives. Because those words are only loosely defined in Wikipedia vernacular, and that what I'll talk about will cover a lot of stuff, let's define those terms. For the purpose of the discussion, I'll call WikiProjects 'projects that have their own banners', and taskforces 'projects that rely on another project's banner'. I'll call Initiatives 'things that exist in the Wikipedia namespace, but don't deal with articles directly'.

Current status

As of now, we have these current things in the Wikipedia namespace:

Thing that exists in Wikipedia Type Banner / notes
Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism WikiProject {{WikiProject Feminism}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies WikiProject {{WikiProject Gender Studies}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish Women WikiProject {{WikiProject Jewish Women}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies WikiProject {{WikiProject LGBT Studies}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women WikiProject {{WikiProject Women}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists WikiProject {{WikiProject Women artists}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health WikiProject {{WikiProject Women's Health}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History WikiProject {{WikiProject Women's History}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women of psychology WikiProject? {{WikiProject Women of psychology}} could be created.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists WikiProject {{WikiProject Women scientists}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport WikiProject {{WikiProject Women's sport}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Technology WikiProject? {{WikiProject Women in Technology}} could be created
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers WikiProject {{WikiProject Women writers}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force Taskforce {{WikiProject Football|women=yes}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues Taskforce {{WikiProject India|gender=yes}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force Initiative
Wikipedia:WikiProject UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia Initiative —
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red Initiative —
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design Initiative —
Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month Initiative —
Wikipedia:Women Writers Online Initiative Part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, something else entirely.

Reorganization proposal

Again, I'll point out that I'm not fully aware of all the specifics for each of these projects, and each project should ultimately get the final say on whether or not they like this plan. However, it seems to me that there is a need for some streamlining and a 'coherent vision'. This is too many banners and too many pages to make sense of. So here's my reorganization proposal.

Let's not really worry about

First, the other women-related stuff that I don't think we need to worry about here. These concern other active WikiProjects that have their own identities, and there's nothing to be gained by 'absorbing them'. Complementary is good.

WikiProjects
Taskforces

Let's also not worry about other projects wanting to have their own women-related taskforces in the future. For instance if WikiProject Military history wants to have a women taskforce, they can create their own {{WikiProject Military history|women=yes}}. There's nothing wrong with the multiple tagging of an article like Máire Ó Ciaragain with banners like 

{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|military-work-group=yes|women-work-group=yes}}}
{{WikiProject Military History|biography=yes|british=yes|medieval=yes|women=yes}}
{{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|history=yes}

WikiProject Women: The Core, its Taskforces, and its Initiatives

The idea here is that WikiProject Women becomes THE go to place for discussions about women-related articles. Much like, say WikiProject Physics is the go-to place for all of physics. Notice its several taskforces (Biographies, Relativity, Fluid Dynamics, etc...). Those are hosted at, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity. Basically, if you care about physics, and want the input of a lot of people, you could at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, and follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts. If you care about relativity only, and only seek the advice of people who care about relativity, you go at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity/Article alerts.

In practice, the main talk page is where everyone gathers 95% of the time. And we're small enough that watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts isn't overwhelming, with the taskforce alerts offered as convenience for those who really don't care about anything else. I don't know how WikiProject Women will evolve, but it's quite likely that some taskforces won't be very active, and others will become fairly active. It's best to let these things evolve on their own, but having the framework in place is good. With this in mind, here is my proposal for the core of WikiProject Women, and it's taskforces.

Core Project

Simple enough eh?

Taskforces

Note that I'm not using things like say, 'athlete' or 'artist'. The idea is that an athlete would be tagged with {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|sports=yes}}, or an artist with {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|art=yes}}. The current system of banners, like {{WikiProject Women artists}} would get replaced by bots, and deleted/marked historical. The current pages, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health (and subpages) would be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Health, perhaps with slight tweaks in scope to reflect their new status.

