Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Archive 15
 | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Women in Red March 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Requested move at Talk:Amytis of Babylon#Requested move 12 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amytis of Babylon#Requested move 12 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for All-China Women's Federation
All-China Women's Federation has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback wanted
Re: merge of Weinstein effect and MeToo movement
Women in Red April 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Requested move 6 March 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History → Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history – Lowercase "history" to match WP:WikiProject Women's sport (whose template has 132k transclusions), as well as WP:WikiProject Women artists (20k), WP:WikiProject Women scientists (24k), & WP:WikiProject Women writers (68k). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 19:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. If there is a case to change this, then similar changes would probably be needed for WP Women in Red and WP Women's Health as well as more generally for U.S. Roads, Television Stations, Ice Hockey, etc., etc. Not sure whether it would all be worthwhile.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Women's Health → "health" for sure, if "history" passes, at least to make all the women WPs internally consistent, which they are very close to being. "History" & "Health" are outliers amongst the lowercase variants, and if the reverse were true, then RMs to make them all uppercase would be just as valid. Going full slippery-slope beyond women seems like an overreaction. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- As both WP Women in Red and WP Wiki Loves Women have been widely quoted in the international press as well as on Meta and in many other language versions of Wikipedia, I think it would be a major mistake to change them to WP:Women in red and WP Wiki loves women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott on this: "Women in Red" is more like a proper noun, a distinctive name, while "Women's history" is a plain description of a topic. PamD 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott too; I don't think WP:Women in Red & WP:Wiki Loves Women should be changed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott on this: "Women in Red" is more like a proper noun, a distinctive name, while "Women's history" is a plain description of a topic. PamD 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- As both WP Women in Red and WP Wiki Loves Women have been widely quoted in the international press as well as on Meta and in many other language versions of Wikipedia, I think it would be a major mistake to change them to WP:Women in red and WP Wiki loves women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Women's Health → "health" for sure, if "history" passes, at least to make all the women WPs internally consistent, which they are very close to being. "History" & "Health" are outliers amongst the lowercase variants, and if the reverse were true, then RMs to make them all uppercase would be just as valid. Going full slippery-slope beyond women seems like an overreaction. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let the WikiProject members decide Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I had to stare at the proposal for awhile to even pick up the capitalization change in the last word. Certainly nothing wrong with standardization so long as all the links continue work. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as frivolous. This isn't even an arcane WP:MOS issue, it's even less than that. The only way this will affect anyone is by annoying them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This is consistent with how most projects are named. To Ipigott,
Television Stations
has been renamed 4 years ago to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force. Gonnym (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Renaming WikiProjects properly is a lot of work and not worth doing over a triviality like this. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback Needed on Women's History List
I'd like to create a List for a WikiEdu archaeology course project. The list would be about women from Mediterranean/adjacent cultures known thanks to the archaeological record but who are otherwise lost to history because they were not described in ancient literary sources. There are already Wiki lists for 'distinguished Roman women' [read:elite], ancient prostitutes, etc., but no lists for these 'real' women. These women typically do not have Wikipedia articles/stubs. I had an editor look at the sandbox draft (which is still incomplete because my students have to add their entries) and was told "This does not seem to meet the criteria for WP:NLIST."
The (incomplete) draft is here with its first list entry as an example: User:EtruscanMayhem/sandbox. The other listed women (with empty entries) are the assigned student topics. The opening description saying: "The following list features women from the ancient Mediterranean and adjacent areas (e.g., Near East) who are attested archaeologically. Rather than focus on women mentioned in preserved literary texts passed down in the manuscript tradition, the list highlights women whose experiences have only survived thanks to the archaeological record. Their associated archaeological evidence reveals valuable data not just about the individual woman herself, but about women's history in that ancient region more generally. Such archaeological source material includes excavated inscriptions, tablets, papyri, artifacts, burials, monuments, archaeological contexts, and other such data."
It seems to me that these entries do indeed add to the work of the Women's History Project. Can you give some feedback on either a) how to make the list fit with criteria for WP:NLIST, or b) suggest whether these women should simply be given stub articles? Thanks. --EtruscanMayhem (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have redrafted the List with consultation from WIkiEdu staff. EtruscanMayhem (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)