This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Women in Red This template is of interest to WikiProject Women in Red.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Getting people's thoughts on adding the year of the event when in the collapsed version. For example the meetup might be #1woman1day but this is an annual event that happens every year. The year is shown in the expanded version, but would it also be useful to show in the collapsed version? If so, is the same true for all events or just the annual events? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Martin, I am not an experienced member of WiR, but I feel that automatically adding the year from when a WiR article was created within this template, with or without any specific editing drive being mentioned by the article creating user, might be a good idea to keep the project and the articles created from it well maintained and sorted in the long run. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Please see examples on Template:WikiProject Women in Red/testcases, in particular One event in banner shell and Three events combined in banner shell. I don't think the repetition looks good on Women who died in 2023 (2023) but otherwise okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about not including the (year) when the end of the text string is the year? (Not sure if that would look wierd in a different way though.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might work (would just look a bit inconsistent with other events). My idea was to simply rename the event to "Women that died" then it would show Women that died (2023). But then I thought, what if the editathon actually happens in January 2024 (which is plausible). It would be very misleading if it showed Women that died (2024) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that's very plausible to happen! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it hasn't happened in the last 5 years, so I vote we try it and we can worry about it later if it ever happens! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might need to be revisited! The project has requested that the year (2023) be added back to the name of the event. So we now have the duplicated year when in collapsed form (see example below) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Women in Red: Women in Music (2024)
This article was created or improved during the Women in Music edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in June 2024. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

What do people think about making the size of the image a bit bigger? These events have some great artwork, it is a shame not to make more of it. Proposed version above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response in a week.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently showing up in Category:Templates with missing files. The Halloween edit-a-thon image was previously broken, but it appears it's been fixed. A dummy edit is needed to clear the missing file flag. Could a dummy edit be made to clear the flag, so that it is removed from the category? Thanks so much, and feel free to reach out on my talk page if you have any questions about this request! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Did a null edit. taavi (talk!) 08:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello whichever editor who has template editing permissions that is responding to this request, there's a discussion going on at the Idea Lab that has suggested the addition of an extra parameter to this WiR talk page template. Specifically this parameter that was added to the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies template that allows for an explanatory note to be included on the template for why it is being used in any particular article talk page (specifically for those articles that wouldn't normally be thought of as included under that Wikiproject's purview, but are often because of things like their professional or personal work related to that Wikiproject subject).

Thanks for taking the time to make this template change. Silverseren^C 04:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been discussed with the project yet? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a discussion here that led to that Idea Lab thread in the first place, MSGJ. We may end up also making an additional template for certain articles, but having this explanatory note feature on this template would still be beneficial in general for any of the articles where there would be questions or confusion on how they fit in scope for the Wikiproject. Similarly to how Wikiproject LGBTQ+ Studies uses it for Talk:Eleanor Roosevelt. Silverseren^C 08:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The change needs to be applied to the parent module, Module:WikiProject banner (and then removed from the WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies template), rather than in individual project templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Is that something we can do, Pigsonthewing? That seems like a much bigger change than just modifying one Wikiproject's template. Wouldn't a bunch of people object simply because they don't want any form of change? Silverseren^C 18:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to start a discussion on it's talk page, to find out.

So long at it's optional for each sub-template, I don't see why there would be an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion of implementation. What do you think about adding a note to explain this? For example, see below

Women in Red: Alphabet run: M & N (2025)

This article was created or improved during the Alphabet run: M & N edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in July 2025. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject Women in Red: created as part of a Women in Red editathon.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this—whatever form it takes—needs to be added to the parent template as an optional feature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is just for a couple of banners, then I would respectfully disagree. If it becomes more widespread, then we could consider adding it as core feature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's already at two (which is sufficient to justify centralising the code at parent level), then there will be another, and another. Why repeat work? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a start, we are still discussing how best to implement this on this template and it is likely we will end up with a different version to how it's done on the LGBTQ+ template. So until it has bedded in and there is a standard accepted way of doing this, then putting it in the meta module seems premature — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way for there to be "a standard accepted way of doing this" is for it to be discussed on the parent template's talk page, as I recommended, and not just bikeshedding it here.

For some reason you have tried to shut down the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about a little more explanation like "Created as part of a Women in Red editathon, which includes all subjects and people related to women's history and women's rights, not solely biographies of women."

