Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Women scientists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Science (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Women (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists:


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)

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence; free journal access[edit]

Hi folks,

Firstly, I just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry since September. Apologies for not notifying you sooner, but I've only just discovered the existence of this project.

Over the coming months, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Wikipedia and sister projects, and running public engagement events.

You can keep track of progress at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions.

This week, we announced the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including biographies - there are a number of obituaries in the archives, for instance). Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account.

How else can I and the RSC support your work to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy Mabbett, do the employees there have any suggestions or unique/old sources for female scientists with poor or no articles that they feel should be improved? Sam Walton (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've just finished there for the Christmas break, but I'll ask around when I return. Meanwhile the project page linked above has a list of requested biographies (mostly male. I'm aware!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015[edit]

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

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)

Question at the Village Pump[edit]

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) 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice and invitation[edit]

  1. There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group.
  2. Have you heard of the Kaffeeklatsch? It is a test area for women to hear and support each other. The idea came about as a result of a discussion at meta regarding my IdeaLab proposal (yet open) for WikiProject Women.
Now that the klatsch has survived an MfD and WMF legal has said that it does not violate the non discrimination policy,[1] I am looking for women editors who might like to join.
Although I have started a couple of discussions, they are not urgent. For now, the "Please introduce yourself" discussion is more important! I want to take it slow at first and build a small group before trying to address heavy topics or come up with big goals. For now, the klatsch is there as a sort of refuge. I hope you will consider joining, and invite other women editors, too, if you wish.

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015[edit]

Wikimania 2015 Mexico City identity.jpg

Hello! Victuallers and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. I even mention this WikiProject! The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Ed "Editing Women's Studies" Brochure: Feedback requested[edit]

Hello all, Wiki Ed will be distributing a brochure to Women's Studies courses in the USA and Canada that edit Wikipedia as part of their classroom assignments. It will also be available on-wiki and as a pdf for anyone to read or use. I'm hoping to get some feedback on the brochure's contents -- if anyone has some time to review it, I've uploaded a Wiki draft here. We're looking to have it ready to print by March 3, so feedback would be most useful before then. Thanks everyone!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Turning STEM pipeline into a DYK[edit]

STEM pipeline would make a great DYK-- anyone interested in trying it? --Djembayz (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

These 17 women changed the face of physics[edit]

I'm occupied elsewhere - two elsewheres - at present, but I wanted to share this article that my husband shared with me.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Women scientists in photographs and paintings[edit]

WP:Featured pictures are a good way to get a scientist onto the mainpage, if source material is good. Anything smaller than 1500 pixels on the shorter side is likely to run into problems, though. If anyone sees a probable image, please let me know, I'll do what I can. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


I'd appreciate a reassessment of Natasha Raikhel, a woman scientist. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. I'll happily assess the article on Raikhell. Could you reassess Cécile Vogt-Mugnier? I'd like to get an impartial assessment to bring the article to A-class. Thanks. -Iamozy (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Women illustrators[edit]

I'm just wanting guidance on whether these women would fall within the remit of this Wikiproject. I'm tending to come across these women via tagging images for the Biological Heritage Library website and they are often illustrators of images in various scientific journals or books - although not always. I'm tending to take quite a wide interpretation of what constitutes a "woman scientist" and am just wanting to check that I'm not in error. Examples of articles I've recently included in this project are Eliza Turck as a result of her work on Familiar Wild Birds and Catharine Johnston (illustrator). These women are getting images of their art tagged to eventually be uploaded onto Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10: I would say that scientific illustrators such as those you mention are within the remit of this project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African American women in computer science[edit]

African American women in computer science is at AfD; as is African American men in computer science.--Djembayz (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Women-specific category[edit]

