Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Archive 6

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

Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7

Archives Table of Contents

Contents

Recent paper on gender bias in Wikipedia and Britannica

A recent paper compares gender bias in Wikipedia and Britannica: some of the women they found in other biographical sources, but missing from Wikipedia, have been provided since they conducted their analysis (June 2010). I've made a list of those still missing. Dsp13 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out both these things. The list should be useful to this project, and I'd be very interested in seeing any other articles you come upon that might help us understand our task better. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Reagle & Rhue point out that back in 2009 preliminary results "were posted and reviewed by interested Wikipedians who helped identify bugs in our source lists and results. Also, within a day, the “WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force” set about providing biographies for those missing in the preliminary analysis". Inspired by that earlier example, I'll have a go at providing 5 of the people now missing. Any one else fancy having a go? Dsp13 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, Susan Alamo, Ella Weed, Sarah Killgore Wertman, Minna Cauer and Caroline Rose Foster are there now. Still a few left, though! 13:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Honor Killings

The page on Honor Killings should have more added regarding the how the cultural views of women in different societies relates to the prevalence of honor killings. B.chachere (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Web Source for Lists of Women Leaders Worldwide

I want to share an excellent source I found for anyone interested in adding biographies (or info for longer articles): http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/index.html The creator of the site has compiled many lists of women leaders. Mostly they are contemporary and outside the scope of this project, BUT there are also many historical women listed, including women leaders of governments and of clergy, and some other categories.

There is almost no biographical information available on the women, but the lists themselves are a terrific resource. Also see the list of Links that he has for other excellent Web resources on women leaders worldwide.

OttawaAC (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to using this resource. Somehow overlooked your post earlier. I just pulled up the list of "Princess Abbesses 800–1600" (because frankly I didn't know what a "princess abbess" was, exactly), and pulled one of the names out at random: Berscinda of Remiremont, notice the redlink. These lists might be a good place to look for missing biographies, in addition to User:Dsp13/Redlinks/Women. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Stella Browne

Lesley Hall's full-length biography of Stella Browne has been published this year. I was a bit shocked to realise we didn't yet have a wikipedia page for Browne: I've put up a very minimal stub, which hopefully people will help flesh out a bit! Dsp13 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I bannered for the project, and gave it a "mid" importance rating, perhaps arbitrarily (could be argued as "low"). If there's a full-length biography, and we didn't even have an article, that just seemed to me to elevate the article's priority in terms of the project paying attention. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings

I am a new editor at Wikipedia, looking for an appropriate group with whom to work. I can't claim to be an "expert" in anything although I hold a B.S. (seems appropriate as I like to chat) in Psychology and Child Development, and am retired from my position as a Head Start administrator. I have decent writing skills, and a professional background that encourages the attitude, 'withhold judgment.'

User:WhatamIdoing suggested I stop by, here, and say, "Hi" since I am still looking for a place to roost. Are group members comfortable with it if I participate in discussions while I determine if this project is a good fit for me? Carmaskid (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! If you have questions about this project, then do ask it here, & of course you can join in discussions here. If you have general questions about wikipedia, or want any encouragement or advice, then you're welcome to ask stuff at my talk page. Dsp13 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely! We welcome discussion from everyone, member or not. We're still really just getting organized, and haven't landed on a collaborative task yet, so there's plenty of room to shape what we do and how we work together. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Review request

I have entirely re-written the article Fallen woman and it is no longer a stub as it is currently assessed. Could someone review its status please? Thanks. Whiteghost.ink 00:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Scope of WP Women's History - tagging

Apologies if this is redundant - I only briefly followed the shaping of the policies about what was to be included under the scope of the project. I'm looking to try to fill out the article on Augusta la Torre and before tagging it WH I want to make sure I understand the guidelines first. Am I understanding correctly that the page needs to attain a certain status under WP:Bio before it can be tagged a Women's History page (assuming it meets the notability guidelines)? Any guidance would be much appreciated!! Gwytherinn (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your article is included within the scope of this project. A biography needs to meet general notability requirements as outlined at WP:BIO, just because it would otherwise be subject to deletion. Your subject was born between 1900 and 1950, and it seems to me that reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or as contributing to significant societal or cultural change. Thanks! I'll just save you the trouble and place the banner; hope that's OK. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! Much appreciated, Cynwolfe. Thanks for explaining what is meant by general notability guidelines - I thought it had to be a certain level of completion in WP:BIO rather than a stub, that definitely clears up my confusion. Gwytherinn (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Need help fixing up a new article

One of our university project participants recently posted a new article for ladies' aid societies. The article was proposed for deletion 2 hours later. If anyone wants to help improve the article, there are several potential sources given at the bottom. It also needs some copy editing for grammar and tone. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That was an incredibly frivolous deletion tag; having material that's off-topic is not among the criteria for deletion. This topic has been on our list of wanted articles for months now. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one: Mary Collins (missionary). This one is definitely DKY-worthy (Did you know that the missionary Mary Collins was a friend and correspondent of Sitting Bull? is a pretty rockin' hook), but it has some copyediting issues. Also, the sources are listed in a bibliography section at the end, and it has no footnotes. I'm in a dash at the moment to do something off-Wiki, but it would be fantastic if some of us could help this article. The writer (it's for a Women's History class project too) is probably quite capable of doing footnoting if shown how. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I love doing footnotes & added citations; I'll work on it this week! Dreamingiris (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea of liking to do citations is so generous and supportive that it made me smile. I did a little copyediting and linking, but never got myself focused on this more substantive task. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphan Articles

