Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists/Archive 3

Royal Society of Chemistry - Wikimedian in Residence; free journal access
Hi folks,

Firstly, I just started work as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry since September. Apologies for not notifying you sooner, but I've only just discovered the existence of this project.

Over the coming months, I'll be working with RSC staff and members, to help them to improve the coverage of chemistry-related topics in Wikipedia and sister projects, and running public engagement events.

You can keep track of progress at GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry, and use the talk page if you have any questions or suggestions.

This week, we announced the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics (including biographies - there are a number of obituaries in the archives, for instance). Please visit RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account.

How else can I and the RSC support your work to improve Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy Mabbett, do the employees there have any suggestions or unique/old sources for female scientists with poor or no articles that they feel should be improved? Sam Walton (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just finished there for the Christmas break, but I'll ask around when I return. Meanwhile the project page linked above has a list of requested biographies (mostly male. I'm aware!) Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Question at the Village Pump
There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice and invitation

 * 1) There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group.
 * 2) Have you heard of the Kaffeeklatsch? It is a test area for women to hear and support each other. The idea came about as a result of a discussion at meta regarding my IdeaLab proposal (yet open) for WikiProject Women.
 * Now that the klatsch has survived an MfD and WMF legal has said that it does not violate the non discrimination policy, I am looking for women editors who might like to join.


 * Although I have started a couple of discussions, they are not urgent. For now, the "Please introduce yourself" discussion is more important! I want to take it slow at first and build a small group before trying to address heavy topics or come up with big goals. For now, the klatsch is there as a sort of refuge. I hope you will consider joining, and invite other women editors, too, if you wish.

--Lightbreather (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015
Hello! and I have developed a draft proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. I even mention this WikiProject! The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Ed "Editing Women's Studies" Brochure: Feedback requested
Hello all, Wiki Ed will be distributing a brochure to Women's Studies courses in the USA and Canada that edit Wikipedia as part of their classroom assignments. It will also be available on-wiki and as a pdf for anyone to read or use. I'm hoping to get some feedback on the brochure's contents -- if anyone has some time to review it, I've uploaded a Wiki draft here. We're looking to have it ready to print by March 3, so feedback would be most useful before then. Thanks everyone!

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Turning STEM pipeline into a DYK
STEM pipeline would make a great DYK-- anyone interested in trying it? --Djembayz (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

These 17 women changed the face of physics
I'm occupied elsewhere - two elsewheres - at present, but I wanted to share this article that my husband shared with me. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Women scientists in photographs and paintings
WP:Featured pictures are a good way to get a scientist onto the mainpage, if source material is good. Anything smaller than 1500 pixels on the shorter side is likely to run into problems, though. If anyone sees a probable image, please let me know, I'll do what I can. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Reassessment
I'd appreciate a reassessment of Natasha Raikhel, a woman scientist. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. I'll happily assess the article on Raikhell. Could you reassess Cécile Vogt-Mugnier? I'd like to get an impartial assessment to bring the article to A-class. Thanks. -Iamozy (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Women illustrators
I'm just wanting guidance on whether these women would fall within the remit of this Wikiproject. I'm tending to come across these women via tagging images for the Biological Heritage Library website and they are often illustrators of images in various scientific journals or books - although not always. I'm tending to take quite a wide interpretation of what constitutes a "woman scientist" and am just wanting to check that I'm not in error. Examples of articles I've recently included in this project are Eliza Turck as a result of her work on Familiar Wild Birds and Catharine Johnston (illustrator). These women are getting images of their art tagged to eventually be uploaded onto www.eol.org. Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that scientific illustrators such as those you mention are within the remit of this project. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African American women in computer science
African American women in computer science is at AfD; as is African American men in computer science.--Djembayz (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Women-specific category
Of the women fellows of the Royal Society, I notice that some are categorised into both Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society and Category:Fellows of the Royal Society, but many more are only included in the female-specific category. As a result, the top-level of Fellows of the Royal Society contains many, many male names and hardly any female names. I'm thinking that this kind of situation is what we're trying to avoid, and that these women should be in the "Fellow" as well as "Female Fellow" categories. Or is there some countervailing consensus that I've missed? Paging a WIR in this area who knows FRS-related articles far better than I. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No they should all be in both; it has the cryptic "non-diffusing" template saying so. I'm surprized any are not, but I see on a sample this is the case (50/50 maybe). Females are a tiny % - something like 138/7000+ from memory. The male fellows are only about 2/3 complete at 5031 (+ females). If anyone adds those missing (or eg A-G) then please note this here.  Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, I only noticed the "non-diffusing" message after posting the above. Easy to fix: I just wanted to check before making the edits. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just added "Fellows of the Royal Society" to 44 of these biographies, but I've only gone back to 1986 on the List of female Fellows of the Royal Society, so there are more to do if anyone wants to join in. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean "up to" 1986 - I've extended to 2006, with most being ok in fact. 2007 to present need checking stillJohnbod (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I check backwards: that's how I roll. :) The recent biographies that you've been involved with are indeed fine, as I'd expect: it's the biographies of earlier Fellows that almost all had this problem. Now fixed, though. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Some database reports
As part of my work I am preparing some database reports on WikiProjects. I've been using this WikiProject as a test case and I came up with these reports:
 * Pages that should be tagged by WikiProject Women Scientists, but aren't
 * Women scientists of contested notability – articles that are a part of the project but have a notability tag.

Let me know if you find these reports useful. Would you be interested in other reports as well? Harej (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working on these Harej, they are quite useful. For anyone who's curious, there are 1190 articles that don't have the WikiProject banner and 41 articles with notability tags. It might be nice to have a bot run to pick up all of the scientists that are within the project's scope but don't yet have the banner. gobonobo  + c 13:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is really really awesome! Thank you so much for this! :) Do you know of a bot that does this? I'm woefully ignorant about all things bots....but that would be incredibly useful so we don't have to go through tagging by hand. I'm also thinking that a drive to handle all the articles with notability tags could be fun - if every member worked on one article we could get it done really quickly. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can request a WikiProjectTagger run from Anomie's bot at User talk:AnomieBOT. Here are the instructions/caveats/options:


 * We'd have to make a list of categories to be processed (probably Category:Women scientists and most of its subcategories). Then we'll need consent from this project's members to proceed. gobonobo  + c 16:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds super useful! If no one objects in the next few days, I think we'd be ok going ahead and tagging stuff. (Or do we need a full formal RfC?) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 21:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. We might want to consider partnering with WikiProject Biography/Science and academia. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A full RfC shouldn't be necessary. I've started a new section below with the list of categories. I'm not sure if the bot can also add articles to the science and academia work group, but I'll check. It may mean that the bot request will require approval from that project. gobonobo  + c 03:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your approach to finding articles is intriguing. I'd be interested in knowing how the categories in your first search compare with the categories that I searched to get WikiProject Women scientists/missing articles. Could your search be done using CatScan? I find CatScan convenient because it can be used to create a Wikipedia page with links to the articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A list of articles with topics of unclear notability is already part of the cleanup listing for this project (which the wikiproject page has a link to). RockMagnetist(talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bot-tagging run
Per the above discussion, we can request a bot to place the Women scientists banner on article talk pages within this project's scope. I propose we have the bot auto-assess the class of the articles and, if possible, add "|s&a-work-group=yes" to the WikiProject Biography banner.