Of the women fellows of the Royal Society, I notice that some are categorised into both Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society and Category:Fellows of the Royal Society, but many more are only included in the female-specific category. As a result, the top-level of Fellows of the Royal Society contains many, many male names and hardly any female names. I'm thinking that this kind of situation is what we're trying to avoid, and that these women should be in the "Fellow" as well as "Female Fellow" categories. Or is there some countervailing consensus that I've missed? Paging @Johnbod: a WIR in this area who knows FRS-related articles far better than I. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No they should all be in both; it has the cryptic "non-diffusing" template saying so. I'm surprized any are not, but I see on a sample this is the case (50/50 maybe). Females are a tiny % - something like 138/7000+ from memory. The male fellows are only about 2/3 complete at 5031 (+ females). If anyone adds those missing (or eg A-G) then please note this here. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks John, I only noticed the "non-diffusing" message after posting the above. Easy to fix: I just wanted to check before making the edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Just added "Fellows of the Royal Society" to 44 of these biographies, but I've only gone back to 1986 on the List of female Fellows of the Royal Society, so there are more to do if anyone wants to join in. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You mean "up to" 1986 - I've extended to 2006, with most being ok in fact. 2007 to present need checking stillJohnbod (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I check backwards: that's how I roll. :) The recent biographies that you've been involved with are indeed fine, as I'd expect: it's the biographies of earlier Fellows that almost all had this problem. Now fixed, though. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Some database reports[edit]

As part of my work I am preparing some database reports on WikiProjects. I've been using this WikiProject as a test case and I came up with these reports:

Let me know if you find these reports useful. Would you be interested in other reports as well? Harej (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for working on these Harej, they are quite useful. For anyone who's curious, there are 1190 articles that don't have the WikiProject banner and 41 articles with notability tags. It might be nice to have a bot run to pick up all of the scientists that are within the project's scope but don't yet have the banner. gobonobo + c 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This is really really awesome! Thank you so much for this! :) @Gobonobo: Do you know of a bot that does this? I'm woefully ignorant about all things bots....but that would be incredibly useful so we don't have to go through tagging by hand. I'm also thinking that a drive to handle all the articles with notability tags could be fun - if every member worked on one article we could get it done really quickly. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Keilana: We can request a WikiProjectTagger run from Anomie's bot at User talk:AnomieBOT. Here are the instructions/caveats/options:
We'd have to make a list of categories to be processed (probably Category:Women scientists and most of its subcategories). Then we'll need consent from this project's members to proceed. gobonobo + c 16:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Gobonobo: That sounds super useful! If no one objects in the next few days, I think we'd be ok going ahead and tagging stuff. (Or do we need a full formal RfC?) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. We might want to consider partnering with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A full RfC shouldn't be necessary. I've started a new section below with the list of categories. I'm not sure if the bot can also add articles to the science and academia work group, but I'll check. It may mean that the bot request will require approval from that project. gobonobo + c 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Your approach to finding articles is intriguing. I'd be interested in knowing how the categories in your first search compare with the categories that I searched to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/missing articles. Could your search be done using CatScan? I find CatScan convenient because it can be used to create a Wikipedia page with links to the articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
A list of articles with topics of unclear notability is already part of the cleanup listing for this project (which the wikiproject page has a link to). RockMagnetist(talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot-tagging run[edit]

Per the above discussion, we can request a bot to place the Women scientists banner on article talk pages within this project's scope. I propose we have the bot auto-assess the class of the articles and, if possible, add "|s&a-work-group=yes" to the WikiProject Biography banner.

Here is the list of categories:

As this project's scope is just biographies, I did not include Category:Women and science and have struck through Category:Fictional women scientists‎. Please discuss/add/subtract categories as you see fit. Once we have a consensus for the list of categories, the bot run can be formally requested. gobonobo + c 03:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Keilana, RockMagnetist: Do these categories look good to you? Anything we should add/subtract before we request the run? gobonobo + c 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good as is. I wasn't able to find any more categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Gobonobo: This looks great, thanks for putting this together! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 15:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The bot-tagging run is done. Much thanks to Anomie. gobonobo + c 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

New articles feed[edit]

I've added a new articles feed to the main page. It shows articles created in the past 14 days that probably fall within the scope of this project. The rules that govern which articles are included can be changed. gobonobo + c 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been finding this listing helpful and accurate. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice[edit]

There is a discussion at meta, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, that may be of interest to members of the project. Lightbreather (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers[edit]

I'd like to bring your attention to ORCID, the "Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier" scheme that provides unique identifiers for scientists and others. These serve to disambiguate people with the same name, and unite works published by one person under different, or variant, names.

You can see ORCID iDs at the foot of some biographies, for example, Claire M. Fraser - the data is actually stored in Wikidata.

When writing about a living (or recently deceased) scientist, please check on the ORCID website to see if they have an ORCID identifier (make sure you're not looking at a namesake!) and add it to Wikidata. Then add {{Authority control}} to the article on this project, so the iD displays.