Is there a list somewhere of articles in this project that are orphans? Seems like an easy way for people to help out if they're not yet comfortable writing/editing dreaming iris (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. I hope that helps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On this day

Am I correct in thinking that the "On this day" section of the front page is created from the article entry? So today's was made from December 12? If that is correct I am going to start through tagged articles and add to the date pages as appropriate. My assumption is the front page will get more views and lead to better articles. --Tbennert (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Many days, time permitting, I go through the Events and Births for the day, and see if any women's biographies or other entries need to be bannered (YES, I'm selective). While I'm there, I sometimes do a light edit if I see anything needing obvious attention (vandalism, misspellings, grammar stuff). Today, I saw that composer Augusta Holmès needed our banner, and I also changed some awkward/archaic language in the entry ("to him, she bore five children" became "the couple had five children"). So, yes, appearance on that list and certainly on the front page helps! Penny Richards (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards

Women's Sport

It appears that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport has been started. I am inclined to de-banner articles like Austria women's national ice hockey team and just have their wikiproject watch these. What does everyone else think? --Tbennert (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting (and enthusiastic!) As a some-of-the-time member here and enthusiastic member at the college football project, here's my $1.96 worth (inflation... used to be two cents). I'd recommend not rushing into a change because such a project may not sustain itself, and then many articles could be without support after a period of time. We encounter the same thing from time to time when someone starts up the "Michigan Wolverines" project or some other team base. They jump in, make a big splash, and then... get a job or something and don't come back. That said, support their enthusiasm as much as you can because 1) it may pan out long term; and 2) even if it doesn't, it could be extraordinarily helpful! Consider asking them to be a sub-project of this team here and working together.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd wonder whether sports shouldn't meet the same criteria as any other organization or activity. I de-bannered some women's sports leagues or titles because they were created too late to fall within in the scope of this project (like in the 1990s). Something like the movie A League of Their Own and the real-life women, teams, and events it was based on would fall within scope because of the perspective on women's history. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Martha Layne Collins

Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I wanted to drop by and solicit reviews for Martha Layne Collins, which is currently at FAC. The first time around, the nomination garnered only a source review; no supports or opposes. :( Collins was the first (and to date, only) female governor of Kentucky. She was the seventh female governor of any U.S. state and the third who was not a wife or widow of a former governor. At one time, she was the highest-ranking female Democrat in the U.S., and she received consideration as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984 before Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro instead. I realize she isn't exactly Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, but I thought some folks here might take the time to drop by and do a review nonetheless. I hope to get the article promoted in time to give it a chance to be WP:TFA on International Women's Day (March 8) or at least some time during Women's History Month in the U.S. (March). Your help is appreciated. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport

Hello if sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A teamwork together

Why not? Each of us has the skills and we can quite together contribute. I propose the writing together of the page Major women's sport leagues in North America. In more this collective realization can allow us of know and to settle together a solidarity, Soyons solidaire ensemble, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 5 day later regrettably few participants in the writing of the page Major women's sport leagues in North America . Then I need of yours fellback, to know of what you think of the text. I also need to make correct the text (spelling and syntax) saddened for the bad quality of my English language.[1] Merci beaucoup de votre aide. תודה על העזרה שלך --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
To encourages women's competitions with a sense of fair-play

Oh my poor english language

Bonjour, I worked the page McGill Martlets ice hockey (a great historique women hockey team in Canada) with my new photos. Then I need of yours fellback, to make correct the text (spelling and syntax) saddened for the bad quality of my English language. Merci beaucoup de votre aide. תודה על העזרה שלך --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Project scope question

