Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's Classical Committee/Archive 1

Planning ahead
(Can't remember if you put new comments at the top of discussions, think so?) Thinking ahead, as we're getting through editing at some rate of knots, a couple of people have mentioned to me lists e.g., of Classical Association presidents that need tidying up and might be good to add to our list of pages to edit? What do others think?

--Claire 75 (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Claire, on Wikipedia it's usual to post at the bottom of the page (I think the rest of the internet top posts!) but no need to worry about it too much. Having a longer list of articles to improve sounds like a good thing to me. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's it, thanks Richard. Just found the other idea that was nagging the back of my brain. Victoria suggested this also as a source of people who need pages/info. https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2016/08/01/an-impressive-list-of-female-authors-from-antiquity/ --Claire 75 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The list of ancient female writers seems particularly appropriate to this project. Worthy of a separate hit-list in the project I'd argue. As a similar resource, there might be a lot of crossover with the Trowelblazers project which seeks to provide biographies of eminent women in the fields of archaeology, geology, anthropology etc. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, yes I think might be good to have a separate list. Could merge it with the one I put together for the editathon a couple of years back [|ICS meetup].  I mostly took inspiration from a conference that resulted in Women Classical Scholars: Unsealing the Fountain, which I added archaeologists to with some much appreciated ideas from the History of Archaeology Research Network plus asking around. The Womens Classical Committee were interested in doing something on modern female scholars so that is the genesis and present mainstay of this project. Funny you should mention Trowelblazers - they're a great project and it was their editathon (and one at the Petrie) that I went to that inspired me to set up the first - there's some but not much crossover I think given the slightly different remit. Good to have more archaeologists on board though, if you fancy joining us? --Claire 75 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to be put to work wherever I might be of use (and hopefully not coming across as too keen)...Zakhx150 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * great to have you onboard - welcome. Pick someone you like the look of from the list and stick your name next to her! Next online --Claire 75 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)editing session is as per events page (22 Mar, 1-3pm)

Useful References
Recent book chapter by Martin Millett contains mention of several women archaeologists working on Roman Britain in the twentieth century. Millett, M. (2016). "Roman Britain since Haverfield". In Millett, M.; Revell, L.; Moore, A.J. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 22–42LLodwick 16:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaLodwick (talk • contribs)

Editing in February
Hi all - I won't be able to join this session, but I will use is as a (good) excuse to do some solo editing! If anyone is keen to expand the two articles I started at the last #WCCedit Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood or Jenny Strauss Clay please do and feel free to get in touch with me about it. I'll be doing some addition to both. Ellie Jane (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries Ellie - hopefully you can make the next one (March 22) - we've got a fair bit done as a group today I think, lots left tho... Claire 75 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi folks. I'm late to the party here but just found out about the project on twitter. Not sure who's officially in charge but it might be worth looking into getting the project page formalised either as a subsidiary of WikiProject Women or as WP in its own right; it'll certainly make it a lot easier to monitor progress and edits made as part of the project. Apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but that was my first impression. Anyhow, I'm off to start my contributions here with some back-pay included in being late! Zakhx150 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be good to work towards that. For instance the York Museums Trust project had tags which could be put on articles within its scope. That way you can monitor progress over time. Maybe something for the future. In the meantime, I just noticed that Beryl Rawson and Amy Richlin appeared in the Did You Know? section of the main page. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was no coincidence. It's good practise to follow up such events by nominating the best work for DYK.  This gets the new articles a peer review and then some exposure if they pass.  A good hook and picture will typically attract up to 10,000 readers.  Appearance on the main page is also a good occasion to tweet about the topic and our activity.  For example, see the tweet about Agnata Butler which scored over a thousand impressions and attracted some traffic to the article.  I don't have many followers so editors who are more active on social media might do even better. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Using the Lists - Please don't remove names!
Can I please ask everyone not to remove any names from the list - we'd like to keep an eye on pages which are created/expanded under our auspices (as it were) so that we can keep making them even better - so if any names come off, it makes it very hard to do that. If you make a new page, thus removing the red link in 'pages to create', please either move the link to one of the expansion sections of the list if there's more which could be added, or if you think it's done, put it under 'minor edits' and ask someone else to check it for a move to the Watchlist. The Watchlist is where 'finished' pages are kept so that we can keep an eye on keeping them up to date long-term, so is the final destination!

