Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women

Lists of FAs and GAs

This seems like a sensible initiative, coordinating access to the other WikiProjects on women. But the suggested FA and GA lists are likely to run to several pages, listing hundreds of names people have never heard of. Maybe it would be a good idea to start by lists for the year 2015, maybe listed separately for each of the main categories (possibly with links to the tables in each). This would also facilitate updating. If anyone has time, there could always be archives for other years. Any reactions or other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually think there's that many more FAs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. So I'll try to help with your current list. But I still think it would be useful to create categories for them, not just those from the other WikiProjects but for women in general by their main area of interest. Many of them are included in several women projects but it is not always obvious where they excel.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The GA list might have to go on a sub page. We'll see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I support moving the FA and GA article lists to a subpage or collapse them. I use IE at work, and the lists went on forever. Even with Firefox, which I use at home, they go on and on. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rosie, while I use a large monitor and they're all visible on a single page it hides everything else in the periphery. I would argue that just listing accomplishments isn't going to get new editors involved, and it will more likely frighten them away (I was a little overwhelmed here seeing all the FAs). What is much better is to give a clear call to action and just give the number of FAs.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the style in the FA section to look more like the Wikipedia:Good articles list style. I'm thinking it might be good to reorder into two (Biographies; Other) or three (Biographies; Literature; Other) subject groupings. I haven't made any changes to the GA group yet. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Is this what you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Good Articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Yes, I originally compiled the list on the main project page (it was moved on 26 August) but I never completed it with articles from WPBIO, etc. I agree that it is already too long to inspire further work. It would probably be twice as long if it contained all relevant GAs. I am open to suggestions on how it could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobel prize laureates

Maybe the project could give a special place to the 44 female Nobel Prizewinners, especially Marie Curie (GA), Mother Teresa (former GA), Barbara McClintock (FA), Malala Yousafzai (GA)? We could also encourage work on raising more of the biographies to GA or FA, perhaps concentrating on the more recent laureates?--Ipigott (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Yes, this is an ambitious project. I think if it was WikiProject Men most people would call it redundant and a daft idea. But given how many editors are interested in female topics and the fact that there is systematic bias against women on here in certain subjects, which is deeply engrained in traditional resources, it's a much needed project. Particularly in fields like science and academia there's a major bias against women on here which really needs to be addressed. Not to mention coverage of women in the developing world overall. I see a lot of sub groups for various women operating on here, but my feeling is that they would run better within a main project which shares a common goal and identity. I think most of the people in the sub groups would agree that the main goal is to improve coverage of women biographies, particularly in areas where most articles are on men. Obviously in a project with a scope as big as this most areas will remain untouched by the contributors, but we can only do what we can. The main focus here, which I'm sure Rosiestep and others would agree with is rooting out missing articles and starting them. The main page will be a way to pick a select few and try to invite collaboration. Hopefully a bot can take care of tagging and listing new articles. So while I can see why some people would object to such a project, long term I think this is the way to go and the best way to drum up the most interest and participation overall.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Women could either be an umbrella project that connects all the WikiProjects related to women together, or it could be a master project that houses a group of task forces focused on the different topic areas that are now WikiProjects related to women, or a combination of both. For now, I think that being an umbrella project that connects other WikiProjects is the best way to go. If a WikiProject related to women losses steam and goes inactive or requests to become a task force of WikiProject Women, then the WikiProject can be converted into a WikiProject Women task force.

The main reason that I see for separating out the topics into WikiProjects is that loads of people are interested in writing on narrow topics, and many lists are made related to a specialty topic. And it is hard to cover everything well on one WikiProject main page. But with a good task force system it would be possible, and maybe even stronger than separate WikiProjects. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should remain as an umbrella project for the time being but it could also start to address important spheres of interest where there are no WikiProjects specifically addressing women. For starters, what about "Women in leadership" addressing women in politics (and/or government), business (including finance), and maybe even religion? There are countless thousands of women who have contributed to these areas around the world but (unlike their male counterparts) far too few of them are covered anywhere in Wikipedia. Maybe we could open up a series of additional pages (in lieu of actual WikiProjects) in order to compile lists of missing articles as well as lists based on biographies found in the other languages? We could also identify sources such as listings of the most influential women (country by country) and lists from publications such as Fortune, Forbes, Business Week, and their counterparts in other languages. See, for example, how many names from this list of just 100 women are still missing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think MILHIST (and MED) are strong projects because there are many hands working in organized fashion, vs. stand-alone projects on forts and wars. I envision Women in the same way. Let's be welcoming, let's keep writing, let's keep coordinating, let's promote Women, and I believe Women will flourish. "Rome wasn't built in a day". Like others, I'm swamped at work this week, but many of us may have more time over the weekend for coordination, mainpage design, invites, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So glad you said that Rosiestep, I've been saying for a while now that edit-a-thons for women's history / science / writers etc. are great, but where are the edit-a-thons for women in economics / sociology / politics? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: I imagine there are others who think the same. :) So what now? I've been mulling this over for the last couple of weeks. Here are my suggestions. Perhaps others agree and if so, will jump in to do some of the work... --Rosiestep (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Redesign the project's mainpage; keep it simple.
• Add a section on the mainpage for edit-a-thons/meetups/events within the project's scope. Transclude from WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red and elsewhere.
• Add a section on the mainpage for press/articles related to the scope. Transclude from Gender Gap Task Force.
• Add a section on the mainpage for new article drive with a link to WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. Move WP:WikiProject Women in Red to the this subpage. This move has to be done by the WikiProject X folks as it will otherwise break a bunch of backdoor links.
• Reduce the FA and the GA sections on the mainpage moving most of the content to subpage(s) for article improvement drive, i.e. FA/GA work.

• @Rosiestep: @The Vintage Feminist: I agree with most of your comments, especially the need for more focus on women in economics, sociology, politics and leadership in general. Although I compiled much of them myself, I also think we should move the FA and GA lists to separate pages, perhaps highlighting a few names a week (or month) from different sectors on the main page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @The Vintage Feminist: @Ipigott: Here's a thought... What if we organized "virtual" edit-a-thons for women in economics, and then sociology, and so on? Edit-a-thons which run for only a few hours on a Saturday might be convenient for one person, and not someone else, but to run it for a week or two, as a remote event, would give most everyone who wants to participate a chance to get something started. We could promote it with a notice on the Chapter pages so that others around the world would know about it. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we could also compile lists of women deserving coverage, possibly on a country-by-country basis. How about first devoting the rest of August to compiling lists (maybe with an emphasis on Australia, Scandinavia, Mexico and Poland for starters) then launching the virtual edit-a-thon(s) in September? With Victuallers' assistance, we could also try to promote new articles on DYK. You could also try to rope in some of the enthusiasts from the Mexico conference.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Ipigott: I think compiling lists is a great way to get started. If you start them, I'll add to them. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: I'll try to start something now but it might go rather slowly depending on how much time I can afford. Perhaps the best place to have it is as a subpage to this project (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in leadership) with an explanatory introduction. Or would you prefer it to be on WP:WPWIR? I would prefer the former as there are many names which have not been covered anywhere on Wikipedia. For the time being, I'll start a list on User:Ipigott/Women in leadership. It can later be moved to somewhere more appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ipigott Ian, that is a much needed list. Thank you for taking the time to prepare it. Now if we can just clear the redlinks ;) SusunW (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SusunW. I've suggested it should be moved to WP:Women. Once it's there, you and other editors might like to add to it.--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fictional women

I see no reason why we wouldn't include fictional women in the scope -- Cinderella, Wonder Woman, Lisbeth Salander - but I think it should be addressed here. I ask as WM Sweden has run a series of editathons on the fictional woman theme. I'd recommend that this English language Wikiproject support that effort, but how do others feels? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool, bring it on I say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Another project under the umbrella. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Image of patient with Marfans

There is a question about an image which some people would find shocking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Patient_with_Marfans. Would anyone here care to comment? The issue is about medical models. This comes up repeatedly. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion and it is that, so POV, is that we should not use photographs of minors even with parental approval. If an article absolutely must have an image, a minor should never be identifiable. SusunW (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Design

I thought this looked really pretty and that was part of the appeal having a mix of images.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody?