Here is the list of categories:


 * Category:Women scientists
 * Category:Women agronomists
 * Category:Women astronomers
 * Category:Harvard Computers‎
 * Category:Women biologists
 * Category:Women anatomists
 * Category:Women biochemists
 * Category:Women bioengineers‎
 * Category:Women biophysicists‎
 * Category:Women biotechnologists‎
 * Category:Women botanists
 * Category:Women bryologists
 * Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners‎
 * Category:Women phycologists‎
 * Category:Women phytopathologists
 * Category:Women planktologists
 * Category:Women ecologists‎
 * Category:Women ethologists
 * Category:Women evolutionary biologists‎
 * Category:Women geneticists‎
 * Category:Women marine biologists
 * Category:Women microbiologists
 * Category:Women molecular biologists‎
 * Category:Women mycologists
 * Category:Women parasitologists‎
 * Category:Women pathologists‎
 * Category:Women phytopathologists‎
 * Category:Women physiologists
 * Category:Women taxonomists‎
 * Category:Women virologists
 * Category:Women zoologists
 * Category:Women entomologists
 * Category:Women primatologists‎
 * Category:Women mammalogists‎
 * Category:Women primatologists
 * Category:Women chemists‎
 * Category:Women cognitive scientists‎
 * Category:Women computer scientists‎
 * Category:Women cyberneticists‎
 * Category:Women earth scientists‎
 * Category:Women atmospheric scientists
 * Category:Women meteorologists
 * Category:Female geologists
 * Category:American female geologists‎
 * Category:Australian female geologists‎
 * Category:Brazilian female geologists‎
 * Category:British female geologists
 * Category:English female geologists
 * Category:Scottish female geologists
 * Category:Bulgarian female geologists‎
 * Category:Burmese female geologists‎
 * Category:Canadian female geologists‎
 * Category:Chinese female geologists‎
 * Category:Danish female geologists
 * Category:Egyptian female geologists
 * Category:English female geologists
 * Category:French female geologists‎
 * Category:German female geologists
 * Category:Indian female geologists‎
 * Category:Irish female geologists‎
 * Category:Israeli female geologists‎
 * Category:Italian female geologists‎
 * Category:Japanese female geologists‎
 * Category:Nigerian female geologists
 * Category:Polish female geologists
 * Category:Romanian female geologists‎
 * Category:Russian female geologists
 * Category:Scottish female geologists
 * Category:South African female geologists
 * Category:Swedish female geologists
 * Category:Women geographers
 * Category:Women oceanographers‎
 * Category:Women food scientists‎
 * Category:Women forensic scientists
 * Category:Women materials scientists and engineers
 * Category:Women mathematicians‎
 * Category:Women medical researchers
 * Category:Women pharmacologists
 * Category:Women naturalists‎
 * Category:Women neuroscientists
 * Category:Women paleontologists
 * Category:Women physicists‎
 * Category:Women astronomers
 * Category:Harvard Computers
 * Category:Women psychologists
 * Category:Women rocket scientists‎
 * Category:Women sexologists
 * Category:Women social scientists‎
 * Category:American women social scientists‎
 * Category:Women anthropologists
 * Category:Women archaeologists‎
 * Category:Women economists
 * Category:Women ethnologists‎
 * Category:Women political scientists‎
 * Category:Women sociologists
 * Category:Women linguists‎
 * Category:Women systems scientists‎
 * Category:American women scientists
 * Category:American women social scientists‎
 * Category:Australian women scientists‎
 * Category:Austrian women scientists
 * Category:Belgian women scientists‎
 * Category:Brazilian women scientists‎
 * Category:British women scientists
 * Category:British female geologists‎
 * Category:English female geologists‎
 * Category:Scottish female geologists‎
 * Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society‎
 * Category:Canadian women scientists‎
 * Category:Chinese women scientists
 * Category:Danish women scientists
 * Category:Dutch women scientists‎
 * Category:Ethiopian women scientists‎
 * Category:Filipino women scientists
 * Category:French women scientists
 * Category:German women scientists
 * Category:Indian women scientists‎
 * Category:Iranian women scientists
 * Category:Iraqi women scientists‎
 * Category:Irish women scientists‎
 * Category:Israeli women scientists‎
 * Category:Italian women scientists
 * Category:Kazakhstani women scientists‎
 * Category:Lebanese women scientists‎
 * Category:Malaysian women scientists
 * Category:Mexican women scientists
 * Category:New Zealand women scientists‎
 * Category:Norwegian women scientists‎
 * Category:Peruvian women scientists
 * Category:Polish women scientists
 * Category:Portuguese women scientists
 * Category:Romanian women scientists
 * Category:Russian women scientists
 * Category:Imperial Russian women scientists‎
 * Category:Senegalese women scientists
 * Category:Swedish women scientists‎
 * Category:Tunisian women scientists‎
 * Category:16th-century women scientists‎
 * Category:17th-century women scientists
 * Category:18th-century women scientists‎
 * Category:19th-century women scientists‎
 * Category:Lists of women scientists‎
 * Category:Fictional women scientists‎
 * Category:Recipients of the Garvan–Olin Medal
 * Category:L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science laureates

As this project's scope is just biographies, I did not include Category:Women and science and have struck through Category:Fictional women scientists‎. Please discuss/add/subtract categories as you see fit. Once we have a consensus for the list of categories, the bot run can be formally requested. gobonobo + c 03:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do these categories look good to you? Anything we should add/subtract before we request the run? gobonobo  + c 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good as is. I wasn't able to find any more categories. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks great, thanks for putting this together! :) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 15:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot-tagging run is done. Much thanks to Anomie. gobonobo  + c 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

New articles feed
I've added a new articles feed to the main page. It shows articles created in the past 14 days that probably fall within the scope of this project. The rules that govern which articles are included can be changed. gobonobo + c 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been finding this listing helpful and accurate. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice
There is a discussion at meta, Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting, that may be of interest to members of the project. Lightbreather (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers
I'd like to bring your attention to ORCID, the "Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier" scheme that provides unique identifiers for scientists and others. These serve to disambiguate people with the same name, and unite works published by one person under different, or variant, names.

You can see ORCID iDs at the foot of some biographies, for example, Claire M. Fraser - the data is actually stored in Wikidata.

When writing about a living (or recently deceased) scientist, please check on the ORCID website to see if they have an ORCID identifier (make sure you're not looking at a namesake!) and add it to Wikidata. Then add Authority control to the article on this project, so the iD displays.

Wikipedia editors are also eligible to register for an ORCID iD; if you choose to do so, you may then include it on your user page (as I have, for example, on mine).

More information may be found at WP:ORCID.

I am the Wikimedian in Residence at ORCID, so happy to answer any questions you may have. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Some missing computer scientists
The following ACM Fellows don't seem to have articles here. I'm listing them with their academic affiliation (or past affiliation) and main contributions (summarizing the fellow award citations, which can be found on the ACM web site): —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Lorraine Borman, Northwestern, computer-human interaction
 * Rina Dechter, UC Irvine, probabilistic reasoning (I have too much of a conflict of interest to add this one myself)
 * Karen Duncan, MITRE, medical informatics
 * Juliana Freire, NYU/Poly, provenance management and computational reproducibility
 * Wendy Kellogg, IBM, social computing
 * Ruby B. Lee, Princeton, computer architecture and RISC instruction sets
 * Yoelle Maarek, Yahoo, web search
 * Dahlia Malkhi, Microsoft, fault-tolerant distributed computing
 * C. Dianne Martin, George Washington U., computer science education
 * Klara Nahrstedt, UIUC, QoS in distributed multimedia
 * Cherri M. Pancake, Oregon State U., high performance computing
 * Linda Petzold, UCSB, computational science
 * Martha E. Pollack, U. of Michigan, planning systems design
 * Martha E. Sloan, Michigan Technological U., ?
 * Mary K. Vernon, U. of Wisconsin, parallel computer architecture
 * Marianne Winslett, UIUC, databases
 * Marilyn Wolf, Georgia Tech., embedded computing
 * Pamela Zave, AT&T, formal methods in telecommunication
 * Ellen W. Zegura, Georgia Tech., networks
 * Lixia Zhang, UCLA, networks (not the softball player)
 * Yuanyuan Zhou, UCSD, reliability

New Wikipedia Library Donations
Hello all, I wanted to let you know of some recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Taylor & Francis, WP:AAAS (Science) and WP:Cairn. We also have many older partnerships with accounts available, such as the Royal Society History of Science collection. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Patricia Anne Johnston for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Anne Johnston 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 Articles for deletion/Patricia Anne Johnston 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedian in Residence Position at West Virginia University
West Virginia University Library just announced its new Wikipedian in Residence position for Gender Equity. The full time, one year position was funded as an Inspire Campaign Grant. Wikimedians with experience in GLAM-Wiki, the Education Program, working on the Gender Gap, and other related projects are invited to apply for this in-residence position. More information at GLAM/WVU. I hope that you all share the opportunity with people you think would be interested, Sadads (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

