Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comfort Women in Comfort History

Comfort Women in Comfort History, the entire book available free on The Portal to Texas History. Female school teachers, journalists, religious leaders, free thinkers, artists, authors, and others in the history of Comfort, Texas. Another of those accidental finds while I was looking for an entirely different subject. — Maile (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Theater section at Danai Gurira article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Danai Gurira#Theater section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking for...

Help! Women's health articles need major work and due to the bias in the number of males vs females editing content, the neglect of health articles is troubling.

I am looking for another female editor who will help me improve Women's health articles. I would like to help train this editor since most edits made to medical articles are deleted and the new editor would have to know how to prevent this from happening. Please leave a message on my talk page. I was named the seventh most prolific medical editor in 2015 (combining my two user names) and the only woman that I know of in the top 50 medical editors. Women looking for health information need our help. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In the news ...

Why women are missing from history on Wikipedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

PR

Lady Gaga is currently up for a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Lady Gaga/archive4. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Jenna Fife for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jenna Fife 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/Jenna Fife 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. — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warrior - move discussion

Notifying this WikiProject talk page as article is relevant to the topic

There is a move discussion ongoing related to this WikiProject.

1. Article = Social justice warrior
2. Move discussion at Talk:Social_justice_warrior#Requested_move_6_April_2016.

Feel free to comment however you wish.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Is "Social justice warrior" related to WikiProject Women ?

An editor has removed DIFF the WP:WikiProject Women from the talk page for Talk:Social justice warrior.

Is the topic of Social justice warrior related to women ?

Members of this WikiProject Women may feel free to give input, at:

Talk:Social_justice_warrior#WikiProject_Women.

Hope all are well,

— Cirt (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Change made to WikiProject Women main page during ongoing dispute

SSTflyer (talk · contribs) made a change DIFF to the main page of WP:WikiProject Women, during an ongoing dispute over inclusion of the project itself at Talk:Social_justice_warrior#WikiProject_Women.

This appears to be an attempt to game the system during an ongoing dispute by changing the scope and focus of this WikiProject.

That appears to be wholly inappropriate behavior, so I wanted to let members of this WikiProject know that.

"and covering women's perspectives." -- this text seems like a very good and NPOV way to say the project scope is broad and inclusive to include both women themselves, and topics related to women.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The Wikipedia Library

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The "Academic Video Online: Premium 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} 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Too Feminine for Wikipedia?

Please see List_of_the_most_subscribed_users_on_YouTube and see that we lack and need an article about Mariand_Castrejon.

I thought that that might be because, at least in part, most Wikipedians are male, and few males are interested in such topics.

So I thought I'd reach out to female Wikipedians here to increase the chances that the problem will be fixed. Chrisrus (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Women's football/soccer player article up for deletion

The article about Scottish player Jenna Fife has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to join the discussion at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Fife Hmlarson (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi, "Women are everywhere" is a project about the gender gap problem in Wikipedia, with a focus on Italian Wikipedia. You can find a draft for an Individual Engagement Grant at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere. It would be great if I could have your help and your feedback on this project to improve it. Many thanks--Kenzia (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Of interest

SPI Policy discussion may be of interest to project members: Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Sexist.2C_discriminatory_language_in_WP:FAMILY. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Conjugal dictatorship"

Imeldific (talk · contribs) has created a new article at Conjugal dictatorship, which you may wish to evaluate -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this article mid-importance to WP:WOMEN? It seems oddly high for such a topic. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The question is moot, since {{WikiProject Women}} does not recognise an |importance= parameter. However, if you are referring to this edit, that was a parameter of the template {{WikiProject Women's History}} and its noticeboard is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yobot tagging articles for WP Women?

Earlier, automatic boy Yobot went along quite a few talk pages in my watch list changing the order of the WikiProject templates, with the edit description: "Tagging for WP Women part 1 per BOTREQ using AWB". There's nothing wrong with changing the order of the templates, of course, but I was curious why this was done. Has there been any discussion on automatically adding WP:Women templates on various articles? Some of the articles tagged might not fit as well under this WikiProject's scope, such as Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth and Genderqueer (which are clear LGBT-related topic) and Ouran High School Host Club. I mean, I'm fine with these articles getting a WP:Women template, but it might be unintentional.

