This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
100 Women (BBC) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Women in Red: BBC 100 Women (2016) | ||||
|
This BBC 100 Women has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Should I add an infobox to this? Also was unsure whether or not to link everyone's names or not. Tingiraffe ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"100 Women are partnering with multiple global outlets at the BBC and the Wikipedia community to hold a 12-hour edit-a-thon on 8 December and close the gender gap. There will be 15 events in 13 countries happening in multiple languages to grow the number of female editors and to add women who you think deserve to be recognised." Surely this is something for wikipedians to get behind, as an anchor to this project the page is important, and volunteers from wikimedia UK are attending the edit-a-thon, so it has the support of people outside of the BBC, I was surprised to see the deletion recomendation, and completely disagree. 81.105.187.71 ( talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Having numbers in the 2016 table looks odd. Are these official numbers, or have they been added separately? Should this column be removed from the table? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38219838 TimothyJosephWood 21:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I know that BBC has a partnership but did anyone secure a copyright release for their list? Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists creative lists, like I think this one is, are copyrighted and it is a copyright violation to include them in Wikipedia.
Currently, this article includes a lists of the 100 women in each of several years. In other similar cases, like various organizations' lists of "best movies", the Wikipedia community has not republished such content because of copyright concerns about the list.
I would love for BBC to release the copyright of this list, if they would. Have they already? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
My viewpoint as one of the volunteers taking part in long and detailed discussions in 2011 that ended up being captured in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, yes this list is subjective in origin, and hence has sufficient creativity to be copyrightable. The choice of which women are in the 100 is a subjective one of the production team or primary editor for the series at the BBC. The BBC needs to give a free release if they wish the list to be freely reused.
With respect to Rosiestep's comment, it is not surprising that the BBC may not have considered copyright for the list itself, and it may well be the case that the BBC has no intention of claiming copyright. There is sufficient doubt for a release statement to be required. As you may expect, the burden of proof is to demonstrate an appropriate release, rather than to take a default assumption that it's free because it appears that it seemed irrelevant at the time. @ Moonriddengirl: for a view? -- Fæ ( talk) 10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There are other examples of such lists. The Evening Standard do an annual list (rebranded as ' The Progress 1000'). Another example is FIFA 100. TIME also do lists, see Time 100. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I just deleted text with the note " WP:COPYVIO per WP:Copyright in lists - discuss at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list?. This was a problem in 2016 and in subsequent years more lists with BBC conventional copyright have come to Wikipedia.
I see no ambiguity in the rules - BBC owns the copyright to this list and they have not shared it with any copyright license compatible for inclusion into Wikipedia. Keeping it here is a violation of copyright. I proposed this for " WP:Articles for deletion" which was the incorrect process. Instead I think this needs Wikipedia:Revision deletion back to 2013 special:diff/580584156. The edit after that added a copyrighted list without permission.
Any thoughts about the copyright of lists, deleting the article history to that point, or any other aspect of this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be different if this article was about a list, if that was the sole substance of the work produced by the BBC. It's not, however, it's instead about BBC programmes that have been broadcast in multiple series. The lists of which women were featured in each broadcast series are then arguably no more substantial than an outline or table of contents, and no more intrusive on the BBC's copyright than an episode list or plot summary. postdlf ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Please also help to improve the Wikidata entries for these people! I've been working on a Wikidata-driven version of the lists at User:Mike Peel/100 Women, which you can add to by going through Wikidata entries for each person, setting P award received (P166) ('award received') to this article, ideally adding point in time (P585) ('point in time')=year as a qualifier, e.g. [2]. This also helps link between the different language articles, and in the long run we can use the Wikidata information in the infoboxes for these articles. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a column in the earlier tables with contents such as Top row, Ninth row. What does it mean- could someone that knows add an explanation to the tables?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women on whether the women listed on this program are inherently notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yupik has compiled a list of those for 2019, showing which ones have been covered in the English version of Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What do others think of splitting the lists by year? I'm happy to do this, if there's a consensus for it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if useful for this or other related pages, I have uploaded images from the BBC 100 Women 2019: The Female Future London Conference at BBC Radio Theatre Thursday, 17 October 2019 more about this event at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545 feel free to use them as you see fit to help depict BBC 100 Women and the awardees. Igbofur ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Igbofur ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Please tag the people in these images if you can identify them:
Thank you, Igbofur ( talk) 18:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Article for Elin_Williams was deleted for reason G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban'. 24 December 2021. The previous written page is still viewable via cached page on Google. Is it possible to revert this page, or could create a new page using references from the old page. Thoughts? Rhagfyr ( talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
100 Women (BBC) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Women in Red: BBC 100 Women (2016) | ||||
|
This BBC 100 Women has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Should I add an infobox to this? Also was unsure whether or not to link everyone's names or not. Tingiraffe ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"100 Women are partnering with multiple global outlets at the BBC and the Wikipedia community to hold a 12-hour edit-a-thon on 8 December and close the gender gap. There will be 15 events in 13 countries happening in multiple languages to grow the number of female editors and to add women who you think deserve to be recognised." Surely this is something for wikipedians to get behind, as an anchor to this project the page is important, and volunteers from wikimedia UK are attending the edit-a-thon, so it has the support of people outside of the BBC, I was surprised to see the deletion recomendation, and completely disagree. 81.105.187.71 ( talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Having numbers in the 2016 table looks odd. Are these official numbers, or have they been added separately? Should this column be removed from the table? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38219838 TimothyJosephWood 21:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I know that BBC has a partnership but did anyone secure a copyright release for their list? Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists creative lists, like I think this one is, are copyrighted and it is a copyright violation to include them in Wikipedia.
