Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Women's Health: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:14, 2 June 2015 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Scope: ditto← Previous edit Revision as of 17:42, 2 June 2015 edit undoKaldari (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,434 edits scopeNext edit →
Line 228: Line 228:


:I agree about including those. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC) :I agree about including those. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
::We should be careful about categories like ] though, as it includes things not really related to women's health, like ] and ]. ] (]) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


== Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources == == Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources ==

Revision as of 17:42, 2 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Women's Health and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Scope

Thank you for starting this project! One of the first things to do is to define a scope as precisely as possible.

Here are the original categories listed at the project proposal:

In addition, many of the other subcategories of Category:Women's health are probably within the scope of this project:

Categories potentially within the scope of this WikiProject

Several questions arise over the scope. Does this project cover:

  • Legal topics related to women's health?
  • People associated with women's health?
  • Organizations related to women's health?

Once the categories are nailed down and a template is created, a bot request can be made to add talk page banners to articles. gobonobo 01:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, yes, and yes regarding the inclusion of legal topics, people, and organizations. Other opinions? Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree about including those. Sarah (SV) 02:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We should be careful about categories like Menstrual cycle though, as it includes things not really related to women's health, like Maya moon goddess and Whitten effect. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources

In case anyone here would like to comment, I've opened a discussion about the above at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Industry funding and ghostwriting of sources, with a view to adding something to the guideline. Sarah (SV) 21:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)