One of the articles affected by this is Randy W. Berry. It would be very odd if his talk page would get a WP:Women template. Hida Viloria may potentially be deemed offensive. ~Mable (chat) 11:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that being tagged by WP Women simply mean that the article is of interest to WP Women, not that the person tagged is necessarily a woman. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware, but WP Women probably shouldn't overlap too much with WikiProjects such as gender studies and LGBT (see scope below). However, I'm mainly worried that automatically adding the templates would result in articles that have nothing to do with women at all being tagged (like Randy W. Berry) by accident. Also, I haven't been able to find any discussion related to this activity by Yobot. ~Mable (chat) 12:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Wikiproject_Women_tagging / Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Archive_6#Wikiproject_tagging_.E2.80.93_bot_request / Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_10. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see much about Yobot there however. You might want to ask the bot's operator for clarification / modification to the bot's logic. It would be a bit unusual to have Yobot doing this tagging while there's an active BRFA for BU RoBOT for this same task. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Maplestrip not all pages visited by the bot were tagged. In some cases it was only tag normalisation to avoid tagging in the future. Check for instance. No tag was added. -- Yobot (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Yobot: Magio, if this is you, you're editing from your bot account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Thank you for the response. I tried not to imply that any new templates were actually added in my initial post, though that was difficult. I guessed the "part 1" in the description might have meant something along the lines of "there will be a part 2 in which templates are added." That was why I was worried. Thank you for the response :) ~Mable (chat) 12:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb and Maplestrip: Yes, it was me. I wrongly edited using my bot account. I temporarily stopped the bot to read the messaged and check whether I was actually doing some error. This wikipriproject tagging has been proven a task that gives many errors in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding ^_^; The bot could have edited with a less confusing edit summary, I suppose, but it seems everything is fine. ~Mable (chat) 13:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Maplestrip My bad too. I should have linked the BOTREQ to have written a better summary. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Notification of Tagging

Speaking of tagging ... based on past discussions that have demonstrated clear consensus for automated tagging of certain categories of articles with {{WikiProject Women}}, I'm currently preparing for a bot run. The list of articles has been obtained by Edgars2007, and it encompasses all articles on the German Wikipedia in the "Frau" (Woman) category and subcategories. While there was specific consensus for using this category for automatic tagging in the past, I find the resulting list to be at least somewhat noisy. Misplaced articles are rare, but they're certainly there. I've compiled a list of all articles that would receive tags using this category at User:BU Rob13/Women (which links to 10 subpages; the list is quite long). Members of this WikiProject are encouraged to go through the list over the next week and remove any articles that they feel should not be tagged. Please don't be shy about doing so. I'd rather tag too little than tag too much, so if you see something that looks weird, just remove it.

Brief Q&A:

1. Wait, when did we develop consensus for this?

   See here for a past discussion from this project supporting the use of this specific category of the German Wikipedia to tag articles.

2. Are you going to tag articles that belong in more specific projects?

   Yes and no. If the article's talk page already contains a template from a more specific project, this project's template will not be added. I'm sure there will be pages tagged that currently have no women-related project templates but fit into something more specific. In this case, I'm of the belief that some tagging is better than no tagging. Editors can always change the tag to something more specific later.

3. What if an article from the German Wikipedia doesn't exist here?

   To prevent errors, I will not be creating talk pages that do not already exist. Based on a past list provided from this category, articles on the English Wikipedia without corresponding talk pages are few and far between. There's no need to remove red links from the list I posted.

4. This is going to destroy my watchlist.

   You can hide edits from bots.

5. Where can I comment on this bot task?/I have a question.

   If your comment/question is relevant to the approval process, see here. You can also message me on my talk page or ping me here, of course.

Cheers! ~ Rob^Talk 04:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: It appears from recent changes in User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/WikiProject Women that the number of tagged pages has increased by over 12,000 (from 20,788 to 32,879) in two days, and that the number of unsassessed pages has gone up by just under 12,000 (from 15,312 to 27,281) in the same period. What is the reason for the |class= parameter not being set on most of these new taggings? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The tagging situation has been a bit confused on this one. I didn't handle those tags. My bot run will include auto-assessment if a class parameter is specified somewhere on the page. Pinging Magioladitis, who did the bot run you're describing. ~ Rob^Talk 12:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Rob, you can skip these articles. OK, some should be tagged with WP:Women, but that can be done later. Also - skip redirects. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I will skip redirects. Could you specify here what categories should be skipped? That link isn't working well for me. ~ Rob^Talk 12:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Output for that scan (articles to be skipped). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64, Edgars2007 auto-assessment was never requested here. Unless I missed something. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought it comes automatically in the request, without asking :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I started assessing most fo the pages. BU Rob13 take note that assessing via the KingbtoK plugin provided with AWB is broken. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I wrote my own regex to handle assessment, but thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 16:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 the new list still has to be cleaned of pages that are already in more specific wikiprojects, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: My bot run takes care of that. I'm skipping pages that contain templates for more specific projects. Easy enough to do. The actual list doesn't need to be altered at all. ~ Rob^Talk 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I came across two odd articles while scrolling through the list (notable Ace Ventura, Jr.: Pet Detective), so there is some value in looking through the list. There are way too many items in it, though, making it impossible to comb through it in a meaningful way. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's try this. I'll tag all articles on the list which have {{WikiProject Biography}} transcluded on their talk pages to start. That should cut out almost all of the false positives in that list. We can evaluate whether it's worth looking at the non-biographies later. ~ Rob^Talk 19:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let's try this for a smaller and more exclusive list. That's only 3.5k links or so, and none of them are already tagged. Don't worry about redlinks/redirects, both will be filtered out during the bot run. If you see anything that doesn't belong, prune it. Thanks! I plan to run the trial of 50 articles on this list on Friday and then will finish them up once approved to do so. ~ Rob^Talk 20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64 now less than 3,000 unassessed pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Update

