Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History

WikiProject Women's History

Quick Menu ()

• Main · Discuss the Project
  • Scope and Goals
  • How you can help
  • Related WikiProjects
  • Categories
  • School and university projects
• Recognized content
• Members
• Resources
• Assessment
• Article Alerts
• Popular pages
• Templates
• Did You Know
• Featured Pictures
• In this month
• Quotes
• Ask a question
• Requested articles
• Taskforces

Archives Table of Contents

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)

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

• Laura Clay: here's a lead, but I won't be able to follow it
• Harriet Bishop
• Emily Newell Blair

Importance ratings

As I try to do some assessing, I find that my thinking is falling into certain hierarchical patterns, and I wondered whether this was in keeping with the way other members of the project thought about importance ratings, since I want to reflect our general thinking together, not just some notion I have. Let me give some examples.

Organizations that meet the criteria for inclusion, but seem to have had fairly localized or narrowly focused impact, I tend to rate as low. Organizations that do global work (like an international women's health initiative) I rate as mid. Although I happen not to have an example at hand, there would also be international organizations that were very well-known and of great longevity that would merit a "high."

To me, "Women in [name of country]" are all of high importance. For example, Women in Uganda isn't a very effective article right now, and lacks historical structuring, though it has a historical perspective.

"Top" importance articles would be mainly issues that affect women globally. But an argument could be made that articles of the Women in Uganda ilk are of top importance.

I mostly haven't been looking at biographies, but I've demoted a certain number of these from mid to low because the women were royal consorts but don't seem to have done anything in their own right—didn't act as regent, or aren't credited with any special achievements. Of course, it's possible that I'm mistaken in some cases; their articles may simply not reflect their achievements at present, and if so someone who knows better can raise the importance rating. But because of the number of potential biographies covered (all women born before 1900!) the importance ratings seem to be crucial in prioritizing our work.

Thanks for any guidance anyone offers. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're on a fair and balanced path. When it comes to Importance, my thinking is usually along the lines of:

• Top - Core topic. No encyclopedia on the subject would be complete without the article. The project-subject would definitely not be the same without the article-subject.
• High - Undoubtedly influenced the project subject. Of interest to most readers of the subject. When related to countries and culture, the article-subject heavily influenced its own, or is significant across multiple countries/cultures.
• Mid - Influenced some area(s) of the project-subject. The project-subject would be mostly the same without it, but some area might be different. In cultures/countries, the article-subject had some visible impact in the one, or is lightly significant between two cultures/countries (possibly up to a "few" cultures/countries, though with diminishing degree of significance).
• Low - Of interest to the most dedicated readers, or fills in smallest details of project subject. It may be a very rare or obscure event, a place known only to the local populace, or an individual known in one specialized corner of a sub-field of scientific discipline, artistic genre, or historic period. The project-subject is not directly affected by a Low-importance topic-item. In cultures/countries, the article-subject is present but not significant within one culture or country. Many people within that culture/country may be unaware of its existence.

These are some of the guidelines I've picked up as I've evaluated "importance" in the articles of other projects. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's a "foreign area" to me as we don't use importance ratings for opera articles, but Boneyard90's suggestions seem rather more helpful than the ones we currently have. Perhaps you all could work out the final wording and clear example articles for each class. Once you've decided I'll be happy to do the mechanics of updating the importance table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Assessment to reflect that, or someone else can. Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I can start thinking how I can streamline the above "generalized" descriptions into more project-specific wording. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I like Boneyard90's guidelines very much. Below I propose some rewording, streamlining, and specifying for our project below. Based on the process of drafting the scope criteria, I might suggest for clarity of wording (at least for working out a draft) a separate set of importance guidelines for biographies. Boneyard90, would you be willing to spin out another set tailored to bios? That's where I'm having the most trouble, and these guidelines don't fully address the problem. I very much like acknowledging "of interest to readers," and even though there may be a degree of subjectivity to this, page hits are one fair indication; for instance, I upped the importance rating of Lucrezia Borgia from low to mid, because she showed up on the Popular pages list. She's a perennial subject of historical fiction, and her recent page hits were probably boosted by the Showtime series. To me, informing interest piqued by fictional portrayals is one of the most useful things we can do. (I confess I checked the WP articles after watching The Borgias, and was disappointed that they didn't address some of the questions I had.)Cynwolfe (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative wording for importance guidelines