Currently, this article includes a lists of the 100 women in each of several years. In other similar cases, like various organizations' lists of "best movies", the Wikipedia community has not republished such content because of copyright concerns about the list.
I would love for BBC to release the copyright of this list, if they would. Have they already? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
My viewpoint as one of the volunteers taking part in long and detailed discussions in 2011 that ended up being captured in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, yes this list is subjective in origin, and hence has sufficient creativity to be copyrightable. The choice of which women are in the 100 is a subjective one of the production team or primary editor for the series at the BBC. The BBC needs to give a free release if they wish the list to be freely reused.
With respect to Rosiestep's comment, it is not surprising that the BBC may not have considered copyright for the list itself, and it may well be the case that the BBC has no intention of claiming copyright. There is sufficient doubt for a release statement to be required. As you may expect, the burden of proof is to demonstrate an appropriate release, rather than to take a default assumption that it's free because it appears that it seemed irrelevant at the time. @ Moonriddengirl: for a view? -- Fæ ( talk) 10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There are other examples of such lists. The Evening Standard do an annual list (rebranded as ' The Progress 1000'). Another example is FIFA 100. TIME also do lists, see Time 100. Carcharoth ( talk) 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I just deleted text with the note " WP:COPYVIO per WP:Copyright in lists - discuss at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list?. This was a problem in 2016 and in subsequent years more lists with BBC conventional copyright have come to Wikipedia.
I see no ambiguity in the rules - BBC owns the copyright to this list and they have not shared it with any copyright license compatible for inclusion into Wikipedia. Keeping it here is a violation of copyright. I proposed this for " WP:Articles for deletion" which was the incorrect process. Instead I think this needs Wikipedia:Revision deletion back to 2013 special:diff/580584156. The edit after that added a copyrighted list without permission.
Any thoughts about the copyright of lists, deleting the article history to that point, or any other aspect of this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be different if this article was about a list, if that was the sole substance of the work produced by the BBC. It's not, however, it's instead about BBC programmes that have been broadcast in multiple series. The lists of which women were featured in each broadcast series are then arguably no more substantial than an outline or table of contents, and no more intrusive on the BBC's copyright than an episode list or plot summary. postdlf ( talk) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Please also help to improve the Wikidata entries for these people! I've been working on a Wikidata-driven version of the lists at User:Mike Peel/100 Women, which you can add to by going through Wikidata entries for each person, setting P award received (P166) ('award received') to this article, ideally adding point in time (P585) ('point in time')=year as a qualifier, e.g. [2]. This also helps link between the different language articles, and in the long run we can use the Wikidata information in the infoboxes for these articles. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a column in the earlier tables with contents such as Top row, Ninth row. What does it mean- could someone that knows add an explanation to the tables?-- ClemRutter ( talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women on whether the women listed on this program are inherently notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Yupik has compiled a list of those for 2019, showing which ones have been covered in the English version of Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
What do others think of splitting the lists by year? I'm happy to do this, if there's a consensus for it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if useful for this or other related pages, I have uploaded images from the BBC 100 Women 2019: The Female Future London Conference at BBC Radio Theatre Thursday, 17 October 2019 more about this event at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545 feel free to use them as you see fit to help depict BBC 100 Women and the awardees. Igbofur ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Igbofur ( talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Please tag the people in these images if you can identify them:
Thank you, Igbofur ( talk) 18:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Article for Elin_Williams was deleted for reason G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban'. 24 December 2021. The previous written page is still viewable via cached page on Google. Is it possible to revert this page, or could create a new page using references from the old page. Thoughts? Rhagfyr ( talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)