If you're not sure where to move it to, you can also just leave it there, and someone else will move it for you! This is better than having the name vanish entirely. KateCook (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I'm probably guilty of this, if not this month then in the past - so apologies if anyone had to clean up after. To confirm, new blue-linked articles should be listed in both Aims under Major expansion AND under Articles created in X on the Welcome page? Or are major expansions categorised as different from new articles for the purposes of this project? Ta. Zakhx150 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers Zakhx150 - and yes, the Welcome page list is really to show that the group is active and let us and anyone interested see what is being achieved. The Aims page is a summary of what we're working on and what needs doing. Claire 75 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * have just added a line on the 'Aims' page too as it wasn't very clear Claire 75 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

New-published books, spotting new people for inclusion, and watchlist
Just been checking watchlist articles and strikes me - are we checking major new publications in our areas so we can make sure that watchlist pages and/or new people are up-to-date?

--Claire 75 (talk) 10.36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have not been - but I agree that at the very least this is a good step for the Watchlist. I wonder if it's worth doing a sort of 'annual check' on those just to check publications even if nothing else is changed? KateCook (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits at Rosalind Thomas
Twice now, a user has edited the article on Rosalind Thomas (Balliol College, Oxford) to add unsourced &mdash; and, frankly, creepy &mdash; remarks about her personal appearance. These are the only two edits made by this account. The second had an edit summary of "修正語法", which Google tells me translates as "modified words" or "correction grammar". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's irritating. Thank you for spotting and fixing it. Looking at Rosalind Thomas' page I see the user no longer has a user page so I suspect he or she has either stopped using the account or it has been banned. Claire 75 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Claire 75 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)(talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They have been warned twice and have not edited since; it's a low-traffic article so I have put it onto my watchlist. We'll see what happens... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Emeritus/Emerita RfC

 * Please see Request for Comment about Emeritus/Emerita. Andrew D. (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Women classical scholars
Dear All,

I spotted today that helpfully created a new category today: 'Women classical scholars'. Adding this category to WCC articles moving forwards is recommended and will be really useful way of quantifying progress. Thanks for the new cat, and let's get it populated! Zakhx150 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of help. Would've let y'all know, but I had to head out to a meeting soon thereafter. I'm not familiar with the world of classics, so if there are things that need tidying in the category, my apologies. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We've had some discussion about categories before - what do people think of this idea? I'm always a little concerned about 'women' categories as it suggests there's something essentially different and other to the main category? Claire 75 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're going down the route of creating and using this category, it's worth thinking about whether it presents women as something separate - would it look like Wikipedia considers that there are classical scholars, and there are women classical scholars. Would it be appropriate to create a mirror category for male classical scholars? This op-ed from the New York Time in 2013 is an interesting read. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard, that if we're trying to avoid the 'actual classicist/women classicist' impression then a mirror category is necessary for male classical scholars. There is something to be said for practical ease of (some) use(s) in terms of grouping women classical scholars together (e.g. if hunting for names to populate a bibliography or event), but otherwise I am concerned, like Claire & Richard, about the potentially negative impression given. It can also have the effect, as noted in the article, of actually hiding women if they all get moved out of the 'classicists' cat. but men don't - and I definitely don't want to see that!KateCook (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the category of classical scholars, I see that there is an instruction to try to move pages from that category into subcategories. This makes me more convinced that the category 'Women classical scholars' is unhelpful as people are invited to move people from the main category into subcategories. 'Women classical scholars' therefore sits alongside other disciplinary sub-categories, equating 'woman' with a sub-discipline and making it more likely that classical scholars will be moved into this discipline and away from categories relating to their expertise. This runs counter to the aims of this project, which seeks to integrate within Wikipedia the work of women who are classical scholars. I see no benefit to the category, and to continually check that pages are not disassociated from categories of expertise adds significantly to project editors' work. Claire 75 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for many other categories based on women's occupations, Category:Women classical scholars is a non-diffusing category. That means that articles on women should not be "moved" here but rather reflected here. Their names should continue to exist in the main Category:Classical scholars and its sub-categories. In Women in Red, we find these categories useful for reviewing and monitoring progress on articles about women in different occupations. Academics also welcome easy access to categorizations of women for research purposes. I am personally not convinced that it is useful to create equivalent male categories but I know not everyone agrees with me. Hope this will help.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Ipigott for the clarification of the different types of categories. I'm still wary of the 'version/women's version' model for categories although can see that having a list of women classicists can be useful to people, e.g., this reaction to the 30 white male historian manel at a recent conference points at the list on Wikipedia https://twitter.com/southkiltedgame/status/974386838864584704. There is Wikipedia guidance on gender and categories categories by gender, although I'm also conscious of how little time most of have and making best use of it. Is the diffusing nature of the categories well understood across Wikipedia or will it still tie up our time to monitor and check it's been done properly (when we're not all that convinced about it being done at all...)? Claire 75 (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Keeping track of pages we've edited
Been mulling for a while how best to keep track of the pages edited under this project. I think someone before has mentioned that you can use tags to set up article alerts that at least flag to your attention some things that enter Wikipedia's workflows e.g., Articles for Deletion, Requests for Comments, Peer Review etc. It doesn't pick up vandalism or substantial changes we might want to look at but I think we're at a point in the project where we would find the tool useful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_alerts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 75 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Assessment & Article Alerts, talk page banner &c
I hope the following is of some use ... I've implemented the standard wikiproject quality assessment system for the Women's Classical Committee, which comprises a talk page banner, Women's Classical Committee, which yields an assessment page providing a table listing articles of interest to the Committee, categorised by their quality. It is possible to categorise articles by importance - currently I've not implemented this but will if you wish. I've added the banner to 142 articles associated with this project, by & large inheriting the quality ratings set in the banners of other wikiprojects.