This tagging is now taking place, and I'm approved for any additional tagging tasks involving WikiProject Women. When you have categories/lists you want tagged, just ping me after you have a consensus discussion here (or no response from other project participants within a few days). ~ Rob^Talk 13:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page banner overlap?

When an article talk page has one of the child projects' banners on its talk page, should it also have WikiProject Women? I recently tagged a few articles as both WikiProject Women's sport and WikiProject Women—was that unnecessary?  Rebbing  06:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Note, this is the core of the question on scope I asked above. ~Mable (chat) 07:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Shhh! Invitation to Women in Espionage

You are invited...
	Women in Espionage worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Supporting: University of Edinburgh - Women in Espionage and Spy Fiction 13-20 April 2016

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Oklahoma resource

Oklahoma Historical Society if anyone is interested in writing about women in the state of Oklahoma. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Scope

Related to my question above, I am not entirely sure what WikiProject Women's scope is, as it isn't described on the project's page. I assume it's basically "any person that identifies as a woman" based on all articles that have been tagged, but it's not actually defined. ~Mable (chat) 11:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty well defined on the project page as facilitating the coverage of women's issues at Wikipedia. Towards that end, it acts as an umbrella project that works in coordination with other Wikipedia projects that direct their efforts to specific topics of women. Those would be listed in the infobox on the project page. There's been much talk the last year, both on talk pages and in the Signpost as well as news media, about gender bias at Wikipedia. This project is aimed at leveling the playing field on that issue. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I know about how this project is countering the gender bias, and I believe that is communicated on the page well. "Women's issues" is a bit vague, though. Skirt isn't covered by any gender-related subtopic, for example. I assume that Wikiproject Gender Studies is a parent WikiProject and WikiProject Feminism is a child WikiProject? Why is Lara Croft tagged by both and not Women? Some subtopics are more obvious: I understand why any article related to human female anatomy is tagged under "Women's health" rather "Women", but other lines are more difficult to draw. I'd like to know how some of these topics relate to eachother: maybe someone should draw a family tree? ~Mable (chat) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You make valid points. I believe bots usually put the project banners on articles, or any individual can do it manually. I'm not really sure that "parent" is the correct depiction of Wikiproject Gender Studies. Projects tend to be created individually as the need arises Sometimes they appear to fall underneath another project, but only because both projects agree to cooperate with each other. The only thing closely resembling a tree would be the categories. For instance, Category:WikiProject Gender Studies has other projects listed on it. But that again is because one or more individuals decided to add that category. Any editor can do that, whether a part of the project or not. Things aren't really coordinated well enough at Wikipedia to have a tree about any subject. Wikipedia and its projects are in a constant state of flux, and it all depends on individual input at any given time. Category:Women-related WikiProjects was created in 2014, and is probably closer to what you are looking for. — Maile (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As an umbrella project for all other WikiProjects related to women, the scope of this parent project should be as wide and inclusive as possible. — Cirt (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That idea would be impractical, as a WikiProject can do more good with a more narrow and explicit scope. Child-WikiProjects are allowed to cover topics that the parent does not. I suppose it also depends on the kind of activities of a WikiProject. ~Mable (chat) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I may be a bit thick, but neither the 1st paragraph of the project page nor this dicussion make the scope of this project clear to me. Which articles should be tagged with the project banner, {{WikiProject Women}}? User:Yobot's activities suggest to me that every article about a woman will be so tagged. Isn't such a wide scope counterproductive? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's most helpful for gathering data and metrics for WP:Assessment type purposes. — Cirt (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: I discussed Yobot's actions in the section above. The bot isn't going to tag articles loosely related to women with the template. From what I gather from looking at the categories, this specific WikiProject simply covers all actual women and lists of women. I agree that this is might not be explained well enough on the WikiProject's page, though. Subcategories such as "Feminism" cover feminism-related articles so that "Women" doesn't have to. Jean d'Arc is listed under "Women's History" but not "Women" for a similar reasons, I assume. ~Mable (chat) 04:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: the scope includes actual and fictional women. This gets tricky with fictional women as in "human" vs. "partly human" vs. "non-human", but I think taking an inclusionist view here is ok. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Question re: project tagging on articles about women athletes / women in sport

