Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green#Hot 100 project

 Women in Green Homepage Current Featured Content DYK 2025 Goal Tracking Events Talk/Discussion 

Hot 100 project

[edit]

In 2025, one of our goals is to submit some of the articles on our Hot 100 list as Good Article Nominations (GAN). In this talk page discussion, we'll be coordinating articles that our users may want to take on for improvement and eventually nomination. So if you see an article on the list that you are interested in, feel free to add it to this list and mark it as something you intend to contribute to over this year. If you see someone else has already added an article you're interested in, you can still add yourself and then collaborate with that user on improvements. Happy editing! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]
  1. Rosa Luxemburg – Polish-German Marxist revolutionary (1871–1919)
  2. Rosa Parks – American civil rights activist (1913–2005)
    • According to the revision history statistics, you're actually the top editor by authorship attribution! In terms of major projects, I am currently working on Dolores Huerta's page and the GA review drive, so it might be a bit before I can get to her. I think my first planned step is to convert relevant book citations to sfn format. If you think you have time to do that before I do, feel free! But also no pressure. I'll get to it eventually if nobody else does. Spookyaki (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rani of Jhansi – Prominent leader of the 1857 Indian rebellion
    Aiming to do a total rewrite and nomination in the next couple of weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: Do you need any help on the article? I'm well-versed in that period of Indian history and am experienced in copyediting. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Took a bit longer than anticipated, but now up for GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: Amazing effort as always! It's looking fantastic. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now passed Grnrchst. Probably going straight on to FAC ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29: Incredible! Thank you so much for your hard work. Do you have an entry in future suggestions you'd like to move into the Hot 100? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Töregene Khatun is probably most up my alley. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added! --Grnrchst (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

If you have something to say about the Hot 100, feel free to discuss it here. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spookyaki and BennyOnTheLoose: Fabulous to see interest in improving the Rosa Parks article further! I recently found out from Women in Red that the biography on Parks was the first ever biography about a woman to be written for Wikipedia, so getting it to GA would be a massive milestone for us. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand the Rosa Parks article has passed! Not sure what the procedure is for removing/replacing a Hot 100 article once it's been completed, but it's done. Spookyaki (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing work Spookyaki, this article looks incredible! I've removed its entry from the Hot 100, but as you are the one that improved it to GA, would you like to do the honours of recommending one from "Future suggestions" to replace it? --Grnrchst (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think I'll go with Audre Lorde. She fits fairly well into the kinds of articles I like to work on, and there's been a lot written about her, so a lot of material to work with. Spookyaki (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added! Thanks for the recommendation. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the Hot 100 is currently the Hot 99. @Riley1012, since you last nominated Marta, did you want to select someone from the Future suggestions list to add? If not, I think the article on the list with the most pageviews is Assata Shakur (though she did die recently, so those numbers are probably inflated) followed by Hillary Clinton. Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong opinions, thanks! - Riley1012 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's alright with folks, I'll add Clinton then. Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green article alerts

[edit]

I was missing articles from WikiProject Women's sport among the alerts listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Article alerts and upon further inspection it seems that there are more women-related WikiProjects not included there. Should the one's with 'women' in the title perhaps be added? – Editør (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør: Definitely add any of the projects still missing. Thanks for catching this. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how to do this though, add multiple projects, if it is possible at all. – Editør (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each article alerts page can only take one "banner" input so the best suggestion would be making sure that articles tagged in WikiProject Women's sport are also tagged with WikiProject Women so they can be picked up by the existing article alert. czar 13:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That works for individual articles, but it's not really a solution for all these projects. – Editør (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination

[edit]

Hi, if anyone is interested: I've put Al-Altan, which was initially improved as part of the Around the World in 31 Days event, up for an FAC nomination. All comments welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's athletics GANs

[edit]

Not having enough time to participate in last October's around the world event, I've tried make up for it by reviewing a DYK nomination and an unreviewed GA nomination (almost done now) both from the event. And in November, I have nominated this women-related athletics article that I'd like to bring to your attention:

And while I was waiting for it to be reviewed, I have also worked on and nominated these four all relatively short articles that are written in a similar style and that you are welcome to review (possibly for points for January's backlog drive?):

For comparison, see 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles that passed its GAN during the going back in time event from last June. – Editør (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Sibella Brown

[edit]

I'm working on getting Margaret Sibella Brown ready for FAC. Comments would be appreciated at peer review RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next edit-a-thon?