There is a dispute at Talk:National Collegiate women's ice hockey championship over whether the article is within the scope of this project. (No discussion yet on the page, yet, just reverts in the history.) Your comments are welcome. Powers T 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. From our scope section on the main page:
Contemporary culture (1970 to present) generally lies outside the scope of this project. 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.
National Collegiate women's ice hockey championship started in 2001 and isn't an overview article. The type of overview article that we banner is Women's sports. An example of a narrower-focus article in scope (although it's much broader than "National Collegiate women's ice hockey championship") is Cheerleading because women's participation goes back to 1923. This project's focus is historical. As our scope section also says:
WikiProject Women's History is not "WikiProject Women" or "WikiProject Women's Studies".
Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with V. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Bonjour, I removed some scope of this wikiproject (and also some internals links) to demonstrate my good faith. I do not find really pleasant to work with you LT Powers. Criticizes you constantly my work and my contributions but you brought no new article on the Women Ice Hockey in your country (USA). Nevertheless there is a lot to write, so many good Women Americans players (et canadiennes également) play in the NCAA (Division I and Division III) , in CIS and in the Canadian Women's Hockey League. It's a pity to have more support of your part and of a part of WikiProject Women's History. It is a very sad situation for me. I think there there is a lot of resistance to changing anything the men contributors -- see as a core value or system, way of doing things, etc....and I freakin get penalized for it too in direct and indirect ways......How many women contributors in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey ??? Nothing 00000000 (je suis la seule femme hockeyeuse et j'ai quittée le Wikiproject Ice Hockey très déçue en avril 2011 avant de partir pour mon service militaire en Israël שרות הצבאי שלי בישראל איפה הייתי רפורמה אחרי 6 חודשים בגלל העין שלי .) Monsieurs, You have the law of the number to impose rules and procedures (and also make threats of blockings (see the discussion on my talk page with User:Djsasso (administrator and leader on wikiproject Ice Hockey). Madame Sue Gardner, the executive director of the Wiki Foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of Women contributors to 25 percent by 2015 [2]. I make a little prediction: in 2015 , 1 % will be women contributors in all English Wikipedia. Good luck with that. Bon dimanche à vous tous, sincèrement toujours hockeyeuse et féministe, excuse ma mauvaise langue anglaise --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The issue here has nothing to do with you being a women, but with the way you push your point of views on everything and the way you keep making assumptions of bad faith on the part of everyone else. Maybe it is just because you don't understand English well enough to understand the nuances of what we say sometimes but most people at the hockey project would love you to do more articles on notable women's hockey subject. The problem has only ever been about how you have gone about doing it and your lack of communication with people. -DJSasso (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that there has been errors on both sides DJSasso as you have been removing banners from articles like Women's association football, in which women have participated since the 1890s. This is the only reason I became involved (it was on my watchlist). This particular project has helped with other women's football articles in the past, see Lily Parr above. Communicating with colleagues via the medium of the haughty lecture is generally counterproductive. As is engaging in an edit war then threatening to block your opponent in a content dispute. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Which is why I pointed them toward discussing the situation per WP:BRD. They refused to and edit warred. As such the were warned for edit warring and were not threatened to be blocked by me as I would not be the one doing it. The particular user has been known for rampantly throwing POV info into articles and warring with everyone at every chance if they think about touching an article they edited. She was blocked on fr.wiki for both it and using sock puppets to push her point. You will have to forgive me if I decided to let her know edit warring was not acceptable here just like it isn't on fr.wiki and that discussing it was preferable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

General point about projects and their scope

This dispute seems to have originally started over editorial issues in the article itself (and in Laura Hurd Award). Unfortunately, it spilled over to the bannering issue, which in terms of actually improving the articles is of zero relevance. Since this article is not in the scope of the Women's History Project, I suggest that discussions over editorial issues (and editing behaviour) take place on the talk pages of the articles themselves and/or the appropriate projects, not here.

Having said that, I'm just going to make some general points about projects and bannering, as both sides in this dispute seem to have misconceptions about those issues and are conflating categories, portals, and projects. They are not the same thing, serve entirely different purposes, and are subject to different guidelines.

  • Categories are for organizing articles. They help readers and editors to find and navigate sets of related articles and topics.
  • WikiProjects are for organizing groups of editors and their work. What constitutes "their work", i.e. scope, is defined solely by a consensus of the project members themselves in terms of what the project's priorities are, the expertise of its members, and setting realistic goals. It is not defined by categories, "key words" or what anyone else thinks they ought or ought not to have in their scope.
  • Portals are primarily to interest readers, and offer a wide range of the best material that Wikipedia has to offer on the principal subject and closely related subjects. For example, Zelda Fitzgerald appears in Portal:Feminism because her life story may be of interest to readers interested in feminist issues. But the article itself is not bannered by WikiProject Feminism.

Talk page project banners are primarily to help projects organize their work, but also to provide a link for outside editors who may be looking for editors with expertise and access to sources on that subject, or need advice on formatting, etc. It is a misuse of banners to use them as a method of categorizing an article's subject or pointing readers to related subjects. Such links and categories go in the article itself.

The "bottom line" to all this is well summarized in the WikiProject Council Guide:

A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article.

We have decided not to banner articles like the ones in disupute, and we ask members to respect the project's consensus. I have no idea whether WikiProject Feminism has a consensus to banner them. That's a discussion for that project. If any of you are interested in how our project reached consensus about its scope, see WikiProject Women's History/Scope workshop. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for Featured Article nomination

This project has an opportunity to promote its article Birth control movement in the United States article to Featured Article status. If you are familiar with the Featured Article criteria, you are welcome to contribute a FA review at the review page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade at Featured Article Review

I have nominated Roe v. Wade 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. NW (Talk) 16:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

New article on female business executive

Check out Dawne Hickton -- does it need any more categories to be added? or can it be included in the Wikiproject Women's History?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to write. At present, I don't believe the article on Dawne Hickton falls within the scope of this project. She sounds like a successful and admirable person, but the article does not meet the project qualifications:
  • the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century
  • contemporary women as agents of historic change
Ms. Hickton may be successful in the business world, but it does not appear that she has "made history". Thanks again, and good luck with the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks for considering it. I hadn't known about the pre-1950s requirement. Perhaps I should have been cued in by the word history in WikiProject Women's History. Hmmmmm. Will learn to be a more careful reader. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tips for new contributors

