This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
STEM pipeline would make a great DYK-- anyone interested in trying it? -- Djembayz ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 www.eol.org. Ambrosia10 ( talk) 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The bot can easily handle multiple projects at a time: Everything below can be specified on a per-project basis. If there is significant overlap (e.g. articles in Category:Physicists are likely in the scope of both WP:WikiProject Physics and WP:WikiProject Biography), please consider requesting tagging for all the projects at once. The terms of the bot's approval require that each WikiProject involved approve the list of categories to be processed. In your request, please link to the discussion on each wikiproject's talk page showing this approval. If you do not do this, I will have to post at the talk pages myself and wait a week for replies. That discussion should address all of the following points:
Thank you. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are invited! →
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely! | |
---|---|
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015 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) |
Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon | |
---|---|
|
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)
Here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
Canadian Science Publisher are running a series highlight the contributions of Canadian women scientists: http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/Women_in_Science_.aspx
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)
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 martin.poulter@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 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)
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 are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
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 are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
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)
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: http://dceg.cancer.gov/about/staff-directory/biographies/K-N/hatch-maureen - 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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:
Invitation | |
---|---|
Black Women's History online edit-a-thon
|
Ipigott ( talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
A deletion debate for astronomer Sarah Ballard is underway. - Brianhe ( talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
FYI: This category is being considered for speedy renaming to Category:Women geologists. Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me
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, SST flyer 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
You are invited... | |
---|---|
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)
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 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
Your HotArticles subscription is now live: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Hot articles. Kaldari ( talk) 23:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone have any thoughts? Keilana? Harej ( talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| |
---|---|
Women in Architecture &
Women in Archaeology editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussion of interest to project members: Talk:Women_in_STEM_fields#Requested_move_27_October_2016. Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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
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.
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-research connect, 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 ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers &
Women in Education online editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 12:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
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
Authors
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.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
All mathematicians on this list have now been added. Brirush ( talk) 16:14, 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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Year_of_Science/Computer_science,_technology,_and_math. Mvitulli ( talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dear Axolotl Nr.733, could you please familiarize yourself with Template:Non-diffusing_subcategory then self-revert at [2] and similar edits. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
Welcome to...
Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news | ||
Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs more input - AfD about an 11-12 yo girl who developed a software program to help blind people and won some Science Awards. Atsme 📞 📧 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just joined this effort and wanted to start with some of the low-hanging fruit. Going through the list of missing articles ( [3]), it would be helpful to have a definition of who we are calling a scientist. I am going with the standard STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) definition, but what about medicine, economics, public health etc.? Femmto15 ( talk) 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
On the 1000 Wikipedia:Vital articles page, I recently petitioned to swap Emmy Noether for David Hilbert as there were no algebraists on the list, but I also noticed that there were no other women out of the 10 articles allotted for Mathematics. Additionally, Marie Curie was the only woman out of the 20 articles allotted for Inventors and Scientists. The 10,000 Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People and List of articles every Wikipedia should have pages fared no better. Given that this task force focuses on bridging the representation gender gap in science, I thought I would point out that this should be a major focus point. Writing more articles about women who have made significant contributions in STEM is important, but there needs to be a major push to improve their visibility within the core of Wikipedia. Blueclaw ( talk) 20:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:
I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on, including several clearly notable women scientists. (Did you know that in 2015, The Physiological Society gave all of its awards to women?) Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.
Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [4]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.
I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.
One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I was able to add to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin's page that her papers are held by the Bodleian - maybe this kind of information would be useful to add to other prominent women whose papers are held by libraries? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 08:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello all! We've got a Wiki-session at Imperial today as part of the Wikipedia:GLAM/Wellcome residency - school students will be learning a bit about editing and creating pages in their Sandboxes for women scientists (I've pre-checked notability etc.), and some might be making improvements to existing pages. Please bear with the new editors and be patient with them, and get in touch with me if you have any questions! Zeromonk ( talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please could someone review Peter and Rosemary Grant and help to improve its balance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article on my professor, Dr. Aradhna Tripati, and these issues came up:
- academic boosterism
- written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2017)
- may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject(July 2017)
Wikipedia even suggested I completely re-write it. Could someone please help edit this page dedicated to a wonderful female scientist? Many thanks.