I've also subscribed the Committee to the article alerts system; with luck in the next 24 hours or so there'll be a Women's Classical Committee/Article alerts page ... article alerts lists articles when, for instance, a deletion template is placed on them.

It's all at the moment a bit rudimentary and an experimental work in progress; and all depends on articles of interest to the project having the Women's Classical Committee template placed on their talk pages. Let me know if you'd like to proceed in this direction, or if you'd prefer that it all went away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, think this is useful in addition to the lists we keep manually. We don't necessarily always view article quality/work needed in the same way as Wikipedia metrics-eg even for classicists who  merit extensive pages the usual bias exists because they are women and less information is published about them so it's not always possible to get pages to good article status due to the sources not having the info or reflecting the classicist's importance. (This is problem familiar to us from our research into the ancient classical world too!). Claire 75 (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata redlist
I've made Women's Classical Committee/Wikidata redlist, which you may or may not want to link to from one or other of your pages. Currently it lists ~300 classicists with records in wikidata, but lacking an en.wiki biography. There may be more occupations in wikidata that should be added to the list ... ping me if you want amendments made. The list is refreshed roughly daily to remove rows when a biography is created, and to add rows when qualifying records are added to wikidata. Hope it's of some use. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful and was on my to do list. It may we'll need tweaking, one for the group to discuss. Claire 75 (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is great - thanks! I've had a look at it briefly now, and it seems mostly very helpful, except that I wonder whether the category 'Theologian' is pulling in rather more people who aren't relevant to this project than are, so might be one to take out. What does everyone else think? --KateCook (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * They're easy removed if not wanted. This report provides a list of occupations on wikidata with a count of women with no en.wiki biog, should anyone want to go fishing for additional occupations. Best downloaded as CSV and inspected in a spreadsheet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Category:Articles created or improved during Women's Classical Committee Wikipedia events
I think that categorising articles with project categories, such as has been done with the articles in Category:Articles created or improved during Women's Classical Committee Wikipedia events, is deeply frowned on - see, for instance, WP:PROJCATS. If you want to track such articles, I think the category needs to be moved to the talk pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks-this appears to have been a category created by a bot. I was unaware of it; we keep a manual list on the project welcome page as a record of the pages this project has worked on, agree a category would be inappropriate. Happy if you or anyone else wants to delete this category. Claire 75 (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You may be able to dispense with the manual list, in favour of this sort of thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, although it's less visually useful in some ways. Doesn't communicate at a glance what was done when, which is motivating-it's a communication tool also.

Looking more closely at the category, it actually appears to have been created by an Wikipedia administrator for an event we ran on 22 March. Feel free to delete-am on phone and it's not acting well.Claire 75 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing. This kind of thing is usually done using WikiProject templates that add categories to talk pages, which I see you've just set up. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and delete this category as redundant. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, the category tree populated by the WikiProject template is Category:Women's Classical Committee. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in archaeology task force
I just wanted to make editors here aware of WikiProject Archaeology's women in archaeology task force. It looks like we have a lot of overlapping goals – so editors interested in this project might also want to take a look at ours (and vice versa). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you this is great. Lots to think about here. Thank you. Zakhx150 edits on this project too. (And a tiny cheer from me: you've listed the Hilda Petrie article as GA potential, I wrote a lot of her page at the Trowel Blazer's editathon, which is when I started getting involved with Wikipedia, so that's nice.)

