Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Women in Red March 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Requested move at Talk:Amytis of Babylon#Requested move 12 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amytis of Babylon#Requested move 12 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. asilvering (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Isabella I of Castile#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for All-China Women's Federation
All-China Women's Federation has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback wanted
Re: merge of Weinstein effect and MeToo movement
---Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red April 2024
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Requested move 6 March 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History → Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history – Lowercase "history" to match WP:WikiProject Women's sport (whose template has 132k transclusions), as well as WP:WikiProject Women artists (20k), WP:WikiProject Women scientists (24k), & WP:WikiProject Women writers (68k). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 19:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. If there is a case to change this, then similar changes would probably be needed for WP Women in Red and WP Women's Health as well as more generally for U.S. Roads, Television Stations, Ice Hockey, etc., etc. Not sure whether it would all be worthwhile.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Women's Health → "health" for sure, if "history" passes, at least to make all the women WPs internally consistent, which they are very close to being. "History" & "Health" are outliers amongst the lowercase variants, and if the reverse were true, then RMs to make them all uppercase would be just as valid. Going full slippery-slope beyond women seems like an overreaction. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- As both WP Women in Red and WP Wiki Loves Women have been widely quoted in the international press as well as on Meta and in many other language versions of Wikipedia, I think it would be a major mistake to change them to WP:Women in red and WP Wiki loves women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott on this: "Women in Red" is more like a proper noun, a distinctive name, while "Women's history" is a plain description of a topic. PamD 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott too; I don't think WP:Women in Red & WP:Wiki Loves Women should be changed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Ipigott on this: "Women in Red" is more like a proper noun, a distinctive name, while "Women's history" is a plain description of a topic. PamD 16:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- As both WP Women in Red and WP Wiki Loves Women have been widely quoted in the international press as well as on Meta and in many other language versions of Wikipedia, I think it would be a major mistake to change them to WP:Women in red and WP Wiki loves women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WikiProject Women's Health → "health" for sure, if "history" passes, at least to make all the women WPs internally consistent, which they are very close to being. "History" & "Health" are outliers amongst the lowercase variants, and if the reverse were true, then RMs to make them all uppercase would be just as valid. Going full slippery-slope beyond women seems like an overreaction. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let the WikiProject members decide Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral I had to stare at the proposal for awhile to even pick up the capitalization change in the last word. Certainly nothing wrong with standardization so long as all the links continue work. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as frivolous. This isn't even an arcane WP:MOS issue, it's even less than that. The only way this will affect anyone is by annoying them. -- asilvering (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. This is consistent with how most projects are named. To Ipigott,
Television Stations
has been renamed 4 years ago to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force. Gonnym (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Renaming WikiProjects properly is a lot of work and not worth doing over a triviality like this. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)