It looks like articles that are tagged with the Women's sport project are not being listed in the AFD list for WikiProject Women. Is there a way for the Women's sport to be added as a child project or should the articles also be tagged with WikiProject Women? See Lisa Sabino as example. I recently re-added the WikiProject Women tag on the article after it was removed by another editor. Hmlarson (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: Each WikiProject that has signed up for Article Alerts has a separate listing. That for WikiProject Women's sport is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Article alerts. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hmlarson:This was discussed here recently. One of the reasons it was deleted is because I was told that tagging for WikiProject Women is usually unnecessary if there is another tag for a more specified women's project. They were keeping track to make sure women are fairly represented on wikipedia. It was overkill to add WikiProject Women to every female tennis player when they already had sports related women's tags. That's why I removed it. If you want it on this one particular person I'm not going to fight it since the Tennis Project tag will be removed anyways if the article stays. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks, but this doesn't really address my question. Hmlarson (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The solution is to follow the alerts for the more specific projects as well. ~ Rob^Talk 02:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I do. If anyone needs the full list, here it is:

 Rebbing  02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I understand what user Hmlarson wants now. Hmlarson doesn't need to be alerted at all. When an article is tagged for deletion for not being notable (as in this case) she wants to make sure that not only are the alerts going to "WikiProject Women's sport" but that it also triggers alerts in "WikiProject Women" so that as many people as possible can save an article. That's why she suddenly tagged it with "WikiProject Women", because "WikiProject Women's sport" wasn't a big enough audience. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Photography

You are invited...
	Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red May 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Sugar babies

I'm wondering if this should be developed into a standalone article. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Women artists of Middle East / North Africa... a WiR & Guggenheim collaboration

File:Monir Portrait-exh ph021.jpg You are invited...
	Women artists of Middle East / North Africa worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red and Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum May 2016 #wikiwomeninred #guggathon

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Freida Pinto FAC

I've nominated the article for FAC. Constructive feedback would be appreciated – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freida Pinto/archive3. Thanks, —Vensatry _(Talk) 17:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Auto-Assessment of Unassessed Articles

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there appears to be consensus for a bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

Articles will only be auto-assessed to the "standard" classes (FA, FL, GA, B, C, Start, and Stub), and articles which have conflicting classes listed on different WikiProject templates will be skipped. In other words, this task is intentionally conservative to ensure that it doesn't make any problematic assessments.

This bot task will operate on an opt-in basis. If you're involved in this WikiProject and think auto-assessment would be beneficial, please discuss the possibility here. If there's consensus among WikiProject members to opt-in to auto-assessment (or a reasonable period of time goes by with no dissent), please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess and list the project.

If you have any questions, feel free to ping me here or message me on my talk page. Cheers! ~ Rob^Talk 12:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• This is especially needed by this project due to a bot run today by Yobot that did not include auto-assessment despite the request by the project to have auto-assessment earlier on this page. My own BRFA is still pending for tagging, by the way. ~ Rob^Talk 12:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Edgars2007: Since you've been the participant taking the lead on tagging, would you mind providing your thoughts on this? ~ Rob^Talk 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments requested on person's reported marriage

Various news sources reported that one public figure married another. Now some of those sources are removed.

I am not sure what is going on. Comments are welcome at Talk:Leelee_Sobieski#Note_by_email_-_Leelee_Sobieski_did_not_marry_Matthew_Davis.