More missing women computer scientists
I recently stumbled across this Women in Computing Oral History Collection project sponsored by the IEEE History Center, containing interviews with 52 American and British women in computing. The list of women with interviews but no articles is below. They all come with little biographical blurbs that are good places to start in researching a stub. (The interviewer, Janet Abbate, is also a notable academic with a red link.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jean Bacon
 * Ruzena Bajcsy
 * Susan Bond
 * Fran Berman
 * Betty Campbell
 * Rosemary Candlin
 * Judy Clapp
 * Mary Coombs
 * Marge Devaney
 * Jean Dollimore
 * Ann Hardy
 * Paula Hawthorn
 * Marlene Hazle
 * Bobby Hersom
 * Kathy Humphry
 * Eleanor Ireland
 * Hilary Kahn
 * Mary Kircher
 * Heather Liddell
 * Gillian Lovegrove
 * Margaret Marrs
 * Judith Mills
 * Pamela Morton
 * Carol Shanesy
 * Karen Shipp
 * Elsie Shutt
 * Pat Stewart
 * Silvia Wilbur
 * Emily Willbanks
 * Diane Wray


 * Excellent, thank you for the list, Opabinia regalis! I will also copy it over to WikiProject Women in Technology. Harej (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be less here than I thought, since I only created articles where there were additional sources unconnected to Abbate's project. A lot of the women without articles either spent their careers in industry, where there's little individual coverage, or retired from academia long enough ago that there aren't many online breadcrumbs left. FWIW, if anyone else is interested in early computer science history: Candlin, Liddell, and Lovegrove are technically WP:PROF passes but haven't left much of a google trail since their retirements; Hawthorn is borderline-notable as an entrepreneur and has stirred up some local-scale coverage as an activist; and Marrs had one prominent interview recently but otherwise has not attracted much coverage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Mary Herring, Good Article nominee
Mary Herring, an Australian physician has been nominated as a Good Article in Biology and medicine. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to review. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at the Community portal
The portal had a notice near the top of the page about working on articles about women scientists. I have mentioned this project there. See the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Community portal. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on list talk
Discussion between me and another editor on Talk:List of female mathematicians has become a little heated. Disinterested third party opinions would be welcome and probably helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comandeering by the boys' club
Sorry to say that List of female mathematicians is subject to ownership by a male editor, who decides how long entries are, what they comprise, and whether an image can be included. I challenged this ownership, but have been excluded from editing the article by a protection by User:Drmies that can only be regarded as an invitation to COI editing by his admin friends. In other words, Drmies's protection allows the two admins involved in an edit war on the article to continue editing it.

No wonder we have a 10–90 gender-gap crisis; and perhaps this is another example of why admins are often regarded as corrupt on this site. Tony  (talk)  01:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is campaigning, and slams without alerting them about the post. You should follow my recent example and remove this post. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Canvassing? I'm not expecting anyone here would want to dip their fingers in that talkpage—why would you jump into the kind of lion's den that, after all, is an example of why women are turned off being editors. And also, I don't need anyone's support on that page—it's a battle I'd rather pursue by myself. I mention the situation here to inform the community of the state of things. As for Drmies, he doesn't deserve the slightest courtesy after his, and his admins mates', removals of my responses on his talkpage. Tony   (talk)  05:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I now see that Eppstein has himself canvassed explicitly here, just above. Tony   (talk)  05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The post by is an example of appropriate notification - polite and neutrally worded. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women
There currently is a discussion about the future organization of WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Missing female space scientists
Here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list


 * 1) Stephanie A Snedden is a researcher in space science at  Apache Point Observatory, US.
 * 2) Emanuele Daddi is a researcher in space science at  CEA Saclay, France.
 * 3) Michele Limon is a researcher in space science at  Columbia University, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, US.
 * 4) Patrizia A Caraveo is a researcher in space science at  INAF Istituto di astrofisica spaziale e fisica cosmica, Italy.
 * 5) Neta Bahcall is a researcher in space science at  Princeton University, US.
 * 6) Gillian R Knapp is a researcher in space science at  Princeton University Observatory.
 * 7) Andrea Cimatti is a researcher in space science at  University of Bologna, Italy.
 * 8) Alice E Shapley is a researcher in space science at  University of California, Los Angeles, US.
 * 9) Constance M Rockosi is a researcher in space science at  University of California, Santa Cruz, US.
 * 10) Eva K Grebel is a researcher in space science at  University of Heidelberg, Germany.
 * 11) Judith Cohen (scientist) is a researcher in space science at California Institute of Technology.
 * 12) Christine Jones (scientist) is a researcher in space science at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
 * 13) Gabriele Ghisellini is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
 * 14) Laura Maraschi is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
 * 15) Isabella Gioia is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica - INAF, Italy.
 * 16) Deidre Hunter is a researcher in space science at Lowell Observatory.
 * 17) Chryssa Kouveliotou is a researcher in space science at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
 * 18) Laura Ferrarese is a researcher in space science at National Research Council of Canada.
 * 19) Nancy Boggess is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
 * 20) Corinna von Montigny is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
 * 21) Stefi Baum is a researcher in space science at  Rochester Institute of Technology.
 * 22) Judith Young (scientist) is a researcher in space science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

Google Scholar id template
I've just made Google Scholar id for use in external links sections; here's an. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . One thing I have never understood, though - how do you find those IDs in the first place? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks !
 * If you find the person in Google Scholar, the ID is the user= parameter of their profile's URL. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! RockMagnetist(talk) 05:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Canadian women scientists
Canadian Science Publisher are running a series highlight the contributions of Canadian women scientists: http://www.cdnsciencepub.com/blog/Women_in_Science_.aspx


 * Rita Winkler
 * Kathy Bleiker
 * Usha Srinivasan
 * Janet Halliwell
 * Christie Bahlai
 * Harriet Brooks, which is also featured on a recent cover of Canadian Journal of Physics.
 * Deborah Martin-Downs
 * Alwynne Beaudoin
 * Line Rochefort
 * Gwen Bridge
 * Melania Cristescu
 * Carolyn Relf
 * Catherine Anderson (scientist)
 * Andrea Kirkwood

These aren't necessarily all notable, but I figured it would be a good place to mention them. Maybe this source can be used to augment existing articles, or give enough to create a stub/start class article for a motivated editor. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Women in Science events at the University of Oxford
To celebrate the bicentenary of Ada Lovelace, Oxford IT Services, the Bodleian Libraries and Wikimedia UK are running four events next week (Monday 12 October to Thursday 15 October) around Women In Science. These include three events editing, improving and illustrating Wikipedia, plus a Wikisource transcribe-a-thon. If you can make it to Oxford, you'd be welcome to join us, but please email martin.poulter@bodleian.ox.ac.uk in advance. See the blog post for an overview or go to the project pages for more detail on what we're doing.

The Tuesday will also include events at the University of Manchester and University of Edinburgh. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Research guides from the Library of Congress

 * African-American Women in the Sciences and Related Disciplines
 * African Americans in Science & Technology Biographical Sources in the Sciences
 * Biographical Sources in the Sciences
 * Biographical Sources in the Sciences -- General Works and National Sources
 * Biographical Sources in the Sciences -- Life, Earth and Physical Science
 * Blacks in the Sciences and Related Disciplines
 * Women and Minorities in Science and Technology: A Guide to Selected Resources
 * Women in Astronomy: A Comprehensive Bibliography
 * Women in Horticulture
 * Women in Science and Technology
 * Women of Invention: Women Inventors and Patent Holders

Gathered these as part of a larger project I'm working on, but no sense in depriving anyone while I finish. (Ping: )  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography!
Hi everyone! Gamaliel and I are working on a bibliography for this project. Check it out here and add any books, websites, or journals you may be using! I hope you find it useful. Keilana (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A few questions for editors of this project
Hi! I'm working on an article for the Signpost here at Wiki and I would love it if any editors here could answer these questions about last month's women in science edit a thon:

1.	How did you feel about the collaboration? 2.	Has there been an increase in involvement in wikiproject women scientists since the editathon? 3.	How many editors participated? How many were new? Facilitator(s)? Who: volunteers? academics? librarians? 4.	Promotion-- how did you promote the editathon?