[edit]

Hey all, hope you're all doing well! The March equinox is now only a week away, so I thought I'd ask if folk here would be up for another edit-a-thon around May/June. It's been a while since we've done an un-themed wildcard edition, so it could be nice to let loose and contribute without any set goals for countries or time periods. Let me know if you're interested in participating and what times work best for you, and I'll look into getting an event set up. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to participate. May is better for me than June I think. Wildcard sounds good! Spookyaki (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A May wildcard event sounds good! Thanks Grnrchst. I'll be away travelling in late April/early May, but am happy to participate after I'm back. Let me know if you'd like me to tackle any of the prep tasks in advance. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors could benefit from WiG events more evenly spread out over a year. Since 2021, there has been an event in October, so I would prefer one opposite in the year in April. Choosing between May or June, I would vote for the earlier option of May. – Editør (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The event page is up! If you fancy participating, feel free to sign up. As always, if you're up to do 20-minute assessments, please add your name to that section. I'll get invites sent out some time this week or the next. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About these 20-minute assessments, would a mini review like that of Kirsty Coventry below be what you are looking for? If so, I could maybe help out here. – Editør (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør: Aye something like that. Feel free to look at the recent 20-minute assessments for Petrona Eyle (by Alanna the Brave), Delonida Rodrigues (by BennyOnTheLoose), or Paulina Luisi (by asilvering) if you want a better feel for it. It just requires a wee read of the article and bullet points with things you notice that could be improved before a GA nomination. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, also for the examples. – Editør (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsty Coventry

[edit]

Now that Kirsty Coventry has been elected present of the International Olympic Committee, her article seems to be a good candidate for GA. In particular, many details lack inline citations and several of the bullet-point listings would be better presented as running text. Perhaps those of our contributors who are more familiar with the world of sports would like to help out.--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør: This sounds like it might be up your alley! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind helping out, if someone is planning to take this article on. – Editør (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see some significant improvements have already been made but it's still lacking inline citations. I wouldn't mind "taking this on" if I can rely on support from the sector. Let's see how things go over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott Perhaps I could do the GA review, but that would mean I cannot substantially contribute to writing the article. At this stage, I can do a mini review and give some pointers on how I believe the article could be improved: crop the infobox photo, expand the early life section (include birth date, when did she start swimming), use inclusion criteria for the competitions mentioned in the swimming career section (which competitions are discussed and which are not, then make sure all the right ones are included), expand the political career section (is she member of a political party, does she have a political ideology, did she introduce any legislation, did she have support besides criticism), consider either expanding the short personal life section or merging it with the early life section, add a clear overview of her personal bests mentioned in a section heading (in a table or otherwise), rearrange the columns of the medals table so it makes sense in a chronologically ordered table (first should probably be a year column, the second the competition name), and remove the generic links of the see also section. – Editør (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør:: Thanks for these suggestions. There has recently been considerable press coverage in various languages in connection with her new appointment. All this should help. As time permits, I will try to improve the article. I am happy to see that Figureskatingfan has offered to help out. Let's see how it goes over the next few weeks. I certainly think we should be able to do a pretty good job by June. I really appreciate your taking an interest in this one. Covering a sports personality will be a new challenge for me.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bethan Laura Wood

[edit]

The English designer Bethan Laura Wood currently has a solo exhibition at London's design museum. As good time as any to improve our article about her! I've made a few minor improvements and have also started collecting potentially useful references, both on the article's Talk page (using a Refideas template, if this is of interest), as well as on Wikidata d:Q102090570. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ginette Neveu

[edit]

I should appreciate any preliminary thoughts about the possibility of raising the article on Ginette Neveu to GA status. Thanks in advance, Yadsalohcin (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 20-minute GA assessments are up during the May Good Article Editathon. Might not hurt to post the article there. Spookyaki (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination

[edit]

Hi all. I nominated Mother Solomon as my first FAC last month. It is close to timing out, though, so any participation would be appreciated. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination for Rosa Parks

[edit]