I guess they worried the one design was intimidating. It's like I liked how List of Christian thinkers in science used to look, but others found it too cumbersome or whatever so much of the picture content was removed and the like. I liked the old design enough though I archived, then slightly altered, a version at User:T. Anthony/List of Christian thinkers in science (classic style).--T. Anthony (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted the page to look more like a women portal than a project, but I guess there's millions of women to choose from and some might not agree on the choices, whatever we add. I'd rather keep quality content nearer the top and the less attractive bulleted lists further down the page though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added one image of Mary W. as a sort of dedication to User:Wadewitz. Probably won't last for very long though ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I really like the image that's there now of Wadewitz herself, sort of in memorium to a rock-climbing, FA-writing, well-respected woman Wikipedian. Thanks for that, Dr. B. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FA and GA of the week

The idea is that this is regularly updated to keep content interested and exciting. Perhaps SusunW would be interested in updating it every week with a random article for each. Basically all you have to do is copy the article lede and add a photo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I can try to do this. I'm going to assume there will be photos on articles at this level because hunting for them is uffff. SusunW (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, confused. Are you copying and pasting the text of the article instead of a link? If I paste over the one that is there will it in any way damage her article? I am so not technical on Wikipedia and its instructions are non-existent. SusunW (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is copy and paste the ledes of a random FA or GA article into the main page of Wp:Women.13:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Example, for the new FA of the week:

Julianne Moore

Julianne Moore (born Julie Anne Smith; December 3, 1960) is a British American actress and children's author. Prolific in cinema since the early 1990s, Moore is active in both art house and Hollywood films. She is particularly known for her portrayals of emotionally troubled women, and has received many accolades including the Academy Award for Best Actress.

After studying theatre at Boston University, Moore began her career with a series of television roles. From 1985 to 1988, she was a regular in the soap opera As the World Turns, earning a Daytime Emmy for her performance. Her film debut was in 1990's Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, and she continued to play small roles for the next four years – including in the thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1992). Moore first received critical attention with Robert Altman's Short Cuts (1993), and successive performances in Vanya on 42nd Street (1994) and Safe (1995) continued this acclaim. Starring roles in the blockbusters Nine Months (1995) and The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) established her as a leading actress in Hollywood, although she continued to take supporting roles.

Moore received considerable recognition in the late 1990s and early 2000s, earning Oscar nominations for Boogie Nights (1997), The End of the Affair (1999), Far from Heaven (2002; winning the Volpi Cup at the Venice Film Festival), and The Hours (2002; winning the Silver Bear for Best Actress at the Berlin Film Festival); in the first of these she played a 1970s pornography actress, while the other three featured her as an unhappy, mid-20th century housewife. She also had success with the films The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia (1999), Hannibal (2001), Children of Men (2006), A Single Man (2009), and The Kids Are All Right (2010), and won a Primetime Emmy and Golden Globe for her portrayal of Sarah Palin in the television film Game Change (2012). The year 2014 was key for Moore, as she joined the popular Hunger Games series, was named Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival for Maps to the Stars, and won an Oscar for her role as an Alzheimer's patient in Still Alice.

In addition to acting, Moore has written a series of children's books about the character "Freckleface Strawberry". She is married to the director Bart Freundlich, with whom she has two children.

@SusunW: I think we should change the articles every Sunday, so remember next week!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld That's what I thought too. A schedule, what a novel idea, but I'll try to adhere to one. (I actually posted a note on the wall above my computer. LOL) SusunW (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Branding

Adrianne Wadewitz

I've been thinking a lot about what would be a good image to represent this project. This is not easy as there are so many historically notable women! Another option would be to have a work of art depicting women as the logo. Or a work of art by a woman depicting something. And, of course, there are other possibilities for a logo! While there have been at least two previous images in the Women NAVBOX so far, just now, I switched out the image to one of Adrianne Wadewitz. In a world full of notable women and notable works by women, Adrianne stands out for this reason: she was a Wikipedian. I'm a firm believer in seeking consensus for things of this sort -- the image which will represent WikiProject Women -- so what are your thoughts and/or what image would you suggest? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I like and promoted her work but am afraid that I am not comfortable with having her greet as if she was alive. I liked the several, who could change every month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the same reaction, not knowing her, but it is why I believe the figures should be abstract depictions. People seem to have very strong reactions to pictures of real women, either in support or strongly against, regardless of whether they are living or not. I have looked through commons, but I can never find anything there. SusunW (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I had not known her, but knew some of her work, was shocked that she died, also how she died (accident at a place I love), would think of that every time I see the image. As part of a montage: yes. As the woman whom I face when meeting the project, which would lead me to think that woman is a representative, perhaps initiator of the project, someone to talk to: no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought the same thing, that's why I added a picture of Mary Wollen as a tribute originally without actually picturing her herself Gerda. Would be prefer to restore Mary W. or the montage of images which can be changed every so often? I'd prefer the montage, we can have one of Adrianne in it among the others without it looking like a tribute project. I really loved the image in the navbox BTW, let's not part with that!! We can't have two images of her! A subtle one among the montage would be best I think and keep the previous nav box image as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I quite like the current one of her. I think it looks fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've switched out the image. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

First GA for Maria Ferrari

We have 469! Thank you @Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, Keilana, Charles01, and Belle: and ‎Montanabw. The article is much better for all of your help and input, insight and edits. Totally appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Great achievement, SusunW. --Ipigott (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think it wouldn't have happened without all of you all. Its a group achievement, no doubt. SusunW (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Only you contributed 99% of the content! We gave you a little guidance, but it's clearly almost entirely your article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Susun! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW SusunW, when I say 500 articles the target, I don't mean us to produce as many as 30 GAs. I mean it's inevitable that non project members will produce some. Still, we could aim for 10 GAs ourselves in the meantime as a group.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld 10 is certainly doable. Bence should not be horribly difficult since that expansion and I'm working on Sue Bailey Thurman along with Rosie and some others. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

One goal might be a GA for each Latin American country. Our general GA coverage for that area is very poor anyway. A female bio from each country would be a great idea. In fact I'll put up a challenge on the board. But no rush, it's a long term goal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Should United States say anything about relative wealth of minority women?

Please see: Talk:United States#RFC on relative wealth of Americans. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a concern about the whole "family section" on that page. It seems to relegate women to the home. It is not talking about families but the status of women. If it were actually talking about family demographics then I'd be less uncomfortable with the entire section. I do think that it is appropriate to talk about the relative wealth of men vs. women, or even minorities in comparison to the majority population in an overview page, but only if all citizens income levels are addressed. SusunW (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

cat?