Initiatives

I'm less confident in this, because I'm not very sure of what the goals of most of these pages are. The idea to make them/brand them as 'initiatives' of WikiProject Women is to make them a lot more findable/visible to the community at large, and so there's a commonality between initiatives that seems to be currently lacking. People might decide it's best to keep them where they are, or to make them initiatives under slightly different names with tweaks to reflect an updated scope, but I think regrouping them under the umbrella of WP Women makes a lot of sense.

Discussion

@Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, The Drover's Wife, Gobonobo, and Rich Farmbrough:, what do you think of this proposal? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am probably the least technically inclined person on this list. Anything that makes it simpler to navigate; find information; receive notifications of deletions, good articles, DYK, featured article; affix categories and WikiProjects; and aids in gathering statistics seems like a step in the right direction to me. All I really want to do is write articles, but I seem to spend an awful lot of time searching for things. SusunW (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I recognize that this is really big, and really important, and I like the spotlight it'll put on this project's scope. If it'll be the second largest WikiProject, do we need to take it to WP:Requests for Comment before we move forward? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've held off of holding an RfC for now to make sure I didn't overlook something / say something stupid before advertising it to the wider community. We'll need to at least notify everything directly affected/proposed to be merged/moved, and possibly related projects like WP:FEMINISM who'll likely have an opinion worth hearing. Give people time to comment, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as I said previously, it's best to merge as many of the loose women projects under this as possible and move to taskforces. We'll also need to fully update the talk page tagging and to add those task force parameters and override the existing banners. It's a big task, perhaps we can move towards merging into taskforces one by one. Leave a note on the talk page of projects proposing a merge into taskforce of Wp:Women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've notified all potentially affected projects, and a few others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Scopes of WikiProjects

I noticed that several WikiProjects are listed as related but nobody was certain what their scope was. I'll take a shot at clarifying that.