If you have any new tips post them in this section. An archive of past tips can be found in the Tips archive. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

If you'd like one of your articles or drafts to be informally reviewed by project members, please list it here. For a wider audience and a more formal review, see also Wikipedia:Peer review. If you are using the formal peer review process, list the article's peer review page here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a new contributor and I hope I ask peer reviewing at the good place :-). I have found a poor article about Marie Angelique (a Native American of the 18th century who had a extraordinary life in France). I have started a translation of the French article about Marie Angelique including the extra informations presented here and some sources links (French radio shows and a link to a project of a comics under preparation in France about this woman). As I am French native speaker my translation in English is certainly not perfect with academic wiki vocabulary. Don't hesitate to correct my sandbox (if it is possible) or sending me your corrections My Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pierre.alix/sandbox Pierre.alix (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Pierre.alixPierre.alix (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration ideas

Hello! I was wondering if anyone was interested in working on or coordinating some sort of collaboration project? At the beginning of the project there was a lot of hustle and bustle but that appears to have tapered off. We all seem to be going in our own directions, which is fine, but a shared focus may give the project some direction. We could also get some notice on the Community portal. I would be more than happy to help but have no experience on the technical end of setting something up.

Some ideas I have seen:

  1. Move stub/start class article to C/B or better (x number per person for month, x number for entire project)
  2. Create x articles from redlinks, so many per person and for entire project
  3. Pick a high importance but C/B class and get to a GA nomination
  4. Add pictures or infoboxes to x number of articles that currently have none
  5. Remove x references needed or other chosen tags
  6. Have an assessment drive (I have noticed many articles haven't been assessed for years and are still labelled stub, so this might be welcome from other projects and create some good will from our "over-tagging")

Possibly we could do several and pre-plan. For instance do the redlinks in June then the stubs in August. Given the large scope of the project we could also choose to focus on a certain area, ie military, sports, political leaders. I'm hoping that with variety we might interest different editors. Does this sound like a direction anyone might want to go? --Tbennert (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A good idea. I can't really take an active role in planning, as I'm heavily involved in planning the monthly collaborations at WikiProject Opera. (You can see what ours look like by following the link.) I can offer some advice, though, based on my experience with the opera project...
  • Start small with a small manageable number of articles to improve or create each month. And in the case of improvements, keep those small too. Asking for small incremental improvements (e.g. sourcing, adding specific sections, finding images, stub expansion) is much more likely to lead to participation and an actual result than going for GA (often a waste of time and very capricious process) or FA (not a capricious process or a waste of time, but a huge amount of work)
  • Make sure there is plenty of variety in the articles to improve/create each month with a mix of time periods, subject areas etc. to appeal a wide variety of editors.
If the first few collaborations go well, you can up the ante. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Images & portraits

I'm keeping track in this section of bios I've found which need images and for which it should be possible to find public domain ones. Feel free to add further articles to the list and take them off if you've added a portrait. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Useful list. Some projects put to-do lists on the project page instead of the talk page so they don't get archived. Assuming this page is auto-archived. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is archived manually (by me at the moment, following this discussion) as it allows much more flexibility in terms of how long to keep things on the talk page. So this section can stay here forever if we want. I'll also add the requests to the "How you can help" section on the main page, but we've found at the Opera project that also having a section on the talk page itself, grabs members' attention more readily plus it allows for comments/queries re sources etc.. Voceditenore (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Images needed

Let's create a Women's History portal!

Just a thought... I was looking at the main History portal page, and there are links to other history portals along the side -- some of the major history projects don't have links there, alas, because they don't have portal pages. WP Women's History is one of them. WP Mesoamerica is another one... WP American West, WP History of Australia, and I forget what else. It'd be great to make some portal pages for these history projects. What can we do to put together a portal page for Women's History? OttawaAC (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

We definitely should be doing more. I think a portal was mentioned at one point. This is a holiday week in the U.S., so I'm trying to finish up a few things (I keep getting sucked back into my usual sphere of topics), but would be willing to look at this next week. Post a reminder in a few days, if you don't get much response right now; U.S. editors governed by the calendar at a university will be having a break this week, too, and may be away from WP as well. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Women's history will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to...you guessed it, women's history! We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about adding creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Requested articles as an on-wiki event for March? I think we should participate in some way. --Tbennert (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India: Women and gender issues

Hi everyone. AshLin has created a new task force for WikiProject India about women and gender issues! We're hoping this will populate as a place for improving coverage related to women and gender subjects. I'm so excited about it and I hope it inspires others to create similar task forces. (And wouldn't it be wonderful to see them disappear someday? :) I hope you'll find interest and help expand and build upon this great beginning. Visit the page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues SarahStierch (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Women's History in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Women's History for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Countering Systemic Gender Bias in Wikipedia

For anyone concerned about gender bias in Wikipedia, please consider joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias. All proposals for collaboration welcome! Feel free to ping me on my talk page as well. -Dekyi 03:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

College Women in Science and Engineering

I'm interested in creating a new article on Wikipedia tentatively named "College Women in Science and Engineering." I've decided to create this article because the lack of women in these fields is a common issue throughout the world, but as seen by the numerous articles I've visited so far, it is not discussed significantly enough. My article will discuss the lack of women in the S/E field, historical discrimination factors behind this issue, and their consequences for women both in college and in the job market beyond graduation. The other sub-sections I'll be adding are currently in a brainstorming process, but nevertheless, I hope to shed light on this issue beyond devoting just one paragraph or two alone (what I've seen on other pages). This is an issue that is too often and incorrectly assumed to be attributed to just women's choice alone, or worse, to some innate lack of mental capacity. I wish to discuss this and more in depth, so I'll be free to suggestions and peer edits for the next couple of months as I work everything out. It is also worth noting that, for time and space concerns, my article will only focus on this issue in America.