Samaraharis ( talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've improved Janet Lane-Claypon with missing info and added sources (to several very good biographies on her), but it's been tagged as inappropriate tone (I think too gushing) for several years. However, it does seems that she is worthy of praise and is truly a pioneering scientist. Unfortunately I don't know a thing about the subject and the significance of anything she's done. Is there someone who could compare the article against the sources and make sure that her major achievements are properly covered? I will add it to Wikipedia:Cleanup but thought I would drop a note here. Thank you! —Мандичка YO 😜 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
A merge discussion at Talk:Blanche Wheeler Williams#Notability could use your input czar 00:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently started an article on the neurosurgeon Meg Patterson and it was immediately AFDd. I do not initiate many biog articles on women, but I cannot remember any of my stubs on men being treated so harshly, with referenced material being slashed, and somebody at the AFD suggesting that she is only notable because of her husband! Mais oui! ( talk) 12:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap which is being discussed on the WiR talk page.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a project to make pages for more Mormon women in the hard sciences. I have exhausted my usual resources for Elizabeth Krider and currently the draft is in my User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/sandbox3. I am a little new to making pages for living scientists and I'm not positive that she passes notability guidelines. Are the news articles that mention her good enough to establish notability? I found some of her articles on Web of Science, should I include any of them in a "publications" section? Or is it better to summarize them in a section on research? thanks. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
can be followed via Magnus' SPARQL Recent Changes tool. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Revisiting gendered categories: Let's have a clear criterion of "has or can have a proper article" -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.
New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
In case you weren't aware, Mvolz ( talk · contribs) has created Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/International Women's Day Oxford 2018. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm emerging from retirement to assist with an edit-a-thon focusing on women scientists sponsored by the Association for Women in Science at the University of Michigan, which will be held today from 21 to 24 UTC. If any members of this project would like to be online at that time to help polish edits and assist new Wikipedians, that would be awesome. -- Danger High voltage! 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Further input would be helpful at Talk:Dorothy_Hodgkin#Apology:_change_of_reference_from_Dorothy_to_Hodgkin_without_discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone here have a preference for how to categorize the administrative Wikipedia event pages for in-person Wikipedia editing events related to women in science?
Perhaps this wikiproject endorses some events and not others. In that case, the only events which should get Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups should be endorsed events, and other events should get Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science. Alternatively, maybe any event which seems to have a women in science theme could be in Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups, regardless of past affiliation with this wikiproject or any notice.
I am also looking at events for people in science regardless of gender which might have teams or components doing a women in science project, in which case that might get the general category Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science but I am not sure about other tags.
What does anyone else think of the events in Category:WikiProject Women scientists? The count is only going up. I am looking for a way to showcase all the events to date. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page, plus our collaboration proposal here. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The table captioned " Women scientists articles by quality and importance" is badly out of date. It remains identical as when first posted nearly six years ago! Surely this data cannot be reliable. KalHolmann ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Is WikiProject Women scientists just for articles relating to women in the physical and life sciences? Could we get some clarification on this?
I made an article, Colette Grinevald, which was initially assessed by user Plandu as falling within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists. Then user Johnsoniensis removed the WP Women scientists tag and replaced it with a WP Women writers tag, giving the reason "When I change WP Women scientists to WP Women writers it is because I do not think linguists, sociologists, economists or librarians are "scientists" in the same sense as physical scientists, life scientists, earth scientists or archaeologists."