• Top - Core topic for the understanding or study of women's history. No encyclopedia would be complete without the article.
• High - Of interest to most readers of the subject. Of global significance, or of fundamental importance within a particular culture or country. Encyclopedic coverage of women's history would be incomplete without the article.
• Mid - Of interest to many readers. Complements or provides expanded coverage of core and global topics. Material contained in the article is needed for an intermediate understanding of women's history.
• Low - Of interest to the most dedicated readers. Provides detailed or peripheral coverage of a narrowly defined topic within women's history, such as an event, organization, or issue of limited or localized impact, or a work of art discussed primarily by scholars working in particular fields of study. Omission of the article would not substantially detract from an understanding of women's history as a whole, but the article adds to specialized or advanced knowledge of a topic within this project's scope.

Biography Importance

I've been mulling this over. I'm kinda not big on the idea of relying on page views for "importance". I mean, I'm sure sometimes a popular person's article will get more hits than person of significant contribution. Maybe not, since we're culling all the celebrity BLPs. Also, if an article is new, then it wouldn't have so many hits. Anyway, it may be a valid method to gauge "importance", I've just never used it. So when it comes to biographies, here are my thoughts. For the sake of brevity, I will use the umbrella term Sphere to include the person's culture, country, scholastic discipline, or vocational field, but it does not need to be used in the final form.

• Top importance: Woman whose contribution is significant in human history.
• High: Woman whose contribution has affected multiple spheres, or significantly and recognizably altered the history of her sphere. A woman who is recognized as a true pioneer in her field or discipline. Person who has had a direct and lasting impact on the status of women.
• Mid: Woman whose contribution is notable within her sphere, or is mildly notable across several spheres. Person who has had some impact on the status of women within a sphere.
• Low: Woman who has mildly, though recognizably influenced the history of one sphere. Person who has affected the status of women in one portion of a sphere.

I've tried to keep these brief, so I omitted what level of academic interest these pertain to. They're all works in progress, so feel free to edit and modify as need be. I separated out "woman" versus "person" because, as I understand it, we may include biographies of men whose efforts may have affected the status of women. Here are some current examples:

• Biography of Top importance: Murasaki Shikibu, credited as writing the world's first novel. I believe this is currently the only biography of Top importance, though I think Madame Curie deserves the same recognition.
• High importance: Joan of Arc, significantly affected the history of France; recognized across multiple cultures. Also, Jane Goodall, who has had notable impact in the fields of anthropology, zoology, environmentalism, the promotion of peace in Africa, and brought awareness to the suffering of both the animals and the people.
• Mid importance: Geraldine Doyle, model for the Rosie the Riveter poster of World War II, and had a notable impact with the U.S. and whose image affected the status of women in the U.S. Alternately, there is Beatrix Potter, who contributed to mycology and literature, and whose book, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, has been published in multiple languages since its publication in 1902.
• Low importance: Suzanne Aubert, a nun who established an orphanage and a religious order in New Zealand.

Basically, when it comes to someone's Wiki-importance, I figure impact and sphere are inversely proportionate. An impact in one sphere may be equivalent to more a moderate impact spread out over several spheres. I'll keep thinking on this, maybe "spheres" isn't the way to go. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you completely about page hits not equaling importance—my point was more narrowly that if a lot of people are seeking information from an article that's within our scope, that's a prompt to make sure the article gives them what they need. So while I would say that "demand" is a prompt for "supply," your guidelines are both in keeping with the scope criteria for including biographies and a useful parallel to the general guidelines for rating the importance of articles covered by this project. You could change "woman" to "subject" to account for the men whose biographies may be included. I would rethink the adverb "mildly"; I wouldn't know what that meant, and from a legalistic perspective it leaves too much room for debate. Something like "limited" or "localized" might be more precise. For example, the "low" criterion could read "Subject has had localized or limited influence."

I don't agree, however, that Murasaki Shikibu is of top importance. Although she may have written the first novel, its influence is not global, and has nothing to do, for instance, with spawning the work of Jane Austen; the Western tradition of the novel is unrelated, because Murasaki Shikibu's work was unknown in the West when the novel as a form developed in Hellenistic Greece. While acknowledging my Western biases, I would say Elizabeth I and Cleopatra are of top importance in English discourse, this being the English-language Wikipedia; this is a case where page hits do matter, because the frequency with which they are accessed indicates how culturally pervasive the two figures are. In other words, there are two aspects to the cultural influence a figure wields: what the person actually did, and the frequency with which they appear in public or academic discourse. Queen Victoria is probably of top or high importance; she gave her name to an era, and ruled during a time when the British Empire was global.