Finally getting around to trying the very scary FAC process. From what I understand, having some sort of quorum of supporting comments is necessary for promotion, so just going to leave the link here. Thank y'all for your time! Spookyaki (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next edit-a-thon

[edit]

Autumn is approaching and we'll soon be having our regularly-scheduled October edit-a-thon. So I was wondering if anyone had ideas for this one. To coincide with our push to whittle down the Hot 100, I was thinking it would be good for us to do an edit-a-thon focused on vital articles. @Czar was kind enough to generate a list of vital articles about women and women's works, which has just over 2,000 articles for us to improve. Obviously the scope of a vital edit-a-thon would be rather limited, so if you have alternative ideas for an October edit-a-thon, please float some of them here. Also, if you're interested in helping coordinate this edit-a-thon, or other events in the future, I'm sure @Alanna the Brave and I would greatly appreciate another hand. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a vital edit-a-thon might be interesting. The main thing to note, I think, is that working on vital articles is somewhat intimidating for new and even experienced editors. That probably means less participation overall and probably fewer new members being drawn to the project (which I think is a goal of these edit-a-thons), but it might incentivize people to work on articles that they might not otherwise be inclined to work on, which I think would be a good thing.
Some alternatives, besides the mainstays (Around the World, Back in Time), could include Women in STEM (which I think Women in Red tends to run in October, so could coordinate with them), or, if you're willing to give it until November, you could do one centered around Asian women for Asian Month.
I'd also be willing to help coordinate, if you're looking for help! Spookyaki (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a brief remark, I noticed some articles are missing on that list, and upon further inspection it seems to be only including WikiProject Women articles, not subprojects like WikiProject Women's sport articles, so this is probably something to keep in mind. – Editør (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør: Good catch. I'll have a look at populating some lists for each of the sub-projects. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I do like the idea of these more specific focuses, like on field or geographic region. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave this list of suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green/Archive 7#August check-in & plans for next WiG Editathon last year: one for each letter, as many different professions or claims to notability as possible, women that have won different awards (Nobel prizes, Olympic medals, etc), born in each month of the year or day of the month, or as many different native languages as possible. I personally think different professions would be fun because it would encourage us to branch out but in a way where there are a lot of options. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for bringing this back up! An event for different professions would definitely be an excellent way for use to expand our focus. Any ideas for an event name along these lines (i.e. like "Around the World"/"Back in Time")? --Grnrchst (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of great suggestions. :-) Just as a thought: compared to professions, letters of the alphabet may be easier (and clearer) in scope to plan an event around. If we go with professions, we might have to do more work to clarify event goals and what counts as a "profession" (e.g., Does a profession have to be paid? Would two doctors in totally different fields count as two different professions, even though they're both doctors? Are we aiming for a specific number of professions from across different sectors?). Women in STEM or Asian women both sound like good possibilities too, with a fair amount of flexibility. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking "profession" in a very loose sense here. Not even professional occupations so much as just claims to notability to see how much of a variety we can get. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "occupation" (i.e. one's role in society) would be a better way to frame it than "profession"? An edit-a-thon about What Women Do, rather than when or where they're from. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: "Occupation" does sound clearer to me (and I like "What Women Do" as a possible title!). @Thebiguglyalien: If variety is the sole goal, but there's no set target or objective for participants, I think the event could end up feeling much the same as our "Wildcard" events. Maybe we could aim for participants to nominate/review 31 different occupations (or whatever number seems reasonable), and we keep a running tally? Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The average number of nominations for the past five events is around 29, though Wildcards tend to have more. If you exclude Wildcards, it's around 24. I feel like ~25 would be a pretty good number to aim for (26 for the alphabet one wouldn't be bad either, though I don't know that I'd want a hard cap of 26). Spookyaki (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that we're aiming for nominations and reviews, so 24 nominations + a handful of reviews should get us to 31. I'd actually like to see how we can encourage more reviews, as our edit-a-thons tend to have fewer reviews than nominations (June and October 2023 were notable outliers). Perhaps mentioning pledges and review circles on the event page could help? --Grnrchst (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanna the Brave and Spookyaki: Ok, I've gone ahead and created the event page for What Women Do. If you're still up to co-coordinate it, then feel free to add your names to the list. We still need to create all the relevant templates, and after that, send out invites to the mailing lists and relevant WikiProjects and put up a Watchlist notice. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: Hey, would you be able to create another barnstar for this event? Something along the lines of the women in business, women in engineering or women in health logos would be a nice touch for the event's theme. Thanks in advance. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, BennyOnTheLoose, Caeciliusinhorto, Mujinga, and Vanamonde93: Courtesy ping to some of our past 20-minute assessors. If you're up to give 20-minute reviews for newer nominators in next month's event, I'm sure we'd appreciate your help. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect I'm going to be low on time/spoons for this kind of thing but do go ahead and ping me to the 20-min assessment page when it's up - or is it just going to be done on the main event page this time? -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm unlikely to have the time to actually write GAs or do GARs, so I can chip in here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help with 20-minute assessments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, Vanamonde93, BennyOnTheLoose, and Spookyaki: Hello 20-minute assessment team! If you haven't already, I recommend bookmarking the 20-minute assessments page so you can spot new requests quickly once they start in October. You can also see past assessment examples on that page. As a reminder: the goal is to spend *roughly* 20 minutes looking for any major GA criteria-related issues affecting an article before it's nominated for GA (minor issues can be left for the full GA review to take care of). As always, remember to be kind in your recommendations to new and less experienced editors. :-) We've been promising a turnaround time of 48 hours for these assessment requests in past events, but I think that's getting tougher to follow through on (bigger uptake now), so I've changed that to 72 hours this time. Just keep an eye out for them, and do what you can. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My watchlist is chaos, so I'm prone to missing new ones - happy to be pinged to the page if we're getting behind. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it would help to have another pair of hands on deck, I’d be happy to do 20 minute assessments as well. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Another pair of hands is always helpful -- thanks! Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the 20min assessment page to my watchlist! Looking forward to the editathon. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! What templates need to be created?
I can also do 20-min assessments if needed. Spookyaki (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Details for the new event need to be added to Template:WikiProject Women in Green and we'll need to create the new invite template (along the lines of what I put in the event templates section). --Grnrchst (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: and @Spookyaki: I'll update a new invite template this weekend. Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grnrchst and Spookyaki: I've updated the WiG mailing list, and have prepped the invite for send-off to members. Once we've each checked the editathon page for final edits/adjustments, could one of you request the mass message send-off? It looks like WomenArtistUpdates is currently on wiki-break and cannot accept graphics requests, so we may have to create the event barnstar ourselves (if you would like to tackle it, you're very welcome to, or I can try to put something together later this week). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst and Spookyaki: I've attempted a new barnstar draft for the editathon. Feedback? Adjustments? Alanna the Brave (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Spookyaki (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am late to the party Grnrchst. Alanna the Brave has created a cracking good logo. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates: Aw -- thank you. I looked through your past logos to figure out the upload & licensing steps. :-) I hope your wiki-break was restful! Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