I am posting this to WP women because I thought there might be more sensitivity here to how marriages are reported. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry This points to one of the reasons the WP policy of primarily using secondary sources is illogical and unscholarly. Secondary sources are often riddled with error and once it's in print, it is repeated by others. I don't know if she married before or not, but primary sources (i.e. not the same as self-generated sources) like a courthouse record would verify the information. Since it is a BLP, I would err on the side of caution and not put the alleged first marriage in the article. Rather, I would post it, on the talk page so as not to lose the sourcing and ask for contributors who had access to the marriage registries to verify the information. Since the actual "source" doesn't give a place or date for the alleged marriage or divorce, I probably wouldn't have put it in the article to begin with but posted it on the talk page and asked for others to see if better details could be found before it went into the article. But, that's just me. SusunW (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't quite say to "never" use primary sources: my reading of it is that primary source can be used, but only to back up secondary sources. The problems arise when people try to use just primary sources on BLP's to back up things like dates of birth (and I've seen that fairly often)... But, back to the issue at hand (as I'm the one who reminded Blue Rasberry about it) – this issue here is we have different secondary sources with contradictory info, combined with the WP:OTRS request, and, well, it's quite a pickle... Update: It appears that Rebbing removed the offending info – I personally think that's the best call right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IJBall I admit you have stumped me here, "just primary sources" means what? I am asking because I think, you are calling a self-generated source, i.e. something the person who is the subject of the article created, a primary source. They are not the same thing and that is why I pointed out the absurdity of the WP policy above. A self-generated source may have reason to "color" events in a favorable light. A primary source is made by an uninterested entity. For example, the creator of a birth certificate is unlikely to change the information and the source is generally deemed to be reliable. Certainly it is more weighty and more apt to be correct than a news article that more than likely was based on either another news article or the subject telling someone their date of birth. SusunW (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

By a primary source, I mean something like a birth record you can sometimes get off the genealogy websites – as far as I can tell, those are considered primary sources. But, under WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, even if you can obtain a primary source like that, you shouldn't use it in the absence of a secondary source which confirms the info (e.g. say, a date of birth). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IJBall Thanks for clarifying. You understand the WP use policy like I do. For me, it makes no academic sense. It isn't as if one is drawing a conclusion by writing a date that is in the source. Secondary sources are only as reliable as their own sources. It makes sense for data analysis to require secondary sourcing. For biographical dates, it makes litte sense. I have done biographies on people where there are 5 different dates given for a birth and the only RS (the actual birth record), was deleted as a primary record. SusunW (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to note: I removed the information because the sole source we cited appeared suspect at best. Combined with Us Weekly—a more credible source—indicating that such a marriage did not exist, I think removal would be appropriate even if this were not a BLP issue. However, our policy on BLPs explicitly instructs that this sort of material should be removed immediately and that it must not be restored until a consensus supports it. Thanks, Blue Rasberry, for bringing this to light.  Rebbing  19:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is one of the most misinterpreted policies/guidelines out there. The actual policy is, " Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge..." So a marriage register or a birth certificate IS acceptable to use. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But that's not really what WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY say. What you say would be true about non-BLP articles, I think. But BLP's are a different ballgame... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two separate issues under consideration: the guidance on privacy is related to whether or not certain pieces of information should be included in an article. The guidance on sourcing is related to what sources satisfy the need for verifiability. It's not that a primary source is not usable as a citation for a person's birth date, but that the absence of secondary sources means that the inclusion of the birth date in an article would make Wikipedia the predominant secondary source of this info on the web. Due to privacy concerns, this has been deemed undesirable. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page tagging proposal

I propose tagging the talk pages of all articles within Category:21st-century actresses and its subcategories with the {{WikiProject Women}} template. The scope of WP:WikiProject Women artists does not include actresses and female musicians, so these articles are more suitable here. Limiting this to 21st-century actresses is to prevent any overlap with WP:WikiProject Women's History. I do not plan to tag the articles myself, but rather am seeking consensus here for a bot to tag the pages. SSTflyer 17:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a pending BRFA which has a scope that would cover this task, so if there's approval/no opposition for this, ping me in like a week and I'll get on it. ~ Rob^Talk 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 I have no clue what a BRFA is, but we have discussed this topic on numerous occasions and have agreed that actresses and female musicians (as well as dancers) are covered under the project and included in our metrics logs. SusunW (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRFA is a bot request for approval. ~ Rob^Talk 12:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on the support for this, I plan to tag this category shortly after double-checking that the category tree isn't broken. ~ Rob^Talk 02:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Doing... ~ Rob^Talk 08:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~ Rob^Talk 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Women in fiction

I understand that articles about women in fiction falls under the scope of this project, but I've noticed that Yobot is only tagging articles women in the real world. Has the bot been instructed to search for articles about fictional women as well?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The bot run from Yobot was based entirely on a list of articles given to us by Edgars2007. If you have additional categories of articles that should be tagged, feel free to discuss them here and then ping me. By categories, I mean a specific list of Wikipedia categories. ~ Rob^Talk 23:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Well for starters Category:Works about women and all of its subcategories.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I always wondered if a "Women in fiction" sub-project wouldn't be more valuable. I think I'd even be pretty active in that. ~Mable (chat) 07:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I love the idea of Women in Fiction, and wonder if we might give it a go as a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red 1 month virtual editathon? Adding @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Ipigott, and Victuallers: to the conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