Extended content
  • WikiProject Feminism: "The scope of WikiProject Feminism includes articles about feminism, women's rights, women's health, the history of women's rights, notable women's rights activists, concepts related to feminism, the history of feminism, notable feminists and philosophers, and works of feminist writers, thinkers and scholars."
    • Per the counter-bias goals of the Project, it aims to counter sexism, racism, ageism, classism, ableism, biphobia, homophobia, fatphobia, and transphobia.
  • WikiProject Gender Studies:The scope is articles "associated with gender studies, gender theories and gender issues (including feminism, masculism, and transgender issues)."
    • Per the counter-bias goals of the Project, it aims to provide a "neutral documentarian" tone in these articles, expand beyond European and North American issues, stand against "feminist, masculinist or LGBT critiques of society".
  • WikiProject Jewish Women: The scope includes "Historical and contemporary Jewish women", "Jewish women's organizations", "Women's roles in and contributions to the Jewish faith", "Women's contributions to significant Jewish historical events", "Topics, media, and other issues that are related to Jewish women".
    • Concerning the limits of its scope: "There is no time period limit to this project. Everything from Biblical times to today falls within the scope of this project." "Any person or institution that identifies as Jewish is welcome. This includes individuals who identify as Jewish culturally but not theologically and converts." "Queer women are in the scope of this project as are Jewish transgender women." "Jews are found in all corners of the world, and belong to many different racial and ethnic groups. Jews of all races are within the scope of this project."
  • WikiProject Women artists: The scope includes "biographies of women artists and their works". Women artists are defined as "visual and performance artists". Also included are "films which pass the Bechdel test". Specific fields of interest include: "Visual arts (i.e. painting, sculpture, photography), Video art, Installation art, Performance art, Experimental film, Textile arts, Architecture, Printmaking, Illustrators, Engravers, Craftmakers (basketry, pottery, textiles, etc.)". Also included are "women arts patrons and art collectors."
    • Out of scope are women writers, women dancers and choreographers, actresses and women musicians, works by actresses and women musicians.
  • WikiProject Women's Health: The scope includes articles about "women's health, including related social and political issues."
  • WikiProject Women's History: This one has a complex definition of scope. It includes "women's history as an academic field of study can be flexible and even problematic" , "the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century", "ongoing social and cultural movements and issues that affect women into the present but have historical precedents and origins", "contemporary women as agents of historic change".
    • "A major goal of WikiProject Women's History is to incorporate the perspective of women's history in overview articles of historical periods or pre-1950 events which may currently lack such coverage. A history article (such as American Old West) should be included in this project if reliable sources exist for improving the coverage of women throughout or in a section that focuses on the experiences and contributions of women."
    • Excluded are "Topics of interest primarily because they reflect perceptions or views of women and their prescribed roles, as well as articles on current events without a verifiable historical dimension or on contemporary popular culture".
    • Concerning biographical articles of interest to the Project: "The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project. The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or as contributing to significant societal or cultural change. The biography of a woman born after 1950 may be included only if she has exceptional and verifiable historic significance. Spheres of notable activity include but are not limited to: politics and society, law, an art form, the military, labor, education, health, commerce or consumer protection, humanitarianism, sports, or science and technology. "Exceptional significance" should be demonstrated on the article's talk page by a clear and reliably sourced statement of what the person did or achieved that made a lasting contribution to the world."
      • In deciding whether a woman born after 1950 should be included by this project, consider that a "lasting contribution" is not fame; the winning of an award; statistical popularity (such as sales); or record-setting, unless a "first" results in a societal or cultural change." "An invention is considered a lasting contribution; a famous haircut is not. Breaking a barrier to women's participation in sports is a lasting contribution; winning a gold medal is a personal achievement that in and of itself causes no necessary change beyond the individual's life. Winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress is not a lasting achievement, nor is winning a Nobel Prize; however, the kind of work for which a Nobel Prize is won by definition represents a major advance in the field, and qualifies the laureate for inclusion."
      • "The biography of a man may be included within the scope of this project under the same guidelines, if his role in women's history is a major aspect of his notability, as indicated by reliable sources. For instance, Henry Browne Blackwell, the husband of Lucy Stone, was an activist for women's rights."
      • "The biography of any scholar who has met the notability requirements of WP:ACADEMIC may be included by this project if women's history is a major emphasis of the scholar's body of work. Example: Ann D. Gordon, leader of The Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony Papers Project at Rutgers University."
    • Concerning articles on Works of art of interest to the Project. They "include literature, performing arts, and visual arts. A work of art, regardless of the gender of its creator, may be included if it is discussed in existing scholarship as contributing to women's history, even if the current version of the article lacks coverage of this aspect. Works of art under this project's banner should show how women lived, what they did, or what they experienced." Excluded are works of art that are of interest because they show "attitudes toward women, or how women were viewed".
