Talk:List of female fellows of the Royal Society
![]() | List of female fellows of the Royal Society is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 8, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hertha Ayrton's 1902 candidature to be the first woman elected Fellow of the Royal Society was turned down on the basis that as a married woman she had no standing in law? |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nicole Grobert
[edit]I am not familiar enough with the organisation of this list to add Nicole Grobert. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- She is what they call a "Research Fellow" rather than an actual fellow, so doesn't qualify for this list. Follow the link on her page. Give it 15 years maybe. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- They make it not easy for a German to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Undiscussed rename
[edit]Yet again, we see an undiscussed rename of an article to remove capitalisation [1]
And yet, what does the sourcing say? List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660 – 2007 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Same editor has done the same thing to the List of Fellows of the Royal Society. Again, without discussion. Oronsay (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I linked the relevant discussion in the edit summary. Did you check? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course - I took part in that discussion. But I don't believe it's relevant here. They're not presidents, they're not in the US. Also, this was still undiscussed here. You can't simply pull an unrelated discussion from months ago, on a different group, out of the air and then just use it as a justification without even offering the chance for discussion to the audience for this article who are likely to be different and to have different sources and opinions leading to a different consensus. If you had at least noted on this talk: page "I am planning to rename this page, based on another discussion <here>" before moving it, that would have been a start. But, as always, you simply have zero respect for the views of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's called WP:BOLD. When the pattern and consensus are well established, as here, there's no reason not to just do it. If you object, revert, per WP:BRD. Then we'll discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course - I took part in that discussion. But I don't believe it's relevant here. They're not presidents, they're not in the US. Also, this was still undiscussed here. You can't simply pull an unrelated discussion from months ago, on a different group, out of the air and then just use it as a justification without even offering the chance for discussion to the audience for this article who are likely to be different and to have different sources and opinions leading to a different consensus. If you had at least noted on this talk: page "I am planning to rename this page, based on another discussion <here>" before moving it, that would have been a start. But, as always, you simply have zero respect for the views of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I linked the relevant discussion in the edit summary. Did you check? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Revert and restore capitalisation
[edit]- Support Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The most recent relevant discussion was at Talk:List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States#Requested_move_27_July_2019, after which the consensus principle has been applied to hundreds of other articles without incident. The use of "fellows" here is just like "presidents" there. Why would you capitalize? Dicklyon (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm entirely in support of AD's annoyance at Dicklyon's typically high-handed approach, but on this occasion I think he is (for once) right. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- "high-handed" means "using power or authority without considering the feelings of others." But I have zero power or authority here, and I did consider the possibility that others might feel like capitalizing. I consider such possibilities any time I move an article. Usually, though people will see the consensus, especially if I provide a relevant link, and I seldom get any pushback. If you look at my move log you'll see nearly 100 article moves of this sort, with lists of chancellors, vice-chancellors, vice-admirals, vice-presidents, governors, admirals, administrators, acts and measures, top 40 albums, depression-era outlaws, delegates, and fellows. I didn't really expect more reaction from fellows than from the others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- He's done it again - List of fellows of the British Academy! Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- So is your concern something about the word "Fellows"? Or about British societies? Or the Royal Society and British Academy in particular? Is there some pattern to which caps you will find necessary? Not sure where to take this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- "Fellow of the British Academy"/Fellow of the Royal Society" and similar "Fellow of leaned society" are honours/awards and not positions/jobs. So they should maintain their full capitalisation. MOS:JOBTITLES doesn't apply to them. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- "When the pattern and consensus are well established, as here,"
- Do you seriously believe, having seen the comments here in previous days, that there was some "consensus" to support your page move this morning?
- This is time for a TBAN and removal of PageMover rights. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- So is your concern something about the word "Fellows"? Or about British societies? Or the Royal Society and British Academy in particular? Is there some pattern to which caps you will find necessary? Not sure where to take this discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured list candidates (contested)
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Biography articles of living people
- WikiProject Women in Red meetup 9 articles
- All WikiProject Women in Red pages
- List-Class history of science articles
- Low-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- List-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- List-Class List articles
- Low-importance List articles
- WikiProject Lists articles
- List-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- List-Class Gender studies articles
- Low-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- List-Class Women scientists articles
- High-importance Women scientists articles
- WikiProject Women scientists articles
- List-Class biography articles
- List-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles