Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists:

Contents

Some missing mathematicians[edit]

In case anyone is looking for new articles to write, there are several women mathematicians (Category:Women mathematicians) without articles, listed at Category talk:Fellows of the American Mathematical Society. As fellows of a major academic society they presumably are notable under WP:PROF#C3 (although as usual it would be best if there were something else that we could also say about them more than just this one thing).

The ones I saw with female names are: Patricia E. Bauman, Marilyn Breen, Maria-Carme Calderer, Mónica Clapp, Jane Cronin Scanlon, Laura DeMarco, Ioana Dumitriu, Irene M. Gamba, Shelly Harvey, Jane M. Hawkins, Rebecca A. Herb, Tara S. Holm, Birge Huisgen-Zimmermann, Ellen Kirkman, Carole Lacampagne, Deborah Frank Lockhart, Susan Loepp, Claudia Neuhauser, Barbara L. Osofsky, Emma Previato, Linda Preiss Rothschild, Maria E. Schonbek, Mei-Chi Shaw, Alice Silverberg, Agata Smoktunowicz, Birgit Speh, Gigliola Staffilani, Nancy K. Stanton, T. Christine Stevens, Rekha R. Thomas, Abigail A. Thompson, Michelle L. Wachs, Judy L. Walker, Lynne H. Walling, Katrin Wendland, Elisabeth M. Werner, Anna Wienhard, Ruth J. Williams, Carol S. Wood, Irina Mitrea, Andrea R. Nahmod, Brooke Shipley, and Christina Sormani.

Possibly I missed a few more with more ambiguous names. See the category talk page for suggestions on sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I did miss at least three: Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu (done now), Tinne Hoff Kjeldsen, and Jill P. Mesirov. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Another: Christel Rotthaus. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All mathematicians on this list have now been added. Brirush (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some women from the 2017 Class of AMS Fellows who still do not have pages. Donatella Danielli, Mei-Chu Chang, Kathryn Hess, Kirsten Eisenträger, and Julia Petsova.

The creation of any new pages in this list would be greatly appreciated. Mvitulli (talk · contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC) I have added a list of prominent women in math who either don't have pages or whose pages are stubs to the page for Computer science, technology and math off of the Year of Science page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Year_of_Science/Computer_science,_technology,_and_math. Mvitulli (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 2016 Malaysia conference[edit]

Hello all,

I have just found out that the SCAR 2016 conference is looking to host an edit-a-thon to improve the coverage of prominent female Antarctic researchers. For any members of this wikiproject that are thinking of attending, please let me know if you would be interested in helping out by leaving a message on my talk page. Similarly, feel free to let me know if you've any suggestions of people to cover! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, the wikibomb event now has its own webpage (Female Antarctic researcher wikibomb webpage). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Finkbeiner test[edit]

A recent addition to the Guidelines section of the project page says: "Also consider taking into account: the Finkbeiner test for writing biographies of women in science." However, while some of the advice in that test seems appropriate to me, others of it seem to me to be overly dogmatic, and also more aimed at a standalone profile (say as a magazine article) than at an article that is part of a larger encyclopedia. And some of it goes directly against our guidelines. In particular:

  • Re "an article must not mention that the subject is a woman": I think this is appropriate advice for the lead; e.g. we should say that Susan Friedlander is a mathematician, not that she is a female mathematician. But we can't reasonably avoid using gendered pronouns elsewhere, and we should use categories that categorize the subject as a woman.
  • Re "an article must not mention the subject's husband's job": my position is that if any subject of a Wikipedia biography is closely related to another subject of a Wikipedia biography (e.g. married to, parent, or child) then we should mention that relation in both articles. And when the husband is not notable but his job has some direct relevance to the subject's biography (e.g. the subject was unable to obtain an academic position because her husband had one and anti-nepotism rules forbade hiring both of them) it can be mentioned. But I agree that there's no need to mention the husband's job when he is not notable and his job is not relevant, and it is also inappropriate to mention a notable husband on the woman's article without giving equal mention to the woman on the husband's article.
  • Re "an article must not mention that the subject is the first woman to do something": if the sources say that this is something the subject is notable for, then definitely we should mention it. It would be nice to live in an egalitarian world where the first female person to do something was as uninteresting and un-noted as the first blue-eyed person to do something, but we don't live in that world, and overcoming prejudice against women is an important part of the life stories of many of our subjects. We shouldn't pretend that it didn't happen.
  • I do agree with the other points about not focusing on child care, nurturing temperament, etc., except where they are directly relevant.

Is there some way we could incorporate a more nuanced view of this test into our project description? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not a member of this WikiProject, but these instructions go beyond the scope of the Project and affect general biographies. The following are my views on them:

  • "an article must not mention that the subject is a woman". Very poor idea. Due to the very nature and scope of Wikipedia, readers and editors may often come across a feminine name in a language they are unfamiliar with. If the article does not make the gender clear, the result would be confusion and the false assumption that the subject is male.
  • "an article must not mention the subject's husband's job". Not a particularly controversial idea. In the vast majority of biographical articles on scientists, the existence of a spouse is irrelevant to what makes the subject notable. If Johnny X or Jeannie X discovered a new chemical element, then that is what makes them notable and what is most relevant to the article. Whether they are single, married, or have a harem is of much lesser importance. Details about the spouse such as job or social class should only be mentioned if they affect the subject of the article. We are not a genealogy site that covers occupations and social class changes across generations.
  • "an article must not mention that the subject is the first woman to do something". On the contrary. Breaking gender restrictions or being first in a notable field is what gives notability to these articles. Pioneers in scientific fields should be noted in the lead of a text, and the body should cover when they achieved their "first". A female scientist with success in a male-dominated field is notable, a male scientist achieving success in a male-dominated field is of negligible significance.
  • "focusing on child care", "nurturing temperament". This largely depends on the subject. If the article subject is primarily known for his/her career but the article instead focuses on their family relationships and their paternal/maternal skills, this is most likely a case of Undue weight, where the Wikipedia editors and/or their sources focus on relatively trivial and POV matters. If however the subject is a social scientist like Benjamin Spock who promoted his/her own views on parenting, this may be directly relevant to their importance.Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music[edit]

Women in Music
Lyon Mosaïque de la muse Euterpe de la salle Rameau.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History[edit]

Invitation

Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Murray/archive1[edit]

Hello everyone; there's an article languishing at FAC about Margaret Murray, a pioneering early archaeologist and folklorist. It doesn't seem to be capturing the attention of FAC reviewers (other than me)- if anyone has a few hours free, your comments would surely be welcomed by the article's author. Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting article. I'm not a FAC reviewer, but I spotted two minor things: a typo that I'll correct. Also found this sentence confusing: "The historian Amara Thornton has suggested that Murray's Indian childhood continued to exert an influence over her throughout her life, expressing the view that Murray could be seen as having a "hybrid identity" that was both British and Indian." I went to the source referenced (Amara Thornton's journal article), and to my mind, she is proposing that Murray expressed a hybrid transnational identity, both British and Indian. There's a subtle difference. If it's ok with the primary authors/editors, I'll make that change. This weekend will give the article a deeper read - it's really good! Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Netherzone: Thanks for taking a closer look- do leave these comments on the FAC page to make sure that the article's author sees them! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Marie Mercury Roth[edit]

I created Marie Mercury Roth based on its listing on Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia/2016 GLAM Cafe#Women in Science. I put together a quick article based on the assumption that more in-depth knowledge would have to be obtained by a more dedicated researcher using sources that could not be found with a cursory Web search. The article was almost immediately proposed for deletion on the presumption of its lack of nobility. I have no knowledge that I can use to argue with that, and this autobiographical blog post suggests that the claim may be true. I will leave it in your hands to determine what to do with the article. Gordon P. Hemsley 08:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Waters[edit]

@Keilana: Hi Women Scientist enthusiasts :-) I started a stub article about Elizabeth Waters in my user space. Since she is closely associated with Cochrane, I would appreciate someone else looking it over and moving it to main space. There is plenty of content to bring it to a start class article so it would be great if someone improves it. Thanks! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Great, Sydney/FloNight! How do I find it? Hildabast (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It's wikilinked in topic header. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxford University Press[edit]

Hi all! I wanted to let you know that Oxford University Press is running a "Celebrating Women in STEM" event from now through June that provides free access to some of their resources related to women scientists. You can check out the interactive timeline here. Also, putting on my Wikipedia Library hat, we have many resources that you can sign up for as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What a world[edit]

Congratulations to the founder of WikiProject Women Scientists, who is now notable enough for her own Wikipedia article (suitably tagged by this project). Harej (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Ms. Temple-Wood! I love that WikiProject Women scientists exists. I'm not editing WP actively right now, or this would be one of my projects. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Women statisticians[edit]

I created a page today for Olive Jean Dunn: I've given her the tag woman scientist, which she was. But it looks like it's not unusual for a woman statistician who was a scientist not to be tagged as a woman scientist. Maybe someone could go through them? Hildabast (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Female scientists" or "Women scientists"[edit]

When referring to women in science as a group, which term is preferred in articles, "Female scientists" or "Women scientists"? I see a lot of usage for both terms, and it would be a good idea to keep this consistent. Thanks, SSTflyer 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@SSTflyer: "women scientists" is the preferred term. :) Keilana (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I am not talking about the name of this WikiProject. Both terms are broadly interchangeable, and it may be confusing to readers if we use both terms. The Women in science article, for example, contains 17 instances of "women scientists", 13 instances of "female scientist", and 12 instances of "female scientists". SSTflyer 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@SSTflyer: I know - but "women scientists" is preferred as a term and should be the one we're using in articles. (I'll go change things around in that article right now.) Keilana (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Just curious, but has consensus for this been established in previous discussions? If so, would you mind pointing them out to me? Thank you. SSTflyer 17:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe "female (some noun)" is more grammatically correct than "woman (some noun)." With "female," an adjective is modifying a noun, the general form. With "woman," a noun is forced into duty to modify a noun, which is not the standard form. Maurreen (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing ungrammatical about either form. The "women" in "women scientists" is just a standard noun adjunct. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the term "male scientists" is far more commonly used than "men scientists". Scott Illini (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In short, we could simply say "scientists." But what is more often problematic is calling a woman a "female" when referring to her as a human being in the declarative, i.e ("she's a female" versus "she's a woman.") "Female" is a biological status applicable to other species besides humans, whereas "woman" generally means only humans. When unclear, "woman" is preferable due to its emphasis on humanity, not simply biology. Montanabw(talk) 06:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
By dictionary,
        ➀Female: a person or animal that belongs to the sex that can have babies or produce eggs.
     ➁woman: an adult female person

So,woman is more suitable.--Takahiro4 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If we divide by gender, each sex should be treated the same. Would you say "male scientist" or "man scientist"? You've probably heard of a "male nurse" but not a "man nurse". Maurreen (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Usage is not always logical. --JBL (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps there are some notable female scientists who gained notoriety prior to adulthood? In such cases, wouldn't "female scientists" be more inclusive? 71.218.87.29 (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Graciela Salicrup[edit]

es:Graciela Salicrup looks notable but all the sources I've found are in Spanish, a language I'm not fluent in, and I don't trust Google translate well enough to rely on it. Anyone with better Spanish want to take this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of Spanish or English, but I can understand both these languages well enough (at least I think I can). I can read and understand the text on http://www.miscelaneamatematica.org/Misc44/C_Gomez.pdf without help from machine translators or dictionaries. If you create the article I can check if the content is in accordance with what the sources say. 189.6.213.242 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New system for keeping track of tasks[edit]

By request of Keilana I am trying out a new task tracking system for WikiProject Women Scientists here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Outstanding requests. Requests are fed into a central database called Wikipedia Requests and are sorted by category and WikiProject. By keeping them in a centralized database, they can be shared easily with other WikiProjects (including supporting projects such as Women in Red) and they are easier to maintain. Please give it a try and let me know how it works. (Current known bugs: red links don't show up as red links and "internal links" to Wikipedia articles don't work right. I hope to have those problems fixed soon.) Harej (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on Wikisource[edit]

I'm proofreading Mechanism of the heavens by Mary Somerville. There is discussion over whether she is the translator or author of this book, which is certainly at least derived from LaPlace. Any authoritative input would be very welcome.

Using Wikisource text as a primary reference source is an emerging development of collaboration between WS and WP. I would be thrilled to make Mary Somerville an exemplar—providing more "proof" of her outstanding abilities; is there anyone from WP who would like to investigate how best to link her article with her works? Cheers --Zoeannl (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Best to contact me at s:User talk:Zoeannl

Deletion debate for Sarah Ballard[edit]

A deletion debate for astronomer Sarah Ballard is underway. - Brianhe (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society[edit]

All already have at least stub bios, but the list needs updating for several from the 2015 list and all from the latest elections ("13 (26%) of this year’s intake of Fellows are women and there are two new female Foreign Members" say the RS). Please note the division by "Fellows", "Foreign members" and "Honorary and Statute 12 Fellows". The page is already quite well viewed, and may become more so, as the RS doesn't seem to have done the usual page summarizing the 2016 newbies is hard to find. I presume that as usual, the RS will upload the new official photos in a month or two - they won't have been taken yet. So don't worry too much about photos for now. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there any education projects on female astronomers active?[edit]

Hi, I've recently been looking at the new pages feed and seen a wave of about fifteen articles on astronomers (mainly female) by more than ten separate new accounts registered in the last two days. Do we have any school/education projects working on this? I'm wondering if this is a set of accounts for an education project (that should be marked as such) or some kind of sockpuppetry (or the kind of thing I've seen a few times, where someone gets so scared after someone fails to remember WP:BITE that they immediately re-register a new account...) Blythwood (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Ah sorry, forget this. Looked on social media and all these accounts seem to have something to do with a seminar on editing Wikipedia at the AAS228 conference, as described here. Leaving this post here for reference in case anyone else wonders about this. Blythwood (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Female geologists[edit]

FYI: This category is being considered for speedy renaming to Category:Women geologists. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Welcome to the Hall of Fame![edit]

Joska bodenmais pokale referenzen womens world award pokale.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Women in STEM fields has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Women in STEM fields, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

New design[edit]

Hello everyone, I have drafted a new layout for WikiProject Women Scientists. The goal is to make the WikiProject easier to use and to make outstanding tasks more prominent. Please review here and let me know what you think. Harej (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski be added to the list, I didn't see her name? Sabrina_Gonzalez_Pasterski --Eadoss (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Eadoss, to the requests list, or to something else? Harej (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts? Keilana? Harej (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

HotArticles subscription[edit]

Your HotArticles subscription is now live: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Hot articles. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Susan Stover[edit]

I'm working on an article on Susan Stover at User:Jlvsclrk/Susan Stover as I saw a very interesting article on her in a horseracing publication. I know a fair bit about the horse racing aspects of the topic but I'm not familiar with what would normally be included in an article on Women scientists. If anyone wants to give it a look-see and make some suggestions about what to add / delete / rephrase, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks from a newbie! Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Vera Danchakoff[edit]

While reading a book about Lina Prokofiev I found mention of a Vera Danchakoff who was one of those pioneering women academics who seem to have been almost ignored. So, I started an article. However, I've been hampered by not having access to a university library, not knowing much cell biology, knowing no Russian (and very little French or German!). She excelled at all this (and was good at the piano as well). If anyone is interested the article could do with a lot of help. Thincat (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian women in academia wikibomb at ANI[edit]

Members of this project might be interested in this thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspicious article creations - All new accounts creating pages about Australian academics. Joe Roe (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have put some work into saving Belinda Ferrari from this group of Australian female scientists, but am having trouble finding independent sources if anyone could help out. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Of note to the project[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive[edit]

Inspired by the sad passing of Kevin Gorman who was in turn inspired by this very project, a few of us over at WikiProject Women in Red have put together a small project to write articles about women philosophers. You would all be more than welcome to join if this appeals to you (and we already have a few articles about female philosophers of science, which may be particularly interesting for members of this project). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hina Rabbani Khar[edit]

Hina Rabbani Khar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Question on Categories[edit]

I have noticed that women who were previously included in the Category:Women mathematicians were removed from that category and placed in the Category:American women mathematicians. Why can't we include someone in both categories? I have added Category:Women mathematicians back to some of the pages but not all of them. Marie Vitulli —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages: "if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". Both of these categories are "non-diffusing" as subcategories of Mathematicians or American mathematicians, respectively, meaning that an article listed in American women mathematicians should also be listed in American mathematicians or another of its subcategories. The reason for this is so that we don't ghettoize the women and make it so that people looking in the main category only see men. But that reasoning doesn't apply for American women mathematicians as a subcategory of Women mathematicians. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, David! I now understand that women in the category American women mathematics SHOULD also be included in the category American mathematicians, which, by the way, isn't always the case. But is it legitimate to also include women in the category American women mathematicians in the much larger category of Women mathematicians? Marie Vitulli Mvitulli (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your last question: no, I don't think it's legitimate, because nationality is not non-diffusing. fgnievinski (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Women Earth scientists[edit]

Dear Axolotl Nr.733, could you please familiarize yourself with Template:Non-diffusing_subcategory then self-revert at [1] and similar edits. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fgnievinski, all these articles are included in diffusing subcategories of the Category:earth scientists as well, such as Category:American geophysicists, Category:Glaciologists etc. I didn't touch any of the non-diffusing subcategories. The only articles in the Category:earth scientists had been those you had inserted there - don't you think there's a reason for that? The fact that there's a non-diffusing category for women earth scientists doesn't mean that the articles' other categories become non-diffusing as well. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Or, to quote the template you've linked to: "It includes [earth scientists] that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent. (my emphasis) The result of your actions was that the Category:earth scientists was only populated by articles on women scientists, while all male scientists' articles remained in its subcategories. What would be the purpose of this? The whole idea behind using a non-diffusing category is to leave the parent category's content unaffected by the subcategory, not to repopulate the parent category. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fgnievinski, I've already realized that you think your time is more precious than mine, so that you consider it appropriate to give me a one sentence order, or expect me to read the template's text which you, apparently, didn't read yourself. But I would really appreciate if this time you could indicate if you actually read my reply. Thanks, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons[edit]

Lady Elizabeth Wilbraham by Sir Peter Lely.jpg
Anne Stine Moe Ingstad (1918-1997).jpg


October 2016

Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

At AfD[edit]

Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw(talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata list of redlinked women scientists[edit]

I've just put together a Wikidata-based list which displays the names of women scientists who have biographies in Wikipedia languages other than English. I hope it will inspire some of you to create new articles during the remaining weeks of the Wikipedia:Year of Science.--Ipigott (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks useful. Would there be any way to also imclude the languages already linked to the items? I think this would be useful not only for judging how easy something might be to translate, but also because multiple links in more major languages (de, fr, ru, for instance) could be useful as a sign of how notable the subjects are. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Heavily-tagged article[edit]

Hey folks! I noticed Colleen Cavanaugh has recently been covered in tags for improvement. I skimmed it quickly, looks like it could use some more refs and some of the language could be de-fluffed a bit. If anyone has time to take a look and start working on it, that'd be great!Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Of interest[edit]

Discussion of interest to project members: Talk:Women_in_STEM_fields#Requested_move_27_October_2016. Montanabw(talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in STEM fields[edit]

We used to have a category: Category:Women in STEM fields but it was deleted following this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_18. I started a list Draft: List of women in science and technology to try and capture all the women who were originally included in the deleted category, its an uphill battle. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Category:Women in STEM fields was moved to Category:Women in science and technology. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist: Yes, you are right. I was thrown off by the lack of a wp:redirect from the old category name to the new one as is the custom when moving one wiki-page to another.
However, the confusion which resulted from this move (which was only supported by two editors and opposed by another) is the direct result of a poor nomination which did not consider the whole category structure and left some categories in never-never land. For example Category:Lists of women in STEM fields which I just added to Category:Women in science and technology (should I have?) and the description of the category still refers to STEM fields even though its name implies that women engineers and women mathematicians are no longer included(?). Pinging @PanchoS: (the nominator) who may be able to shed light on this puzzling category move which happened last July. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Research showcase featuring the quality dynamics of Women Scientists[edit]

Hey folks! I've been digging into some new quality measurements of articles in Wikipedia. As a first test of measurements, I decided to focus on articles covered by WikiProject Women Scientists. I found some really interesting trends in place.

  • The quality of articles about Women Scientists tracked far behind the rest of the wiki since 2005
  • Starting mid-2013, there's a dramatic change and articles about Women Scientists start to grow much faster than the rest of the wiki
  • While there's a very large proportion of Good Articles about about Women Scientists, there's a much smaller proportion of Feature Articles than we see across the rest of the wiki.

I'm writing a report at m:Research:Quality dynamics of English Wikipedia, but it's still just a stub right now. However, you can get a sneak peek at the results at the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase this Wednesday at 19:30 UTC (7:30PM CET, 1:30PM CST, 11:30AM PST). See mw:Wikimedia_Research/Showcase#December_2016 for details. You'll be able to watch the live stream on a youtube link that I'll post here shortly before the showcase starts. Connect to our IRC channel, #wikimedia-researchconnect, to ask questions and/or participate in back-channel discussion. I'm especially interested in learning what you think might explain the trends we see. I hope to see you there! (I go by "halfak" in IRC) --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wrong on the timing. I start *setting up* for the showcase at 1900 UTC. It actually starts at 19:30 UTC. I've edited above so that the text does not cause confusion. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 21:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's the link to the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrlu5qTgyA That link should be good for watching the showcase later too. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red[edit]

Franz Joseph Spiegler (Umkreis) Anna lehrt Maria das Lesen.jpg
Woman teaching geometry.jpg


January 2017

Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler[edit]

Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy WechslerGrand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added some sources to the talk page in case anyone wants to improve the article. Zeromonk (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

School Editathons[edit]

Hello all! We're planning on running some editathons with teenage students to add notable people and details related to Biochemistry & Chemistry - I'd really appreciate any help that people can offer with this, particularly suggestions of pages for the students to create and improve (I've looked at the outstanding requests, but some of them seem to have already been created, so I wondered if there was a way for this list to be updated?). Thanks in advance! Zeromonk (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Most cited women scientists as per Wikidata[edit]

I'm working on Wikidata items around the most cited female authors of scientific articles as another way (as compared to approaches based on counting site links) to prioritize wiki work on women scientists here or elsewhere (e.g. at m:WikiCite). Right now, this set comprises only about 600 women, but it can be grown in multiple ways:

Many of the women on the list also have very few statements on their Wikidata items, even though for highly cited people, useful information is likely easier to be found than for people with fewer citations. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: the list now has over 1000 entries. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges[edit]

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Women in Red logo.svg
Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon

Facilitated by Women in Red
Help us to spread the news

  • 8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University
    Eleanor Sidgwick by James Jebusa Shannon died 1923.jpg
    AF Mark 1.png
  • Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all
  • Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions
  • Inform your communities of the need for their support.
  • Contribute in English or in your own language

Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)