Thanks in advance!!! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Feedback please on Maureen Hatch, radiological epidemiologist
Greetings all, I am seeking feedback as to whether the woman epidemiologist, Maureen Hatch, M.P.H, Ph.D. has significant notability as per Wiki standards & guidelines, to create an article on her. She led the Columbia University team that conducted the first epidemiological study of the health effects & death rate impact of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident. She is affiliated with the National Cancer Institute (NIH), Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Radiation Epidemiology Branch; and acted as Senior Director of Operations of Medical Oncology at the University of Pittsburg Cancer Institute. Her bio, research interests and scientific publications are listed here: http://dceg.cancer.gov/about/staff-directory/biographies/K-N/hatch-maureen - Dozens of her scientific publications focus on children, adolescents, and clean-up workers leukemia and thyroid, and other cancers in the Ukraine and Belarus, post-Chernobyl nuclear power plant meltdown. Your thoughts and guidance are appreciated in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * She seems notable to me. A search for her name on google scholar turns up over 300 hits. Seems like there are a good amount of peer reviewed articles citing her work as well as her own publications in peer reviewed journals. Permstrump (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 2016 Malaysia conference
Hello all,

I have just found out that the SCAR 2016 conference is looking to host an edit-a-thon to improve the coverage of prominent female Antarctic researchers. For any members of this wikiproject that are thinking of attending, please let me know if you would be interested in helping out by leaving a message on my talk page. Similarly, feel free to let me know if you've any suggestions of people to cover! T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For those interested, the wikibomb event now has its own webpage (Female Antarctic researcher wikibomb webpage). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 00:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Finkbeiner test
A recent addition to the Guidelines section of the project page says: "Also consider taking into account: the Finkbeiner test for writing biographies of women in science." However, while some of the advice in that test seems appropriate to me, others of it seem to me to be overly dogmatic, and also more aimed at a standalone profile (say as a magazine article) than at an article that is part of a larger encyclopedia. And some of it goes directly against our guidelines. In particular: Is there some way we could incorporate a more nuanced view of this test into our project description? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re "an article must not mention that the subject is a woman": I think this is appropriate advice for the lead; e.g. we should say that Susan Friedlander is a mathematician, not that she is a female mathematician. But we can't reasonably avoid using gendered pronouns elsewhere, and we should use categories that categorize the subject as a woman.
 * Re "an article must not mention the subject's husband's job": my position is that if any subject of a Wikipedia biography is closely related to another subject of a Wikipedia biography (e.g. married to, parent, or child) then we should mention that relation in both articles. And when the husband is not notable but his job has some direct relevance to the subject's biography (e.g. the subject was unable to obtain an academic position because her husband had one and anti-nepotism rules forbade hiring both of them) it can be mentioned. But I agree that there's no need to mention the husband's job when he is not notable and his job is not relevant, and it is also inappropriate to mention a notable husband on the woman's article without giving equal mention to the woman on the husband's article.
 * Re "an article must not mention that the subject is the first woman to do something": if the sources say that this is something the subject is notable for, then definitely we should mention it. It would be nice to live in an egalitarian world where the first female person to do something was as uninteresting and un-noted as the first blue-eyed person to do something, but we don't live in that world, and overcoming prejudice against women is an important part of the life stories of many of our subjects. We shouldn't pretend that it didn't happen.
 * I do agree with the other points about not focusing on child care, nurturing temperament, etc., except where they are directly relevant.

I am not a member of this WikiProject, but these instructions go beyond the scope of the Project and affect general biographies. The following are my views on them:
 * "an article must not mention that the subject is a woman". Very poor idea. Due to the very nature and scope of Wikipedia, readers and editors may often come across a feminine name in a language they are unfamiliar with. If the article does not make the gender clear, the result would be confusion and the false assumption that the subject is male.
 * "an article must not mention the subject's husband's job". Not a particularly controversial idea. In the vast majority of biographical articles on scientists, the existence of a spouse is irrelevant to what makes the subject notable. If Johnny X or Jeannie X discovered a new chemical element, then that is what makes them notable and what is most relevant to the article. Whether they are single, married, or have a harem is of much lesser importance. Details about the spouse such as job or social class should only be mentioned if they affect the subject of the article. We are not a genealogy site that covers occupations and social class changes across generations.
 * "an article must not mention that the subject is the first woman to do something". On the contrary. Breaking gender restrictions or being first in a notable field is what gives notability to these articles. Pioneers in scientific fields should be noted in the lead of a text, and the body should cover when they achieved their "first". A female scientist with success in a male-dominated field is notable, a male scientist achieving success in a male-dominated field is of negligible significance.
 * "focusing on child care", "nurturing temperament". This largely depends on the subject. If the article subject is primarily known for his/her career but the article instead focuses on their family relationships and their paternal/maternal skills, this is most likely a case of Undue weight, where the Wikipedia editors and/or their sources focus on relatively trivial and POV matters. If however the subject is a social scientist like Benjamin Spock who promoted his/her own views on parenting, this may be directly relevant to their importance.Dimadick (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Margaret Murray/archive1
Hello everyone; there's an article languishing at FAC about Margaret Murray, a pioneering early archaeologist and folklorist. It doesn't seem to be capturing the attention of FAC reviewers (other than me)- if anyone has a few hours free, your comments would surely be welcomed by the article's author. Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting article. I'm not a FAC reviewer, but I spotted two minor things: a typo that I'll correct. Also found this sentence confusing: "The historian Amara Thornton has suggested that Murray's Indian childhood continued to exert an influence over her throughout her life, expressing the view that Murray could be seen as having a "hybrid identity" that was both British and Indian." I went to the source referenced (Amara Thornton's journal article), and to my mind, she is proposing that Murray expressed a hybrid transnational identity, both British and Indian. There's a subtle difference. If it's ok with the primary authors/editors, I'll make that change. This weekend will give the article a deeper read - it's really good! Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a closer look- do leave these comments on the FAC page to make sure that the article's author sees them! Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Marie Mercury Roth
I created Marie Mercury Roth based on its listing on Meetup/Philadelphia/2016 GLAM Cafe. I put together a quick article based on the assumption that more in-depth knowledge would have to be obtained by a more dedicated researcher using sources that could not be found with a cursory Web search. The article was almost immediately proposed for deletion on the presumption of its lack of nobility. I have no knowledge that I can use to argue with that, and this autobiographical blog post suggests that the claim may be true. I will leave it in your hands to determine what to do with the article. &mdash;Gordon P. Hemsley→ &#x2709; 08:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Waters
Hi Women Scientist enthusiasts :-) I started a stub article about Elizabeth Waters in my user space. Since she is closely associated with Cochrane, I would appreciate someone else looking it over and moving it to main space. There is plenty of content to bring it to a start class article so it would be great if someone improves it. Thanks! Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, Sydney/FloNight! How do I find it? Hildabast (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's wikilinked in topic header. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxford University Press
Hi all! I wanted to let you know that Oxford University Press is running a "Celebrating Women in STEM" event from now through June that provides free access to some of their resources related to women scientists. You can check out the interactive timeline here. Also, putting on my Wikipedia Library hat, we have many resources that you can sign up for as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What a world
Congratulations to the founder of WikiProject Women Scientists, who is now notable enough for her own Wikipedia article (suitably tagged by this project). Harej (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, Ms. Temple-Wood! I love that WikiProject Women scientists exists. I'm not editing WP actively right now, or this would be one of my projects. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Women statisticians
I created a page today for Olive Jean Dunn: I've given her the tag woman scientist, which she was. But it looks like it's not unusual for a woman statistician who was a scientist not to be tagged as a woman scientist. Maybe someone could go through them? Hildabast (talk) 19:30, 20 March 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. This 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! 21:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Graciela Salicrup
es:Graciela Salicrup looks notable but all the sources I've found are in Spanish, a language I'm not fluent in, and I don't trust Google translate well enough to rely on it. Anyone with better Spanish want to take this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker of Spanish or English, but I can understand both these languages well enough (at least I think I can). I can read and understand the text on http://www.miscelaneamatematica.org/Misc44/C_Gomez.pdf without help from machine translators or dictionaries. If you create the article I can check if the content is in accordance with what the sources say. 189.6.213.242 (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

New system for keeping track of tasks
By request of Keilana I am trying out a new task tracking system for WikiProject Women Scientists here: WikiProject Women scientists. Requests are fed into a central database called Wikipedia Requests and are sorted by category and WikiProject. By keeping them in a centralized database, they can be shared easily with other WikiProjects (including supporting projects such as Women in Red) and they are easier to maintain. Please give it a try and let me know how it works. (Current known bugs: red links don't show up as red links and "internal links" to Wikipedia articles don't work right. I hope to have those problems fixed soon.) Harej (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Help needed on Wikisource
I'm proofreading Mechanism of the heavens by Mary Somerville. There is discussion over whether she is the translator or author of this book, which is certainly at least derived from LaPlace. Any authoritative input would be very welcome.