I would like to identify as a member of this project by a category on my user page, showing a red one now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, we'll get the cat organized, plus templates, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cat! I am proud to be first in it, but would prefer company. See my talk for usage of the hear icon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm in! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Departments

I'd like to sort out the mainpage in a different way, and I'm hopeful you'll let me give it a go, and if you don't like it, we can change it back or try something else. To me, it feels too heavy with GA/FA. What I propose is to create sections called "Departments". There would be one for Article improvement (which would link to a subpage which focuses on GA/FA and other article improvement measures); Missing articles (which would link to the Women in Red); New articles; Artists, Scientists, Writers (etc.) would be individual departments, each linking to their Wikiprojects; Leadership (which would be a new "department"), and so on. There would also be a section for Templates, and we need to create some Templates, such as Barnstar, an Invite, etc. I'd recommend we place an image next to each of these departments where it seems practical to do so; if a department already has an image associated with it (such as Marywollstonecraft.jpg for Women writers), we'd use that image. My logic behind this is that the Woman wikiproject page is (or should become!) valuable real estate. Different readers and editors will land on it seeking different things. I think it should come across as a directory of lots and lots and lots of areas which fall under the purview of WikiProject Women, and not make any one area more prominent than any other. I think we could have a short paragraph, prose form, describing the "department" ("WikiProject Women writers was founded in August 2014 during a training course hosted by Wikimedia D.C. In it's first month, the project developed x new articles about women writers. Members discussed whether or not to include women's works of fiction within the project's scope; the consensus was to do so.") Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I agree it has way to much stuff to scroll through on the FA and GA and think "departments" will make it easier to find information. SusunW (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the FA and GA of the week selection though, but I guess we can list the featured and good articles on sub pages. Can we please retain the article of the week feature and have a "see more articles" link to a list?♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I like the FA and GA of the week too, but find the long lists to be distracting. I'd also like to have the DYKs of the week (as long as they automatically flow there), so maybe that could be a whole "department"? SusunW (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need a DYK department (and how in the world did I forget to give DYK a mention)?! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I've already suggested that the FAs and GAs should be moved to separate pages but they still seem to be there. As things stand at the moment, there is a lot of clutter on the main project page which makes it difficult to focus attention on how the project is evolving. It would still be possible to link to the lists from the more dynamic FA and GA features. I would also suggest we give more attention to new events and challenges, inviting the other WikiProjects on women to contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies: I see the main project page has now been tidied up with links to the lists of FAs and GAs on separate pages. Great move in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't want to do a bunch of duplications, so do we list DYK which are submitted after GA or not? Gerda Arendt Did you see that a DYK area has been created? How did you do all those lists for women's month? Do we want to do something like that, or just list articles? SusunW (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• No I didn't see. Can we avoid having many lists, have just one mentioning of an article and add DYK GA FA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Gerda Arendt that's what I was thinking too, so I did not add Sue Bailey Thurman to DYK section on the main page, but it is completely blank, so feel free to add your nominations ;) SusunW (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Will take a while, sorry to be of no help at the moment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the mainpage is still too "full" and would benefit from further minimizing. I think a link to one subpage for FA/GA/DYK where we can have all the "article improvement" info, would make sense. I don't think article improvement needs a lot of subpages at the moment unless someone wants to maintain a separate one for FA, another for GA, another for DYK. As this project matures, and if it then makes sense to separate these into their own pages, so be it. @Gerda's suggestion of one list with FA, GA, DYK next to the article name seems wise. I'd also say we add a Navbar like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Navigation to help editors get back and forth between subpages; I'd be glad to create it, just haven't gotten to it yet. Don't think it needs to be any more difficult than that. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: look below. Someone created a Navbar, could that be adapted? SusunW (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I really think it's important to have a place to showcase quality women articles which get promoted, and Susun's GAs can be displayed for anybody visiting the WP:Women page for a week. I think it's good for morale and that the focus really should be on quality, perhaps the GA and FA articles of the day should be shortened to less than the lede though so they look less bloated?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: they aren't really mine as so many people contribute to creating them, though I guess I am sort of pushing to do them. I do like having the bios on the project page of ones we have recently accomplished, as it does show we are making progress. Not sure how you trim it other than to just use the first sentence and the photo, but if that's what is decided, I can do it that way. SusunW (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are the primary author! And you will likely be on forthcoming GAs too as I've begun drafting an article on Sinatra which is going to take months to complete haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Susun: the one they created is for women in leadership. I was thinking we need one like this to help jump around project pages. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thurman

Talk:Sue Bailey Thurman/GA1 Now at GAN. Excellent job SusunW and others! Let's try to clear the red links for Amelia Bence now and focus on also getting that to GA by the end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

working on it. Also wondering if because we will be focusing on leadership next month, if an appropriate GA candidate wouldn't be one of these: Violeta Chamorro, Michelle Bachelet, Laura Chinchilla, Dilma Rousseff. Anyone interested? SusunW (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Those seem like excellent choices yep, and in-fitting with the GA goal for Latin America. Those presidents are really core articles though and I think might be more difficult as they'll need more research and reading to really understand the politics of them, and many sources might be in Portuguese or Spanish. BTW Bence I think will need sourcing improvement before it is promoted. In looking at it, even though the content seems to be largely all there, there's probably a bit too much reliance on her own book. I think I can sort it though but may take a bit more time than I'd thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld On Bence, I did not write the article. If you remember, it was a translation of the Spanish. I was very surprised that one actually had sourcing. I verified sourcing and if I could not open their sources, I obtained alternatives.

It will be difficult, I know little of the politics. Looking at the four of them, I'm thinking maybe it should possibly narrow to Chamorro and Chinchilla, as Bachelet and Rousseff are still in office, thus might become unstable and Rousseff's specifically states it can be contentious. Maybe I'll see if sourcing can be found. SusunW (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be best to leave Bachelet and Rousseff yup, best to leave to people who are up on their politics. Presidents are complex people who really need to be impeccably researched and understood to do the articles justice. Perhaps it would be best to pick some less prominent people in the arts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The project for the month is leadership, not the arts. I think we stick with the category of the month. I've read what is there and read several other president's pages. There is no serious analysis going on. Besides which, Wikipedia doesn't allow actual analysis, just restating secondary sources. Chamorro seems the likely candidate. She was a successful journalist and was the head of La Prensa (newspaper office) before becoming president. Since she did not become president until she was nearly 70, she had a long career before that. First female head of state in the Americas. Her presidency followed the Iran-Contra scandal, ended the Dirty War and created a lasting peace for Nicaragua. Definitely worth exploring further, IMO. There are plenty of sources in both English and Spanish. SusunW (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015 The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Women said she's very grateful for the editathon invitation Ipigott and informs me that as she's a newbie herself she'll need all the editing assistance she can possibly get to write articles for us! ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

New navbox for women in politics

Hello everyone. The other day I came across this requested move and it dawned on me that a navbox for female representation in various companies may be a useful addition to the bottom of some articles, e.g. women in government. So for example, a reader at women and government in Australia can easily navigate to women in Canadian politics if they are interested in how the two countries compare.

I have prepared a sample navbox here. This is my first time attempting this, so I am placing this note here to garner opinions on the usefulness of the template, and whether it is ready to be used on articles. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. If there is a more approriate place for me to seek comment, pleasde let me know that too. Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Songs

Do we include Ghosttown (Madonna song) and One Child (Mariah Carey song) as Women GAs?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

They are works by women. I'd say yes. SusunW (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gwendolyn Lizarraga

If anyone needs a DYK QPQ this one should be easy. I'm trying to get it published on Belizean Independence Day, 21 September. SusunW (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating articles

After creating an article on the lists of women in leadership, science, etc., should we note the date we created the article (as I've been doing), or simply delete the name from the list? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yoninah: simply delete, or someone else will come along later and delete it so no worries if you don't delete it. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Yoninah (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Roadmap

In my opinion, you want the following things. Let's call this a provisional roadmap.