Does WikiProject Women scientists agree with this "social sciences aren't real sciences" bias? Maybe the project name should be changed for clarification, if that's the case. BlakeALee ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to give you a heads-up about a proposal I submitted to establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the Smithsonian American Women's History Initiative to catalyze the cultural heritage sector to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects while also developing evidence for Smithsonian senior leadership to make an Open Knowledge Coordinator role permanent. The Smithsonian is investing heavily in increasing the resources about women across its 19 museums and 9 research centers and we would like to develop, test, and share models for making these resources more widely available online. We have a 4-year digital curator coming on to develop resources on the history of the Smithsonian's female scientists since 1846 which would be relevant to this project. I welcome your feedback and hope we can figure out ways to partner to increase the number of female editors and articles! -- Digitaleffie ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I've added a bunch of content and references to Ruby Payne-Scott, and have also created a peer review request. This is my first time trying my hand at rewriting an article and I'd very much appreciate experienced editors to review. Thanks! ␄ – Iknowyourider ( t c) 03:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC on "debates" section, comments welcome. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
hi all! i'm working on expanding the article Fungus-growing ants (and those related to it). i'd like to add information from research by female myrmecologists, but when i looked on wikidata for some, only 4 showed up, and it seems that none of them study Attini. can anybody help me find some more? Sbbarker19 ( talk) 20:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey everybody! This is a repost of my message at WP:Women in Red... Mix 'n match has a list of American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellows. Every woman with a fellowship here (ie every woman on the list) meets the notability standards for Wikipedia! If you would like to help, the link is here. When these women are in Wikidata, they get automatically pulled for redlists!
If you set the action on "match mode", it's a super quick (and personally, very fun) way to match and create Wikidata items with some women (lots of men too). But, eventually, it would be awesome to see a graph of women who have been elected fellows over time and by field/division (there is a huge gap in engieering, it seems), so if you'd like, when you add somebody, you can put this information: - add the statement "sex or gender" and enter "female" - add the statement "occupation" and enter "scientist" or more specific terms (eg. "chemist" or "engineer") if you know it - add the statement "award received" and enter "Fellow of the AAAS" - add qualifier "point in time" and enter the year - add qualifier "field of work" and enter the section's title (eg. chemistry or biological sciences, etc)
This sounds like more than it is, and if anybody knows of faster ways to do it, please let me know! Sbbarker19 ( talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women of psychology are merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. This has been discussed previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women of psychology#Merger proposal. The projects have at least one active member each : WebMaven2000 ( talk · contribs) and Brooks patty ( talk · contribs) and a good todo list. Merging these very small projects and possibly converting them into a task force could serve to recruit more editors. Trialpears ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Psychology is an enormous discipline and I believe it should have its own WikiProject distinct from the other sciences. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Psychology aims to directly address the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative, and should not get lost. Brooks patty ( talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I saw this article about women scientists in Antarctica that seemed promising for new biographies. I'm super swamped lately in my personal life and don't have a lot of time. Thought I'd put this here in case anyone else has some time! Enwebb ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was just curious, would archaeologists fall into this realm? I know that there is a field of archaeological science in particular. So would someone who has put out work on carbon dating or is known for their work in something like this be considered a scientist? Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve coverage of women in science on Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Is everyone comfortable with the examples columns on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Assessment? I have very mixed feelings about whether they should be entirely biographies. Perhaps it is better to suggest that someone is more important than G cells, about as important as the continuing fraction 0.999... but less important than the UK Labor Party and Kindergarten, than to compare them to other people? EllenCT ( talk) 01:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the primary purpose of the ' Index of women scientists articles' article?