Wikipedia editors are also eligible to register for an ORCID iD; if you choose to do so, you may then include it on your user page (as I have, for example, on mine).

More information may be found at WP:ORCID.

I am the Wikimedian in Residence at ORCID, so happy to answer any questions you may have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Some missing computer scientists[edit]

The following ACM Fellows don't seem to have articles here. I'm listing them with their academic affiliation (or past affiliation) and main contributions (summarizing the fellow award citations, which can be found on the ACM web site):

David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Donations[edit]

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of some recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Taylor & Francis, WP:AAAS (Science) and WP:Cairn. We also have many older partnerships with accounts available, such as the Royal Society History of Science collection. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Patricia Anne Johnston for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Anne Johnston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Anne Johnston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedian in Residence Position at West Virginia University[edit]

West Virginia University Library just announced its new Wikipedian in Residence position for Gender Equity. The full time, one year position was funded as an Inspire Campaign Grant. Wikimedians with experience in GLAM-Wiki, the Education Program, working on the Gender Gap, and other related projects are invited to apply for this in-residence position. More information at Wikipedia:GLAM/WVU. I hope that you all share the opportunity with people you think would be interested, Sadads (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More missing women computer scientists[edit]

I recently stumbled across this Women in Computing Oral History Collection project sponsored by the IEEE History Center, containing interviews with 52 American and British women in computing. The list of women with interviews but no articles is below. They all come with little biographical blurbs that are good places to start in researching a stub. (The interviewer, Janet Abbate, is also a notable academic with a red link.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for the list, Opabinia regalis! I will also copy it over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Technology. Harej (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Turned out to be less here than I thought, since I only created articles where there were additional sources unconnected to Abbate's project. A lot of the women without articles either spent their careers in industry, where there's little individual coverage, or retired from academia long enough ago that there aren't many online breadcrumbs left. FWIW, if anyone else is interested in early computer science history: Candlin, Liddell, and Lovegrove are technically WP:PROF passes but haven't left much of a google trail since their retirements; Hawthorn is borderline-notable as an entrepreneur and has stirred up some local-scale coverage as an activist; and Marrs had one prominent interview recently but otherwise has not attracted much coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mary Herring, Good Article nominee[edit]

Mary Herring, an Australian physician has been nominated as a Good Article in Biology and medicine. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to review. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at the Community portal[edit]

The portal had a notice near the top of the page about working on articles about women scientists. I have mentioned this project there. See the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#Highly cited women scientists without articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on list talk[edit]

Discussion between me and another editor on Talk:List of female mathematicians has become a little heated. Disinterested third party opinions would be welcome and probably helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comandeering by the boys' club[edit]

Sorry to say that List of female mathematicians is subject to ownership by a male editor, who decides how long entries are, what they comprise, and whether an image can be included. I challenged this ownership, but have been excluded from editing the article by a protection by User:Drmies that can only be regarded as an invitation to COI editing by his admin friends. In other words, Drmies's protection allows the two admins involved in an edit war on the article to continue editing it.

No wonder we have a 10–90 gender-gap crisis; and perhaps this is another example of why admins are often regarded as corrupt on this site. Tony (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This is campaigning, and slams @Drmies without alerting them about the post. You should follow my recent example and remove this post. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing? I'm not expecting anyone here would want to dip their fingers in that talkpage—why would you jump into the kind of lion's den that, after all, is an example of why women are turned off being editors. And also, I don't need anyone's support on that page—it's a battle I'd rather pursue by myself. I mention the situation here to inform the community of the state of things. As for Drmies, he doesn't deserve the slightest courtesy after his, and his admins mates', removals of my responses on his talkpage. Tony (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I now see that Eppstein has himself canvassed explicitly here, just above. Tony (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The post by @David Eppstein is an example of appropriate notification - polite and neutrally worded. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

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

You are invited!World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in LeadershipCome and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

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) 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women[edit]

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon
Sarah Chang before performing.jpg
Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women[edit]

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing female space scientists[edit]