1. Decide what the scope of the project is exactly, and where to centralize. If the goal is to catch everything remotely related to women on Wikipedia, you'll likely want to centralize at WP:WOMEN.
2. Get a |woman=yes/|women=yes implemented in {{WP Biography}}. If you're not sure what to do exactly, asking for help at Template talk:Metabanner will have someone good with templates take care of it.
3. Decide what to do with {{WikiProject Women}}. Personally, I think you'd be much better of with {{WP Biography|woman=yes}}/{{WP Biography|women=yes}} as your primary banner, because you'd have all the benefits of BLP notices and the like built-in the banner. {{WikiProject Women}} could be saved for pages that aren't biographies, and don't fall within the purvue of {{WP Feminism}}. I can't come up with any examples at the moment, so I'd be enclined to just delete it and save everyone the confusion. But a case could possibly be made for its use too. So basically I'm saying a discussion needs to happen about what exactly is the point of the {{WikiProject Women}} template. If it's redundant, let's get rid of it. If there's a point, let's document how the template should be used.
4. Have every banner related to women like {{WikiProject Women}}, {{WikiProject Women artists}}, {{WikiProject Women scientists}} and {{WP Biography|women=yes}} populate a 'master' category, probably Category:WikiProject Women articles, but it could be something else too. If you're not sure what to do exactly, asking for help at Template talk:Metabanner will have someone good with templates take care of it, although they'll likely need a list of all banners that need to be modified in this fashion.
5. Make a WP:BOTREQ for a bot that tags women biographies with {{WP Biography|woman=yes}} (and/or any other banners you feel is appropriate) and someone will pick up on it. This bot can make use of Wikidata, or any other criteria you give it. I'd do it, but my coding skills are abysmal.
6. Subscribe to AALERTS via the talk page category option, giving it that 'master category'.
7. Subprojects (like Women's writers) can subscribe via their own banners, or via any other option they feel is appropriate.

Bonus/complementary things would be

1. Set up a 'women' category at deletion sorting (you'll have to ask the WP:DELSORT people for details though, I'm not familiar)
2. Have the Article Alerts use both the 'master category' and the delsort tagging to create the alerts.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. This is the sort of thing I would want to see. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I like everything about it and I think we should make all of this happen. But is there a downside to any of it? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I like it too. Definitely what I was hoping for. SusunW (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And now that I've studied it in more depth, the answer to #3 could be buildings, organizations, medical procedures or apparatuses, things to do with the arts: for example Columbia Hospital for Women, Catholic Women's League, Vaginoscopy, not a biography and not a feminist topic but maybe all of these fit into WikiProject Women's History or WikiProject Women's health? But what about things like Soprano, it doesn't really fall into WikiProject Women artists or WikiProject Musicians? It surely isn't health and it seems a stretch to make it women's history, but maybe not. SusunW (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Did we ever follow up on this or is it hanging? Is there something I can do to help it move along, Rosiestep? I'm wondering if Andy Mabbett can help with the template? SusunW (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would if I could, but I'm not sure how it works. I suggest asking in its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that quite a few of us like Headbomb's roadmap. So let's move it forward. For a start, I'm going to copy this conversation over from WiR to WP:WOMEN. Then let's get to work. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have no clue and am probably going to get in way over my head, but if Andy Mabbett doesn't know and I don't see that anyone has asked, I'm going to initiate the question at WPBannerMeta. SusunW (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:WPBannerMeta#women banner SusunW (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I am already in over my head. It was suggested at the WPBannerMeta link above that I ask the question at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#women banner and I did, but he also said in regard to #4 above that we need to "indicate exactly which groups you want added to that banner and how you want them displayed, like what image to accompany each group in the banner appearance." I'm not sure I even understand the question. I thought we were only asking for women=yes to be affixed to the biography template and don't really understand why that would impact appearance? SusunW (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, he clarified and gave an example Template:WikiProject Christianity of what it might look like, but I didn't think we were going to add the other templates to bio, just the field woman as a yes or no question. Rosiestep Am I correct?

I also got a response from WikiProject Biography, that adding |woman=yes/|women=yes to {{WP Biography}} is not a difficult process, but that they would need consensus to make the change. Where do we go from here? SusunW (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I think just showing them this discussion would be enough to show consensus. As for the "which groups you want added to that banner and how you want them displayed", I suppose the question is do you want to break things down further with a say |women-artist= in {{WP Biography}}. In my experience however, those sort of things are better handled by local banners. You want {{WP Biography}} to be a simple 'catch all' thing. Taskforces and subprojects, you'll want to handle through your own banner(s). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would rather the parameter was age and gender neutral, e.g. gender=f if it is to go alongside "living" and "listas". Marginalising the young is not cool. Be aware that there are 1,315,110 biographies so gender tagging them is not a small task.

On the other hand if we want a project tag in the biography banner then we would have "women=yes" (not "woman"), and this could be applied to Jean-Paul Sartre, maybe.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

Headbomb I linked to this discuss, but whether or not they read it, IDK. I got the feeling she was talking more along the lines of consensus for all of Wikipedia, not just our project? But perhaps Redrose64 can clarify her answer. Rich Farmbrough I don't have a problem with it being gender=F rather than woman=yes nor do I think anyone in the project would, given the previous discussion and consensus on inclusion of anyone who identifies as female or any works of someone who identifies as female. SusunW (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter to me. I used 'women' to a Biography/Women taskforce, or 'of interest to Wikiproject Women'. I don't expect anyone seriously arguing that Malala Yousafzai would be excluded (or would have been excluded a few years ago) on the basis of her age.

However, |gender= opens a can of worms, especially in the case of people who identify as neither female nor male. 'Women' is more neutral, given the wording presented is simply 'This article is supported by the Women Taskforce', and makes no presumption of gender, age or anything. Men could even be tagged by |women= too, not to say they are women, but to say they are of interest to the Women Taskforce. One could certainly make a case that Montesquieu or Marquis de Condorcet be tagged as of interest to the Women Taskforce, for instance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Re your post here of 02:13, 13 September 2015 - my main point was that {{WikiProject Biography}} is so widely used that any change to that template will put 1.3 million talk pages into the WP:Job queue, so we need to get it right first time. So details need to be discussed and agreed, which in turn means that there needs to be firm agreement on what should be included. Judging by the debate above over whether to use |gender=, |woman=yes or |women=yes, there is not yet such agreement. Further, I am only one person, and cannot claim to speak for WikiProject Biography - a notice was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Re-organization of WikiProject Women but there is nothing about that notice that indicates that the proposal includes a change to {{WikiProject Biography}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no hurry, but I wouldn't worry about the job-queue too much. It is currently at 605,459, and values of several million "are no cause for alarum". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

I specifically wanted to draw that distinction. Both concepts are worthy of consideration. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Complete reorganization proposal

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

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

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

Current status

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

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

Reorganization proposal

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

Let's not really worry about

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

WikiProjects

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies
• Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies

Taskforces

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Women. This could be created there, but alternatively this could be redirected to a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforce/Biography (or similar).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Women and gender issues

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

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

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

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

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

Core Project

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women

Simple enough eh?

Taskforces

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Art {{WikiProject Women|art=yes}}

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Art/Cinema {{WikiProject Women|cinema=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Art/Literature {{WikiProject Women|literature=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Art/Music {{WikiProject Women|music=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Art/Visual arts {{WikiProject Women|visual=yes}}

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Biography {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Culture {{WikiProject Women|culture=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Health {{WikiProject Women|health=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/History {{WikiProject Women|history=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/LGBT {{WikiProject Women|lgbt=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Organizations {{WikiProject Women|org=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Politics {{WikiProject Women|politics=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Psychology {{WikiProject Women|psychology=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Religion {{WikiProject Women|religion=yes}}

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Religion/Christianity {{WikiProject Women|christianity=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Religion/Judaism {{WikiProject Women|judaism=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Religion/Islam {{WikiProject Women|islam=yes}}

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Science and Mathematics {{WikiProject Women|science=yes}} or {{WikiProject Women|math=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Sports {{WikiProject Women|sports=yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Technology {{WikiProject Women|technology=yes}}

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

Initiatives

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Initiatives/History Month
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Initiatives/UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Initiatives/Women in Red
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Initiatives/Women Wikipedia Design
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Initiatives/Women Writers Online Part of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, something else entirely.