Is it meant to list the most notable women scientists? Or would it be better converted into a List of Lists article, just pointing at articles like List of female scientists before the 20th century, List of female scientists in the 20th century and List of 21st-century women scientists, plus subject-specific lists, like List of women in mathematics. What do people think? Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
STEM pipeline would make a great DYK-- anyone interested in trying it? -- Djembayz ( talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 www.eol.org. Ambrosia10 ( talk) 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The bot can easily handle multiple projects at a time: Everything below can be specified on a per-project basis. If there is significant overlap (e.g. articles in Category:Physicists are likely in the scope of both WP:WikiProject Physics and WP:WikiProject Biography), please consider requesting tagging for all the projects at once. The terms of the bot's approval require that each WikiProject involved approve the list of categories to be processed. In your request, please link to the discussion on each wikiproject's talk page showing this approval. If you do not do this, I will have to post at the talk pages myself and wait a week for replies. That discussion should address all of the following points:
Thank you. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are invited! →
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely! | |
---|---|
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015 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) |
Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon | |
---|---|
|
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)
Here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC).
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)
Canadian Science Publisher are running a series highlight the contributions of Canadian women scientists: http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/Women_in_Science_.aspx
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)
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 martin.poulter@bodleian.ox.ac.uk 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)
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 are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
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 are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
|
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)
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: http://dceg.cancer.gov/about/staff-directory/biographies/K-N/hatch-maureen - 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
Women in Music | |
---|---|
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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:
Invitation | |
---|---|
Black Women's History online edit-a-thon
|
Ipigott ( talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
A deletion debate for astronomer Sarah Ballard is underway. - Brianhe ( talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
FYI: This category is being considered for speedy renaming to Category:Women geologists. Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me
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, SST flyer 15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
You are invited... | |
---|---|
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)
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 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
Your HotArticles subscription is now live: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Hot articles. Kaldari ( talk) 23:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Does anyone have any thoughts? Keilana? Harej ( talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| |
---|---|
Women in Architecture &
Women in Archaeology editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Discussion of interest to project members: Talk:Women_in_STEM_fields#Requested_move_27_October_2016. Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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
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.
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-research connect, 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 ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers &
Women in Education online editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 12:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
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
Authors
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.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
All mathematicians on this list have now been added. Brirush ( talk) 16:14, 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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Year_of_Science/Computer_science,_technology,_and_math. Mvitulli ( talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Dear Axolotl Nr.733, could you please familiarize yourself with Template:Non-diffusing_subcategory then self-revert at [2] and similar edits. Thanks. fgnievinski ( talk) 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
Welcome to...
Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news | ||
Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 13:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs more input - AfD about an 11-12 yo girl who developed a software program to help blind people and won some Science Awards. Atsme 📞 📧 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just joined this effort and wanted to start with some of the low-hanging fruit. Going through the list of missing articles ( [3]), it would be helpful to have a definition of who we are calling a scientist. I am going with the standard STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) definition, but what about medicine, economics, public health etc.? Femmto15 ( talk) 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
On the 1000 Wikipedia:Vital articles page, I recently petitioned to swap Emmy Noether for David Hilbert as there were no algebraists on the list, but I also noticed that there were no other women out of the 10 articles allotted for Mathematics. Additionally, Marie Curie was the only woman out of the 20 articles allotted for Inventors and Scientists. The 10,000 Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded/People and List of articles every Wikipedia should have pages fared no better. Given that this task force focuses on bridging the representation gender gap in science, I thought I would point out that this should be a major focus point. Writing more articles about women who have made significant contributions in STEM is important, but there needs to be a major push to improve their visibility within the core of Wikipedia. Blueclaw ( talk) 20:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:
I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on, including several clearly notable women scientists. (Did you know that in 2015, The Physiological Society gave all of its awards to women?) Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.
Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [4]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.
I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.
One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I was able to add to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin's page that her papers are held by the Bodleian - maybe this kind of information would be useful to add to other prominent women whose papers are held by libraries? -- 122.108.141.214 ( talk) 08:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello all! We've got a Wiki-session at Imperial today as part of the Wikipedia:GLAM/Wellcome residency - school students will be learning a bit about editing and creating pages in their Sandboxes for women scientists (I've pre-checked notability etc.), and some might be making improvements to existing pages. Please bear with the new editors and be patient with them, and get in touch with me if you have any questions! Zeromonk ( talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please could someone review Peter and Rosemary Grant and help to improve its balance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article on my professor, Dr. Aradhna Tripati, and these issues came up:
- academic boosterism
- written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2017)
- may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject(July 2017)
Wikipedia even suggested I completely re-write it. Could someone please help edit this page dedicated to a wonderful female scientist? Many thanks.
