Talk:Notable American Women, 1607–1950

needs cleanup

This article needs cleanup, as there are many links that need to be disambiguated. Additionally, is there a way to “group” the list of women better? There is way too many categories and some of the women are in multiple categories and thus listed multiple times, e.g. Muna Lee. Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Proud

I went through my parent's belongings and came across pics of my Great-Aunt from decades ago. I would love to share if anyone is interested. Terri Rawalt 2603:8080:4901:6700:2AB6:BD12:1508:5105 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Exhaustive list of entries

This discussion was created per WP:BRD to find consensus and avoid an edit war.

On 2021 December 20, Rynb99 copy-pasted the contents of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Notable American Women, 1607–1950 to this article. I removed it on 2023 October 22, leaving the following edit summary: "removed unnecessary detail; this is Wikipedia, not Wikisource; the article Oxford English Dictionary does not have a list of all the words in the dictionary." Then, on 2023 November 4, Beccaynr added it back, leaving the following edit summary: "Restore encyclopedic, notable list". This argument has no substance (see WP:BELONG and WP:JUSTNOTABLE) and fails to address my argument. Wikipedia's main namespace is not a place to republish public-domain content; that is exactly what Wikisource is for. Additionally, this is an undue weight issue; the text of Notable American Women, 1607–1950 was compiled by authors who had their own opinions on what qualifies as a notable American woman, so simply republishing the content allows that bias to seep into Wikipedia. For example, consider Susan Hinckley Bradley (and of course many others). She is notable (by Wikipedia's standards), American, a woman, and lived between 1607 and 1950, yet she is not listed in Notable American Women, 1607–1950, and thus she is not listed here. See what I mean about bias? To further support my argument, consider other similar articles. Notable American Women, 1607–1950 was created due to "the need for a version of the Dictionary of American Biography dedicated solely to women", but the Wikipedia article Dictionary of American Biography does not provide any such exhaustive list. Consider also the article for the similar A Woman of the Century. Instead of an exhaustive list, there is a link to the article's subject's full text on Wikisource. In summary, this list belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 14:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have notified WikiProject Women in Red about this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is about the three-volume biographical dictionary. It does not seem out of place to list its contents. You'll forgive me for saying that most of your argument seem fatuous, CopperyMarrow15. The list is not the full contents of the publication, it is merely the index. It is not undue weight; the article is about the publication and arguments that is should have names which are not in the publication suggest either that you do not understand the subject or are simply flinging any old crap at the wall hoping something will stick. The bottom line is, some articles of this sort include lists; some do not. This one does; a well-curated and largely unobjectionable list. Probably best to leave the article to people who care about it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I discovered the removal of 121,999 bytes of content from this article when I considered referring to Carol Hurd Green as an example in a discussion, and found the direct wikilink to her co-edited work no longer existed. Reasoning in CopperyMarrow15's edit summary for the removal of this content [1], comparing this biographical dictionary to the Oxford English Dictionary, did not seem to be an appropriate basis to eliminate what from my view appears to be an encyclopedic resource and notable list. I am generally familiar with secondary sources for various volumes of this work and have started a Reception section since this discussion began. I also think it may be worthwhile to have a separate discussion to consider WP:SPLITTING this article into three articles to help aid navigation, i.e. one for the original three volumes, one for the first update, and another for the second update. Beccaynr (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't keep up with current conventions, but the last time I encountered something like this it was decided that it is better to have a list page than to create a category. In this instance there is a commonality of the subjects. I think the solution is to tag the talk page and add it to Lists of women. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to add this to Lists of women and to add the Wikiproject here - this article is already in Category:Lists of American women, which is one of the reasons I was looking at list notability. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I have considered everything above, and I have changed my mind. It appears that this list is acceptable per WP:LISTN. I suppose it is a similar situation to Playboy § Celebrities. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)