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

Discussion

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

I am probably the least technically inclined person on this list. Anything that makes it simpler to navigate; find information; receive notifications of deletions, good articles, DYK, featured article; affix categories and WikiProjects; and aids in gathering statistics seems like a step in the right direction to me. All I really want to do is write articles, but I seem to spend an awful lot of time searching for things. SusunW (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I recognize that this is really big, and really important, and I like the spotlight it'll put on this project's scope. If it'll be the second largest WikiProject, do we need to take it to WP:Requests for Comment before we move forward? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've held off of holding an RfC for now to make sure I didn't overlook something / say something stupid before advertising it to the wider community. We'll need to at least notify everything directly affected/proposed to be merged/moved, and possibly related projects like WP:FEMINISM who'll likely have an opinion worth hearing. Give people time to comment, etc. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said previously, it's best to merge as many of the loose women projects under this as possible and move to taskforces. We'll also need to fully update the talk page tagging and to add those task force parameters and override the existing banners. It's a big task, perhaps we can move towards merging into taskforces one by one. Leave a note on the talk page of projects proposing a merge into taskforce of Wp:Women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've notified all potentially affected projects, and a few others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Scopes of WikiProjects

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

Right you are. I was having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly it was. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think every project that has the word "women" in its title should automatically become a taskforce of this project. Task forces are for projects that need help with administration and infrastructure, and the recommended scope is a few hundred articles. WikiProject Women scientists already has 66 members, a fully developed structure and has been very successful: from an initial estimate of over a thousand articles, we now cover 4,350 articles including 6 featured articles and 25 good articles. And, I'm guessing, part of the reason for its success is that it has a clear and simple scope. Conversion to a task force would simply dilute its mission and make it less effective. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I also think that there is an optimal scope for a project, and wider is not necessarily better. For example, WikiProject Science is much smaller and less active than many of its children. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with RockMagnetist, for what it's worth. I don't see folding more successful specific projects into an ill-defined megaproject as being a healthy thing. It's not an approach taken in most areas where we're doing well for a reason The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I hardly see what's ill defined about a WikiProject Women, or being lost by merging e.g. WikiProject Women scientists as a taskforce of a larger WikiProject Women. There's great deal to be gained, however, by merging them.

The only difference, operationally, would be that instead of tagging pages with {{WikiProject Biography|women=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|science=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women scientists}}, the project would instead rely tag pages with {{WikiProject Biography|women=yes}}, {{WikiProject Women|bio=yes|science=yes}}. That and the homepage of the project would be moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists to Wikepedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That being said, if WikiProject Women Scientists really prefers to keep it's current structure/name, that's also on the table. I just don't buy the argument that anything above a few hundred articles need to be their own WikiProject. Any way you slice women biographies, you're going to have thousands of articles in any given division, and each division will have a great deal of commonality with the other divisions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I'm not saying that we should blindly apply some cutoff, but it's a consideration (as is the word "women" in the title). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with RockMagnetist and The Drover's Wife. I can't see why active wikiprojects should be subsumed just because they're about women or what the benefit would be to the participants. Sarah ^(talk) 17:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about starting WP:WikiProject Women entertainers (actresses, musicians, singers, dancers, stand-up comics, etc.) for a while. In recent months, I've pondered about how WikiProject Women would fit in with all the "daughter projects" so I haven't done anything more with entertainers. More recently, Ipigott and I discussed the possibility of WikiProject Women in Leadership, but instead of creating a WikiProject or a task force, we have an online editathon happening right now. I imagine there are other potential focus area examples so getting this proposal sorted out sooner rather than later would be good; to do that, I think it's important to get more eyes on this proposal sooner rather than later at WP:Requests for Comment. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Rosiestep, you could always set up new projects as task forces of this one, while leaving established projects to stand alone. The latter could be invited to become a task force, but it could be left there – an open invitation, but otherwise no pressure. Sarah ^(talk) 18:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what happened with WikiProject USA, it subsumed moribund state projects, and those lively ones that wanted to join, as taskforces, those that didn't want to join carry on their merry way - to this day, as far as I know. Mind you the originator did gain the undying enmity of a number of people, it appears... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

• There's something that might potentially be lost by a gigantic merge. For instance, a project like WikiProject LGBT Studies isn't only about LGBT women, or even really only about LGBT people—it's about LGBT topics, of which LGBT people are a large subset. The problem we get is that the people who put stuff into WikiProjects aren't necessarily members or participants in those projects. I know that I can add "WikiProject Women scientists" to a talk page, but keeping in my head that I need to add WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Scientists or whatever in my head is a bit much. I spend a lot of time adding WikiProject banners because I want WikiProjects to work: I want them to cultivate a reliable, decent community of people who maintain and improve articles (and in the long run take responsibility for the quality of articles, which overlaps somewhat with counting up FAs and GAs). I'm not sure rearranging the structure of WikiProjects helps much to that end. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see a bit of confusion. This wouldn't be to replace WP LBGT, but rather to have an LGBT subset of women's biographies. The taskforce could be part of both WP Women and WP LGBT. Having an {{WP LGBT|women=yes}} is an alternative, however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If I might suggest two things. One, making too many groups can be, and often is, sometimes just a waste of effort. I know this from personal experience, having been involved in the creation of lots of projects. The first priority, I think, would be to determine if there were actually enough people interested in a subject to merit creation of new subgroups. Also, please notice that I am speaking specifically about just new groups, and not the matter of taking less successful extant projects, or less active projects, into the main group's domain.

Second, in general, I think while the idea behind some of the proposed new groups might not be a bad one, it is generally, at least I've come to think over the years, maybe the best idea to, at the time of (or even before) the creation of a new group, to get together a basic list of the topics which the group knows it will have to cover. Finishing all the "required" articles first would not only help a new group get a sense of accomplishment, but also make it easier for it to establish links to those articles, if their first task is to get all the basic articles in place. Pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus are the kind I'm talking about here. But such pages, in general, are most easily developed if you know that there actually are works outside of wikipedia which deal with the subject. So, maybe, one of the other early steps would be to check to see if there are works which could be used to help establish the "core" content of the various proposed groups. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've come to this discussion via WikiProject Women artists, which I originally reached (and joined) via Wikiproject Visual arts. I can see the benefits of adding Wikiproject Women to the project hierarchy at WikiProject Women artists, and I can see the obvious benefit of having high-profile links from Wikiproject Women to the related "Women" projects. However, the expertise in visual arts (and women artists) is much more likely to be found at Wikiproject Visual arts. The list of members of Wikiproject Women is very small, so I wouldn't see any benefit in discussing artists there! Bearing in mind that, unfortunately, 85% of Wikipedia editors are male, I'd be inclined to believe that members of WikiProject Women artists are likely to join via Wikiproject Visual arts than via Wikiproject Women. I'd obviously support better navigation between the related projects, but not subsuming them into Wikiproject Women (which I really don't have a strong desire to join at the moment). Sionk (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

For navigation between related projects, there are already genealogies and lists of related projects; and the recently added Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav seems like a nice tool, as long as it doesn't get much larger. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Projects are often described as descended from more than one parent project. I don't see why, in principle, taskforces shouldn't be too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC).

Agree with Sionk that the necessary expertise to develop beyond a stub biography is found among people interested in the subject's field of endeavor, and not simply in the generic fact that it's a female biography. This is a reason not to merge into WikiProject Women, and for keeping the primary affiliation for these projects with the field itself rather than with gender. --Djembayz (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• On a procedural note, I'm glad that Headbomb has not started an RfC yet, and I hope they will avoid one altogether. It would be better to start by growing WikiProject Women with articles that are not yet covered by other projects; then maybe approach the initiatives one by one; then approach larger groups. Each WikiProject is in the best position to know whether a merge really makes sense for them. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• I like the plan in general, but wikiprojects are very, well, wikipolitical. I think it would be best to start by absorbing only barely active, or inactive, projects. If, a year or two later, this has worked well, then approach the more active ones with merger proposals. I expect that they'd be rejected, on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. It really is demonstrably true that small groups of people working on something tend to produce better, faster, and more copious results. The exception is when the goal is consistency (e.g. the CSE Style Manual for all the sciences is more effective in the real world than separate journal stylebooks for physical anthropology, and plant genomics, and geophysics, and inorganic chemistry, and .... I don't see that "coverage of women in Wikipedia" has any special consistency needs or goals, much less ones that override the basic one: Produce good content. Remember that wikiprojects operate much like our category system: It's perfectly fine for a single article to be within the scope of multiple projects, for the definitions of their scopes to overlap a bit. The interests and approach of a "women in military history" or "women journalists" or whatever working group of editors is likely to vary based on whether it's a full-blow wikiproject, a taskforce of a topical wikiproject, or a taskforce of the women wikiproject. Having an such working group be part of the women taskforce by default is reasonable, but it shouldn't be forced on groups of editors who are more focused on something topical and women's impact on that topic.