Using Wikisource text as a primary reference source is an emerging development of collaboration between WS and WP. I would be thrilled to make Mary Somerville an exemplar—providing more "proof" of her outstanding abilities; is there anyone from WP who would like to investigate how best to link her article with her works? Cheers --Zoeannl (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Best to contact me at s:User talk:Zoeannl

Deletion debate for Sarah Ballard
A deletion debate for astronomer Sarah Ballard is underway. - Brianhe (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society
All already have at least stub bios, but the list needs updating for several from the 2015 list and all from the latest elections ("13 (26%) of this year’s intake of Fellows are women and there are two new female Foreign Members" say the RS). Please note the division by "Fellows", "Foreign members" and "Honorary and Statute 12 Fellows". The page is already quite well viewed, and may become more so, as the RS doesn't seem to have done the usual page summarizing the 2016 newbies is hard to find. I presume that as usual, the RS will upload the new official photos in a month or two - they won't have been taken yet. So don't worry too much about photos for now. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there any education projects on female astronomers active?
Hi, I've recently been looking at the new pages feed and seen a wave of about fifteen articles on astronomers (mainly female) by more than ten separate new accounts registered in the last two days. Do we have any school/education projects working on this? I'm wondering if this is a set of accounts for an education project (that should be marked as such) or some kind of sockpuppetry (or the kind of thing I've seen a few times, where someone gets so scared after someone fails to remember WP:BITE that they immediately re-register a new account...) Blythwood (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, forget this. Looked on social media and all these accounts seem to have something to do with a seminar on editing Wikipedia at the AAS228 conference, as described here. Leaving this post here for reference in case anyone else wonders about this. Blythwood (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Female geologists
FYI: This category is being considered for speedy renaming to Category:Women geologists. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me

"Female scientists" or "Women scientists"
When referring to women in science as a group, which term is preferred in articles, "Female scientists" or "Women scientists"? I see a lot of usage for both terms, and it would be a good idea to keep this consistent. Thanks, SST  flyer  15:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "women scientists" is the preferred term. :) Keilana (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, I am not talking about the name of this WikiProject. Both terms are broadly interchangeable, and it may be confusing to readers if we use both terms. The Women in science article, for example, contains 17 instances of "women scientists", 13 instances of "female scientist", and 12 instances of "female scientists". SST  flyer  16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know - but "women scientists" is preferred as a term and should be the one we're using in articles. (I'll go change things around in that article right now.) Keilana (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but has consensus for this been established in previous discussions? If so, would you mind pointing them out to me? Thank you. SST  flyer  17:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe "female (some noun)" is more grammatically correct than "woman (some noun)." With "female," an adjective is modifying a noun, the general form. With "woman," a noun is forced into duty to modify a noun, which is not the standard form. Maurreen (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ungrammatical about either form. The "women" in "women scientists" is just a standard noun adjunct. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the term "male scientists" is far more commonly used than "men scientists". Scott Illini (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, we could simply say "scientists." But what is more often problematic is calling a woman a "female" when referring to her as a human being in the declarative, i.e ("she's a female" versus "she's a woman.")  "Female" is a biological status applicable to other species besides humans, whereas "woman" generally means only humans.  When unclear, "woman" is preferable due to its emphasis on humanity, not simply biology.   Montanabw (talk)  06:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By dictionary,

➀Female: a person or animal that belongs to the sex that can have babies or produce eggs. ➁woman: an adult female person So,woman is more suitable.--Takahiro4 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If we divide by gender, each sex should be treated the same. Would you say "male scientist" or "man scientist"? You've probably heard of a "male nurse" but not a "man nurse". Maurreen (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Usage is not always logical. --JBL (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are some notable female scientists who gained notoriety prior to adulthood? In such cases, wouldn't "female scientists" be more inclusive? 71.218.87.29 (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really.  Montanabw (talk)  05:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The term female is viewed as derogatory by many: http://jezebel.com/the-problem-with-calling-women-females-1683808274 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!
--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources
Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Women in STEM fields has been nominated for discussion
Category:Women in STEM fields, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me

HotArticles subscription
Your HotArticles subscription is now live: WikiProject Women scientists. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

New design
Hello everyone, I have drafted a new layout for WikiProject Women Scientists. The goal is to make the WikiProject easier to use and to make outstanding tasks more prominent. Please review here and let me know what you think. Harej (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Can Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski be added to the list, I didn't see her name? Sabrina_Gonzalez_Pasterski --Eadoss (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Eadoss, to the requests list, or to something else? Harej (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts? Keilana? Harej (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Susan Stover
I'm working on an article on Susan Stover at User:Jlvsclrk/Susan Stover as I saw a very interesting article on her in a horseracing publication. I know a fair bit about the horse racing aspects of the topic but I'm not familiar with what would normally be included in an article on Women scientists. If anyone wants to give it a look-see and make some suggestions about what to add / delete / rephrase, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks from a newbie! Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Vera Danchakoff
While reading a book about Lina Prokofiev I found mention of a Vera Danchakoff who was one of those pioneering women academics who seem to have been almost ignored. So, I started an article. However, I've been hampered by not having access to a university library, not knowing much cell biology, knowing no Russian (and very little French or German!). She excelled at all this (and was good at the piano as well). If anyone is interested the article could do with a lot of help. Thincat (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Australian women in academia wikibomb at ANI
Members of this project might be interested in this thread at ANI: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Joe Roe (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have put some work into saving Belinda Ferrari from this group of Australian female scientists, but am having trouble finding independent sources if anyone could help out. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Of note to the project

 * Article started by at AfD:  Articles for deletion/U. Diane Buckingham.  Montanabw (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/2016 Women in Philosophy Drive
Inspired by the sad passing of Kevin Gorman who was in turn inspired by this very project, a few of us over at WikiProject Women in Red have put together a small project to write articles about women philosophers. You would all be more than welcome to join if this appeals to you (and we already have a few articles about female philosophers of science, which may be particularly interesting for members of this project). Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Hina Rabbani Khar
Hina Rabbani Khar, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

