This page 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 page 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 page is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This page is of interest to WikiProject Women in Red.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Year of Science, a collaborative effort to improve the content of science content on Wikipedia. To learn more about how to participate, visit Wikipedia:Year of Science/Get Involved.Year of ScienceWikipedia:Year of ScienceTemplate:Year of Science bannerYear of Science articles
@Rosiestep, Keilana, and T. Anthony: Can anyone help with adding recently created articles, e.g. for August and now for September? I see from User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult and its history that many more were created than those currently listed although I realize August was a holiday month.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Eleanor Elizabeth Bourne had been tagged by this project and listed on the project page as one of the articles created by the project in June 2016. While I am 100% in favour of the objectives of this project, my support doesn't extend to taking credit for other people's work (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism). As the history of the article shows, that article was developed in June 2016 by Mrsinna and, as documented here, this took place as part of First World War Wikipedian in Residence at the State Library of Queensland. I am unsure of how the list of articles on this project page were collected but on 1 July when this article was added to the list, its contributors were only Mrsinna and a bot. Can I suggest the entries in the list are reviewed to ensure this project really did contribute to them. Kerry (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the template transclusions were way off from the number of articles listed on the page, so started adding it to talk pages earlier today. I'll hold off on adding it to others until we can sort out whether the list is to include all articles about women in science created/improved in that period, or just those created/improved as part of (or by participants of) this virtual editathon. Ipigott, was adding this one a mistake or is it incorrect to assume the latter interpretation of list inclusion? Thanks. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see in the section immediately above that they may have been added based on subject, independent of participation. Is this the standard means of inclusion? It would catch those that were created for this event but not added, but I would presume to see other comments like Kerry's. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally with these kind of events, you compile the list of "achievements" by a combination of things, such as self-reporting by the users themselves (ideal situation), but more realistically also checking the contributions of users signed up to the project, looking for mentions of the project name or abbreviation in the edit summary or talk page, use of a hidden category for the project or similar. I realise that under-reporting can be an issue with these kinds of project (no matter what you ask people to do, they often forget), but I don't think that justifies adding everything that happened within a topic space. If in doubt about an article, ask the major contributor(s). They may be happy to see it included even if they weren't a part of the project when they made their contribution. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
