Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female Fellows of the Royal Society/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012 [1].

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society[edit]

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this newly created list for featured list because I believe it fulfils all of the featured list criteria. The entries are complete in that all female fellows and members are listed, and as far as I can tell all Royal Society prizes & awards have also been listed in the Notes & Awards column. KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that having a separate sublist is valid - as long as we don't arbitrarily break it into a male list and a female list, having one comprehensive list plus one for definable subsets is fine. Compare, for example, the (featured) list of female Nobel laureates. The RS themselves treat the distinction as meaningful enough to provide a female-only list (although not a very helpful one, as it's current-only) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category's been around some time, FWIW; created in 2008. It was only partially populated until a few weeks ago, though; my understanding is that articles should be in one only? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Fellows of the Royal Society is a subjective list of notable fellows. The comprehensive list of all fellows are the sublists List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C, D,E,F etc. Gender sublist like this one and List of female Nobel laureates are notable precisely because of the great difference in number between male and female fellows. Out of ~8,000 fellows in history, only 120 have been women. See all the recent news coverage related to the Ada Lovelace Day events, and women in science and technology in general. With regards to the accessibility criteria, can you be more specific on what you mean so I can see about possibly fixing it? The current format is based on the existing featured List of female Nobel laureates among others. Lastly, what other issues? I can't go about improving the article if I don't know what's wrong with it. Regards. KTC (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the lead have been expanded. KTC (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 13:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I do not think that this is a 3(b) violation ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") because the suggested target, List of Fellows of the Royal Society, would be unwieldly if all the notable names (by which I mean all the names with articles) were included - just compare how many blue-linked names are in List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C compared to the "List of Fellows" that cherry-picks a few on an apparently arbitrary basis. I think that having a distinct list of women is justifiable given the history of women in science and the numbers for this list compared to the numbers of men in the RS's history. I think that the list needs some polishing, but I would not boot it out at this stage for being an unjustified split.

In terms of things to improve, I would suggest the following:

  • Changes "Notes & Awards" to "Notes"
Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove ampersands from headings
Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes that aren't full sentences shouldn't have a full stop e.g. "Princess Royal."
I've removed all the full stops in the tables. I'm not sure whether I should have left a couple of them in like after Lubchenco's note. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have the year for Victoria becoming Patron?
I've clarified in the note that Victoria was never elected as a Royal Fellow, so the year 1838 was when she became Patron. KTC (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the tables are sortable, we need to relink each occurrence of a term because the tables won't always be in the same order. I would also relink the Nobel Prizes in the foreign fellows section.
Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some lectures are redlinked, others not - any particular reason for the distinction?
All of the awards, prize lectures and medals were wikilinked (once) except the Wellcome Foundation's which I left out by mistake. What's left that's not linked are Officers position within the Royal Society. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chemical Engineering, Computer Science - lower case for second word for consistency
Done. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the point of linking scientific disciplines, but don't see the point of linking common terms like "politics" and "philosophy" for the honorary fellows, or "United States" (in the foreign fellows) or "United Kingdom" (in the lead)
For politics and philosophy, I believe linking it would be more consistent given all the other fields entries are linked, but I don't mind either way. I have unlinked United States, but unsure about United Kingdom in the first sentence. What about Commonwealth of Nations? Is that consider a common enough term? KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what is the difference between an honorary fellow and a section 12 fellow? The lead could be clarified on this.
I've added an explanation to the relevant section rather than the lead. It should clear it up. KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the 117 figure sourced directly (if so, cite it), or just a count-up of the total below? If the latter, how do we know this is a complete list?
Honestly? Because I asked for and received a list from the Royal Society which I worked off. However, a list is provided in ref 2 up to 1994 inclusive, and numerical count of each year is available in ref 4 up to 2009 inclusive, though it appears to have missed one from 1948 in its figure. Royal Society's website have a list of new Fellows for 2010, 2011 and 2012. KTC (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all of it, so done. KTC (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 11:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Quick note I see no violation of 3b here at all. As long as this list is comprehensive (i.e. it contains all female fellows) then it's a perfectly legitimate standalone list, the objections above have no merit. I will review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note As well as encouraging the creation and expansion of articles about women, this is also associated with efforts to bring in women editors and engage them in Wikipedia. So the subject is very 'current'. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 17:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe that the list being gender-specific does not violate the criteria, 3b in particular, as it does not violate any of the four points. The only issue would be if we saw that it could clearly be deleted at an AfD. As the matter of female membership in the society has been the subject of significant coverage, that is highly unlikely. Arsenikk (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, agree with assessment in the above comment by Arsenikk (talk · contribs). This list is incredibly well sourced, it's surely very encyclopedic and educational, and has high value for readers, students, and academics alike. Great job! — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments firstly, my apologies for taking so long to getting back to this review, I've had a number of troubling RL issues, but hopefully back on track now. Secondly, I'd like to reiterate if this list is complete, then there's no issue with our 3b criterion. So, to the detail...
  • "While there were no formal prohibition of..." my ignorance perhaps, but why isn't that "While there was no prohibition..."?
That's merely my choice of wording. I chose "formal prohibition" rather than "prohibition" because women were prevented from joining despite nothing explicitly saying so, as explained in that and the following paragraph. Maybe "explicit prohibition" would be better? I also wouldn't object if someone were to change it to just "prohibition". KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second para, first sentence has "Society" three times, rather repetitive and a little dull.
Modified sentence. How's that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would consider merging opening paras of lead, the first para is a single sentence.
Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "starting in the 19th century, with the founding of the Zoological Society of London in 1829 and Royal Entomological Society" could you explain that just a touch more? Did those two societies openly admit/encourage female membership?
Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Marian Farquharson sent " could qualify who Farquharson was?
Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Year the Year of inclusion as a fellow? You have one of those floaty-over things for the Ref. col, why not one here?
I have expanded the column header instead. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KTC (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the names per the Royal Society or something else? Only our article on Sylvia Tait calls her Sylvia Agnes Sophia Tait while our article on Eleanor Margaret Burbidge simply refers to her as Eleanor Burbidge...
"First Last" unless the person is known better by her middle name then "First Better-Known-Middle Last". Our article on Burbidge is actually titled at Margaret Burbidge as she's better known by her middle name. KTC (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foreign Secretary and Vice-President 2001–2006;" of what?
Expanded. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UK-Canada Rutherford Lecture 2010" shouldn't that be an en-dash between UK and Canada per WP:DASH?
Linguistically, probably. However Royal Society's own website uses hypen throughout. I assuming we should do the same because of that? KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fields should be Field(s) since most winners have only one field of interest.
Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be seriously tempted to merge all the tables into one, and add the extra info where required in the notes column.
    • Personally, I think separate tables in this case convey the information better, but if other interested editors were to argue for one big table, then I wouldn't put up a fight. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comments. I really like this list; it's an atypical subject matter for FLC and it goes some way towards addressing issues with unbalanced coverage of female subjects. It would make a nice TFL for the closest Monday to Ada Lovelace Day next year.
    • Is there a reason you're forcing the table width at 95%?
      • Other than because I copied the format from an existing list? No. I think for one of the table at least, 95% looks better, but I've forced all of them to 100% now. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't table captions redundant when the table is directly under a section heading?
    • I agree with TRM on the "year" col
    • An the "fields" col
    • The notes would be better as sentences or at least sentence fragments (eg awarded the Davy Medal in 1957)
    • I'd really like a brief bit of prose that explains why being an FRS is so highly coveted and what role the fellows play within the society, and how that differs (if it does) for foreign/royal/honorary fellows
    • What proportion of all FRSs are female?
    • Do we know why they amended the rules to explicitly allow female fellows? Or why they decided to admit female FRSs at all (was it because they were legally obliged to or did they decide they wanted to)?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revisiting this. I'm happy with all the responses to my comments so far. It would be unreasonable to oppose over the non-inclusion of information that's simply not available. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed (Katie, please correct me if I've missed it) is my request for a sentence or two on the prestige of being an FRS. If that could be added, I'll gladly support (but I won't oppose, and may support anyway, if it isn't added). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added. Also added a sentence detailing percentage of women Fellows out of all living Fellows. -- KTC (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - While I'm working on the above points, I just want to highlight that this is the intended appearance of the tables with rowspan on years with multiple Fellows elected. The current explosion of all rows are due to bugzilla:41886. KTC (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose until at least the red-linked entries get a blurb in the notes section. It is not clear to me why don't all entries have a small sentence about the fellow's achievements. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Fellows and Foreign Members were all elected on the basis of excellence in their respective fields, which is already one of the columns. Further blurb is, in my opinion, unlikely to add much that wouldn't be better served with a reader clicking through to the individual articles if they want more information. As to the red links, they shouldn't be treated differently to the blue ones so it should be either or for all of them. While I definitely intends to create all the missing articles if other don't beat me to it, I'm not incline to write a bunch of stubs just so this list doesn't have any red links. -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that a few redlinks is not a valid criterion for opposition at FLC. Therefore this opposition can and should be legitimately disregarded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An interesting list, well presented. Much debate has surrounded the issue of the low numbers of women who have been elected FRS, and I see no reason why this should not be a separate list. As others have pointed out, the complete list of fellows would be extremely unwieldy. My only comment is that the royal fellows/patrons do not have references, and the living ones do not seem to appear in the external list of "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society". Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Royal Fellows and Patrons doesn't have inline references mainly because they're not elected the usual way, so there's no election citation and any material talking about them will generally covers other aspect of their life rather than the fact they were Royal Fellows of the Royal Society. All four are covered in the general reference "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007" (pp. 12, 110 & 365). Which of the living ones did you test? That particular list covers those elected up to and including 2011, so anyone that were elected this year wouldn't be on there. -- KTC (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The list I checked (for royal fellows/patrons), as I wrote, is the one you link to as "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society" [2]. If they are covered under "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007", then I suggest that you place citations to specific page numbers in a reference column for ease of reference, and also clarify for each whether they are royal fellows and/or patrons, which appears unclear in 3 of the 4 cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done re. references. Re. Royal Fellows vs. Patrons, I thought it was fairly clear that only Queen Vic & QE2 were patrons and hence Queen Mum & Anne has only ever been Royal Fellows, but obviously not. I have added a few sentences before the table that should hopefully help explain things? -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I fear you might now need a reference for the introductory text in this section. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Section rewrote with added references. KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some copy edits, but the last sentence of this section is rather jumbled; suggest simplifying. Otherwise happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some minor tweaks as follows: (1) prizes are awarded to someone, lectures are delivered/presented by someone, so I've changed the formula to "Delivered the X Lecture in YYYY". I know that it might be prestigious to be asked to deliver the X lecture, but that's implicit. (2) Notes that are not full sentences should not end with a "." I have explained above in my now-hatted comments why this is not a 3(b) violation. I am also not worried that some of the lectures don't have articles yet, although it would be good if they did or if they could be redirected to a mention of them in another Royal Society article. However, I'd like this bit tidied up:
Throughout its history, the Royal Society has elected a number of individuals to its Fellowship by virtue of their royal blood or marriage. By the time women were admitted to its Fellowships, eligibility of such elections has been limited to members of the British Royal Family. The reigning monarch of England, and since the Act of Union 1707, that of Great Britain has always served as patron of the Society.
  • "eligibility of such elections" doesn't make sense to me
  • Great Britain became the United Kingdom in 1801
  • Source for these three sentences?

