Template talk:WikiProject Women

Importance

Yay! I love that we will have a template but I hate that it rates "importance". Either one is notable and should be included in an encyclopedia or one is not. Can we eliminate that rating? SusunW (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's customary for wikiProjects to have an importance rating. I agree with you to an extent though, there's a lot of blurry ground and subjective opinion in assessment at time. Eventually this will applied to all women articles. Somebody like John Carter and Ser Amantio di Nicolao might have to set up the categories and apply it though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW and Dr. Blofeld: It's customary, but it's not mandatory. Among those WikiProjects that don't have importance ratings are: Academic Journals; Accessibility; Ageing and culture; Books; Caves; Disambiguation; Elections and Referendums; History of photography; Knots; Military history; New York Theatre; Photography; Technology; Templates; Universities; Watches. There are several others that I know of, and (I expect) plenty more that I don't. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Like Thank you Redrose64. To me it is insulting. It is like saying the subject is worthy of note, but not really and somehow reeks of bias. SusunW (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mention Biography - that has importance ratings for the work groups and other associated projects (although the parameters are called xxx-priority not xxx-importance, e.g. |a&e-priority=, |filmbio-priority= etc.), but it doesn't have importance ratings for WikiProject Biography as a whole. So somebody like Jennifer Saunders, who has |class=B |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=Top, gets put in Category:B-Class biography articles, Category:B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles and Category:Top-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles but has no importance rating for biography - she doesn't even get put in Category:Unknown-importance biography articles which contains only subcats. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I have removed the importance rating from this template. sst✈^(discuss) 09:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Class

Why doesn't this banner support article assessment? I get not supporting importance, but surely quality needs to be? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, Talk:Carolyn_Porco does not recognize |class=B. Seems to work with |class=C however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, this was caused by a Yobot bug who used Greek capital Beta instead of a Latin B. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I fixed all. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Image swtich?

I do not see any discussion of the image changed with this diff. It replaces an image widely used on the women's projects with a stereotypical westernized image. Can the previous image please be restored? Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the change today too and don't like it at all. SusunW (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So can a template editor please change it back? I don't have the ability to do so... Montanabw^(talk) 09:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Has anybody asked Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) why they did it? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did it intentionally because it was a genericized image whereas the previous one, a painting, did not represent women globally, per WP:GLOBAL. Perhaps I should have simply gone with the female symbol? The image gets changed from time to time, and it was time for a change. If the other image is "widely used on the women's projects," then it has plenty coverage as it is.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the image you have is a stereotypically westernized image (necklace, hairstyle, dress, etc.) and the previous one File:Three Friends, by William H. Johnson.jpg was actually selected by the women's projects as an overall logo because is was more broad in scope! Could you kindly revert your unilateral change and take your concerns to the projects and ASK them? The people on the project really do have a fair bit of input into the image used for their project banner, I would think. Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The change was made before the template was protected, so quite possibly Kintetsbuffalo is not a Template Editor and cannot now revert that change. I agree that the replacement image is inappropriate (though I note that the nearly-inclusive "Three Friends" doesn't include any woman who hides her hair!) But for now let's try to get the change reverted, and there can be subsequent discussion. PamD 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Could you give a link to the discussion, to help any Template Editor who feels they need more evidence before reverting the change? Thanks. PamD 07:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no discussion, that's the point. The only discussion was here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant the discussion leading to 3 Friends being selected by the projects.PamD 05:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah... ask Rosiestep, I was only on the periphery and can't remember where it was or when. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No need unless there's further debate.PamD 07:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAICT the earliest thread that mentions this particular image is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 5#Choice of "logo"?; maybe SusunW (talk · contribs) remembers where the "long discussion in the archives about the image" actually is? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've found that the image was in the template when it was created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), who apparently had second and third thoughts; but then Rosiestep (talk · contribs) put it back to the original. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember when the discussion took place, but I remember that it happened. A long discussion was had, various real women's photographs were tried. Ian, Dr. B. Rosie, Montana, and several others were involved. The image was changed multiple times until it was agreed to settle on this one. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, we initially discussed using real photographs of women, but decided that because real women are judged harshly, by their appearance, ideological stances, etc. that it was better to use a representation of women than actual women. We specifically did not want a representation which limited or in any way indicated that we were interested in only a specific type of women, i.e. not soley westernized, not solely feminist, not classist, rather an inclusive image. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's my memory as well. I remember spending a lot of time scouring Commons trying to find an image to depict Susun's apt description. "Three Friends" seemed not only to depict "a" woman, but it depicted "women" of more than one nationality, and I liked the colors. That said, if it's time for a new image, please suggest options! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no need for a new image, the problem was someone unfamiliar with this template and its history making a unilateral change to something more stereotypical. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please will a Template Editor revert the undiscussed change of image to this important project template - see above. Thanks. PamD 07:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

So done, the page was indeed protected after the edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks. PamD 11:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for switching it back. I thought there was a fair amount of discussion about choosing the image initially. "Three Friends", by William H. Johnson isn't perfect for multiple reasons -Pam mentions one, it was painted by a man, etc.- but it is representative in other ways. That said, if anyone wants to suggest branding changes (alt image), go for it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, Jo-Jo! Consensus can change, but discussion is the key point! Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)