      • "A work of art created after the mid-20th century should not be included unless its subject matter deals with women in a historical setting. For example, a notable play about the women's suffrage movement may be appropriate for inclusion, as is Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party. A post-1970 work of historical fiction dealing with women should be included only if it has received significant coverage for its treatment of women's history as such. A movie intended to offer a perspective on women's history may be included, if reliable sources discuss its significance. Examples: Iron Jawed Angels (2004); Frida (2002). A costume drama that uses the past primarily for aesthetic or allegorical purposes, such as Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette or Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge!, lies outside the scope of this project."
    • Concerning articles on fictional characters and mythological figures of interest to the Project. "Mythological, legendary, or fictional characters may be included in this project only if they have a high degree of significance for the understanding of women's history, as indicated by existing scholarship. The character's article should provide perspectives on the lives of real women and their activities, as interpreted by scholars." Excluded are characters who are of interest because they embody "attitudes toward women".
      • " A fictional character created after 1970 should be included only if the work of art in which she appears meets the criteria for inclusion outlined above, and if her own exceptional significance to women's history is discussed by reliable sources. A deity should be included only if the religious practice of women was a distinctive feature of her following. A legendary figure, such as Lucretia or Rosie the Riveter, who was considered (quasi-)historical within her own culture may be included following the criteria outlined under Biographies above."
    • Concerning articles on women's movements and issues of interest to the Project. "Articles on movements (such as suffrage campaigns), issues (abortion rights), or broad topics such as "women's rights" typically have a historical component and should therefore be included."
      • "A single event occurring after 1970 and within a relatively short or limited span of time may be included by this project only if reliable sources have discussed its importance to women's history in general."
    • Concerning articles on organizations and groups of interest to the Project. "Organizations formed by or for women before or during the mid-20th century generally are included within this project, as well as those in which women played an important role, especially if coverage of women in the current article is underdeveloped. The organization may exist up to the present, or may be defunct. Examples include professional organizations, trade unions, voluntary associations such as humanitarian or aid groups, women's rights groups, women's clubs, religious orders, educational institutions, military units, and other social or political groups." "A pre-1970 art movement, literary society, musical ensemble, performing arts group, or arts patronage organization in which women played a founding, predominant, or fundamental role may be included. Organizations or groups formed after 1970 for the purpose of studying, promoting, or reenacting women's history may be included."
    • Excluded are articles on "Contemporary culture (1970 to present)". There are exceptions, however. "An overview article on topics such as fashion, health, sport, sexuality, or other cultural practices may be included in this project only if it meets one of the following criteria: incorporates a perspective of women's history throughout; contains a historical section that demonstrates the significance of the topic to women's history; currently lacks the perspective of women's history, but reliable sources indicate that the article is therefore incomplete, non-neutral, or unbalanced.
  • WikiProject Women of psychology: The scope includes "articles about women who have contributed significantly to the field of Psychology" and "eminent women psychologists".
    • The criteria for inclusion are articles on women who "meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics" and the "requirements for Fellow Status in The American Psychological Association (APA). ... The APA requirements for Fellow vary somewhat by APA division. ... If a woman is an APA Fellow, she most likely meets the criteria for inclusion in this project. Many women psychologists may meet the criteria for Fellow status but may not have been nominated or applied for the honor. In that case the Wikipedia and APA Fellow standards can be consulted. In all cases, writers should make a clear case for the woman's eligibility for inclusion as an eminent woman psychologist in the section called "Summary of significant contributions to the field of psychology." "
  • WikiProject Women scientists: This one has a simple scope. It includes biographical articles on women scientists.
  • WikiProject Women's sport: The scope includes "all articles, lists and portals about women's sport".
  • WikiProject Women in Technology: A simple scope. It includes biographical articles on "women in technology".
  • WikiProject Women writers: The scope includes "women writers, works by women writers, and awards honoring women writers".
  • WikiProject Football/Women's football task force: The scope invludes articles related ton Women's association football.
  • WikiProject India/Women and gender issues: The scope includes "articles related to Women in India and gender issues in India".
  • WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force: This one aims to address the concern of women editors and administrators of Wikipedia. Its tasks are to create and improve articles on women, Feminism, Gender studies, Women's history, Women artists, Women scientists, and Women writers.
  • WikiProject UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia: This one is a project of Wikipedians from Oregon. Its goal is to "weave women’s stories, individually and collectively, into the essential fabric of our nation’s history". Despite the Americo-centric phrase, it does not limit itself to United States-related articles.
  • WikiProject Women/Women in Red: A taskforce aiming to create new articles on "women's biographies" and "women's works".
  • Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design: A joined WikiProject of editors from Australia, Germany, and the United States. Its goal is to increase articles on "women in architecture and the built environment."
  • WikiWomen's History Month: A Project devoted to creating and developing articles on "women in history". It "Allows diverse local focuses on aspects of Women's History".
  • Women Writers Online: A library project on Women Writers Online, "a full-text collection of early women's writing in English, published by the Women Writers Project at Northeastern University. It includes full transcriptions of over 350 texts published between 1526 and 1850, particularly materials that are rare or otherwise inaccessible, as well as other materials like contextual essays to assist in researching women's writing."