J hernan26 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)J hernan26

Hi Juan. Have a look at History of women in engineering and related articles under Category:Women in technology for some relevant material. Best Regards Tjepsen (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(((( Update ))))

This is in response to my above posting about creating the "College Women in Science and Engineering" page. After much feedback, I've decided that I'll no longer be going through with a separate page altogether but will instead add substantially to the "Women in Engineering" page. This article could use some serious revision given its significance to feminism and women's technical achievements throughout time. I believe I'll keep most of the previous layout the same, but I'll just be sure to exclude the science part and focus exclusively on engineering. And I won't focus too much on college women but rather women engineers as a whole. I hope this is better and certainly not too narrow. And as always, I'll be open to suggestions and help along the way.

J hernan26 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)J hernan26

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon

Hello! I just wanted to mention that there will be a Women's History Month edit-a-thon in San Francisco on March 17, 2012. Cheers, Stephen (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Updating the History of Abortion page

Hello! I am interested in updating the History of Abortion page, which is an extremely important aspect of women's history. For being the main page about the subject, this page is very undeveloped: It covers the medical aspect of abortion and the way societies' views changed on the subject over the years, but it has little to nothing written about the effect of reproduction legislation on populations and focuses more on distant history than it does on more recent events.

I intend to focus on the section on abortion law, which at the moment is mostly a short summary and an incomplete timeline split up between two pages detailing reproductive legislation from around the world. I hope to include more historical information on past legislation, as it is not only not very well organized, but needs to be expanded upon. The Abortion Law page itself only talks about current abortion law, and the pages specializing in abortion in certain countries are also more focused on the present than they are on past legislation. No page goes into detail as to why these laws were implemented, how these laws affected a population, or why they may have been revoked. I plan to consolidate and link all of these pages to each other in order to eliminate redundancy and ensure cohesiveness, as well as provide more information on the effects of said laws in order to give a more holistic view of the situations they present. I will be focusing on Romania, China, and India, although other countries will probably be mentioned as well.

Does anyone have any suggestions for me in this endeavor? I would appreciate your feedback. Thank you! Scb3 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of female architects

As part of the drive for Women's History Month, some of us have been actively working on women architects. The List of female architects now contains most of the important names on a country-by-country basis. While the biographies of early proponents of the role of women in architecture obviously derserve to be included in WP Women's History, I have doubts about some of the more recent players. For example, it seems to me that contributors such as Anna Heringer and Zeynep Fadillioglu deserve to be included for their innovative work while members of architectural firms like Lone Wiggers or Veronika Valk appear less deserving (and therefore have not been included). Do others agree with this approach? Perhaps someone could check through the importance ratings to see if they are in line. - Ipigott (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not really a question of "deserving", more a queston of this project's scope which has a historical focus. Only in very rare cases would we banner an article for someone born after 1950, and their achievement would have to be pretty ground-breaking in terms of women's history for that to happen. If we ever get our act together enough to start a Women's History Portal, Zeynep Fadillioglu might be a possible candidate for an entry there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad I asked. I'll now have quite a bit of revision to do. Glad to see we have a common interest in music. - Ipigott (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Women's History Month and Texas First Ladies and Gents

For Women's History Month, I created List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Texas and an accompanying Navbox. It's an area that has slipped through the cracks in Wikipedia. Photos are needed, as are individual pages. While all the presidents of the Republic, and the Governors of the state, have had individual articles created, most of the First Ladies of Texas have not, becoming neglected footnotes in history as names married to important persons. The state's only First Gentleman - James E. Ferguson - has his own page, but only because he was first a Governor. Any help anyone would care to give would be welcome. Maile66 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Women's History featured in the Signpost

See the interview with participants here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-03-12/WikiProject_report. Sarah (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion-Active members list

On a long-term basis, there might be a better way for the project to have this list set up You might consider the method used at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Members#Active Members. They have it alpha and employ the User Template to produce this: Maile66 (talk · contribs). I recently totally reworked Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas/Participants in this manner. It had not been touched for years. Because the User Template was not originally used, it took twice the amount of time to get to the User Contributions to check account status. Tedious, but necessary. I had to clean out permanently blocked accounts, retired editors, redlinks where account pages had been deleted, etc. If the list is reworked now, before it gets too large, it will make it easier to handle. Maile66 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and alphabetized and standardized the list with the User template. I took out some names that had no account, not even a redlink, and no way to verify contributions. Without being able to verify contributions, it would be so easy to vandalize the list with fictitious names. I found at least one I think may have been just that. The list needs to be pruned - some moved into Inactive, at least. Some have not actively edited on WP in almost a year.Maile66 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Softball at the Olympics