Samaraharis ( talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've improved Janet Lane-Claypon with missing info and added sources (to several very good biographies on her), but it's been tagged as inappropriate tone (I think too gushing) for several years. However, it does seems that she is worthy of praise and is truly a pioneering scientist. Unfortunately I don't know a thing about the subject and the significance of anything she's done. Is there someone who could compare the article against the sources and make sure that her major achievements are properly covered? I will add it to Wikipedia:Cleanup but thought I would drop a note here. Thank you! —Мандичка YO 😜 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
A merge discussion at Talk:Blanche Wheeler Williams#Notability could use your input czar 00:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently started an article on the neurosurgeon Meg Patterson and it was immediately AFDd. I do not initiate many biog articles on women, but I cannot remember any of my stubs on men being treated so harshly, with referenced material being slashed, and somebody at the AFD suggesting that she is only notable because of her husband! Mais oui! ( talk) 12:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap which is being discussed on the WiR talk page.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working on a project to make pages for more Mormon women in the hard sciences. I have exhausted my usual resources for Elizabeth Krider and currently the draft is in my User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/sandbox3. I am a little new to making pages for living scientists and I'm not positive that she passes notability guidelines. Are the news articles that mention her good enough to establish notability? I found some of her articles on Web of Science, should I include any of them in a "publications" section? Or is it better to summarize them in a section on research? thanks. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 19:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
can be followed via Magnus' SPARQL Recent Changes tool. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Revisiting gendered categories: Let's have a clear criterion of "has or can have a proper article" -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.
New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
In case you weren't aware, Mvolz ( talk · contribs) has created Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/International Women's Day Oxford 2018. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm emerging from retirement to assist with an edit-a-thon focusing on women scientists sponsored by the Association for Women in Science at the University of Michigan, which will be held today from 21 to 24 UTC. If any members of this project would like to be online at that time to help polish edits and assist new Wikipedians, that would be awesome. -- Danger High voltage! 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Further input would be helpful at Talk:Dorothy_Hodgkin#Apology:_change_of_reference_from_Dorothy_to_Hodgkin_without_discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone here have a preference for how to categorize the administrative Wikipedia event pages for in-person Wikipedia editing events related to women in science?
Perhaps this wikiproject endorses some events and not others. In that case, the only events which should get Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups should be endorsed events, and other events should get Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science. Alternatively, maybe any event which seems to have a women in science theme could be in Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups, regardless of past affiliation with this wikiproject or any notice.
I am also looking at events for people in science regardless of gender which might have teams or components doing a women in science project, in which case that might get the general category Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science but I am not sure about other tags.
What does anyone else think of the events in Category:WikiProject Women scientists? The count is only going up. I am looking for a way to showcase all the events to date. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page, plus our collaboration proposal here. Alanna the Brave ( talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The table captioned " Women scientists articles by quality and importance" is badly out of date. It remains identical as when first posted nearly six years ago! Surely this data cannot be reliable. KalHolmann ( talk) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Is WikiProject Women scientists just for articles relating to women in the physical and life sciences? Could we get some clarification on this?
I made an article, Colette Grinevald, which was initially assessed by user Plandu as falling within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists. Then user Johnsoniensis removed the WP Women scientists tag and replaced it with a WP Women writers tag, giving the reason "When I change WP Women scientists to WP Women writers it is because I do not think linguists, sociologists, economists or librarians are "scientists" in the same sense as physical scientists, life scientists, earth scientists or archaeologists."