But more to the point, importance ratings probably only matter in relation to quality ratings in terms of prioritizing the work of the project as a whole. For instance, if we rated an article of "high" importance, but it was only "stub," "start" or "C" class, that would alert us that it's an article we should probably be attending to. This is one reason I objected to auto assessment: from the perspective of women's history, American Old West might only be "start" class. So I'd say importance ratings are less rigid categories than they're "food for thought", and I appreciate your thinking through this. Very useful. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think the language of the Wikipedia was really relevant. I though this project was aimed at a very inclusive view of women's history, the role of women in all history, not just the effects of women on the West. If it is the former, I think we should attempt to rate articles objectively, not by how "well-known" one subject is in Western cultures. I find this quite objectionable; even a little appalling that in a project where the "primary purpose" is "improving Wikipedia's coverage of women from a historical perspective", someone would discriminate between subjects' achievements based on region and/or familiarity. On the other hand, if that is the direction other project members want to go, so be it, I will not be the one constant dissenting voice.

I agree with several points. For example, I detest bot-generated auto-assessments. As for your examples of subjects, I can see Elizabeth I being elevated to Top, but definitely not Cleopatra VII. As for Queen Victoria, sure she gave her name to a British era, which affected American culture (I would argue mostly the Anglo upper-class families), but as for her role in ruling the British Empire... that has merit. I would also include Queen Isabella I of Castile, in a High/Top level if she's not already. The question is, does "discourse" of subject equate with a certain level of accomplishment? We may once again be looking at popularity versus achievement, Princess Diana versus Mother Theresa. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But we're talking about historical figures, and how they leave a mark: not fame or popularity for BLPs. Continuing to be talked about is one measure of impact/influence for someone who's been dead for a thousand or two thousand years. Becoming emblematic of women in one's own time is also significant to women's history: Hildegard of Bingen's importance to the study of the medieval period in general has increased over the last 30 years because of the impact of "women's history." As the article notes, "Attention in recent decades to women of the medieval Church has led to a great deal of popular interest in Hildegard, particularly her music." Importance is always about perception. Cleopatra is important as the last ruler of an independent Egypt in antiquity, but also because even soon after her death she became emblematic of the question of whether women are "fit" to rule, and has occupied the imaginations of both historians and creative/popular artists (Shakespeare to Hollywood) to the present. I did not assert Eurocentrism as a principle; I said that because this is English Wikipedia, some figures are going to be more often accessed here than they would be on other language wikis. You miss my primary point, which is that if an article is important but has a poor quality rating, that's where we need to direct our attention. A GA that's of top or high importance may not need our attention, but we don't know that until we assess it. Besides, the claim made for Murasaki Shikibu is incorrect, and I see no grounds for rating her as of higher importance than Jane Austen, and certainly not of "top" importance as fundamental to an understanding of women's history; her article may be a higher priority for the attention of this project, however, because Austen's article is already well tended, and Murasaki Shikibu's is not, as evidenced by the rather outsized factual error in the introductory paragraph which has now been corrected. She missed writing "the earliest novel in human history" by at least a thousand years. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we mostly agree, but unfortunately the devil's in the details. As for Lady Murasaki, I'm sure by the time you've read this, you probably will have read my reply on the Talk page. In my view, it's precisely because she (and others) are not well known that we should evaluate their importance objectively so that hopefully readers will access the page and learn about them. It's like Rosalind Franklin, who has been denied much of the credit and recognition due since her death, mostly because she was unknown, even though her contribution was no less important than that of Watson & Crick. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree absolutely that this is one of if not the core goal of the project. In many cases, articles on lesser-known figures who haven't gotten their due may also have a quality rating of C or below, or if the article has already been well tended, then it will have a B rating or above, and we don't have to worry about it. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment ratings

Starting a fresh section on the Assessment ratings so it is clean. Would it be a good idea to pull the discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Assessment? or is it better on this page?

Here is a combination of the old assessment scale, the general one from above and the biography one from above. I've chopped a bit of the language in an attempt to make it more new-user-friendly. This version also does not have Top rated biographical articles. Low is pretty sparse because I feel the types of articles to include have already been covered in scope. Essentially anything not in another rating, and within scope, is automatically in low. --Tbennert (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Draft assessment scale

Top: The most significant topics in women's history. No encyclopedia would be complete without the article.