This is of course a huge area of interest. Maybe it would be more in character with WiR if we were to start with fictional women created by women (i.e. in works by women authors). There are also problems of organization. If you look at Category:Fictional females, you will see there is a wide array of subcategories, although there appear to be no breakdowns by country or century. Surprisingly, if you take Category:Fictional females by medium, the most popular subcategory seems to be Category:Female characters in comics but there are no categories for Female characters in novels, Female characters in plays, Female characters in French literature, etc., etc. The term "Women in fiction" strikes me as covering mainly women in novels and short stories rather than from films or television. Is that the intent? If so, we need to make it clear. (Are we also going to try to write independent articles about some of the fictional women who are currently included in articles about authors or individual books? See, for example, all the names in italics under Category:Fictional women scientists.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, that was not the intend. I've written articles on specific women in animation and video games (now I think of it, I can't remember ever writing an article about a fictional man, huh...), and I would count all that as fiction as long as the character is fictional. I've never added any "women" WikiProject templates to the articles because I always felt it was undue. An overarching "Women in fiction" WikiProject would counter that. ~Mable (chat) 11:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"All of its subcaategories" there is no way to have a happy end. Most of category trees are broken or contain loops. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Then we'll list them individually but I think you get the point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly recommend that each category is listed separately. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't mind about the categories. Whatever works best for the most of you is where we should focus on... I'm a bad librarian in that I hate categorizing things. >.< However, one thing I've noticed about "fictional women" is that there are a lot of redirects out there like for Hazel Grace Lancaster from The Fault in Our Stars, or that fictional women are often only included in lists of characters from the series. One challenge we may face is that people who look for articles to AfD will consider it WP:COATRACK to expand out a fictional character from a list. I disagree with that rationale if there is enough information out there to flesh out an article. For example, Agent 355 from Y: The Last Man has a ton of scholarly work written about her character that can be found on Project MUSE and other databases. She's might be a good test case for this. I'm pretty sure Hazel could have her own article, too. There is one for Katniss Everdeen, but Beatrice Prior from Divergent is a redirect. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"you will see there is a wide array of subcategories, although there appear to be no breakdowns by country or century." I can explain that. Currently fictional characters in general do not have categories from the perspective of the country of their creators or the century of their creation. There is, however a category tree which separates characters by years of creation: Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction. It currently has 193 subcategories, covering characters created between 1590 and 2016. Characters from literature, theater, film, and television generally share the main category of each respective year. Characters from comics and video games get their own subcategories. A rather complex system, but it seems to cover many characters.

For example Category:Fictional characters introduced in 1590 contains 7 characters. Relevant to your Project (females) would be Belphoebe, Bianca Minola, and Portia (The Merchant of Venice). Finding relevant characters would probably require some manual searches in this category tree.

As for creating new categories: I am not sure whether literary characters should get their own category, but such a category could get easily populated. Several characters introduced in popular novels do have their own articles, even when there is no specific category for the novel. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• @TriiipleThreat: If you want to go through and list the individual categories you think should be tagged within Category:Works about women and post them here, I'll do a tagging run on them if no-one objects to it within a reasonable time. ~ Rob^Talk 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I see now why its not so simple. Categories split all over the place and I know missed quite a few but here are categories that split directly off of Category:Works about women:

• Category:Books about women
  • Category:Books about feminism
  • Category:Books about Hillary Clinton
• Category:Women and comics
  • Category:Comics about women
  • Category:Female characters in comics
  • Category:Female comics artists
  • Category:Female comics writers
  • Category:Feminist comics
  • Category:Lesbian-related comics
• Category:Documentary films about women
  • Category:Documentary films about abortion‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women in Afghanistan‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women in Africa‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women in war‎
  • Category:Documentary films about feminism‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women in film‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women in India‎
  • Category:Documentary films about lesbians‎
  • Category:Documentary films about misogyny‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women and religion‎
  • Category:Documentary films about women's sports‎
  • Category:Documentary films about violence against women‎
    • Category:Documentary films about honor killing
  • Category:Documentary films about women in World War II‎
• Category:Female buddy films
• Category:Portraits of women
  • Category:Paintings of goddesses
    • Category:Paintings of Venus
    • Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary
      • Category:Annunciation in Christian art
      • Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary‎
      • Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child
        • Category:Black Madonna of Częstochowa
        • Category:Botticelli Madonnas
        • Category:Raphael Madonnas
  • Category:Mona Lisa
• Category:Television series about women
  • Category:Wonder Woman television series
• Category:Works about women in war
  • Category:Cultural depictions of Anne Frank
    • Category:Books relating to Anne Frank
    • Category:Films about Anne Frank