[edit]

Sorry if there is a better avenue to ask- I'm trying to get Hunter Schafer to FA- and so I have started a Peer Review. Can someone give some remarks as what needs to be done for it to achieve FA criteria. HSLover/DWF (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tables could be improved following the manual of style for the acessibility of tables. I've tried to improve the Film table as an example. Success with the article! – Editør (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I did forget that we have to make the tables (and article) accessible. However, I meant content wise, does it seem complete? Thank you! HSLover/DWF (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the lead section is decent, but I think it could still be improved. I will try to give some pointers. You may want to approach it differently, but hopefully this feedback can still help you think about that.
The lead is an article summary, and in my opinion this is ideally not a shortened version of the article text in chronological order. The lead of a Wikipedia article can also be used by external search engines, specifically of a biographical article. How much is shown and where it is cut off is not always the same, so maybe you could check some engines to see if and how it is used. But this means that it matters how the lead is structured.
I think the first sentence should typically define the article subject. Is the subject well-enough defined if someone stops reading after the first sentence? Or is it still incomplete, is something important missing? For instance, is Schafer also an activist? The different elements in the first sentence should be ordered from more to less important, which you can determine by considering the article body.
I think the rest of the first paragraph should describe the most important aspects of the subject, ideally more important comes before less important. If someone stops reading the lead, at any point, the more important information should have already been read and only less important information should still be coming. Are all important aspects included and well ordered? Are there things in the first paragraph that are not important to understand what the article subject is about? For instance, is "Born in Trenton, New Jersey" really the most important? Or could it even be left out?
And I think the other paragraphs of the lead should probably have each a certain scope. For instance, if Schafer is known for acting, modelling, and activism you may want to spend one paragraph on each of these, again ordered from more to less important. If paragraphs would otherwise get too short or if certain activities are hard to separate, you could obviously combined them. Is there anything left in the article body that should have been mentioned in the lead but isn't? Is there anything that could be left out?
I hope that helps! I will leave the rest of the feedback to others. Success! – Editør (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's very great advice! HSLover/DWF (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Computer Science

