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 19:08, 26 July 2015 editGobonobo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers130,255 edits →Scope: striking through some categories, marking those with false positives that need to be done manually← Previous edit Revision as of 19:22, 26 July 2015 edit undoGobonobo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers130,255 edits reply; update on bot runNext edit →
Line 240: Line 240:
So on the topic of trans health, I think including articles relating to trans women is important. There isn't currently a full article on ] (there really should be), but articles like ], ] and others should fall under our scope. ]&#124;<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) So on the topic of trans health, I think including articles relating to trans women is important. There isn't currently a full article on ] (there really should be), but articles like ], ] and others should fall under our scope. ]&#124;<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|Gobonobo}} Hey, I think this discussion has definitely run its course, could we get a bot request in soonish? ]&#124;<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC) {{ping|Gobonobo}} Hey, I think this discussion has definitely run its course, could we get a bot request in soonish? ]&#124;<sup>]</sup> 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Keilana}} I've manually checked all the categories and struck through the ones that probably should be tagged manually. A lot of the struck categories include one or two articles that are likely not within the scope of this project. Below is a list of all the unstruck categories for the bot run.

{{cot|title=Final category list for bot run}}
{{div col|4}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{div col end}}
{{cob}}

:Once the bot run is done, I'm thinking we can add the wikiproject template to articles from the categories marked 'manual', checking them off when finished. ] ] ] 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 19:22, 26 July 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?
  • Female anatomy?

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)
I agree that all those should be included and that we need to be careful about including topics related to those in the list. I do have one question/clarification about the scope: are we focusing on cis-women's health issues or including trans-women's health issues as well? Sometimes they intersect, but sometimes they don't, and I think it would be better to clarify this part of the scope early on. Ca2james (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I should have finished thinking before I posted.... I see the Brassieres category is included in the list but I don't quite see how that is a health issue. If brassieres stay in I think Corset might belong as well (especially from an historical perspective, since the corsets women used to wear rearranged organs and restricted breathing). Also, is there a category or article on how drugs and some diseases affect women differently? Heart disease, for example, tends to present differently in women than men, and until recently drugs were predominantly tested on men. Also, why are some American activist categories stricken but the corresponding Canadian ones are still in (such as pro-life and pro-choice activists)?
Also, I'd expect to see a parent cat for the female reproductive system that includes articles on the uterus, vagina, and clitoris. There are a lot of cats about disorders of various female organs but I think the basic info articles need to be included, too. Oh, and does Women's Health include mental health, for example depression, anxiety, etc? If I remember rightly, there are studies out there that indicate that women have a higher rate of some of these things. I think that's it for now. Sorry about the multiple posts. Ca2james (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The capability approach which is connected to feminist economic ideas about well-being (Amartya Sen, Human Development Index, double burden etc.}. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The Vintage Feminist, I don't understand what you're saying here or how it relates to the scope of this project. Could you please clarify? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a big question but page 470-471 is the gist of it, and also Amartya Sen - Women's Education and Birthrates (YouTube) 2 mins. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I read all the blue links in your message above, and found Women's health mentioned as a minor topic related to health. But there is nothing stopping you from applying the Project's template on the talk page of these articles, it looks like they would be a better fit for the Feminist Project. Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! I appreciate it. Those do seem more like feminist links but they and others could be a good source for finding new categories and articles to add. Ca2james (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So on the topic of trans health, I think including articles relating to trans women is important. There isn't currently a full article on transgender health (there really should be), but articles like trans women, hormone replacement therapy (transgender) and others should fall under our scope. Keilana| 00:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) @Gobonobo: Hey, I think this discussion has definitely run its course, could we get a bot request in soonish? Keilana| 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Keilana: I've manually checked all the categories and struck through the ones that probably should be tagged manually. A lot of the struck categories include one or two articles that are likely not within the scope of this project. Below is a list of all the unstruck categories for the bot run.
Final category list for bot run
Once the bot run is done, I'm thinking we can add the wikiproject template to articles from the categories marked 'manual', checking them off when finished. gobonobo 19:21, 26 July 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)

Categories

There are so many other cancers besides breast cancer that have a major impact on women. Just think about it-for every different kind of organ that a woman possesses and a man does not, there is a cancer affiliated with that organ AND its tissues. Since we have the chance to organize the categories right from the start is there a better way or category name that would cover all the cancers specific to women?

  Bfpage |leave a message  00:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The most accurate word defining cancers specific to the reproductive organs, which in my gyne book includes breasts is: "gynecologic oncology", but what a mouthful...there must be something better.
  Bfpage |leave a message  00:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Gynecologic oncology has an article and is the most correct term for cancers that affect cis women. Keilana| 03:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if that category exists yet, but I believe it is warranted and will connect all the articles having to do with the cancers that are specific to women. (Although, of course men DO get breast cancer but of course it is pretty rare and we don't have to give it undue weight, equal-time or much coverage except as a mention. Now that I think about it, there probably needs to be an article just about men's breast cancer...it certainly is notable.) Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There exists one on male breast cancer, included in the Breast Cancer category, so that's covered. There also exists a category for gynecological cancers. Ca2james (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I looked for the category gynecological cancers and couldn't find it. There is a template for neoplasms of the female reproductive system, hmm. I'll start id-ing these cancers first with the Project template and then maybe later creating a category.
  Bfpage |leave a message  18:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it this one: Category:Gynaecological cancer? Ca2james (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Blasted English spellings....keeping us Americans from finding categories.... ;) Keilana| 16:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessing articles

I am planning a long string of article assessments and project template placements on articles that I think should be part of the project. Please feel free to double check my editing history to see if there is a problem with any of my assessments. To make it easier for someone from this project to review my assessment, I will leave info in the edit summary so that you won't have to go to the talk page of the article to determine how I assessed it, you will be able to tell how I assessed it by a quick read of the my edit summaries. If there is any disagreement whatsoever, please feel to go to the article talk page and change my assessment, I will take no offense. You don't even have to explain why you changed the assessment. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Surprised to find during the assessments...

I really see the need for this project now that I've been assessing articles for about a week. From my perspective, articles related to Women's health sometimes have a higher rating on the importance scale than the same article assessment from Project medicine. I would be interested in hearing if this has been a similar observation of others assessing articles for the project.

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate for pilot testing, round one

Hello, WikiProject Women's Health!

On the recommendation of Keilana, I am happy to announce that this WikiProject has been selected for the first round of WikiProject X pilot testing! Pilot testing candidates were selected on the basis for potential success of the WikiProject.

The goal of WikiProject X is to improve the WikiProject experience through research, design, and experimentation. On that basis, we've prepared a new WikiProject design template based around modules. These modules include features you are already familiar with, such as article alerts, but also new features such as automated work lists, a feed of discussions taking place on the 130 talk pages tagged by WikiProject Women's Health, and a new member profile system with opt-in notifications. The new design is available for your review at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women's Health/New. Please let me know what you think. (Note that some of the modules depend on output from other bots, meaning there will be some visual inconsistencies for now. I hope to resolve this in the long term.)

The next steps:

  1. If you are all satisfied with the design, I will implement it on the WikiProject page. Unless there are major points of contention, I hope to get this done by Friday, July 10.
  2. Using information from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Women's Health, I will work on recruiting new members for the WikiProject. I will also reach out to your current listed members.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Harej (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Kaldari who appears to be the founder of the project. Harej (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: That looks awesome to me! No objections here. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: I'm really excited about this and really hope it works! Keilana| 00:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: This looks fantastic! Much appreciation to all those who have gone through such effort to make this project work.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)