So which of these Projects are within WikiProject Women's scope? Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

They're all related to women, but this is kind of addressed by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#Let.27s_not_really_worry_about and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#WikiProject_Women:_The_Core.2C_its_Taskforces.2C_and_its_Initiatives. The correspondence is not exactly 1:1, but it's close enough that it should be fairly obvious to see which taskforces most of these projects would become. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Women Writers Online is part of the Wikipedia Library and should probably not be involved in this WikiProject restructuring since it's quite separate from WikiProjects. Sam Walton (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. I was having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly it was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think every project that has the word "women" in its title should automatically become a taskforce of this project. Task forces are for projects that need help with administration and infrastructure, and the recommended scope is a few hundred articles. WikiProject Women scientists already has 66 members, a fully developed structure and has been very successful: from an initial estimate of over a thousand articles, we now cover 4,350 articles including 6 featured articles and 25 good articles. And, I'm guessing, part of the reason for its success is that it has a clear and simple scope. Conversion to a task force would simply dilute its mission and make it less effective. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with RockMagnetist, for what it's worth. I don't see folding more successful specific projects into an ill-defined megaproject as being a healthy thing. It's not an approach taken in most areas where we're doing well for a reason The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I hardly see what's ill defined about a WikiProject Women, or being lost by merging e.g. WikiProject Women scientists as a taskforce of a larger WikiProject Women. There's great deal to be gained, however, by merging them.
The only difference, operationally, would be that instead of tagging pages with {{WikiProject Biography|women=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|science=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women scientists}}, the project would instead rely tag pages with {{WikiProject Biography|women=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|science=yes}}. That and the homepage of the project would be moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists to Wikepedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
That being said, if WikiProject Women Scientists really prefers to keep it's current structure/name, that's also on the table. I just don't buy the argument that anything above a few hundred articles need to be their own WikiProject. Any way you slice women biographies, you're going to have thousands of articles in any given division, and each division will have a great deal of commonality with the other divisions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I'm not saying that we should blindly apply some cutoff, but it's a consideration (as is the word "women" in the title). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with RockMagnetist and The Drover's Wife. I can't see why active wikiprojects should be subsumed just because they're about women or what the benefit would be to the participants. Sarah (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about starting WP:WikiProject Women entertainers (actresses, musicians, singers, dancers, stand-up comics, etc.) for a while. In recent months, I've pondered about how WikiProject Women would fit in with all the "daughter projects" so I haven't done anything more with entertainers. More recently, Ipigott and I discussed the possibility of WikiProject Women in Leadership, but instead of creating a WikiProject or a task force, we have an online editathon happening right now. I imagine there are other potential focus area examples so getting this proposal sorted out sooner rather than later would be good; to do that, I think it's important to get more eyes on this proposal sooner rather than later at WP:Requests for Comment. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Rosiestep, you could always set up new projects as task forces of this one, while leaving established projects to stand alone. The latter could be invited to become a task force, but it could be left there – an open invitation, but otherwise no pressure. Sarah (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
This is what happened with WikiProject USA, it subsumed moribund state projects, and those lively ones that wanted to join, as taskforces, those that didn't want to join carry on their merry way - to this day, as far as I know. Mind you the originator did gain the undying enmity of a number of people, it appears... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
  • There's something that might potentially be lost by a gigantic merge. For instance, a project like WikiProject LGBT Studies isn't only about LGBT women, or even really only about LGBT people—it's about LGBT topics, of which LGBT people are a large subset. The problem we get is that the people who put stuff into WikiProjects aren't necessarily members or participants in those projects. I know that I can add "WikiProject Women scientists" to a talk page, but keeping in my head that I need to add WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Scientists or whatever in my head is a bit much. I spend a lot of time adding WikiProject banners because I want WikiProjects to work: I want them to cultivate a reliable, decent community of people who maintain and improve articles (and in the long run take responsibility for the quality of articles, which overlaps somewhat with counting up FAs and GAs). I'm not sure rearranging the structure of WikiProjects helps much to that end. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see a bit of confusion. This wouldn't be to replace WP LBGT, but rather to have an LGBT subset of women's biographies. The taskforce could be part of both WP Women and WP LGBT. Having an {{WP LGBT|women=yes}} is an alternative, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If I might suggest two things. One, making too many groups can be, and often is, sometimes just a waste of effort. I know this from personal experience, having been involved in the creation of lots of projects. The first priority, I think, would be to determine if there were actually enough people interested in a subject to merit creation of new subgroups. Also, please notice that I am speaking specifically about just new groups, and not the matter of taking less successful extant projects, or less active projects, into the main group's domain.
Second, in general, I think while the idea behind some of the proposed new groups might not be a bad one, it is generally, at least I've come to think over the years, maybe the best idea to, at the time of (or even before) the creation of a new group, to get together a basic list of the topics which the group knows it will have to cover. Finishing all the "required" articles first would not only help a new group get a sense of accomplishment, but also make it easier for it to establish links to those articles, if their first task is to get all the basic articles in place. Pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus are the kind I'm talking about here. But such pages, in general, are most easily developed if you know that there actually are works outside of wikipedia which deal with the subject. So, maybe, one of the other early steps would be to check to see if there are works which could be used to help establish the "core" content of the various proposed groups. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I've come to this discussion via WikiProject Women artists, which I originally reached (and joined) via Wikiproject Visual arts. I can see the benefits of adding Wikiproject Women to the project hierarchy at WikiProject Women artists, and I can see the obvious benefit of having high-profile links from Wikiproject Women to the related "Women" projects. However, the expertise in visual arts (and women artists) is much more likely to be found at Wikiproject Visual arts. The list of members of Wikiproject Women is very small, so I wouldn't see any benefit in discussing artists there! Bearing in mind that, unfortunately, 85% of Wikipedia editors are male, I'd be inclined to believe that members of WikiProject Women artists are likely to join via Wikiproject Visual arts than via Wikiproject Women. I'd obviously support better navigation between the related projects, but not subsuming them into Wikiproject Women (which I really don't have a strong desire to join at the moment). Sionk (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
For navigation between related projects, there are already genealogies and lists of related projects; and the recently added Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav seems like a nice tool, as long as it doesn't get much larger. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Projects are often described as descended from more than one parent project. I don't see why, in principle, taskforces shouldn't be too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC).
Agree with Sionk that the necessary expertise to develop beyond a stub biography is found among people interested in the subject's field of endeavor, and not simply in the generic fact that it's a female biography. This is a reason not to merge into WikiProject Women, and for keeping the primary affiliation for these projects with the field itself rather than with gender. --Djembayz (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • On a procedural note, I'm glad that Headbomb has not started an RfC yet, and I hope they will avoid one altogether. It would be better to start by growing WikiProject Women with articles that are not yet covered by other projects; then maybe approach the initiatives one by one; then approach larger groups. Each WikiProject is in the best position to know whether a merge really makes sense for them. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the plan in general, but wikiprojects are very, well, wikipolitical. I think it would be best to start by absorbing only barely active, or inactive, projects. If, a year or two later, this has worked well, then approach the more active ones with merger proposals. I expect that they'd be rejected, on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. It really is demonstrably true that small groups of people working on something tend to produce better, faster, and more copious results. The exception is when the goal is consistency (e.g. the CSE Style Manual for all the sciences is more effective in the real world than separate journal stylebooks for physical anthropology, and plant genomics, and geophysics, and inorganic chemistry, and .... I don't see that "coverage of women in Wikipedia" has any special consistency needs or goals, much less ones that override the basic one: Produce good content. Remember that wikiprojects operate much like our category system: It's perfectly fine for a single article to be within the scope of multiple projects, for the definitions of their scopes to overlap a bit. The interests and approach of a "women in military history" or "women journalists" or whatever working group of editors is likely to vary based on whether it's a full-blow wikiproject, a taskforce of a topical wikiproject, or a taskforce of the women wikiproject. Having an such working group be part of the women taskforce by default is reasonable, but it shouldn't be forced on groups of editors who are more focused on something topical and women's impact on that topic.

