Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiProject Women's History

Quick Menu (edit · changes)

Anyone for Women's health?[edit]

You may be interested in this thread at the Medicine project talk page. Cheers, (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Iota Sigma Pi[edit]

Hello, if anyone has a free moment can you have a look over this article for me - I have put it as a Start-class and I am hoping to get a DYK for it at some point. I only found it through the 'Random Article' button and tried my best to improve it. Thanks ツStacey (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh FAR[edit]

I have nominated Vivien Leigh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Cambridge Political Equality Association[edit]

Dear history experts: Here's a draft article that's up for review at AfC. Is this a notable topic? Is the draft ready for the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - it's on mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

Question at the Village Pump[edit]

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

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the archived link: [[1]] Lugevas (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Native American Women[edit]

I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, but have studied and written about women for decades. Most of the Wiki articles I have written have been on Native American women: Tillie Hardwick, Gina Gray, Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader), Vestana Cadue. Should they be tagged with Women's History banner? I know it has been an issue in the past to combine boxes of someone who is say a politician but also Native American, do you know if it is possible to combine the personbox used on the women's articles with the Native American box?

I am working on a biography now of an Arapaho activist and the more I work on her, the more I think that she would be an amazing subject for Women's History Month. Is there a featured biography throughout the month of March? If so, how would I propose the article? The working draft is here User:SusunW/Viola Hatch SusunW (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I would say the answer to your first question regarding the banner, is that it depends on their achievements. I put the banner on the ones you listed, because they should have it, in my opinion. And it does come down to your own judgement on that issue.
  • In regards to Women's History Month, someone else needs to give input for this project. But I would suggest you also post that question at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, because they usually run something on women everyday on the main page during Women's History Month. Ask for input over there about their front-page slots during that month. If by "featured biography", you are talking about the upper left hand featured articles on the main page, that information is here: Wikipedia:Featured articles, and it's a lengthy process there to get from creation to the main page.
  • When you mention "boxes", I think you're talking about the infoboxes. Yes? It's unlikely you can combine any of them, because they have been created as individual templates. But just to make sure, please post a question about that at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and if they don't have the answer they can point you to the right place to ask it.
Good luck with everything. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66, — Maile: Thank you for your help and input. I mostly blithely go along and write about people I run across when researching someone else. Most of these Native women leaders emerged out of the Indian termination era and worked with each other or at least knew of each other. I find them and their histories fascinating, though it is often difficult to find information in great depth about them.
I find Wiki information pages impossible to fathom. They were apparently written by programmers, not writers, and instructions are in some abbreviated code that in a few years might make sense. For now, it may as well be in Greek. I know nothing about featured articles, I just thought that it might be something the women's project would be involved in. Did You Know is apparently a lengthy process which to me is quite confusing. I cannot imagine that something proposed there would be through the process in time for March, but maybe I just don't understand how it all works. I think I shall just finish Viola and move on to my next subject. I prefer to stay out of the politics of Wikipedia. I get enough of that in the real world. This is my relaxation and if it becomes stressful, it loses the fun of it. And yes, I meant infoboxes. I think they cannot be combined, at least the data doesn't flow properly if you try to do it.
I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. SusunW (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: and everyone: I also find Infoboxes a bit hard to use, but my approach is to just find an article like mine that has an infobox and copy it, swapping out the parameters. Ping me for help with DYK, I nominated your first one for you, and they told me I had to treat it like one of my own, so the next one is yours, all yours, but it's not that hard if you have a friend to help. Montanabw(talk) 22:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: LOL, I didn't even understand any of the instructions that they told you to do to my article, so there isn't a remote chance that I would understand how to do it on my own. ;-) I have been copying infoboxes, and formatting, and anything else I can figure out how to use to make it easier, but the Native American infobox doesn't seem to work correctly. I fill in their office, I fill in their language, etc. and none of that appears. I am going to try to report it to Village Pump as Maile66 suggested, but since I have no idea of programming lingo, it is doubtful that we will be able to have much communication. :P SusunW (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Susun, just ping @Pigsonthewing: (aka Andy) at his talk page with a link to the article and ask him if he can fix the parameters that are a problem. It's faster. Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've already replied on the inodbox's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Overlapping categories[edit]

I've been an editor here for awhile but I still don't fully understand how overlapping categories work. Let's say I make a page for an American woman who is a poet. Should I add it to both "American poets" and "American women poets"? Obviously, I want her to be found by people searching in either category. If someone comes along afterwards and removes the former category, is that kosher or discriminatory? (Apologies if this has been answered before; I spent quite awhile tunnelling through various help areas trying to find a clear answer.) Thanks.Alafarge (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly new at editing on here, but I would say she belongs to both categories; however, on some of my page inputs, I have been advised "Toss parent categories where subcats are already included" is a Wiki guideline. SusunW (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Alafarge, re categories, American women poets is a sub category of American poets. If you click on the category of American women poets and scroll down to the bottom of the page, it shows the categories under which it is a sub. To have the main category is too general. For further information: Help:Wikipedia:Categorizing Articles — Maile (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I recollect the controversy from 2013 over some editors purging women writers from the "American novelists" category and just wanted to make sure I understood what the current best practice is today.Alafarge (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Basically, the general rule is that you usually don't put an article into both a "parent" and a "child" category. However there are exceptions, and this is one of them -for women writers, I'd say you are right to put people in BOTH, as there was quite an uproar in the mainstream press over someone who was ghettoizing the women writers by moving them from the main "writers" category and putting them in just a "women writers" category, where there was no equivalent "men writers" one. Overcategorizing does no harm, and usually someone who knows the category scheme will clean up after you if you really overdo it. There are also diffusing and non-diffusing categories, and it's hard to know which is which. Essentially, it can't hurt to preview the categories when you can to figure out what the protocol is. In a fully diffused category, Foo writers, there should be ONLY subcategories, say Male Foo writers and Women Foo writers. (Example: Category:Horses. In a non-diffusing category, ALL the articles are listed AND they go into subcats as well (Example: Category:Horse breeds). The reality is that most categories are a total mishmash and seldom does anyone keep them organized! Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this really helpful explanation. I hadn't been able to figure out how to know which cateories were, as you put, fully diffusing. I didn't realize there was pertinent information on the Category pages themselves.Alafarge (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:Cat gender also explains things. Categories are a quagmire, probably because you can't watchlist what gets added or removed... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 04:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