Claire 75 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Fiona McHardy
Was this article by not created at the September event? It's not listed--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It was. It's always a challenge to keep track of everything done at such events by new editors.  MassiveEartha suggested that everyone  use this dashboard but Victoria didn't get logged in to it. Andrew D. (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Lodwick
I see someone has added an article on one Lisa Lodwick. Very much doubt anyone here's heard of her ;). Anyway, in the unlikely event, please think about improving the article; I'm sure there's more to be said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! Congratulations Lisa Lodwick User:LisaLodwick! Please could you upload an image? We need you to be a #VisibleWikiWoman. Thanks for the heads-up and for your edits Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Rings a bell! Thanks to . –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And yes, I've not written anything about her before because I know her and she is a WCCWiki ed so it would have had a COI. Am delighted that she's now got a page however. Taking a photo for Wikipedia Commons though is something I can probably do. Claire 75 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Grauniad - Victoria Leonard
Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men - ace PR for #WCCWiki. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red classicist event
There's a suggestion made at Wikipedia:Women in Red, to work with #WCC on a WiR classicist event in 2019, prompted by Victoria's article, above. Maybe centralise discussion there?

For those here less familiar with WikiProject Women in Red; amongst its other activities, it has a long track-record of organising events & month-long themed edit-drives, and has a reasonably large posse of editors. A not untypical event report is WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/68. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Judith Hallett page
There have been some edits on the Judith Hallett page that aren't great. The problem is the addition of a controversy section which also uses weasel words. It would be good if a WCCWiki ed - or anyone else - could look at the article and either remove or integrate the material into the page as they see fit. I've no time to right now. Thanks. Claire 75 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm: I can get to this in a couple of weeks if no one else does before then, but I can't do so immediately. KateCook (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To note: I've referred this to the BLP noticeboard to ask eds who have not been involved in editing the page to look at the issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Judith_Hallett I don't plan to edit the page myself, given that it has become the subject of an edit war and it's good practice in such cases simply to hand over decisions to other, non-involved eds. Claire 75 (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To note - this is back again as an issue, same material re-introduced twice this month. If anyone else can go onto her talk page and weigh in from there to help get this sorted out, please do. Claire 75 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting project page
Pinging - thanks for tidying up the page. Can we leave the 'mentioned by a media org' on the front tab please though, it would be good if it could be a right hand box, say under the showcase article box, and both those boxes to the right of the content box? I don't know how to do the formatting in the source code to make that happen though...

Also useful would be to properly separate out the Wikipedia tools and guides, from the Bibliographic resources in the tabs - at the moment they're two tabs pointing to the same page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire 75 (talk • contribs)


 * Sure. I don't think it's easy to float the press page, but I've done the rest. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Lamia al-Gailani
Seems a bit unfortunate that two people wrote excellent articles on the same person within a day of eachother :( & - over to you to merge them. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Lamia al-Gailani
 * Lamia Al-Gailani Werr


 * Yes – that's my fault. I didn't search for the shortened form of her name before creating my version, so I missed 's. I will hopefully have time to merge them today or tomorrow, unless someone else beats me to it.
 * (I don't know if either article has anything to do with WT:WMCC, though!) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thx. All your archaeologists are belong to us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks &, please feel free to merge. Combining the 2 pages will be definitely more fruitful. By the way, very few people use the "Werr" name when addressing Lamia, may rest in peace. "Al-Gailani" is a very famous family and surname in Iraq. Regards Neuroforever (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With scholars I usually look for the name they themselves published as, which in this seems to be consistently Al-Gailani Werr, but maybe that's outdated? A lot of the coverage of her death just refers to her as Al Gailani. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Gender question
I'm not sure what the collective noun is for a a #WCC, but since you're all here, would one of you be so kind as to confirm: are the following all males: I presume so, but on no particular knowledge. (I'm wanting to code their gender on Wikidata. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Archinus (historian)
 * Archytas of Mytilene
 * Archippus of Achaea

WikiClassics
Hi. It's the first time I discover this page, I guess. I don't remember, at least. I just want to be sure you heard about m:WikiClassics User Group, it's a cross wiki cooperation that might become a WMF's UG but in any case de facto exists as a platform. If you want to take part, please join us there. The group is very open to everyone and we are setting up social media channels, which are there if someone want to make some events known around the world. We are also there to help in some events if you need support for foreign languages.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. Anything which can improve pages on classics and make Wikipedia more welcoming is a good thing! The sooner we can make comments like this a thing of the past the better. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, but I am actually member of a gender-gap UG. Look at the main contacts for WMF of the proposed WCUG, it's me and Camelia Boban. I am also interested in the Wikicite initiative and in the creation of articles of researchers and professors. Have a nice wiki.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. Nice to meet you. Thanks for letting us know about your user group. We're keen to change Wikipedia for the better and improve the pages on classics, specifically by improving the representation on Wikipedia of women of all classical disciplines. We normally meet online (as we're spread about geographically), next meeting is this Friday and you'd be welcome. Details on the Events tab  Ciao a WikiDonna  also. --Claire 75 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice but I will preparing a travel for the 27th. We discussed however about some edit-a-thon in that field with Camelia (the idea is women of the past, but we also looked for images of current archeologist for wikidata items). I have tweeted the initiative but we are still building our network slowly since the formal recognition is not complete, so we have a limited number of followers (growing fast, we started last month).--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Explanatory note about Authority control and DEFAULTSORT
Quick explanatory note about two templates which should, ideally, be included in every biography, and which are missed from many #WCCWiki biogs.

