Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barbara (WVS) (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 27 September 2017 (→Project Proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia: request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject iconWomen Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Adding women athletes to article alerts for WP:Women

I would like to submit a bot request for EarwigBot (see 14 WikiProject tagging) to tag articles tagged with {{WikiProject Women's sport}} with the {{WikiProject Women}} tag so that articles about women athletes and women in sports appear in the article alerts for WikiProject Women when they are nominated for deletion. Here is a current list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Article alerts (although I have manually tagged WP Women on most if not all).

The bot request requires a discussion at the project before proceeding with the request. If there is an alternative method for ensuring the women in sports articles are included in the WP Women article alerts, let me know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmlarson (talk • contribs) 7:22 am, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the previous discussions you're citing Fyunck(click)? Per the discussion here, they're being tagged so that articles about women athletes and women in sports appear in the article alerts for WikiProject Women. Or did you have a suggested alternative? Hmlarson (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Women's sport" is more specific and does the job well. There is no reason to add the less precise "WikiProject Women" to all these hundreds of articles. Just because it is not showing up on article alerts for "WikiProject Women" is not a good reason. Either have the editors that care also check the "WikiProject Women's sport" article alerts, or figure out some way to forward those alerts to "WikiProject Women." As to where it was located... if it wasn't here then it was on your talk page, since I do believe the discussion had you in it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of the discussions. If an article is already tagged with "WikiProject Women's sport" we do not add less specific tags. Just because you don't get alerts is not a good reason for tagging. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I looked at another discussion from a year ago where two administrators explained it to YOU. So your memory on this is not the best. I went though and specifically made sure on many many articles that if it was tagged with "WikiProject Women's sport" (which all women's tennis articles should be tagged), then the WikiProject Women tag was removed. This bot destroys that work based on multiple discussions and now I have to fix what it has done. @The Earwig: It now needs to be run so that if it finds a "WikiProject Women's sport" tag, that it removes any "WikiProject Women" tags. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64, BU_Rob13, Magioladitis, Rebbing, Maplestrip, Cirt would you be willing to weigh in on this? I see more recent discussions in 2016 related to requests like these that you contributed to. Thoughts? Hmlarson (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also these more recent discussions:
The consensus throughout these discussions indicates a more inclusive approach and is what this particular bot request was created for. If there was a technical issue with the tagging, please clarify what happened so it can be resolved. Hmlarson (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from prior discussions specifically about whether to add "WikiProject Women" to talk pages that already have a more specific variant is that we do not add the more general tag. That is why they were removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a link? The previous one you provided is from 2015. I've since provided several from 2016. Hmlarson (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the ones you provided do not have the consensus you said they do.... they are more the opposite. In fact, your first link is your own query where two administrators told you you were wrong. You have been told multiple times it is not the way to do it, so I'm guessing you thought this would get through without past editors noticing. A soon as a billion tennis articles started changing we certainly noticed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure what the point of this would be. Wouldn't it make more sense to consider Women's Sports as a type of sub-project to this one and add all notifications that project gets to this project as well? Or, alternatively, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the two split, so that editors can decide for themselves whether they want to see female athlete article alerts as well? Adding adding the Women WikiProject template that already have a template for a sub-project sounds like it would decrease the usefulness that keeping these projects split has. ~Mable (chat) 07:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking a page linked earlier in this discussion, I found this useful list of alert pages that can be followed if people are interested in doing so. Perhaps this list should be on this WikiProject's front page? ~Mable (chat) 08:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find where the Wp:Women in Red project guidelines say to add {{WP Women}} or {{WP Women's History}}... I must be looking in the wrong place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/55 and look at right-hand boxes, "Add to Article talk pages" (this is part of the standard template for each editathon). PamD 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny little print in the right hand column is kind of funky. It doesn't specifically say to add them to all articles on women, but it should probably be better worded so as not to add it to articles that already have a more specific tag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) and PamD: We say to add those so that the articles are tagged with something. We could be more specific in the editathon pages and I can make sure I do that in the future. We were worried about people being overwhelmed about having to know about all of the different projects. I myself monitor all of them with a list, but I wouldn't mind a central list. Also, another good place to monitor is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women. Many of those articles aren't tagged at all! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that if nothing is tagged on an article talkpage, then tagging it with WP Women is fine and dandy... it needs to have something there. But if it does have a better more narrow tag in place then tagging it further is a poor choice and should not be done. It should say as much in that little right hand box on the Women in Red project page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What we probably need is some kind of automatic linking from Women in sports to both Women and Women in Red so that participants in these projects can be informed of article alerts. I don't know whether this is feasible but I tend to agree that the priority should continue to be the posting on Women in sports. Perhaps Headbomb would like to contribute to this discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And any suggestion like "Remove {{WP Women}} from articles already tagged with {{WP Women's Sport}}" needs to be done with great care - consider Veera Ruoho who is a politician as well as an Olympic sportswoman. PamD 08:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However, how many new multiplications of {{WP Women}} were just added with the bot in question? Those should be removed as fast as they were added by the same bot... it's taking me forever to fix things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott:, @Headbomb: - I agree with "... need is some kind of automatic linking from Women in sports to both Women and Women in Red so that participants in these projects can be informed of article alerts" This is relevant not only for Women in sports but other projects like the recent request for WikiProject Women's Health to be "added" by @Barbara (WVS):. Is this something you're also interested in Barbara WVS)?