Hey. I'm working on improving Softball at the Summer Olympics on my userspace at User:LauraHale/Softball at the Summer Olympics with an idea of taking it to DYK later this week. (Hence lack of main space editing.) Can some one give the article in my user space a good copy edit? Possibly add more information to it? The article is one that might possibly be easy enough to take to Featured list now if it gets a little love to improve it. --LauraHale (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Women and their connection to the Environment

I am working on substantially fixing up the current article Women and the environment through history. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done on this article and it is quite a big undertaking. Because it is such an immense topic, I am going to focus on the role of women in agriculture and land development. There are a number of feminists and economists alike that have provided research on this topic. I am trying to figure out the best way to narrow down the topic from a historical perspective. Maybe it would be best to create a summary paragraph about the connection between women and agriculture or at least add links to the corresponding pages? The article needs a lot of help so any advice for improvements would be extremely beneficial. Alainas (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Only 2 paragraphs about women in mathematics

I just discovered that Wikipedia only has 2 paragraphs about women in mathematics. Crazy! Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Helen M. Duncan nominated for deletion.

Just an FYI that geologist and paleontologist Helen M. Duncan, created as part of WikiWomen's History Month, has been nominated for deletion. Sarah (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Should she be included? Ninfa Laurenzo

Ninfa Laurenzo (1924-2001) started a well known restaurant chain in Houston which became iconic in the city's culture. I argue she should be included since she had formed a significant part of Houston culture, and became a part of the Texas Women's Hall of Fame, and had won several awards related to being a female restaurant owner. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, any woman on Wikipedia belongs in this project =) What an interesting article! Sarah (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
What about Dawne Hickton then -- if any woman is worthy of being in Wikipedia, shouldn't Hickton be worthy of being in the WikiProject Women's History? Like, don't people make history by well doing stuff? And, what about Marsha Kazarosian -- top notch lawyer described as a "barracuda" who defended one of the Pamela Smart teenagers. Ditto Sara Nelson. Also, SarahStierch should belong in Wikipedia too -- we'll get an article about you sooner or later. Frankly, I think all women are cool and historical. And how does one pronounce "Ninfa" => NINH fuh? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree that any woman belongs in this project. The project is supposed to be Women's History. The scope is very well defined on the front page and includes women "up to the mid-20th century". The project is already extremely large. I think it will become unmanageable if we try to include every woman. --Tbennert (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I never before noticed the front page limited the historical timeline. What a shame, considering some serious accomplishments by black women were made past the mid-20th Century mark, and are part of the project: Coretta Scott King,. Barbara Jordan, Rosa Parks, Angela Davis. Also listed with the project are Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir. If one of this project's purposes is to shed light on the accomplishments of women - and to attract the new generation of editors - why put limitations on it? I don't know about what size is considered manageable. But limitations can kill the interest in being part of it. Maile66 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Notability means you've made history in some way. :) And great point about the figures - most of the articles I write are about 20th and 21st century women. I guess Hillary Clinton isn't part of the project either? Sarah (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no! First Hillary loses the Democratic nomination. And now we won't let her be a part of our group. She just can't get no respect. Maile66 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Hillary's good for the project, but strongly disagree that any woman article subject on Wikipedia is. "Up to the mid-20th century" is arbitrary and does exclude important historical figures, but it has the benefit of excluding most pop culture cruft which would otherwise flood the project. We should keep it as a baseline and determine other articles' inclusion on a case-by-case basis (and Maile66, the ones you named would certainly belong). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese on the case-by-case basis, as all projects ought to be. Women as a whole didn't really come into their own, power-wise, until the mid-20th Century. And as a whole, they contributed considerably to the history of this world. In the techno speed universe we now live in, anything that happened before the previous midnight is history. In browsing through current female elected representatives around the world, they've been included on this project - as they deserve to be. And how would you control it, anyway? As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia safeguard to prevent anybody who wants to, from sticking a project banner on any article. Just because somebody didn't list their name on the project, doesn't mean they don't contribute to the project. Who would be the official project police person? With the project already having over 10,000 articles, it would take an approved bot - and a consensus - for such to remove those who don't qualify on the time issue. Manageability of a project is all relative as to which volunteers are willing to take on anything. I really applaud this project for its focus and effort. I'm just happy to be able to contribute any article, and proud to be a part of the group. Maile66 (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion, including those of late 20th-21st century are defined on the project page, but it is somewhat subjective, of course. However, to include all articles on all women would be a mistake. I've gone through hundreds and hundreds of stub-articles on women that are in the early stages of their careers as models, second-rate actresses, wannabe popstars, or one-hit wonders. I'm pretty sure most are written by fans and editors who like to build a long list of "new articles" to their credit. I'd like to delete loads of them, but don't want to go through deletion proposal process so many times. Then there are the articles in a sort of "gray area": smart, modern women of the business world, or perhaps a mayor or state politician with higher political aspirations. They usually don't qualify because, as awesome as they are, or their supporters think they are, they haven't contributed to history. Obviously, Rosa Parks belongs in the project, and indeed she's rated High-importance. It takes some judgement, but I often add, and occasionally remove, the WP:Women's History banner from an article. If I remove it, I provide the reason on the talk page. As for Membership, some members do go through the list and police it. Last year, despite having contributed an article and to discussions, and added the Userbox on my userpage, I was told I wasn't considered a member because I hadn't added my name to the list of members. Alot of thought and debate went into the criteria for inclusion of articles, and I think some members are very concerned about keeping the members' list current. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You've done well, Boneyard90. I guess the project people have a right to say if that membership list constitutes the entire membership. The point I meant to make was more about the project banner than the project membership. The project people can set the guidelines of what they want it to be. And run it as best as they can, hoping for the best possible outcome. I believe there is an admirable effort at this project. But the structure of Wikipedia itself it too open to lock in guaranteed results. Nobody is the boss of anybody. In theory, an unregistered editor (or vandal), can make a one-time edit that is nothing but putting a banner on an article. The only monitoring of that are individuals such as yourself, who want it to be as correct as possible. As much as I believe late 20th Century and even 21st Century women have overhauled a woman's place in history, I also see in my research that the time period targeted by this project is where there seems to be such a vacuum on the documentation of women's achievements. Perhaps that's how the timeline was arrived at. Maile66 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. And thank you. There was some concern on how to keep the project relevant, and what to do about well-meaning runaway banner-taggers (for lack of a better term...). For example at one point, Mariah Carey and Janet Jackson were both rated Top importance in Women's History. Stuff that makes you shake your head in wonder. Things like that were of some concern, and after alot of definitions were thrown around, the present policies of inclusion were hammered out. Some editors stressed over what to do about banners added without an assessments. There were some real micromanagement policy brainstorming. But, we're all volunteers, we all want to see the project go in a positive direction, and since we all have lives in the real world, no editor can police all members and all articles all the time. Basically, when looking at an article on a 20-21st century woman or event, and asking if it's relevant to Women's History, I use the The Duck Test. If another editor has a problem with my decision, I'm open to dialogue, do not take offense at a difference in opinion, and (I hope) ready to change my position if the other editor provides a valid point or stronger case. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland retold in words of one syllable