On Wikidata, thanks to the Wikidata game, almost everybody with an article on Wikipedia has been classified as male or female. On the German Wikipedia, they have categories, which admittedly are so large that you can't really do anything with them. On the Dutch Wikipedia they have banned gender from all occupations and don't use any gender categories at all. It makes it very difficult to get proper information about male vs. female whatever. Even though lots of women on the English Wikipedia have not (yet) been placed into diffusing categories, I like those categories because it's a good place to start searching for women (which in some professions is like the proverbial needle in the haystack). Jane (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow what a can of worms this all is. Almost sorry I asked (jk).Alafarge (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Yes! My general rule: Do not remove women from a main category so long as there are also men in it, but it's ok to ALSO have a womens' category. If someone bitches about that, slap on a non-diffusing tag on the main one and tell the whiners to create a "males' category or STFU. Except say it far more diplomatically than I just did! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 01:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems about right. You want people looking specifically for women writers to be able to find them, but you don't want people just looking for writers not to see any women as though they count less. Point of interest, Category:Operas is also non-diffusing for some reason. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes! Actual logic!Alafarge (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly in the case that caused all the ruckus, a "male" category was created, and the appropriate moves were made, IIRC, while the new complex "no-diffusing" rule was being crafted. Short term answer - don't worry about it. Long term answer, replace categories with something better. Face-smile.svg All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Noted, thanks.Alafarge (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Women's History Month[edit]

Just wanted to ask what plans this year? All the best: Rich Farmbrough02:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

I just created a special occasion holding area at DYK, hope the DYK gnomes are Ok with that (some snark about the general topic at their discussion page, don't think it will escalate into drama). Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There will be a number of edit-a-thons. See Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. gobonobo + c 21:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice and invitation[edit]

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015[edit]

Wikimania 2015 Mexico City identity.jpg

Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. A friendly FYI... I have mentioned this WikiProject in the proposal! The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Can't sign that form. The "new way to make editing easier" doesn't work. Won't let me put in tildes, won't let me put in my UserName. Won't let me do anything. Just says <no wiki>. Apparently, I am banned from answering, in the easy format. *sigh* Last thing I want is even MORE complicated programming nonsense. SusunW (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW:, I have the same problem when clicking the "Edit" button, but I have no problems editing that page when I click the "Edit source" button. Hope this helps? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Yay! That worked. Thank you :) P.S. Dear "Betatest Person in the Sky" please see this. Last thing we need is a simplification that is confusing and frustrating. SusunW (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi SusunW, Thanks for your note, and for your persistence. VisualEditor is not intended to be used for discussions (outside of Flow, which automatically signs posts), so it contains no signature tool. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing: LOL I am reminded of something Whoopi Goldberg said in Jumping Jack Flash ... "Mick, Mick! Speak Engish!" Goes directly to my point, that programmers speak the language of programming, not writing. What does "outside of Flow" mean? How can it NOT be used for discussions when it is what is driving the "Talk" or "Discussion" page, or in this case the "sign up"? SusunW (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And I add my voice to the ranks of those who loathe Visual editor and will note to the same "Betatast person in the sky: "YO! Guess what? SusunW is a new woman editor, you know, the ones you claim that VE was supposed to help? Guess what? It's not helping!" Montanabw(talk) 05:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Feminism in Mexico[edit]

Perusing the main page, I saw that Feminism in Mexico was listed in the category of "Pages needing attention" and thought, that perhaps, as I live here, I could add some information. "Pages needing attention" is an understatement. It has only 2 sentences in the entire article, which IMO speaks to "desperate need of attention."

I have been working for several days on creation of the page, but my strong suit is NOT theory. And I while I speak a tiny bit of Spanish, I am not fluent, by any measure. In addition, though I work in human rights with sexual minorities, and can do the section on "Gender Rebels," the section might benefit from someone who is part of that community and not cis. I am working on the history portion but would truly like to have collaborators for overall balance in the page. Anyone interested? It's very definitely a work in progress, no where near ready to "go live" ... but my working draft is here: User:SusunW/Sandbox 2 SusunW (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yesterday when preparing an article on Marta Lamas, I noted that a school she founded in Mexico City is also working on a project. Would be lovely if Mexico, as part of North America, were included in your project. I get that there will be a language curve, but if we truly want to make Wikipedia an inclusive record of knowledge, we need expand our efforts to include other areas. Here's the brochure I found. Instituto de Liderazgo Simone de Beauvoir SusunW (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)