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

Let's see how things evolve

@Headbomb, Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, The Drover's Wife, and Gobonobo:@Rich Farmbrough, RockMagnetist, SlimVirgin, Tom Morris, and John Carter: I have looked carefully at the above proposal and discussion on reorganization but I seriously think we should give things more time to evolve before we take any further action. I don't want to blow my trumpet too loud but before I retired some ten years ago I had considerable experience of project development in what we might call "the real world". In a nutshell, experience showed that relatively small, well focused projects usually produced much better results that larger, more ambitious initiatives. Until the new WikiProject Women has actually attracted a large following of users, I think the best way forward would be to encourage all the evolving enthusiasm in the other WikiProjects related to women listed above. I have been pleasantly surprised in recent months at the enormous progress made in developing articles on women writers and women artists and complementing more established interest on women in history and feminism (not to mention sport). Rosiestep mentions our current editathon initiative on women in leadership. Maybe even this area would stand more chance of attracting interest if it became a WikiProject in its own right rather than just one more task force under WP Women? So let's just give things a bit more time, maybe three or four months. In the meantime, we could try to bring some improvements to the presentation of WP Women, maybe as an incentive to work not just on quantity but on the quality of articles in the field. And let's see how WP Women in Red progresses with its focus on creating new articles in important areas (possibly with automated linking to Wikidata).--Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Personally, I'm the most disorganized person in the world, but watching Wiki is like watching a living thing that while it responds to selective pressure, also evolves on its own. In a large system, small changes can lead to big results. Also I hate taskforces... adding a wikiproject banner is enough work, but then you have to remember the task force... ugh. Humans are lazy... the easy way is always the best if you want to retain editors. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a lame argument. A talk page banner would be added whatever the project and it's hardly difficult to add writers=yes or something at the end of it. And by no means are you compelled to actually tag the article anyway.. Sure, why don't we create 100 different women projects each with a different focus and see how well we can coordinate it. Reducing the number of projects and centering the focus in my book would be a move towards simplification and seem like less work than maintaining dozens of separate projects. I'm not even sure to be honest that a lot of them actually need their own taskforces either and we'd be better simply merging them. My observation of wikipedia is that it attracts opposites who will find reasons to argue just the opposite of anything proposed, and in doing so hamper actual progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that projects on that massive scale have ever worked well? We don't do this with science, politics, history, or arts, and the smaller and more specialised projects have invariably gone in leaps and bounds ahead of generalised ones like that proposed here. I don't see how pointless reconstruction "simplifies" much, and zero evidence that it has improved coordination anywhere. You mistake an ill-thought-through idea for "actual progress", and those of us who have observed project development over the years and have seen what has worked have a different take. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a lot of experience of what works with wikiprojects here, more than most. In my mind I actually think most of them are a waste of time, but ones which actively host regular collaboration like Intertranswiki and this are much needed. At WP films in all honesty most of the specialized taskforces have been a failure. There'll be an initial interest and setting up but fizzles out. Yet the main WP:Films project is still running strong with a healthy main page discussion. You can't beat a centralized, well functioning project like Military History and Medicine projects. If you want to keep lots of projects (with lots of them inactive) separate that's up to you, it'll have little bearing on the production of content, which is what matters above all. "the easy way is always the best if you want to retain editors" I agree, but for me it's easier to not have a gazillion different sub projects or taskforces and have a well-functioning main project to deal with most of it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

So apparently some large projects like WP films thrive and some like WP politics don't. We don't know which category WP:WikiProject Women falls into yet; it has been around since July and has 85 articles so far. I think that the project is a good idea, and I agree that reducing the number of projects makes sense, but that doesn't mean you need a grand unification. It's a bit early to be telling a project like WikiProject Women's History that they should relabel their 22,000 articles; but you could approach the smaller initiatives and taskforces individually. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not "compelled" to do anything on Wikipedia. I just want it to be as fun as possible and make the boring tasks, like tagging articles, as easy as possible. If we don't tag, we can't watch them for AfD's etc. The average editor wants things to be as easy as possible. The Women writer's tag is the best example of simplicity. I'm sorry Dr. Blofeld thinks it's a lame argument, but I work for a city government and I know that if things are too time consuming and confusing people stop trying. Bureaucracy is a killer. That's human nature. Most humans don't want to go the extra mile. Also, I'm always confused why we have to restructure. I really am enjoying things the way they are right now. But... I am flexible and if change must happen, then it will. I just say make it easy to swallow when you do the changes. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, things which are too time consuming and confusing people do stop trying, I agree completely. I'd have thought having one project instead of 24 would make it less confusing for people and give them a single place to comment! I'd argue that some of the projects should simply be redirected and not even become taskforces. We do need to respect ones which are active though of course and see what they think! Some might feel more of an affinity to the subject than overall women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm one of those. I am a member of WikiProject Women Scientists because I am interested in scientists. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to make the best of both worlds until we gain more experience of where we really want to go. I joined WP Women because I can see serious gaps in the coverage of women in certain areas (e.g. leadership, architecture, music, dance, computing, religion and entertainment for starters). I also think it is a sensible idea to have a central point where more general issues of Wikipedia's coverage of women can be discussed. But at the same time, I am also a member and/or supporter of most other women's projects. Recently I have participated actively in WP Women writers (to which I gave special attention during Women's History Month) and WP Women in Red (which is currently supporting my efforts to cover missing articles on women in leadership). I have a feeling these priorities would not have been covered with so much enthusiasm if they had simply been task forces under WP Women. On the other hand, I have found WP Women a useful central address for articles (i.e. banners) on women in areas which have not yet been covered in the other WikiProjects on women and women's interests. That's the main reason why I think we should give things more time before we undertake radical reorganization. "Women" is a huge area. Just like "culture", I think it can still benefit from focus on more specialized areas appealing to the interests of large groups of editors and readers.--Ipigott (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith with this as an administrative idea but I'm with the evolve camp on this.

WP:BLP is clear about being sensitive, this change would work on quite a big assumption that male scientists are scientists, whereas women scientists are women first, and scientists second. For me that would make it fall foul of the Gender Gap too, this is the sort of thing I mean.

The other thing is the scope of WP:WikiProject Women, as a project to coordinate efforts that "addresses the underrepresentation of content on Wikipedia about women..... First and foremost, this project is about creating new "content", including creating new articles and adding coverage of women or women's work to existing articles!" - i.e. a place to highlight / celebrate women, not an Wiki drawing room where we file women out of the way of the 'proper' Wikipedia content, where it can smoke cigars and drink a drop of the hard stuff untroubled. <<< An exaggerated idiom to make a point.