Why is this article in the Women's History project? It seems that anything to do with a deceased woman is being included which has devalued the project scope entirely. Span (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be more productive to ask the editor who applied the project banner to the article's Talk page. You can address the question to User talk:Dimadick. I have been asked several times in the past why I applied a banner to an article, and I think in all cases, the questioning editor was satisfied with my rationale. On the other hand, you can Be Bold and remove the banner if you feel the article falls outside the scope of the project.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Women in architecture

I've finally got round to writing a first draft of this article. I intend to expand on developments during the early to mid 20th century, including many of the names in the List of female architects. I've made a number of suggestions on the article's talk page for those interested in participating or leaving suggestions. - Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You did an incredible job on this list. I'm just in awe. I added it over on the project's Requested Articles under the subsection on lists. Most lists out there have redlinks, so it's a good place for an editor to look to find project needs.Maile66 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the list. It has indeed required quite a lot of work but I was only one of the contributors. You'll see there are still a number of red links for the American pioneers, some difficult to follow up on. But I was in fact hoping for reactions to the article Women in architecture. In particular, I still need to add a section on developments during the 20th century. I am trying to present a world view. Sources are not easy to find. Perhaps you can help or bring it to the attention of those who may be interested? - Ipigott (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluation of "Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez"

I recently edited the article Female homicides in Ciudad Juarez and would like to request a reevaluation of the article to be a part of WikiProject Women's History. Thank you very much! Cnovoa17 (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Over 50 articles created from our requested articles

I just cleared out over 50 blue links from our requested articles page. Well done to all those who put up new articles there! Still plenty of redlinks remaining on the page... Dsp13 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Women's project authority(s), please give input

This project's main page is missing a valuable tool. Here's the link from the Hawaii on what they have: WP Hawaii/New articles . At the bottom of that page, it tells how to set up the bot search.

It would be wonderful to have a main page link to click and see what new articles are attributed to this project. It could be inspiring, too.

I was just over at Tedder's page discussing this, and he'll be happy to help the Women's History project set up the routine bot search, if he's provided with the search terms. I think this is a decision best made by whoever has some authority on this project. If you will just go over to that talk page, Tedder can help set this up to run automatically for the project. Maile66 (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What it does

Maybe this will help clarify.Maile66 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The New Articles page is a daily updated list:
    • Based on search terms given to Tedder, it lists all new articles that fit into the project scope
    • You know exactly what new articles are out there about women
    • You know the editor's name, and date it was created
    • You can instantly identify which article has not been assessed
    • Tedder needs search terms to make this work.