Here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list

  1. Stephanie A Snedden is a researcher in space science at Apache Point Observatory, US.
  2. Emanuele Daddi is a researcher in space science at CEA Saclay, France.
  3. Michele Limon is a researcher in space science at Columbia University, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, US.
  4. Patrizia A Caraveo is a researcher in space science at INAF Istituto di astrofisica spaziale e fisica cosmica, Italy.
  5. Neta Bahcall is a researcher in space science at Princeton University, US.
  6. Gillian R Knapp is a researcher in space science at Princeton University Observatory.
  7. Andrea Cimatti is a researcher in space science at University of Bologna, Italy.
  8. Alice E Shapley is a researcher in space science at University of California, Los Angeles, US.
  9. Constance M Rockosi is a researcher in space science at University of California, Santa Cruz, US.
  10. Eva K Grebel is a researcher in space science at University of Heidelberg, Germany.
  11. Judith Cohen (scientist) is a researcher in space science at California Institute of Technology.
  12. Christine Jones (scientist) is a researcher in space science at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
  13. Gabriele Ghisellini is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
  14. Laura Maraschi is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
  15. Isabella Gioia is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica - INAF, Italy.
  16. Deidre Hunter is a researcher in space science at Lowell Observatory.
  17. Chryssa Kouveliotou is a researcher in space science at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
  18. Laura Ferrarese is a researcher in space science at National Research Council of Canada.
  19. Nancy Boggess is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
  20. Corinna von Montigny is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
  21. Stefi Baum is a researcher in space science at Rochester Institute of Technology.
  22. Judith Young (scientist) is a researcher in space science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 15 September 2015 (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)

Google Scholar id template[edit]

I've just made {{Google Scholar id}} for use in external links sections; here's an example conversion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Pigsonthewing. One thing I have never understood, though - how do you find those IDs in the first place? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice, thanks Pigsonthewing!
@RockMagnetist: If you find the person in Google Scholar, the ID is the user= parameter of their profile's URL. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! RockMagnetist(talk) 05:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Canadian women scientists[edit]

Canadian Science Publisher are running a series highlight the contributions of Canadian women scientists:

These aren't necessarily all notable, but I figured it would be a good place to mention them. Maybe this source can be used to augment existing articles, or give enough to create a stub/start class article for a motivated editor. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Women in Science events at the University of Oxford[edit]

To celebrate the bicentenary of Ada Lovelace, Oxford IT Services, the Bodleian Libraries and Wikimedia UK are running four events next week (Monday 12 October to Thursday 15 October) around Women In Science. These include three events editing, improving and illustrating Wikipedia, plus a Wikisource transcribe-a-thon. If you can make it to Oxford, you'd be welcome to join us, but please email in advance. See the blog post for an overview or go to the project pages for more detail on what we're doing.

The Tuesday will also include events at the University of Manchester and University of Edinburgh. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Research guides from the Library of Congress[edit]

Gathered these as part of a larger project I'm working on, but no sense in depriving anyone while I finish. (Ping: Keilana) Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
Women Science.png
  • Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new 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 the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi everyone! Gamaliel and I are working on a bibliography for this project. Check it out here and add any books, websites, or journals you may be using! I hope you find it useful. Keilana (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion[edit]

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG
  • Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015
  • Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
  • Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
  • Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
  • RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

A few questions for editors of this project[edit]

Hi! I'm working on an article for the Signpost here at Wiki and I would love it if any editors here could answer these questions about last month's women in science edit a thon:

1. How did you feel about the collaboration? 2. Has there been an increase in involvement in wikiproject women scientists since the editathon? 3. How many editors participated? How many were new? Facilitator(s)? Who: volunteers? academics? librarians? 4. Promotion-- how did you promote the editathon?

Thanks in advance!!! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Feedback please on Maureen Hatch, radiological epidemiologist[edit]

Greetings all, I am seeking feedback as to whether the woman epidemiologist, Maureen Hatch, M.P.H, Ph.D. has significant notability as per Wiki standards & guidelines, to create an article on her. She led the Columbia University team that conducted the first epidemiological study of the health effects & death rate impact of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. She is affiliated with the National Cancer Institute (NIH), Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Radiation Epidemiology Branch; and acted as Senior Director of Operations of Medical Oncology at the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute. Her bio, research interests and scientific publications are listed here: - Dozens of her scientific publications focus on children, adolescents, and clean-up workers leukemia and thyroid, and other cancers in the Ukraine and Belarus, post-Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown. Your thoughts and guidance are appreciated in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

She seems notable to me. A search for her name on google scholar turns up over 300 hits. Seems like there are a good amount of peer reviewed articles citing her work as well as her own publications in peer reviewed journals. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 28 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]


Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG

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