Does WikiProject Women scientists agree with this "social sciences aren't real sciences" bias? Maybe the project name should be changed for clarification, if that's the case. BlakeALee ( talk) 17:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to give you a heads-up about a proposal I submitted to establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the Smithsonian American Women's History Initiative to catalyze the cultural heritage sector to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects while also developing evidence for Smithsonian senior leadership to make an Open Knowledge Coordinator role permanent. The Smithsonian is investing heavily in increasing the resources about women across its 19 museums and 9 research centers and we would like to develop, test, and share models for making these resources more widely available online. We have a 4-year digital curator coming on to develop resources on the history of the Smithsonian's female scientists since 1846 which would be relevant to this project. I welcome your feedback and hope we can figure out ways to partner to increase the number of female editors and articles! -- Digitaleffie ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello! I've added a bunch of content and references to Ruby Payne-Scott, and have also created a peer review request. This is my first time trying my hand at rewriting an article and I'd very much appreciate experienced editors to review. Thanks! ␄ – Iknowyourider ( t c) 03:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
RfC on "debates" section, comments welcome. -- The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 14:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
hi all! i'm working on expanding the article Fungus-growing ants (and those related to it). i'd like to add information from research by female myrmecologists, but when i looked on wikidata for some, only 4 showed up, and it seems that none of them study Attini. can anybody help me find some more? Sbbarker19 ( talk) 20:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey everybody! This is a repost of my message at WP:Women in Red... Mix 'n match has a list of American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellows. Every woman with a fellowship here (ie every woman on the list) meets the notability standards for Wikipedia! If you would like to help, the link is here. When these women are in Wikidata, they get automatically pulled for redlists!
If you set the action on "match mode", it's a super quick (and personally, very fun) way to match and create Wikidata items with some women (lots of men too). But, eventually, it would be awesome to see a graph of women who have been elected fellows over time and by field/division (there is a huge gap in engieering, it seems), so if you'd like, when you add somebody, you can put this information: - add the statement "sex or gender" and enter "female" - add the statement "occupation" and enter "scientist" or more specific terms (eg. "chemist" or "engineer") if you know it - add the statement "award received" and enter "Fellow of the AAAS" - add qualifier "point in time" and enter the year - add qualifier "field of work" and enter the section's title (eg. chemistry or biological sciences, etc)
This sounds like more than it is, and if anybody knows of faster ways to do it, please let me know! Sbbarker19 ( talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Psychology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women of psychology are merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. This has been discussed previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women of psychology#Merger proposal. The projects have at least one active member each : WebMaven2000 ( talk · contribs) and Brooks patty ( talk · contribs) and a good todo list. Merging these very small projects and possibly converting them into a task force could serve to recruit more editors. Trialpears ( talk) 20:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Psychology is an enormous discipline and I believe it should have its own WikiProject distinct from the other sciences. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Psychology aims to directly address the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative, and should not get lost. Brooks patty ( talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I saw this article about women scientists in Antarctica that seemed promising for new biographies. I'm super swamped lately in my personal life and don't have a lot of time. Thought I'd put this here in case anyone else has some time! Enwebb ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was just curious, would archaeologists fall into this realm? I know that there is a field of archaeological science in particular. So would someone who has put out work on carbon dating or is known for their work in something like this be considered a scientist? Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve coverage of women in science on Wikipedia.-- Ipigott ( talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Is everyone comfortable with the examples columns on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Assessment? I have very mixed feelings about whether they should be entirely biographies. Perhaps it is better to suggest that someone is more important than G cells, about as important as the continuing fraction 0.999... but less important than the UK Labor Party and Kindergarten, than to compare them to other people? EllenCT ( talk) 01:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What is the primary purpose of the ' Index of women scientists articles' article?
Is it meant to list the most notable women scientists? Or would it be better converted into a List of Lists article, just pointing at articles like List of female scientists before the 20th century, List of female scientists in the 20th century and List of 21st-century women scientists, plus subject-specific lists, like List of women in mathematics. What do people think? Kj cheetham ( talk) 16:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)