Maile66 (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe user:Kaldari could help you. (from here)--Taranet (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry for not replying sooner. I've been quite busy elsewhere. This is a great tool! We've been using it WikiProject Opera for years. But it takes quite a lot of thought re the appropriate search terms to avoid hundreds of false positives, especially in a subject as broad as this. Otherwise, checking new articles becomes quite laborious. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to work on the search terms at the moment, but I hope someone here can take the lead on this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • WPMED uses it, too. I think that you might consider setting it up with a few terms (e.g., feminist, suffragette, equality, sexism) and seeing what you get, and then revising several times until you have a list that seems mostly functional. I do wish sometimes for greater options, like the ability to reject any article containing the word "television", but it is basically effective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Template: Stub class articles

{{Women's-History-stub}} is available in the project's template pages. Questions, please refer to WikiProject Stub sorting

-Maile66 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi :Maile66. Did you follow the procedure for proposing new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals? Was it approved? I can see a problem here in that it places the article in a project assessment category, i. e. Category:Stub-Class Women's History articles. My understanding is that such categories are only for talk pages, never for articles themselves and shouldn't be used in article space. Stub templates in article space need to place it in an article category.
The template, if used, should place the articles in something like Category:Women's history stubs, which would be a subcat of Category:Women in history. See for example {{Jewish-hist-stub}} which places articles in Category:Jewish history stubs which is a subcategory of Category:Jewish history not Category:Stub-Class Jewish history-related articles. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I must have missed your answer yesterday when I was seeking direction about this project. So sorry.Maile66 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You didn't miss it. I just replied a few minutes ago. SMirC-smile.svg Maybe you could fix it by creating Category:Women's history stubs using Category:Jewish history stubs as a model, and then changing the category parameter in the template itself to that new category. But it would also be a good idea to get some advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There was already an existing category, which is why I didn't create a new one. You need to see This. Quite frankly, this whole idea has been like pulling teeth to get any input from anyone. So, for the time being, I'm outta here. Maile66 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the existing category you used is not meant to be added to article pages, which is why I suggested changing it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the new stub article was not proposed, and I'm not sure would have been approved if it were, even with a name matching stub naming conventions such as {{women-hist-stub}}. The aim for stub categories is 60-800 articles, not the 4000 suggested, and a project's 'stub class articles' and a stub tag/category are not neccesarily the same thing, although there is often quite a bit of overlap.
The inclusion of an article into a stub category is based on the relevence of the article to those categories, not the relevence of the category to the article. Many of the projects stub-class articles are biographies of women who did not not study or otherwise have any involvement with the topic of women's history - While they may be of relevence to the study of Women's history, you could just as well argue along that line that every single biography stub on wikipedia should have a history tag, and perhaps a biology one too.
Stub categories, where reasonable, try to either follow the lines of permanent categories or otherwise have a clear definition of what should and shouldn't be included. Looking at some samples already tagged with this stub, there are no common permanent cateogries - if an article is not in any subcat of Category:Women in history or similar, what justifies putting it in Category:Women's history stubs? --Qetuth (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you. This was proposed at WikiProject Stub sorting over a year ago. It's in this section. The proposal discussion (which was never closed) highlighted some of the problems which you've pointed out. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Project activity

A bit of history... WikiProject Women's History was started in February 2011 with initially very few members. However, one month after starting the project, its founder stopped editing Wikipedia and hasn't returned since. Some of us stepped in to get some of the mechanics of the project operating and to start discussions to refine the Project's scope as mass-tagging and no previous consensus on scope left us at one point with over 5000 articles tagged for this project, almost all of which were unassessed..

There is still more the Project could do, but we're short on members, especially ones with a fair amount of time available for project "affairs" (for want of a better word). I've recently moved my name from the "Active members" to the "Supporting members" list. My committments to WikiProject Opera and clerking at WP:Copyright problems mean that I no longer have the time to work here as much as before, although I'm happy to keep on maintaining the talk page archives.

The areas where active members can help include:

These future projects/proposals need a relatively bigger time committent, at least in the short term, but would be well worth having

  • Set up the search terms for TedderBot (New article alerts)
  • Set up a Women's History Portal

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On the quality assessments, I believe there's a bot that will swipe the assessment from another project or from {{stub}} tags in the articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide probably has the information. This is going to become important, because the WP:1.0 team is talking about another release in few months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I had proposed this last year, but the consensus was to have a bot run to inherit only stub ratings + GA and FA, and I duly arranged that limited run. The discussion is archived here. The project might want to revisit the issue, though. If nothing else, to expand the inheritance to include "start" ratings. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this is an extremely important project for the English Wikipedia and I am saddened to see that there is not more support. The appreciation of women's contribution to a wide range of developments over the past couple of centuries is unfortunately not well understood but could have been vastly improved by more concerted interest in this project. I have tried over the past few months to contribute more enthusiastically to articles on the extent to which women have played an active role in the cultural sphere (e.g. art, architecture) but have not found much support from female editors. I wonder if anyone has any bright ideas about how to encourage wider interest and participation? - Ipigott (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I stay pretty active in editing articles that fall within the project scope. But I'd rather write than do anything administrative. I'm hoping that once Wikipedia launches the long-awaited visual editing tool to make the process more intuitive for new editors, we might get some more contributors with a background in history. Fingers crossed. In the meantime, I guess it'd be best to keep the priorities of the project aimed at the level of participation that we have to work with. I'll spend some more time assessing new articles for project for example.OttawaAC (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)