That should cover the issue originally brought up on explaining why the template is included on non-women's biography articles. Silverseren^C 00:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out how this would be incorporated with the {{{explanation}}} parameter. Please feel free to tweak Template:WikiProject Women in Red/sandbox or else try and explain in more detail how the wording should change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the parameter as it is now let us make specialized explanations when adding the template to a talk page? Since that would be the most optimal option, if possible. Silverseren^C 03:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the bit that says "created as part of a Women in Red editathon" was provided by the parameter in the example above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about creating/adapting templates, so as an editor, I wonder how would it work? For example, I always seem to need to go and add {WIR|?} separately, as it doesn't show in the rater tool. I don't know if others have this issue, but I'm wondering how in practice I would then be able to add to the explanation? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The example above can be produced by typing something like {{WIR/sandbox|341|explanation=created as part of a Women in Red editathon}}. (It is in the sandbox because we are still discussing so haven't updated the live code yet.) I can look into why rater is not working, but I know rater's code is no longer being actively maintained — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'm fine with the parameter as you're showcasing it in the sandbox. The explanation parameter is precisely what we were looking for and seemed like a simple enough addition. Silverseren^C 17:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would cover the issue... how would it explain inclusion of a transmasculine subject who has never had any involvement in women's history or women's rights? JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the discussion further down, JoelleJay. We've settled on adding the Explanation parameter without any defined text. You get to add the descriptive text yourself any time you add the template and need an explanation for its inclusion. So you can make the text whatever you want to fit the appropriate situation for that article subject. Doesn't that flexibility of options work the best? Silverseren^C 17:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think that's reasonable. I do think that the banner itself ought to be commented out on contentious pages until an explanation is added. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's already been done - or at least largely removed - there was a list on the WIR discussion Lajmmoore (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is consensus on this template change. There are three discussion going on in three different places. And two addition unlinked discussion on to BLPN and Wikiproject LGBT. The first discussion started out with the assumption of bad faith by Clovermoss, implying that a WiR banner might hurt someone's feelings. There was a response to this thought, with Wasianpower commenting I've heard similar complaints from trans men off-wiki, as if that were relevant to the discussion. The suggestion that the offended editor simply remove the banner was dismissed as no-go.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Articles that aren't about women
• Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Contentious wikiproject tags

A casual count shows about 20 people discussing this over the platform. IMO that is a very low number to be deciding major changes on a template. The conversation now has off-shoots about WiR stated purpose, and the purpose of banner shells in general. I feel the general tone of the topic is ABF, and I am very hesitant to get into the mix. Perhaps others feel as I do, in that I do not want to offend or misgender anyone. I just want to focus on closing the gender gap on Wikipedia.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of @Clovermoss's opening discussion, she states: I was prompted to double check this after hearing from another editor that was upset that a WIR tag was added to a biography of a trans man. That doesn't strike me as an assumption of bad faith. Funcrunch (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this whole thing was definitely done in good faith. I may be direct, but I am always sincere. I genuinely do not think some people realize how this tag is perceived, especially when there's a lot of gender critical folks who do a "women and trans men" grouping and how that tends to come across as really invalidating (in an unspoken we think you still "count" as women way). I know some non-binary folks that get frustrated with the assumption that they automatically "belong" to female spaces if they're AFAB. I genuinely believe that people are not trying to cause that impact as WIR is one of the best initiatives on the entire site. I even inquired about what exactly was causing this (I asked a question about statistics for that reason... obviously it's better if there's more awareness/editathons on marginalized topics and it's good to know what works for WIR so it can be replicated elsewhere such as WikiProject LGBT). My original discussion mentioned that transfeminine people exist and I realize that there is nuance, especially in a historical context, as well. I'm someone who does try to bring about change when I see an issue that people feel uncomfortable addressing, but that doesn't mean I'm reckless or dramatic. I know you didn't accuse me of being those things, but it's something I've heard before when I've tried to speak my mind in the past. I appreciate that you do not want to misgender anyone and your efforts for improving marginalized topics. I just want things to be better so that doesn't have to conflict with how biography subjects feel because they matter too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the accusation that @Clovermoss started this discussion in bad faith is the first assumption of bad faith I’ve seen in this discussion. The discussion very much reads to me as being in good faith, and in following this discussion I haven’t seen anyone suggest that these templates were put on talk pages with malice, rather quite the opposite. I’d stress that trans men are a very real portion of our readerbase, and it’s a worthwhile endeavor to ensure they feel respected and like they are properly represented on Wikipedia. To that end, I’m not sure why mentioning that I’ve had trans men express to me off-wiki that they feel Wikipedia doesn’t treat their lives and experience with respect is being met with an accusation of irrelevance — that’s a real portion of our readerbase, and it’s a problem when they feel Wikipedia does not properly represent them. As Clovermoss said above, WIR is an important initiative, and none of this is an attack on the project or its work. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key things here are:

• (Some) people who know WIR's scope is broader than just women are not seeing a problem with a WIR tag on an article within that scope
• (Some) people who don't know what WIR's scope is are reading the words "Women in Red" and understanding them to refer to a project about (and maybe by) women (exclusively).
• (Some) people in the second group feel that the WIR tag is identifying the article subject as a woman, and regard this as inappropriate when the subject is not a woman (e.g. when they are a trans man and/or non-binary).
• People in the first group are not understanding that (or maybe why) people in the second group do have a genuine issue with the WIR template as it stands (i.e. it is not just a hypothetical discussion about at problem that might, theoretically exist at some future point), and that the current situation is actually (not just theoretically) causing harm.