I also noticed there is Category:Women, we might want to start there and double check for any remaining omitted categories.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I skipped the Mona Lisa category; it contains things like The Da Vinci Code, which isn't really about women. If anyone objects to any of the other categories, ping me; I'll do tagging in 3-5 days if no-one objects. @Maplestrip: I'm not sure what scope you were thinking about for a Women in Fiction project or work group, but if the totality of this would fall under such a scope, I could add a "fiction-work-group=yes" parameter with the project template. It wouldn't do anything right now, but you could always activate it later or just use it for a tracking category to find the articles that could fall under the scope of Women in Fiction. ~ Rob^Talk 17:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like something that could work. There is a lot of non-fiction in the categories you listed, though, such as Anne Frank, Hillary Clinton, and the Mona Lisa (to name the obvious ones). Perhaps "Media about women" could work? ~Mable (chat) 18:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Would not this overlap with the scope of Category:Works about women? Dimadick (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, women in fiction was what I first noticed was missing from the list of tagged articles. But I have seem to have stumbled upon some much larger.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Hmm. You're right that a lot of these aren't actually fictional, so just adding a parameter to all wouldn't be too helpful. Instead, let's go with this; if a fiction project is ever organized, I'd be happy to do tagging tasks that remove {{WikiProject Women}} and add whatever Women in Fiction template you come up with. Basically, you can decide at that time what categories you want tagged as fiction and we'll go from there. This doesn't take any extra work, really, so we can put off the decision on categories until such a project is organized and its participants can decide what they want tagged. Sound good? ~ Rob^Talk 06:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me. If there's just not enough interest for it, then that's just the way it is. I've never started a Project myself, let alone one with close ties to a Project I do not consider myself a part of. I just felt it would have been a more elegant way of tagging, as all pure "WikiProject Women" articles I know of are biographical. ~Mable (chat) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Another problem that I am noticing is that many categories are genderless so an article that may fall under the scope of this project maybe omitted as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So... No separate WikiProject for this idea? ~Mable (chat) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not a separate WikiProject but just a WP:TASKFORCE under this project. Also forgive me for going off-topic with that list of categories. Those were just the ones that split off of Category:Works about women, which resulted in a lot of non-fictional works as well. However this is endemic of that fact many articles are going unflagged, not just articles about women in fiction. Also the way categories are named and applied in general seems to be problematic. For instance we have Category:Books about women (which seems to be greatly under utilized) but not Category:Films about women. But I did find Category:Fictional females, which it and its sub-categories could justify a task force.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a rather peculiar observation. Category:Films about women was a rather large category with several subcategories of its own, which I was trying to populate for some time. It was nominated for deletion back in January as "too indiscriminate" in its inclusion criteria and unfair because there was no Category:Films about men. I voted for keeping it and was the only editor to have done so. 9 editors voted for deletion, and 2 remained neutral. The category was deleted in February and there has been no interest in recreating it. I assumed your WikiProject was not interested about the depictions of women in film. Dimadick (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it does seem a very indiscriminate category, as does "books about women". How does one even categorizes a book like that? Any book featuring a female protagonist? Every book that is about the concept of womanhood or something along those lines? It is hardly "not caring" about a topic. I think works about women are important, but it seems silly to me to categorize them in such a manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but at the same time it makes tagging articles under the scope of this project difficult. I see after reading the CfD there is Category:Women in film, which includes Category:Feminist films‎, Category:Films featuring an all-female cast‎, and Category:Lesbian-related films‎.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, having a parent category just for subcategories like those sounds like a good idea to me. ~Mable (chat) 09:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters

I have noticed a bot adding fictional women characters to this project, like so: [1] Are fictional characters in the scope of this project or is the bot malfunctioning? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See #Women in fiction above. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

According to introduction section on the project page, they are.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This tagging has since been rolled back due to this disagreement (see the below section as well). As written, they do fall under the scope of the project, and there was no objection for multiple weeks. But clearly some project members disagree, so this needs to be resolved before these categories are tagged. In the future, it's a good idea to keep an eye on project talk pages so you can object to tagging before it happens; discussion on this started as early as April 20th. ~ Rob^Talk 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you consider reining in the bot?