Hmlarson (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer to see just one "Article alerts" list covering all women, whether in sport, or created under Women in Red, or whatever, rather than have to monitor several different lists to look out for interesting women who've been PRODded or AfD'd. PamD 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing that many editors would only want to see a specific alert list, so we need the individual alerts but something written so that all the alerts get melded together in one place for those who want it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to have one master list of all women-related discussion/alerts at WP:WOMEN, that should be fairly straightforward to do. Make sure all women-related Wikiproject banners put articles in a category like Category:All women-related pages, and then update the WP:AALERTS subscription for WP:WOMEN to use the category. I'm at work, so I'm giving a short reply so techy people can get cracking on it, but I can be more detailed later tonight if this is confusing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: The WP Women banner adds Category:WikiProject Women articles. What do you think about Category:WikiProject Women-related articles for the new one? Hmlarson (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Or can we just add Category:WikiProject Women articles to the affiliated project banner templates? Redrose64 - thoughts? Hmlarson (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely neutral on what solution is best. If you want a WP Women-specific category to only get those tagged directly with the banner, that's cool, set up an additional master category . If you don't care, and want to use the existing one because you don't consider the WP Women-tagged anything particularly special, use the existing one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll go with the latter for now. It can always be changed in the future, if needed. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Women's studies journals).
  • One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
  • VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST
  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna @The Vintage Feminist: on this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I've never used any of that to find an abbreviated title. I usually go to advanced search then type in the journal title in the top box (selecting "Title: All (KTIL)" from the drop down menu) and in the next field put the ISSN number (selecting "LCCN-ISBN-ISSN (KNUM)" from the drop down menu). I then add limits "Type of Material = Periodical or newspaper".
That then gives me the LCCN entry, such as this one with abbreviated title, then I add capitals, full stops (period) and remove commas. Which in this case would be J. Phys. A. Math. Theor. which is what NCBI seem to have it as too (link). I may leave it to people who know more about it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are other ways of getting the ISO abbreviation sure, but the LTWA is the authoritative source. This morning, a user also developed a small script/website here which we'll be making use of very shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Vintage Feminist: the automated tool is live now. It's not perfect, but it's good in 95% of cases. Take a look at any articles missing ISO redirects (you might have to WP:PURGE the page first however). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I create or expand a journal article I'll try and track down any missing ISO abbreviations. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly thinking about those you already created. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Thurman stalking case

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Female Viking Warrior

Gravesite image from 1889, not considered to hold female remains

I don't know if there are any Game of Thrones fans of Lady Brienne of Tarth here, but there is a story going viral since this weekend about a Swedish viking warrior grave that contains a female skeleton based on recent DNA findings. I uploaded the grave sketch by the initial archaeologist, but maybe there is enough for an article about the gravesite? I don't speak Swedish, so can't help. Jane (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read a finnish news article about this just recently. It was very interesting. link(finnish). A short summary & quick translation of the beginning:

Sweden's most notable Viking warrior was a woman after all - "She had most likely planned and lead battles"
For over a century, archeologists and historians have assumed that a Viking corpse discovered from a grave together with weapons and horses was a man. The grave discovered from the Viking era city, Birka is one of the most notable graves of a Viking warrior in Sweden. A study published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology reveals that recent bone and dna tests have pointed out that the Viking warrior who was most likely a war chief is, in fact a woman.
"The corpse is in fact, a woman a little over 30 years old and quite tall, about 170 centimeters archeologist Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson from Uppsala University tells The Local magazine.
Perfect warrior equipment was found in the grave. A sword, an axe, armor piercing arrows, a fighting knife, shields, two horses and also a board game.
She carried a board game on her hips. Or more likely it was a war game which could be used to test fighting tactics and strategies. It implies that this was an notable war chief. She had most likely planned and lead battles, says Hedestierna-Jonson.
The grave was discovered in the 1800's by archeologist Hjalmar Stolpe. According to modern scientists it is without a doubt one of the best grave sites ever found belonging to a Viking warrior. Because the war equipment found in the grave in the 1800's was thought to be very masculine it was assumed without any testing/research that the corpse belonged to a man. Some years ago, bone researcher Anna Kjellström from the Stockholm University started studying the bones in relation to another study. She soon noticed that everything was not how it seemed. The corpse's cheek bones were thinner than men's usually are and the hips were typical female hips. Kjellström's additional tests to the bones supported the theory that the remains belonged to a woman so the research was continued.
Now a dna test done to the remains has undisputably proven that the Viking warrior was a woman.


Sorry for the shitty trans, I'm in a rush. Waiting to hear more about this. Hopefully English articles will follow. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the links(doh): A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics and Viking warrior found in Sweden was a woman, researchers confirm . Why did I even translate that lol, oh well! Need a break. Dinosaurseatpancakes (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow nice work! I noticed Birka is there as a site, but this specific gravesite should have its own page now - indeed with those links as a start. I was hoping for some link to the original diary of the 19th-century and then with the a link to the updated DNA analysis. I am not up with archaeology article policy, so it's not something I would dive into normally. Jane (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We now have Birka female Viking warrior. This Guardian article claims the point is not that she is a warrior, but the way this story took so long to be taken seriously because of systemic bias in archaeology (!!!!) Jane (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename WikiProject Women's sport or create new WikiProject Women in Sports

I have created a proposal to rename WikiProject Women's sport (or create new WikiProject Women in Sports w/ new WikiProject format). Input is welcome: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport#Proposal to re-name this WikiProject to WP Women in Sports. The proposed change encompasses women who work/play in sports (not just women's sport) such as broadcasters, officials, coaches of men's teams, etc. In addition, there are numerous cases like Holly Neher (currently nominated for deletion) who plays on a high school American football team and has received worldwide news coverage, but doesn't play in a women's league/team. Hmlarson (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October editathon invitation

Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons.



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/57|"Women and disability"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/58|"Healthcare"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/59|"Geofocus on the Nordic countries"]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Begin preparing for November's big event: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|Women World Contest]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Project Proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia

Hi Friends! Here is the current draft of my project proposal: Investigating the Impact of Implicit Bias on Wikipedia. I value your input and would greatly appreciate your feedback. Please share it on the project proposal discussion page. Thank you in advance! Best, Jackiekoerner (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Project Proposal

I am proposing a grant to fund a Wikipedian in Residence at the University of Pittsburgh to facilitate the transfer of historical content related to women and their past contributions into Wikimedia projects. I am currently the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar with the Library and Archives of the University of Pittsburgh and have discovered the wealth of content related to historical women that resides in the Archives and Library collections. Your support is solicited for the Project Grant that can be seen here. Part of the grant-making process requires notification of those who would like to support this project.

I am the potential grantee and believe that being in the position of Wikipedian-in-Resident will make a significant improvement to contributions to WikiProject Women. My editing history already demonstrates my commitment to creating content on topics related to women. As a Wikipedian-in-Residence I would be training new and experienced contributors and highlight the available resources contained in the archives and collections at the University that will improve the content on Women's topics on Wikipedia.

I know the potential for the improvement and addition of content is great. Not only is your support requested but I would be very, very grateful to any other editors who can identify topics that need to be addressed and topics that need improvement. All advice is sincerely welcome. Thank you for your consideration.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women&oldid=802698784"