On a technical note, I'm guessing that the taskforces list should have included:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Feminism {{WikiProject Women|feminism = yes}}
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Taskforces/Gender Studies {{WikiProject Women|gender studies = yes}}

What about articles like Masculinity? It is currently in WP:WikiProject Gender Studies, would WikiProject Gender Studies = men by default, so that we have to add {{WikiProject Women|gender studies = yes}} to the talk page as well? Or would editors revert with a summary saying, "Femininity belongs in {{WikiProject Women|gender studies = yes}} and Masculinity belongs WikiProject Gender Studies." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject Women

I've created this new userbox: {{User WikiProject Women}}. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie. I've already put it on my user page.--Ipigott (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Untagged articles

Following up on the idea of tagging articles that are not yet covered by one of the projects related to women. I have created a list of articles that are in Category:Women but are untagged by any of the existing women-related projects. At category depth 1, there are already 2155 articles. Of course, it would be silly to tag all these manually - a bot should be used. But it provides an example of what this project could do before it absorbs other projects. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this but A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is already tagged in Women's History, Women writers and Feminism. Is this a work in progress?

I was going to say that, if the consensus is against absorbing other projects, that this would be useful to run a bot to put all of these untagged articles in WikiProject Women. However, after flicking through the list I'm afraid it would swamp the project, e.g. Abigail (name). I can see why the article was put into the category 'women', but not everything in the category meets the scope of the project women. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria probably need some tweaking before a bot runs them. I don't know why the exclusion of templates didn't always work. I think disambig pages can also be excluded. But I think the list also illustrates that it's probably too big a job for manual tagging. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing this, RockMagnetist, as it confirms what many of us have been saying all along. The technology is there and needs to be utilized. Manual tagging is too time consuming, if content creation and improvement are the goals. But how do we get the technology implemented. Therein lies the unknown. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

One way is to make a request at User talk:AnomieBOT. However, before making a request, a project should agree on the search terms (see Before requesting a WikiProjectTagger run, please read the following at the top of the talk page). Ideally, the search terms I used for WikiProject_Women/untagged_articles should be tweaked until they give satisfactory results. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked the search criteria to address the above concerns, reducing the list to 782 articles. I think it is now an appropriate list to tag. Just for curiosity, I increased the category depth to 2 and got 10,520 articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential articles

As I think I might have indicated somewhere else already, I am still working on getting together a list of the reference works listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library sorted by the number of times the individual works in question are included in the bibliographies of the Encyclopedia of Religion articles. It will probably take until closer to the end of the week, if then. But, if anyone wanted to create lists like that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus of the individual biographies included in some of the works at Bibliography of encyclopedias: general biographies#Women, which could then be used to ensure that those entries are covered here, and, to an extent, accurate, as least as accurate as those reference source might be, that might be rather useful. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Alerts for articles nominated for deletion?

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

This is something I've meant to raise in the past. I haven't looked into the process of adding topics to the deletion sorting list (whether there has to be discussion and agreement about a new category e.g. Women writers). In the past I've always added AfDs to noticeboards on projects including GenderGap but that has drawn nonsense accusations of canvassing. If it is just a case of fixing red links and adding new categories then we should just be bold and do it shouldn't we? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The technology is there to automatically list all pages nominated for deletion that belong to a certain project. It's called Article alerts. Have a look for example at Wp:Canada, where you click on Article alerts in the project header to see this list (and more). Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have subscribed the project to alerts. Keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts - the alerts should show up in a few days (although with only 166 articles, there may not be any). RockMagnetist(talk) 04:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For future ref - if you are a member of a WikiProject that doesn't get Article Alerts, but you think that it would be useful to have, the instructions are at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing. Some people are a bit fazed by that, but there are really only two things to do: subscribe, and display the results. For example, WikiProject Women was subscribed by making this edit to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscription list, and the results so generated are displayed by making this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women. RockMagnetist also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, but that wasn't essential since the bot would have created it anyway. But you can watchlist that page, so that you know straight away when it has been updated, and you don't need to keep checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts - it probably won't be updated every day. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

...and if you want to get really fancy some projects (wish I could remember which ones) also keep a history of all their alerts. This can be very useful, for example, when one notices an anecdotal large number of XfD's nominated for deletion in a certain area. BTW thank you User:Redrose64 for the elaborate explanation posted above. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. For now I've divided "sexuality and gender" into two in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat#Topical, and added 'deletion sorting' to the project's navigation template. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:DELSORT and WP:AALERTS are different. One is largely manual, the other is fully automatic. They compile their results in different places. DELSORT concerns itself only with WP:AFDs; AALERTS covers XFDs in most namespaces, WP:PRODs and certain other discussable actions as well. An AFD page will show which DELSORT pages it's been listed in, but not which AALERTS. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Just found another wikiproj that has an wp:alerts archive. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts/Archive. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and this WikiProject similarly has Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts/Archive. In case you'd not noticed, it's the "(Archive)" link on the right-hand end of the "Quick links" row at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64, I have added the alerts archive page to Category:WikiProject Women (where someone like me will usually look to see what "goodies" a wikiproj has). BTW I could not locate Quick links on the wikiproj page - but then I am alway missing stuff that is right in front of me :-)

It's not shown at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts because that part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts is inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Tagging proposal

For articles to be tagged by AnomieBOT, the search constraints must be approved by the members of the project. Below is my proposal

Depth 2

Categories Category:Women

Has none of these templates, or their redirects on the talk page

• {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}}
• {{WikiProject Feminism}}
• {{WikiProject Gender Studies}}
• {{WikiProject Jewish Women}}
• {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
• {{WikiProject Women}}
• {{WikiProject Women artists}}
• {{WikiProject Women's Health}}
• {{WikiProject Women's History}}
• {{WikiProject Women scientists}}
• {{WikiProject Women's sport}}
• {{WikiProject Women writers}}

In addition, the following points must be either accepted or changes must be specified:

I have suggested a search depth of 2 in the category tree. That will retrieve 10,520 articles. You can see the result of search depth 1 at WikiProject Women/untagged articles. It is only 782 articles, so clearly the number of articles grows very rapidly with depth, and a depth of 3 might give the project more than it can handle. We will need to collect responses for a week before AnomieBot will act on it. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

An alternative would be an explicit list of subcategories, although the list would be fairly long:

• depth 2
• depth 3

I am impressed by what a high proportion of categories seem relevant even at depth 3. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am thinking that all of these discussions must have taken place at Women In Red because the automation you are proposing I think is what we have been asking for since the beginning - alerts, tagging to be automated, notifications of FA, GA, DYK, automated matrices of new article creation. I don't understand the technical part and am very, very thankful for those of you who do. SusunW (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tagging via an explicit list of categories would be the best and catch the most articles relevant to the project, even though it's more work to build that list. AWB can help build the category list, and I'd have time to help with that over the weekend. This tagging run should be likely be done in parallel with a {{WP Biography|women=yes}} tagging run. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We spent a lot of time building the category list at WP:WikiProject Women writers and we had 3 bot runs do the talkpage banner tagging. We now have >23,000 articles within the scope of that project. @Headbomb: if what you're proposing mirrors the Women Writers effort, I'd be supportive. Mind you, it will be a lot of work, but Rome wasn't built in a day. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: do you have any thoughts on this? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I have links above to category lists. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but those lists go deeper and need clean up. Not every article in those categories should be tagged by WP Women. Like Category:Abortion is likely better left to WP Women's Health, even if they haven't been tagged by {{WP Women's Health}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I see it as a starting point, though. The list was built with related wikiproject banners excluded, so one approach would be to tag those categories and redo the search. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the exclusion reasoning. Just because an article has one banner, say Women writers, why would it be excluded from the woman=yes tagging in the WPBIO banner? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is to exclude tagging by {{WP Women}}, not by {{WP Biography|women=yes}}. I.e. that only one of {{WP Women}} or its sister project's banner should be on the talk pages, and not say, both {{WP Women}} and {{WP Women's Health}}. I could be misinterpreting RM's proposal though. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That's right. I'm proposing that (for now at least) WP Women doesn't overlap with child projects. You can see the details in the "Proposed search terms" box above. My rationale is that it's more efficient to concentrate on articles that are not already covered by women-related projects. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the proposal out of the box so it's easier to view. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Modified proposal

It has been almost a week, and so far we're not even approaching a consensus on what articles to tag. I think there are basically two approaches, which I'll give a precis of below:

• My proposal: Search Category:Women to a depth of 2 or 3 (a depth of 2 would add about 10,000 articles. Exclude articles already tagged by other women-related projects.
• Headbomb's proposal: Hand-prune a category tree and apply {{WP Biography|women=yes}} to the same articles (and also exclude already-tagged articles?).