Authority control causes identifiers for the biography subject - such as their VIAF, ISSN, &c - to be published in a table such as we see at the foot of Mary Beard's article, if those identifiers exist on the subject's wikidata record. If the identifiers do not exist, Authority control does nothing. And, it follows, as soon as a qualifying identifier is added in wikidata, Authority control springs into life and publishes it on wikipedia.

DEFAULTSORT is used to control where an article title is listed within a category. Mary Beard has causing the title of her article to appear within the Bs at Category:English classical scholars rather than amongst the Ms. DEFAULTSORT must always be capitalised. Who knows why.

And then, again quickly, a plug for reflist, which is a better option than ) and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist)
I have reviewed the DYK nomination for a new good article relevant to this project, Kathleen Freeman (classicist), but the nominator Srsval has not answered any of my questions for nearly three weeks. (They did respond on their talk page on 3 May, saying that they hadn't had time.) Would anybody be willing to adopt the nomination? Otherwise it may get rejected as stale. TSventon (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2022
The WCC was mentioned in one of the award categories in the recent presentation at the Wikimania event at Newspeak House. Richard will have the exact details so we can update the Impact page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Diotima (website)
Hey, I've created a quick stub for Diotíma (website) for the online resource affiliated with the Women's Classical Caucus. I've noticed that Duoda Women's Research Centre used to have the red link for Diotima (website), which is unaffiliated. I've decided to be WP:BOLD and change the red link in the Duoda article to be something else, but I just wanted to see if anyone had the sense if one was more of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or just confirmation I did this in an acceptable way (I figured so long as there was not yet a Wikipedia article about this second Diotima website this was fine?). Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * P.S. I don't really have time to expand this article anytime soon but I do have PDFs of all the references so if someone would like any of the reviews to work on this, let me know and I'd be happy to send them! Umimmak (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me – if the other website gets an article it can always be moved if necessary Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Antistia (wife of Pompey)
Antistia (wife of Pompey) is at Articles for Deletion, for those who do not have WCC article alerts on their watchlist. Poor woman; she's not having much luck, even ~2100 years later :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Peer review request for Sappho
I know this project tends to be more concerned with women classicists, but there's currently a peer review request open for Sappho, with the aim of bringing the article on possibly the most-studied woman of ancient Greece up to featured article status; any comments would be greatly appreciated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) –  21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee → WikiProject Women's Classical Committee – To conform to the "Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo" convention followed by every other WikiProject. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine by me Srsval (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Whatever the Committee members decide, Randy Kryn (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * support suggestion makes sense to better distinguish this project paget from the WCC encyclopedia page Eritha (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (WCC committee/project member, as is @Srsval)

Mercie Lack's middle name.
Everyone is welcome to discuss whether Mercie Lack's middle name is Kerr or Keer on talk page. Exclusive Editor  Notify Me! 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

'Gender imbalance'
'Wikipedia currently hosts over 200 biographies of classicists, and when the Women's Classical Committee looked in January 2017 only approximately 10% were of women. This project is our initiative to take steps towards redressing this gender imbalance'.

Just as another user pointed out here - in order to know what is an imbalance and what the appropriate percentage would be, you first need to know what percentage of important classicists, or of classicists in general, have been women in reality. There could be many reasons for the presence of more men than women among classicists in reality, for example that classic studies were more important and there were more people engaged in them at a time when women were largely excluded from scholarly careers. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the real world (as presented in reliable sources), not invent an alternative world in which patriarchy and its consequences never existed. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The substantial progress in advancing from 10% makes it abundantly clear that there was a significant imbalance in coverage. As for what the coverage should be to reflect the sources, it is an interesting question but one which may distract from the work documenting notable classicists. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I realised that the opening statement needed to be updated, so I've adjusted the wording. Wikipedia now hosts many more biographies of classicists. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)