Using a bot to tag articles in the project's remit is a perfectly laudable aim, but could whoever's operating it consider toning down its scope? At present, it seems to be tag-bombing every article which is in any category which is in turn a subcategory of Category:Women, including (for instance) every religious artwork which includes the Virgin Mary, every book which includes a female character etc. It's not of any use to this project to have Sacred conversation and the like tagged as in their remit, and all this is achieving is irritating the authors of arts and literature articles watching this constantly flash up on watchlists. ‑ Iridescent 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This was basically what I was worried about above when expanding to scope to all works about women... ~Mable (chat) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I tagged the pages in the categories listed in an above discussion, which were reviewed and put forward by a project member and didn't appear to have any opposition to any specific categories. I can mass rollback if necessary, but it should first be decided for sure whether works about women are within the scope of this project. Past discussions I was shown seemed to indicate they were. ~ Rob^Talk 19:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Martinengo Altarpiece – RLY? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See the above section "Women in fiction", where I was given categories, waited several days, and no-one brought up concerns about their integrity. I'm mass rollbacking the bot now. In the future, the solution is to object before the tagging has taken place, since I'll never complete a request for tagging without the project being notified for at least 3 days. ~ Rob^Talk 19:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13, unfortunately my psychic powers aren't as up-to-scratch recently as they usually are, so I'm not sure how you expect us to raise objections to your tagspamming articles like The Crucifixion before you actually do so, given that the whole issue here is that you were unilaterally tagging articles which have no relationship to this project so notification here is irrelevant. (Wikipedia SOP in the past has always been to manually review the list before you run the bot to ensure you're not generating false-positives; even if you skipped this step, surely you must have noticed something was amiss when Italian pornographic comics, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and The Vision of the Blessed Hermann Joseph started popping up in your list.) ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Please feel free to review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Archive 7#Women_in_fiction, where this discussion has been ongoing since April 20th, and where the exact categories that were to be tagged were listed by another project member after their review several days before tagging. This was not unilateral, as it was put forward by a project member with other members commenting and agreeing on the scope. It was not without notification, as you can see above. It was not without review, as the project member who proposed the categories looked through the category tree and chose those which he felt were under the project's scope. I am not a member of this project. I volunteered to tag articles that project participants feel are under scope after appropriate discussions on this page. If you do not participate in a discussion and voice your disagreement with categories of articles being under scope, then I'm not a psychic, and I can't know that some project members disagree on scope. ~ Rob^Talk 20:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You're also welcome to review the standard operating procedure, which I followed step-by-step. ~ Rob^Talk 20:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Iridescent: I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this. Articles such as Yra (vampire) are basically the exact reason why all these articles were tagged: the project intends to increase its scope to all fictional women and all works about women or featuring women prominently. Paintings of the Virgin Mary would also fall under this. ~Mable (chat) 20:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? How do New Chambers (Sanssouci) or Circumcision of Jesus fall into "all works about women or featuring women prominently"? Inter alia, while by longstanding convention no outsider can challenge what a Wikiproject chooses to be in their remit, I'd seriously question any interpretation of "all works … featuring women prominently" that translates as "all works featuring at least one significant female character", which would appear to be the case here, since that will encompass at least 75% of fiction, a significant fraction of all figurative art, and approaching 100% of films, television, and videogames. (Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter both contain multiple significant female characters, but you presumably don't intend to drag beat-em-up videogames into this project's ambit.) A mass land-grab of the majority of the arts-and-literature articles by a single project has no obvious benefits for this Wikiproject, which will see those articles which genuinely fall into its remit diluted by literally millions of other articles thus making its internal categories impossible to navigate. ‑ Iridescent 21:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, don't get mad at me. I brought up basically the same concerns, though I don't consider myself part of this WikiProject either. ~Mable (chat) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: BU Rob13 has removed all the recently tagged articles. Please understand that this was a good faith attempt to expand the number of articles that already are defined as being within this projects scope. Admittedly the fault mostly lies with me for blindly including all sub-categories of Category:Works about women. I'll try to come up with a more focused list in the near future, and hope more people will take a look at it and vet each category. Thank you for your patience.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As one of the project's 2 co-founders, it was my thought that the scope was not "all works about women", but rather "works by women", e.g. the books they wrote vs. books which have a female character, the sculptures they sculpted vs. sculptures with a female figure, etc. But mine is just one opinion. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but what's being done at present is "anything including anyone female", so Ohio Theatre gets tagged because until the 1960s it had a painting of Venus in the lobby, The Hitchhiker gets tagged because it features some female characters, Maya with Doll gets tagged because it depicts a three-year-old girl, and so forth. Presumably the intent behind expanding the scope to "fictional women" was to bring male-created works which have had significant impact on perceptions of women such as Wonder Woman and Vanity Fair explicitly into the remit, not to expand the scope of the project to include Częstochowa (tagged) because it happens to house a shrine to the Virgin Mary. ‑ Iridescent 09:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)