Fix these and I'll be supporting. BencherliteTalk 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrote that bit with added references. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the gender, race, religion, disability, or nationality of the fellow is felt to be of interest to readers, can this not be achieved through adding an additional field to the main list? I question the value of this list as a standalone list, so would not be comfortable in supporting as a featured list. Perhaps merge back into the main list? SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think merging it back would be political. This is a complete list of female members; being a female member is a notable occurrence in its own right due to the very late acceptance of members, and the currently low number of fellows. I hope that in 20 years such a list would be so long as to make it useless, but until then I feel it holds notability. It seems a shame to put such pointless criticism onto such a lot of determined effort. I do have a suggestion though; get the male fellows in the other list up to featured status (indeed, it probably needs expansion) and then a merge would certainly be worth considering. --Errant (chat!) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A complete list of List of male Fellows would have around 8,000 entries... KTC (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry SilkTork, but with sadness on my part, your logic, following many of our other lists, is deeply flawed. As KTC notes, the main list would have 8,000+ entries, so creating sublists seems perfectly acceptable to me. We often split per gender (e.g. South Africa women Test cricketers) or by religion (e.g. List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients) etc. I'm not keen on this oppose being mixed in with the ongoing WP:RFA nonsense. I would hope we could take these perceived editorial problems separately from any kind of administrative issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't mind red links at all. But I do think a small blurb would help, for all of them. Clicking to the article is ok, but some info should be on the list as well. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_female_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society/archive1&oldid=1138486399"