At AfD
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata list of redlinked women scientists
I've just put together a Wikidata-based list which displays the names of women scientists who have biographies in Wikipedia languages other than English. I hope it will inspire some of you to create new articles during the remaining weeks of the Year of Science.--Ipigott (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks useful. Would there be any way to also imclude the languages already linked to the items? I think this would be useful not only for judging how easy something might be to translate, but also because multiple links in more major languages (de, fr, ru, for instance) could be useful as a sign of how notable the subjects are. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Heavily-tagged article
Hey folks! I noticed Colleen Cavanaugh has recently been covered in tags for improvement. I skimmed it quickly, looks like it could use some more refs and some of the language could be de-fluffed a bit. If anyone has time to take a look and start working on it, that'd be great!Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Of interest
Discussion of interest to project members: Talk:Women_in_STEM_fields. Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in STEM fields
We used to have a category: Category:Women in STEM fields but it was deleted following this discussion: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_18. I started a list Draft: List of women in science and technology to try and capture all the women who were originally included in the deleted category, its an uphill battle. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Category:Women in STEM fields was moved to Category:Women in science and technology. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. I was thrown off by the lack of a wp:redirect from the old category name to the new one as is the custom when moving one wiki-page to another.
 * However, the confusion which resulted from this move (which was only supported by two editors and opposed by another) is the direct result of a poor nomination which did not consider the whole category structure and left some categories in never-never land. For example Category:Lists of women in STEM fields which I just added to Category:Women in science and technology (should I have?) and the description of the category still refers to STEM fields even though its name implies that women engineers and women mathematicians are no longer included(?). Pinging (the nominator) who may be able to shed light on this puzzling category move which happened last July. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Research showcase featuring the quality dynamics of Women Scientists
Hey folks! I've been digging into some new quality measurements of articles in Wikipedia. As a first test of measurements, I decided to focus on articles covered by WikiProject Women Scientists. I found some really interesting trends in place.
 * The quality of articles about Women Scientists tracked far behind the rest of the wiki since 2005
 * Starting mid-2013, there's a dramatic change and articles about Women Scientists start to grow much faster than the rest of the wiki
 * While there's a very large proportion of Good Articles about about Women Scientists, there's a much smaller proportion of Feature Articles than we see across the rest of the wiki.

I'm writing a report at m:Research:Quality dynamics of English Wikipedia, but it's still just a stub right now. However, you can get a sneak peek at the results at the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase this Wednesday at 19:30 UTC (7:30PM CET, 1:30PM CST, 11:30AM PST). See mw:Wikimedia_Research/Showcase for details. You'll be able to watch the live stream on a youtube link that I'll post here shortly before the showcase starts. Connect to our IRC channel,, to ask questions and/or participate in back-channel discussion. I'm especially interested in learning what you think might explain the trends we see. I hope to see you there! (I go by "halfak" in IRC) --EpochFail  (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was wrong on the timing. I start *setting up* for the showcase at 1900 UTC.  It actually starts at 19:30 UTC.  I've edited above so that the text does not cause confusion. --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 21:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the link to the live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmrlu5qTgyA  That link should be good for watching the showcase later too. --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

School Editathons
Hello all! We're planning on running some editathons with teenage students to add notable people and details related to Biochemistry & Chemistry - I'd really appreciate any help that people can offer with this, particularly suggestions of pages for the students to create and improve (I've looked at the outstanding requests, but some of them seem to have already been created, so I wondered if there was a way for this list to be updated?). Thanks in advance! Zeromonk (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler
Project participants may be interested in this AfD nom: Articles for deletion/Amy Wechsler — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added some sources to the talk page in case anyone wants to improve the article. Zeromonk (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Some missing mathematicians
In case anyone is looking for new articles to write, there are several women mathematicians (Category:Women mathematicians) without articles, listed at Category talk:Fellows of the American Mathematical Society. As fellows of a major academic society they presumably are notable under WP:PROF (although as usual it would be best if there were something else that we could also say about them more than just this one thing).

The ones I saw with female names are: Patricia E. Bauman, Marilyn Breen, Maria-Carme Calderer, Mónica Clapp, Jane Cronin Scanlon, Laura DeMarco, Ioana Dumitriu, Irene M. Gamba, Shelly Harvey, Jane M. Hawkins, Rebecca A. Herb, Tara S. Holm, Birge Huisgen-Zimmermann, Ellen Kirkman, Carole Lacampagne, Deborah Frank Lockhart, Susan Loepp, Claudia Neuhauser, Barbara L. Osofsky, Emma Previato, Linda Preiss Rothschild, Maria E. Schonbek, Mei-Chi Shaw, Alice Silverberg, Agata Smoktunowicz, Birgit Speh, Gigliola Staffilani, Nancy K. Stanton, T. Christine Stevens, Rekha R. Thomas, Abigail A. Thompson, Michelle L. Wachs, Judy L. Walker, Lynne H. Walling, Katrin Wendland, Elisabeth M. Werner, Anna Wienhard, Ruth J. Williams, Carol S. Wood, Irina Mitrea, Andrea R. Nahmod, Brooke Shipley, and Christina Sormani.

Possibly I missed a few more with more ambiguous names. See the category talk page for suggestions on sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did miss at least three: Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu (done now), Tinne Hoff Kjeldsen, and Jill P. Mesirov. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another: Christel Rotthaus. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All mathematicians on this list have now been added. Brirush (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some women from the 2017 Class of AMS Fellows who still do not have pages. Donatella Danielli, Mei-Chu Chang, Kathryn Hess, Kirsten Eisenträger, and Julia Petsova.

The creation of any new pages in this list would be greatly appreciated. 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC) I have added a list of prominent women in math who either don't have pages or whose pages are stubs to the page for Computer science, technology and math off of the Year of Science page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Year_of_Science/Computer_science,_technology,_and_math. Mvitulli (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Question on Categories
I have noticed that women who were previously included in the Category:Women mathematicians were removed from that category and placed in the Category:American women mathematicians. Why can't we include someone in both categories? I have added Category:Women mathematicians back to some of the pages but not all of them. Marie Vitulli —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Categorization: "if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". Both of these categories are "non-diffusing" as subcategories of Mathematicians or American mathematicians, respectively, meaning that an article listed in American women mathematicians should also be listed in American mathematicians or another of its subcategories. The reason for this is so that we don't ghettoize the women and make it so that people looking in the main category only see men. But that reasoning doesn't apply for American women mathematicians as a subcategory of Women mathematicians. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, David! I now understand that women in the category American women mathematics SHOULD also be included in the category American mathematicians, which, by the way, isn't always the case. But is it legitimate to also include women in the category American women mathematicians in the much larger category of Women mathematicians? Marie Vitulli Mvitulli (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With regard to your last question: no, I don't think it's legitimate, because nationality is not non-diffusing. fgnievinski (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Women Earth scientists
Dear, could you please familiarize yourself with Template:Non-diffusing_subcategory then self-revert at and similar edits. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, all these articles are included in diffusing subcategories of the Category:earth scientists as well, such as Category:American geophysicists, Category:Glaciologists etc. I didn't touch any of the non-diffusing subcategories. The only articles in the Category:earth scientists had been those you had inserted there - don't you think there's a reason for that? The fact that there's a non-diffusing category for women earth scientists doesn't mean that the articles' other categories become non-diffusing as well. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, to quote the template you've linked to: "It includes [earth scientists] that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent. (my emphasis) The result of your actions was that the Category:earth scientists was only populated by articles on women scientists, while all male scientists' articles remained in its subcategories. What would be the purpose of this? The whole idea behind using a non-diffusing category is to leave the parent category's content unaffected by the subcategory, not to repopulate the parent category. Regards, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've already realized that you think your time is more precious than mine, so that you consider it appropriate to give me a one sentence order, or expect me to read the template's text which you, apparently, didn't read yourself. But I would really appreciate if this time you could indicate if you actually read my reply. Thanks, Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
''Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju
Needs more input - AfD about an 11-12 yo girl who developed a software program to help blind people and won some Science Awards. Atsme 📞📧 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Definition of "women scientists" needed
I have just joined this effort and wanted to start with some of the low-hanging fruit. Going through the list of missing articles, it would be helpful to have a definition of who we are calling a scientist. I am going with the standard STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) definition, but what about medicine, economics, public health etc.? Femmto15 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, Femmto15! I've been looking through the "articles to tag" lists and I'm finding a lot of philosophers and theorists in the humanities that are already tagged for this project and I wouldn't think they fit within the scope. Thanks! –gwendy (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Improve Vital Articles representation
On the 1000 Vital articles page, I recently petitioned to swap Emmy Noether for David Hilbert as there were no algebraists on the list, but I also noticed that there were no other women out of the 10 articles allotted for Mathematics. Additionally, Marie Curie was the only woman out of the 20 articles allotted for Inventors and Scientists. The 10,000 Vital_articles/Expanded/People and List of articles every Wikipedia should have pages fared no better. Given that this task force focuses on bridging the representation gender gap in science, I thought I would point out that this should be a major focus point. Writing more articles about women who have made significant contributions in STEM is important, but there needs to be a major push to improve their visibility within the core of Wikipedia. Blueclaw (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence at the Physiological Society and at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group
I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:

I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on, including several clearly notable women scientists. (Did you know that in 2015, The Physiological Society gave all of its awards to women?) Please see also GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.

Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property ; list at. Again, please note any you create at GLAM/HMBRG.

I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.

One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Papers held by libraries
I was able to add to Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin's page that her papers are held by the Bodleian - maybe this kind of information would be useful to add to other prominent women whose papers are held by libraries? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a very common thing to put in the External Links section of a biography article. I recommend trying to find out this information and adding it where appropriate to biographies. Also, these collections often contain excellent sources for that or other articles, many libraries will provide access to documents if you ask for it. (Sometimes there is a small copying fee involved). --Krelnik (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also a Wikidata property for that: . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki-Schools Session at Imperial College
Hello all! We've got a Wiki-session at Imperial today as part of the GLAM/Wellcome residency - school students will be learning a bit about editing and creating pages in their Sandboxes for women scientists (I've pre-checked notability etc.), and some might be making improvements to existing pages. Please bear with the new editors and be patient with them, and get in touch with me if you have any questions! Zeromonk (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Peter and Rosemary Grant
Please could someone review Peter and Rosemary Grant and help to improve its balance? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Help Editing Article on Female Scientist
I recently wrote an article on my professor, Dr. Aradhna Tripati, and these issues came up:

- academic boosterism

- written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (July 2017)

- may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject(July 2017)

Wikipedia even suggested I completely re-write it. Could someone please help edit this page dedicated to a wonderful female scientist? Many thanks.

Samaraharis (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

help needed from cancer research expert - Janet Lane-Claypon
I've improved Janet Lane-Claypon with missing info and added sources (to several very good biographies on her), but it's been tagged as inappropriate tone (I think too gushing) for several years. However, it does seems that she is worthy of praise and is truly a pioneering scientist. Unfortunately I don't know a thing about the subject and the significance of anything she's done. Is there someone who could compare the article against the sources and make sure that her major achievements are properly covered? I will add it to Cleanup but thought I would drop a note here. Thank you! —Мандичка YO 😜 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed all plagiarised text identified by Earwig's Copyvio Detector. The removed text can be paraphrased and content added back, citing the source, now archived at the Wayback Machine. I'm surprised it has taken over a decade to address the copyvio issue. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Blanche Wheeler Williams
A merge discussion at Talk:Blanche Wheeler Williams could use your input  czar  00:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Meg Patterson AFD : neurosurgeon with MBE less notable than her husband (sans MBE)
I recently started an article on the neurosurgeon Meg Patterson and it was immediately AFDd. I do not initiate many biog articles on women, but I cannot remember any of my stubs on men being treated so harshly, with referenced material being slashed, and somebody at the AFD suggesting that she is only notable because of her husband! Mais oui! (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscientific/fringe stuff is usually treat much more harshly than other topics, so that shouldn't come as a big surprise. She's still notable for it, even if she's hardly a model scientist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This constitutes a PA as you are accusing editors of sexism. Also who said she was only notable due to her husband?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no PA, no one was accused of sexism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * " I do not initiate many biog articles on women, but I cannot remember any of my stubs on men being treated so harshly" reads like a statement that this is because she is a woman.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly consider the gross misrepresentation of what was said at the AFD to be an accusation of sexism (and even if is was not meant to be such an accusation it is still a gross fabrication of what was said to put it into the worst possible light).Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You really should read up on de-escalation. It's a very good thing to be familiar with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK
 * Clarify Messages
 * What was said at the AFD was that the only inline citation that was in the article (at the time of the post was posted) was to her husbands obituary, and that this was not enough to establish independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Science and women in Africa
May I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Under-representation of science and women in Africa: Wikimania 2018 an opportunity to bridge the gap which is being discussed on the WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

best practices for research/publications section?
Hi, I'm working on a project to make pages for more Mormon women in the hard sciences. I have exhausted my usual resources for Elizabeth Krider and currently the draft is in my User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/sandbox3. I am a little new to making pages for living scientists and I'm not positive that she passes notability guidelines. Are the news articles that mention her good enough to establish notability? I found some of her articles on Web of Science, should I include any of them in a "publications" section? Or is it better to summarize them in a section on research? thanks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like she would pass WP:PROF as that's aimed more at professors who do research than at science communicators/educators/lobbyists. So instead you're going to have to go through WP:GNG, which needs in-depth coverage of her and her work in reliable non-local publications. The LA Times article is a good start, but is mostly about her class and its students, without much discussion of what Krider brings to it. Most of the other references are either primary (e.g. from her employers) or too non-in-depth to help; in theory they shouldn't hurt either but in practice they do by leading other editors to believe that all the coverage is like that. And the Angelus source just looks like a mistake; it doesn't mention Krider at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at my draft. I think the interview from the Mormon Women Project helps a little, but it's not exactly independent. And I'm not sure what's up with the Angelus source. I managed to find a stable URL for it though; like the other sources it mentions her in connection with her students. I think I'll save the work I've done and wait a few years :-). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Most cited women scientists as per Wikidata
I'm working on Wikidata items around the most cited female authors of scientific articles as another way (as compared to approaches based on counting site links) to prioritize wiki work on women scientists here or elsewhere (e.g. at m:WikiCite). Right now, this set comprises only about 600 women, but it can be grown in multiple ways: Many of the women on the list also have very few statements on their Wikidata items, even though for highly cited people, useful information is likely easier to be found than for people with fewer citations. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * add P21 (sex/gender) to items of highly cited authors without any P21 statements;
 * start items for more scientific articles (e.g. by way of Source, MD); some bots are working on this too, and most scholarly articles that are cited on Wikipedia pages have already been indexed in Wikidata, where they are being used as references to specific statements (example);
 * convert author strings (P2093 statements) into author items (P50 statements) if you are sure of the author's identity, e.g. by way of the dedicated Wikidata game or the author name resolver;
 * add citation information (P2860 statements) to items about scientific papers; some bots are working on this too.
 * Update: the list now has over 1000 entries. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: the list now has over 2000 entries. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 3000. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 4000. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds really cool and I'd love to access the list, but the query is timing out for me. I've only just started learning WikiQuery, so I don't have a good guess as to why the query isn't working. Do you have any ideas? thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Rachel Helps (BYU): Here is a more robust version of the query, and it currently does not time out. We're over 5000 by now. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sweet, thanks! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We're over 10,000. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes for female authors of scientific papers
can be followed via Magnus' SPARQL Recent Changes tool. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting gendered categories
Wikipedia talk:Categorization -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a !voting proposal or RfC, but a discussion draft, and has already had some constructive feedback (e.g. leading with "ghettoization" of articles was a distraction, as were suggesting statistical differences and reasons for them without providing sources). Seeking input on the overall idea.   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was any of those things, nor did I imply that discussion should be conducted here (or anywhere other than the thread which I linked). I merely provided a link to an ongoing discussion, which is permitted under WP:MULTI and WP:APPNOTE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Focus on women mathematicians in February
--Ipigott (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

International Women's Day Oxford 2018
In case you weren't aware, has created Meetups/UK/International Women's Day Oxford 2018. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

AWIS Edit-a-thon today
Hi all. I'm emerging from retirement to assist with an edit-a-thon focusing on women scientists sponsored by the Association for Women in Science at the University of Michigan, which will be held today from 21 to 24 UTC. If any members of this project would like to be online at that time to help polish edits and assist new Wikipedians, that would be awesome. --Danger High voltage! 14:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Hodgkin
Further input would be helpful at Talk:Dorothy_Hodgkin. Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Categories for events
Does anyone here have a preference for how to categorize the administrative Wikipedia event pages for in-person Wikipedia editing events related to women in science?

Perhaps this wikiproject endorses some events and not others. In that case, the only events which should get Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups should be endorsed events, and other events should get Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science. Alternatively, maybe any event which seems to have a women in science theme could be in Category:WikiProject Women scientists meetups, regardless of past affiliation with this wikiproject or any notice.

I am also looking at events for people in science regardless of gender which might have teams or components doing a women in science project, in which case that might get the general category Category:Wikipedia meetups for women in science but I am not sure about other tags.

What does anyone else think of the events in Category:WikiProject Women scientists? The count is only going up. I am looking for a way to showcase all the events to date. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Green – call for participants
Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page, plus our collaboration proposal here. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Outdated statistics
The table captioned "Women scientists articles by quality and importance" is badly out of date. It remains identical as when first posted nearly six years ago! Surely this data cannot be reliable. KalHolmann (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * An admin has offered an explanation at my talk page. "The data from WikiProject Women Scientists (and all WikiProjects) is populated by template," he writes. "If you look at an old revision of a page transcluding the template, it will show you the wikicode of that revision as rendered today. It's rendering today's version of the template. If you want to see old data, you would need to look at the old revisions of the template itself, not old revisions of the page transcluding the template." I have no idea what this means or if it is correct, but nevertheless thought I should add it here. KalHolmann (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I now understand. To see an older version of this table, go here and single-click the desired time/date link. That opens the table as it then existed. KalHolmann (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is a scientist by WikiProject women scientists' standards?
Is WikiProject Women scientists just for articles relating to women in the physical and life sciences? Could we get some clarification on this?

I made an article, Colette Grinevald, which was initially assessed by user Plandu as falling within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists. Then user Johnsoniensis removed the WP Women scientists tag and replaced it with a WP Women writers tag, giving the reason "When I change WP Women scientists to WP Women writers it is because I do not think linguists, sociologists, economists or librarians are "scientists" in the same sense as physical scientists, life scientists, earth scientists or archaeologists."

Does WikiProject Women scientists agree with this "social sciences aren't real sciences" bias? Maybe the project name should be changed for clarification, if that's the case. BlakeALee (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Projects Grant Proposal: Smithsonian Wikimedian-in-Residence for Gender Representation
I wanted to give you a heads-up about a proposal I submitted to establish a Wikimedian-in-Residence for the Smithsonian American Women's History Initiative to catalyze the cultural heritage sector to increase the representation of women on Wikimedia projects while also developing evidence for Smithsonian senior leadership to make an Open Knowledge Coordinator role permanent. The Smithsonian is investing heavily in increasing the resources about women across its 19 museums and 9 research centers and we would like to develop, test, and share models for making these resources more widely available online. We have a 4-year digital curator coming on to develop resources on the history of the Smithsonian's female scientists since 1846 which would be relevant to this project. I welcome your feedback and hope we can figure out ways to partner to increase the number of female editors and articles! --Digitaleffie (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson
There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer review request: Ruby Payne-Scott
Hello! I've added a bunch of content and references to Ruby Payne-Scott, and have also created a peer review request. This is my first time trying my hand at rewriting an article and I'd very much appreciate experienced editors to review. Thanks! ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 03:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on The NeuroGenderings Network
RfC on "debates" section, comments welcome. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

searching for female myrmecologists
hi all! i'm working on expanding the article Fungus-growing ants (and those related to it). i'd like to add information from research by female myrmecologists, but when i looked on wikidata for some, only 4 showed up, and it seems that none of them study Attini. can anybody help me find some more? Sbbarker19 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fellows in the AAAS
Hey everybody! This is a repost of my message at WP:Women in Red... Mix 'n match has a list of American Association for the Advancement of Sciences fellows. Every woman with a fellowship here (ie every woman on the list) meets the notability standards for Wikipedia! If you would like to help, the link is here. When these women are in Wikidata, they get automatically pulled for redlists!

If you set the action on "match mode", it's a super quick (and personally, very fun) way to match and create Wikidata items with some women (lots of men too). But, eventually, it would be awesome to see a graph of women who have been elected fellows over time and by field/division (there is a huge gap in engieering, it seems), so if you'd like, when you add somebody, you can put this information: - add the statement "sex or gender" and enter "female" - add the statement "occupation" and enter "scientist" or more specific terms (eg. "chemist" or "engineer") if you know it - add the statement "award received" and enter "Fellow of the AAAS" - add qualifier "point in time" and enter the year - add qualifier "field of work" and enter the section's title (eg. chemistry or biological sciences, etc)

This sounds like more than it is, and if anybody knows of faster ways to do it, please let me know! Sbbarker19 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe everyone already knows this, but there are actually two different meanings for "Fellow of the AAAS", for two different organizations. Besides the one this comment was about, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, there is also Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Both kinds of fellows are automatically notable under WP:PROF (the American Academy ones even more so than the other one). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion
I propose that WikiProject Women in Psychology and WikiProject Women of psychology are merged into WikiProject Women scientists. This has been discussed previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women of psychology. The projects have at least one active member each : and  and a good todo list. Merging these very small projects and possibly converting them into a task force could serve to recruit more editors.Trialpears (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Psychology is an enormous discipline and I believe it should have its own WikiProject distinct from the other sciences. The WikiProject Women in Psychology aims to directly address the Association for Psychological Science Wikipedia Initiative, and should not get lost. Brooks patty (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe a merger would be appropriate, as the only active member, then no merger should occur. I'll remove the tags. Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Women of psychology is tagged as inactive, and I'd be inclined to call it defunct. Nothing of substance has occurred there since 2014, and they never even started tagging articles. As for psychology being an enormous discipline, there are only 109 articles in Category:Women psychologists. That's about the right size for a task force. So maybe the project would get more attention if it became a task force in this project. Besides, it's confusing having two wikiprojects with nearly identical names (in Psychology vs. of psychology). RockMagnetist(talk) 01:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

antarctic women scientists
Hi all, I saw this article about women scientists in Antarctica that seemed promising for new biographies. I'm super swamped lately in my personal life and don't have a lot of time. Thought I'd put this here in case anyone else has some time! Enwebb (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Archaeologists?
I was just curious, would archaeologists fall into this realm? I know that there is a field of archaeological science in particular. So would someone who has put out work on carbon dating or is known for their work in something like this be considered a scientist? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would certainly think so! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Women archaeologists is parented by Women social scientists and then Women scientists. It's a tad dubious, imo, as many art historians of early periods are, or call themselves, archaeologists. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that some archaeologists may not fit well into this project, but I definitely think those publishing research on carbon dating would. Also (and maybe you already know this) - any women archaeologists can be tagged with in the Archaeology WikiProject with the associated women in archaeology task force. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm trying to make sure that I properly tag articles with this WP's tags when I see them, so I will probably be asking more questions. On that note though, I looked through the talk page and saw a discussion about people in the field of medicine, such as nurses and physicians. It looked like the general consensus was that health professionals would only fall into the scope of this WikiProject if they published literature? If so, what types of literature would fit here? Also, would archivists fall into this scope? The field of archiving is referred to as archival science, so would they fit here as a rule or would it be like the health professionals and they would only fit if they've put out literature?
 * I know the second one is a little out of left field, but it's something I've been wondering. Essentially, if something is often referred to as "_____ science" would that fall into the scope of this project? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red's stub contest is starting now
Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve coverage of women in science on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Assessment scale examples for importance
Is everyone comfortable with the examples columns on WikiProject Women scientists/Assessment? I have very mixed feelings about whether they should be entirely biographies. Perhaps it is better to suggest that someone is more important than G cells, about as important as the continuing fraction 0.999... but less important than the UK Labor Party and Kindergarten, than to compare them to other people? EllenCT (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd be happy if the examples were all biographies for this project. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Index of women scientists articles
What is the primary purpose of the 'Index of women scientists articles' article?

Is it meant to list the most notable women scientists? Or would it be better converted into a List of Lists article, just pointing at articles like List of female scientists before the 20th century, List of female scientists in the 20th century and List of 21st-century women scientists, plus subject-specific lists, like List of women in mathematics. What do people think? Kj cheetham (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ebola vaccine researcher would make a great DYK

 * Judie Alimonte. Judie Alimonti was one of Canada's unsung scientific heroes Potential collaboration with WikiProject Medicine? Oliveleaf4 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how it works, but might be worth adding to Wikipedia Requests? Kj cheetham (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)