Assuming I have summarized it properly, I see a couple of problems with Headbomb's proposal:

• We would have to stick to biographies or the {{WP Biography|women=yes}} tag would be inappropriate. My impression is that this project is not intended just for biographies.
• WP Biography has 1.2 million articles, so there may be a few hundred thousand on women. I doubt they would want to tag some small fraction of those for us - that would just be confusing. Certainly we would need their consensus for that. Or if we tag all the biographies of women, do we want to deal with hundreds of thousands of articles? We have only 19 members.

The main objection to my proposal is:

• Headbomb thinks some of the categories in my category tree should be left to other projects, for example, Category:Abortion should be left to WP Women's Health. (Actually, some of the articles in this category - like Mooncalf - shouldn't be in any of the women-related projects.)

If someone wants to prune the tree, that's fine. However, it would be a big job - at depth 2 there are already 2323 categories.

• My new proposal: Search Category:Women to a depth of 1. The list of categories is here and the articles that would be added are here. About 800 articles would be added to the project, raising the total to about 1200 - more than enough to keep members busy. There are still 523 categories, so pruning might not be worth the effort. A few misplaced tags won't harm anyone. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Correction: I noticed on the project page that articles on women are about 15% of the total. That would be 180,000 articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in here, but I am confused. Are we talking about defining the scope of this wikiproj, or are we talking about how to tag all the articles belonging to it? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Mainly tagging, but the tagging should be consistent with the scope. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't commented, mainly because I don't understand the technical aspects, and quite frankly would prefer to leave that to those that have the expertise to do it. What I wanted was alerts (and we now have them), files to be automatically affixed with WikiProject tags and categories to mark women, so that we can obtain lists of all new articles created for women. All I can say is that during the recent editathon, I reviewed by hand every new article and added hundreds of WikiProjects, so the last part of what I'd like technology to do doesn't seem close to where we are from my perspective. I'm a researcher and writer and write a lot of content, but cannot help at all with the technology other than to express what I would like to see it do for us, so that we can create new articles and improve existing ones. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: WikiProject tagging is mostly done manually. This is because automated processes aren't reliable enough - there have been complaints of pages being WikiProject tagged that don't actually fall within that WikiProject. However, there is Yobot (talk · contribs) which will tag all pages in a given category or list of categories (but not subcategories, unless each one is explicitly named), subject to certain conditions, see User:Yobot#WikiProject_tagging. I believe that AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) does something similar: see the collapsible box "Before requesting a WikiProjectTagger run, please read the following" at User talk:AnomieBOT. It is also important to remember that these bots do not do this continually - it's always a run-once-and-stop task. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 I can only continue to thank you for your patience with explanations. I really do appreciate it. I guess to my mind, it seems that there would be fewer false positives than not. For example, I added WPBIO to a whole bunch of articles, as well as WPWomen. Of the list of some 700 files I manually reviewed over the last 2 weeks, there were only about 20 that were not actually women subjects. If one page is occasionally improperly tagged that would be less than the huge number of files that have no tags at all, IMO. I also understand why it would be run once and stop. Once it has tags, it has a "home" so to speak. My opinion is that the occasional grumble from someone over an article being improperly marked does not outweigh the benefit of both time savings and assignment that one gets with automated tagging. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SusunW. Tagging by hand is tedious. I wonder though, wouldn't we have to run a bot more than once as new articles are generated? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless we tag all the 180,000 plus biographies (see above) plus all the other types of articles related to women, new articles will be a minor omission compared to old articles. However, new article alerts can be set up for a project (see, for example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Articles recently created). RockMagnetist(talk) 05:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A bot could be run more than once. WikiProject Women writers have periodically requested a bot to run through a recently-updated category list, see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1#Scope and bot request, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1#Bots, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 2#New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#2), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 2#New categories within the scope of this WikiProject (#3). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm excited to see people using tools and looking at the bigger picture. I'm just coming back from a looong break and finding out what's new in WP. My last big involvement was creating the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic gender bias (which has been redirected) in 2008. Is anyone working just at the 30k foot level on gender bias? For instance, just focusing on building tools and strategizing/exploring the best ways to use them? Or maybe this bot is the beginnings of such a plan. I'm trying to figure out where I will be most useful. Thanks! --Dekyi (talk/contribs) 13:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

{{WP Biography|women=yes}}

I am confused, again. What does this mean? Is there a women's sub-area in wp:WikiProject Biography? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC))

Not yet. See Template talk:WikiProject Biography#women banner and #Roadmap above. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope of this WikiProject

Ideally I would have liked to add a section to the the main page called WikiProject Women Scope which would say something like:

• All biographies of women articles
• Paintings by women
• books written by women
• scientific discoveries by women
• etc.

However, I guess I have missed the boat. The main page is already past the formative phase and much effort has been devoted to making it look pleasing to the eye, so that newcomers can do little to contribute content? Ottawahitech (talk)

Isn't that what the first paragraph does? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist:, To me, at east, the first paragraph is more about the mission of this wikiproj rather than its scope. Sorry have to run. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

Hi all! Sorry for not reading all preceding discussions about tagging articles, so just say if I have missed something. I have different proposal that can exist with all other proposals. Have a partial list of articles, that

• exists in German Wikipedia
• and are in their women category
• and exists in English Wikipedia
• and don't have any of these templates at their talk page.

Of course, there may be some false positives, but I think the list is quite fine. The list may include some transgender people, music groups, that have only female members etc. And as there are technical limits, some of those articles may have already been tagged with {{WikiProject Anthroponymy}}. And some articles have been tagged manually (like this one). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I also think that there should be Category:All WikiProject Women articles (with some other name, if you like), that could be added to all project templates. I think, I have seen this done with some other project banner templates. And later (after the first tagging phase) we could take a look at Wikidata and tag some other pages, that haven't been already tagged. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

They don't normally have the word "All". {{WikiProject Women artists}} puts pages in Category:WikiProject Women artists articles; {{WikiProject Women's Health}} puts them in Category:WikiProject Women's health articles; {{WikiProject Women's History}} in Category:WikiProject Women's History articles; {{WikiProject Women scientists}} in Category:WikiProject Women scientists articles; and {{WikiProject Women writers}} in Category:WikiProject Women writers articles. It's set by |MAIN_CAT=. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I know that type of category. I meant, that there could be some one extra ("tracking") category, where all pages, that are tagged with some of women-related project, could go. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this proposal. Why bother searching intersections of English Wikipedia with Category:Frau when you can just as easily search Category:Women? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because in this way you can catch all those articles, which are not in category "Women" (depth X), for example, Şermin Langhoff. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com

People might be interested in signing up for this, the biggest newspaper archive resource in the world!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant source at wikisource

wikisource:Index:Woman's who's who of America, 1914-15.djvu is a "who's who" type work, back in an era when that meant something about possible notability, which is available at that site for proofreading and, eventually, breaking down in separate pages over there. Theoretically, as a public domain work, it could also have the text reproduced here verbatim, if there have been no significant changes in the view of the individual involved since the time of publication. Anyone interested in developing the content there, for possible use here later, is more than welcome to do so. If you need any help that you think I could offer, drop me a message on my talk page there. John Carter (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture Dates: 15 to 25 October 2015 The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red in parallel with a series of "physical" Guggenheim edit-a-thons, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Architecture to participate. As it stretches over a week and a half, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in architecture. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, she's a horse

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