    An alternative approach: Something that never seems to get discussed is that our wikiproject hierarchy is really just a virtual concept, in every way except that pages have an actual location. There is no reason at all that "WikiProject Foo/Women in Foo taskforce" cannot also be the "WikiProject Women/Foo women taskforce"! All it requires is a redirect, and a note atop the taskforce page and perhaps its talk page that it is a taskforce of two projects. Easy-peasy. The page's resources could easily be updated to reflect two sets of parent-project resources. Instead of pointing, e.g., to a single article assessment process, it could read something like: "For articles on women's participation in and impact on foo, see WikiProject Foo/Assessment. For biographical articles on women in foo, use WikiProject Women/Assessment." Various other projects could benefit from shared taskforces, actually (e.g. a taskforce on poultry livestock being shared between WP:BIRDS and WP:AGRICULTURE). WP:WOMEN, due to its scope, is an ideal proving ground for the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on the notability of women's ice hockey players

There is a ongoing discussion that the members of this project may be interested in, please see here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Screen shot of Mix-n-Match as I used it today

I have seen some "red link lists", e.g. this one, listing (potentially) notable women. Having multiple of those lists, partially overlapping, some with source links, some with descriptions, probably quite a few links not properly disambiguated, etc. seems a little wasteful. Not to mention women who might have an article in other language editions of Wikipedia, but are just redlinks here. I can offer my Mix'n'match tool, which already has the CLARA database, as well as a tiny list of women in science I cobbled together myself back in the day. This would allow for a more systematic approach, and, by linking to Wikidata, capturing all the existing pages about women (including Wikisource, Commons creators, etc.). Some larger list from a single source, like this one, could get their own catalog; the rest could be merged into a single list, and then imported as a single catalog. Each entry should (obviously) have a name, and, ideally, either a short description or a link to such at an external source; otherwise, it might be hard to find out who exactly is meant. Let me know! --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I added a screenshot of how I used Mix-n-Match for a woman's biography today. I do think we need to find more catalogs of women and upload them to Mix-n-Match. I have become very concerned about the systemic bias apparent in the current selection of sources in the english wikipedia authority control template and have been wondering if we can add to this to make it less Western-European-Male-centric. Adding catalogs to Mix-n-Match could help as a start -- properties come later as we decide on the usefulness of catalogs. Jane (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Magnus Manske. Jane023 I expect I'll get a better understanding of mix'n'match this weekend as there will be some Wikidata folks attending WikiCon; right now, I just don't get it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture sponsored by the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum ← Come and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture
Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Architecture to participate. As it stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in architecture. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would just remind everyone that a key component of this project is to make articles on women trackable. Please add either {{WikiProject Women}} if born after 1950, or {{WikiProject Women's History}} if born before 1950 to the talk pages of the articles being created during the editathon. I have tried to catch them all, but may end up missing some. Ipigott is there someway requesting addition of WikiProjects can be on the actual editathon sign up page? SusunW (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Gothic romance film

I created Gothic romance film, which is defined to have feminine appeal. I added this WikiProject's banner to the talk page. Please let me know if this topic does not belong in this scope. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: definitely belongs...women, works by women, works about women. :) SusunW (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Archive_2&oldid=1076158736"