High: Of global significance, or of fundamental importance within a particular culture, country or timeperiod. Woman whose contribution has affected multiple spheres, or significantly and recognizably altered the history of her sphere. A woman who is recognized as a true pioneer in her field or discipline. Person who has had a direct and lasting impact on the status of women. Encyclopedic coverage of women's history would be incomplete without the article.

Mid: Individual women, events, organizations, etc. that are important within one sphere, or are mildly notable across several spheres. Person who has had some impact on the status of women within a sphere.

Low: Other women, events, organizations, topics, etc. Person who has affected the status of women in one portion of a sphere.

I like it. It looks like you combed through the earlier exchange and distilled the essentials. Thank you. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Support – Love it! USchick (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Home ec

I added our banner to Home economics because of the interesting points raised by this New York Times article, which pointed out the role of home ec classes in "sneaking" women into higher education in the early 20th century. The WP article is currently missing this element of women's history. Not something that had occurred to me; I had always thought of home ec as something girls had to study and boys didn't (up to the 1970s). The writer is a guest contributor who's an academic about to publish a crossover book. Just thought I'd mention it, since it isn't a topic I'd be able to get to soon. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lily Parr

I'm looking for another pespective on this notable early footballer. She seems to have been made into an LGBT poster girl, because she apparently lived with a woman. The article was expanded on that basis and got a peer review from the LGBT task force. But an angry IP then expunged a lot of the lesbian stuff. Because I only write football articles I don't know how to approach the subject when I expand the article. I think if Parr was borderline notable I'd be inclined to leave it out altogether, but she is in the English football Hall of Fame. Any advice/assistance appreciated, thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be an easy topic to address quickly. Many of the sources I'm finding say something like "gee, this woman deserves a biography, she's so interesting." I haven't found any books that identify her as a lesbian. A regular Google search, however, makes it clear that she is indeed considered a lesbian icon, as does this source already used in the article. I don't see a problem with stating the obvious (that she's become a lesbian sports icon), but if someone is dead set against such a statement, there are exhausting ways to wiki-lawyer against it. I can't even determine where the oft-repeated statement "she lived openly with her female partner" comes from, since the only biographical entries I can find focus on her youth/family/class background and her sports career. Newspapers of the time, if they even mentioned her partner, would've been too discreet to use as definitive evidence. Are there interviews when she was older, diaries, letters? Newspaper archives? But if you ever wanted to write a sports bio, this would be a great one to pitch to an agent or publisher, if you could get the primary sources. Sorry I don't know how to be of help. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn

Hi, the article on Katharine Hepburn has had a recent overhaul and has been raised by the Biography project to a B rating. Firstly, I wonder if Kate belongs in the Womens' history project (I think not) or was put in as part of the mass tagging of articles about women earlier this year. Secondly, if she does, could one of the project please swing by and re-evaulate the article? Cheers. Span (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hepburn would be considered under the criterion 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. So the question would be whether there are histories of Hollywood and the movies that look at her career in terms of opportunities available to women, dealing with gender obstacles, that sort of thing. The whole "wearing trousers" thing may not be completely trivial; it has to do with how women were "packaged," which in turn could mean what kind of work was available for actresses. It would come down to whether there are sources asserting things like "after Hepburn, women were less likely to be confined to", something like that. The question can only really be answered by someone who knows the sources. What I'm going to do for now is change the importance rating (definitely not of high importance to this project even if she's within scope) and leave a note on the talk page about the criterion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some elements in the article already that suggest she's within scope: Her mother, an active feminist and the head of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association, instilled in the young Katharine the virtues of perseverance, independence and fortitude, teaching that that women were equal to men. As a child, Hepburn joined her mother on several 'Votes For Women' demonstrations. Almost any Bryn Mawr grad of that era who has general WP notability is to my mind of interest to women's history, but in particular there's the Katharine Houghton Hepburn Center, dedicated to both the actress and her mother. The center challenges women to lead publicly engaged lives and to take on important and timely issues affecting women. Thoughts from anyone else on whether this alone is enough to satisfy the scope criteria? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that Hepburn's mother, Katharine Martha Houghton Hepburn, is currently not listed under this project. I imagine you may want to add her? --Lobo512 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you guys know that I've opened this article up for a peer review as I think it may not be far off GA status, and it would be nice to get it there. Hepburn is a part of this project so if anyone wants to help improve the article that would be great. Review is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Katharine Hepburn/archive2 Thanks. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk ⋅ contribs) 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)

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. 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)