  If you are still having trouble with this, imagine how a black person would feel if there was a "WikiProject White Men" banner on an article about e.g. Rosa Parks (who is unquestionably an important figure in the history of white men in the United States).

There are two ways I can think of that could work to solve the problem:

1. Rename "Women in Red" to something that more closely resembles the actual, broader scope of the project.
2. Add an optional explanation to the banner so that people can learn about the project's scope without needing to know that, unlike the majority of other WikiProjects, a naive, literal reading of the project's name does not encompass the project's whole scope.

There may be other options I've not thought of of course, but of the two I have thought about, option 2 seems the least disruptive and the greatest opportunity to educate. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And option 2 is precisely what is currently set up at Template:WikiProject Women in Red/sandbox, just waiting for implementation. It is an optional explanation parameter that doesn't have to be used on any particular WiR talk page banner, but can be used on any of them and with whatever tailored explanation is needed to fit the particular topic. So that MSGJ might implement it, are we all in agreement that this optional parameter existing as an option is at least a positive for the template, Thryduulf, wasianpower, Clovermoss, WomenArtistUpdates, Funcrunch, Lajmmoore? Silverseren^C 03:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely think it's a step in the right direction. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whether it completely solves every issue only time will tell, but it will almost certainly solve at least some and won't harm anything (unless people start edit warring over the explanation - please don't do that). Thryduulf (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid canvassing.

Note also that the issue of adding the necessary code (not the message text) to the parent template and not this one remains unaddressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only pinged those who responded in the discussion above. I don't believe that's canvassing if they're already involved in this thread? You can deal with the parent template, I don't think any of us here care about it. Silverseren^C 17:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You only pinged some of them.

Lack of care on your part doesn't make it the wrong place to implement the change you want. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose of this discussion is more a "let's settle on what a template parameter might say" and less "here is this change we want implemented right now". JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an improvement, thank you. Funcrunch (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also another group of people who do know the scope and still feel it's rather insensitive to use the banner for trans-men and transmasculine NB people who have had zero involvement in (or impact on) women's history/rights. There have been some entirely good-faith expansions in WiR's stated scope to include all gender minorities, plus an apparently unstated shift to include men who have impacted women's history, all of which is commendable. At the same time, we should acknowledge that some trans-masc subjects may feel some way about being considered "of interest" to WiR when they certainly wouldn't be under its purview if they were a cis man, and that a banner announcing this grouping can be harmful. JoelleJay (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I do feel as a transmasculine person that folks like myself are already covered under WP:LGBTQ+ studies, so I question why the scope of WiR expanded to include us. Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's perhaps something in how understandings of gender have publicly expanded since 2019. My impression is that then an addition of 'marginalised genders' was a kind of standard statement, but phrasing hasn't been questioned on project (nor thought given to all the groups behind the phrase) since. I would say whatever has been done is in good faith - but 6 years is quite a while & a lot has altered in society since then Lajmmoore (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there are two things now:

1) The ongoing discussion here about adding the explainer, which could be useful for additional use-cases e.g. men who are gender studies scholars (paraphrasing an example from the village pump discussion)

2) Improved explanation on the Women in Red project page, that the project currently takes an expansive view on gender.

The latter doesn't address the point about the impact on trans-masc people. There could be an on project discussion about whether to narrow focus to women, trans women, trans-femme people and/or people involved in gender/women's history (which could also include cis/trans men/trans-mascs).

& to add, I think everyone is working in good faith here, we're all very passionate about representation and Wikipedia, in different forms and contexts - all these discussions are certainly making me pause and think, particularly as an editor who has written about trans men under the WIR banner.

& to share another concern, I've been asked elsewhere whether WIR is a terf group, and I would really hope that whatever the outcomes of potential discussions, we do not become "cisgender women only" (& therefore open us up to further suspicion) Lajmmoore (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new parameter based on the consensus above, and attempted to document it at Template:WikiProject Women in Red#Add explanatory note. Please improve/tweak as necessary — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]