[edit]

Just wanted to throw out some important women in Computer Science if anyone is interested.

  • Ada Lovelace - Considered to be the first computer programmer 100 years before Alan Turing and modern computers
  • Grace Hopper - US Navy Rear Admiral that invented the first computer compiler for COBOL
  • Shuah Khan - A key player in the development of the Linux Kernel. The first woman Linux Foundation fellow.
  • Margaret Hamilton - The lead software engineer for the development of the Apollo landing computer. Her work created the foundation for exception handling.

Hope everything goes well with your event!--v/r - TP 22:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Padukone

[edit]

WP has a featured article about Indian actress Deepika Padukone. She had acted in My Choice (2015 film). She has been in the news again this October25 too for comparative critiques.

Though I am not expert in Bio, Film and FA level articles, preima facie, my perception My Choice (2015 film) has only a passing mention in the article Deepika Padukone. I wish and request other users to visit both the articles and review / comment / input at Talk:Deepika Padukone#"My choice", insufficient mention? Bookku (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project scope

[edit]

Hi! So I've been thinking, might it make sense to expand the scope of this project to include gender minorities more broadly? Per The Conversation, if binary women constitute a minority of articles on the Wiki, non-binary people are "virtually absent". Somebody with more proficiency in Wikidata analysis could probably provide more concrete statistics, but I imagine there is a similar disparity in Good Articles and that this disparity is even greater for people who are positioned, to various degrees and in various ways, outside the hegemonic western gender binary (two-spirit people, hijras, muxe—just to name a few). I don't think we would need to change the name (and don't know if we would want to), but I do think that this project (and maybe Women in Red, though I'm not active there) is well-positioned to address gender disparities like this on Wikipedia. Not a formal proposal or anything, just testing the waters. What do folks think? Spookyaki (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up! Given this is a women-focused project, there is the potential for problems if we decide to include people who explicitly reject binary categorisations into a "Women+" kind of thing. Anecdotally but some of my own nb pals have expressed frustration at these kind of "Women + Non-binary people" groupings. Instead I wonder if there should be a dedicated project for improving coverage of non-binary people. I'll note that there isn't currently a WikiProject with a focus on non-binary people; the LGBTQ+ studies project has a broader scope and the Gender studies project is inactive. If we were to propose a dedicated project for others to join, I'd definitely be supportive of that. --Grnrchst (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, speaking for myself as a nonbinary person, it is frustrating when we are grouped in such a way that frames us as being "women-lite" or that exclude people based on essentializing and often racist and transphobic "masculine" aesthetic categories (AMAB people, trans men, butch women, Black women). My proposal would be to change the mission statement from ...an attempt to bring core articles on women and women's works up to minimum Wikipedia:Good article (GA) status to something like ...an attempt to bring core articles on gender minorities (people who are marginalized based on gender) and their works up to minimum Wikipedia:Good article (GA) status, replacing "women" as the primary criteria for inclusion in the project entirely while still including them as an essential part of the framework.
Admittedly, doing this in the framework of the Women in... projects risks subsuming nonbinary and other identities under the framework of western womanhood. However, I think it also provides a unique opportunity to promote epistemic solidarity among people whose exclusion from traditional knowledge frameworks is, if not the same, at least similar. Basically, I would view it as a form of strategic essentialism: taking advantage of the existing Women in... frameworks to promote alliances (and resource-sharing) between people writing about women and people writing about gender minorities more broadly (something that would not happen in the same way under a separate project), as well as getting more articles that desperately need them to GA, of course. Spookyaki (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]