User talk:WebMaven2000/WikiProject Women of psychology: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 46: Line 46:
[[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=642466477 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Harej@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Harej/WikiProjects&oldid=642466477 -->

== Question at the Village Pump ==

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

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Risk_in_identifying_as_a_woman_editor_on_Wikipedia|Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia]]

--[[User:Lightbreather|Lightbreather]] ([[User talk:Lightbreather|talk]]) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:18, 23 January 2015

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because...it's goal is to enhance the representation of emminent women psychologists on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is often criticized for its lack of inclusiveness regarding women, and this page will organize a project to help remedy that. I only started to create it 2 minutes before you deleted it. Give me at least a few days. --WebMaven2000 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Do you realize that although Wikipedia has lengthy pages detailing the contributions of emminent male psychologists, even the most famous women psychologists are missing from its articles? WebMaven2000 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The groups who have expressed interest in contributing to the project are all published academic writers, so we are likely to get some well-written, well=referenced articles out of it.WebMaven2000 (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I am aware of the notability guidelines for academics, if that is at all reassuring. Even I meet those criteria, but I'm not putting myself on the list. :-) WebMaven2000 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Join up with WikiProject Women scientists?

Hello, WebMaven2000 and friends! WikiProject Women scientists is up and running now, and is seeing a good bit of activity. Could we interest you in joining up with WikiProject Women scientists, possibly as a task force? Djembayz (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djembayz: Just thought I would mention that Category:Women in health professions with its subcategory Category:Women physicians is currently not included in WikiProject Women scientists. I suppose physicians are not always considered scientists. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that this project be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists, possibly as a task force. There hasn't been a lot of activity at Wikiproject Women of psychology yet, and a merger could make a lot of sense for now. Djembayz (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's no response in the next week, I'd just merge it. Doesn't look like this project ever got up off the ground. I am no longer watching this page—whisperback if you'd like a response czar  20:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djembayz: You may want to also post this at WT:WikiProject Council for a larger audience. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought see my comments here. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue to insist on linking to comments rather than making a comment? Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge much better as a task force within WikiProject women scientists. We need to focus our efforts, not make them more diffuse.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would almost WP:SNOW this considering the scope of the projects are similar and there is not enough activity here to justify it to be alone. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to topic coordination - I found a todo page associated with the old location for this wikiproject, and I have linked to it above. This gives us a better idea of the scope of this project. Unless there are many more potential articles, this may be better as a topic coordination (see the guide on how to identify the best scope). Keep in mind that it is a lot of work to convert an existing project to a task force. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Topic coordination makes sense to me. This is really just a subset of the much more active project, so I'd say start with topic coordination and potentially convert to task force if someone is willing to do the work and there are several members willing to take on the tasks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even a topic coordination would require a commitment of effort on someone's part, and I have just realized that @WebMaven2000 has been mostly inactive since 2011. So an important question is - does someone want to lead this? (I don't.) RockMagnetist (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely merge. WPWS is much more active.-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

Question at the Village Pump

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

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]