This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This category was nominated for deletion on 27 June 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
This category was nominated for renaming on 18 July 2006. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
This category was nominated for renaming on 4 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This category was nominated for renaming on 27 April 2013. The result of the discussion was No consensus.
After reading the relevant discussion and determining that my comments should be posted here, I believe that
The contributions of women to science (and other fields) have long been neglected and even deliberately discounted, and this is something that Wikipedia can and should rectify.
Over-categorization can make for a messy structure which doesn't add to the utility of the encyclopedia.
It is important not to ghetto-ize minority groups or individuals through classification.
So the questions are begged:
Where, in terms of encyclopedia structure, does a list of minority achievers belong with relation to any field of endeavour?
What guiding principles are most relevant for determining such a structure? (I'll do my own research on this, being a relative newbie here.)
What new guiding principle(s), if any, is (are) required to address this general issue?
The term "women scientists" is grammatically atrocious. Can't we make this "female scientists"? I suppose the incorrect use of "women" as an adjective is so firmly entrenched in Wikipedia's categories that this would require a major overhaul, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiwendil42 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on Brenda Milner's page and would like to add her to this list, but not sure what I need to do.
sp (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
seems like this is done. You add categories to the bottom of the page in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category has tags for both diffusing and non-diffusing. It can only be one of the two. But which? Crispulop (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is non-diffusing with regard to its parents, and diffusing with regard to its sub-cats. I think. Confusing, certainly. I wonder how correctly this is maintained. A clearer explanatory note would be good. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
