Talk:100 Women (BBC)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: BBC 100 Women (2016)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the BBC 100 Women edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in November 2016. 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 articles

Comment[edit]

Should I add an infobox to this? Also was unsure whether or not to link everyone's names or not. Tingiraffe (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally only link to notable people. Most of these should be notable, but some won't. Those who come under WP:BLP1E can still be linked to, though the name might be a redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Page views[edit]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion. The campaign does not meet the notability requirement that 'the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. The references on the page are just to official 'BBC 100 Women' campaign pages (certainly not independent of the subject). Searching further, there is little evidence that the campaign is influential enough to be given substantial coverage in independent third-party sources. Compare this to the attention given to Time Person of the Year, for example. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making a huge mistake and hurting Wikipedia here. The Time Person of the Year is a totally different thing, and is an unfair and actually inaccurate comparison. Maybe reconsider this nomination? This is an outreach effort by major stakeholders within the Wikimedia communities, and you are illustrating the issues with regard to hostility of great content and initiatives that are attempting to address this. Also this comes off as pure sexism, anti-women. This is about the gender gap, which is something editors need to understand better and support. I am dismayed that you are illustrating this issue so fully here. Please rethink -- an educate yourself. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk)

"100 Women are partnering with multiple global outlets at the BBC and the Wikipedia community to hold a 12-hour edit-a-thon on 8 December and close the gender gap. There will be 15 events in 13 countries happening in multiple languages to grow the number of female editors and to add women who you think deserve to be recognised." Surely this is something for wikipedians to get behind, as an anchor to this project the page is important, and volunteers from wikimedia UK are attending the edit-a-thon, so it has the support of people outside of the BBC, I was surprised to see the deletion recomendation, and completely disagree. 81.105.187.71 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of reliable references added to the article that are independent in nature show that the anonymous nominator for AfD did not do WP:BEFORE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 numbers[edit]

Having numbers in the 2016 table looks odd. Are these official numbers, or have they been added separately? Should this column be removed from the table? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers in the table is the identification method used by the BBC in their image listings of the 100 Women until this year I believe. It is an organizational method that is very helpful and should be maintained to preserve discoverability.
Also I reserved the section with the year links for each year. It is also helpful to navigate the listings, especially since you've removed the collapse feature. Even more than before. I restored this.
I disagree on the removal of the collapsed section formatting. This page is very unwieldy and this formatting is used in other places, like for family trees and other items that have a lot of graphics or present detailed information, on a page. Each list does not need to be on its own page, but can be formatted to make the page have improved navigability. I don't really see the collapse as being a problem at all. I would like to restore these, if there is consensus from fellow editors that they are helpful to the page. Please respond with thoughts if you can.... -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38219838 TimothyJosephWood 21:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a copyright violation to publish this list?[edit]

I know that BBC has a partnership but did anyone secure a copyright release for their list? Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists creative lists, like I think this one is, are copyrighted and it is a copyright violation to include them in Wikipedia.

Currently, this article includes a lists of the 100 women in each of several years. In other similar cases, like various organizations' lists of "best movies", the Wikipedia community has not republished such content because of copyright concerns about the list.

I would love for BBC to release the copyright of this list, if they would. Have they already? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep and Victuallers: can you reply to this? Since you both have been working with the BBC to coordinate various events, has this been addressed or even seen as an issue? SusunW (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was at the event in the BBC's headquarters today and it was buzzing – the most active editathon I've seen. And that was just one of several locations. The BBC is a serious and quite bureaucratic organisation and their security was remarkably tight – airport level scanning and close supervision. Their hosting of and close involvement in this activity, in partnership with Wikimedia, shows that they accept that such use of their list is fair use. And just how would we cover the hundred individuals in question without a working copy of the list? This event had lots of women writing about women and everyone, including the BBC, seemed fine with it. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think its dubious that you can claim copyright for a list. UK law has established "sweat of the brow" arguments for large databases of facts but even there the arument seems dubious. If we exaggerate this then I can tell you that my sister likes Paul Newman, Vanessa Redgrave and Buzz Aldrin. Can she sue if anyone repeats the list? What the BBC won't do is allow us to use the video biogs of the 100 women. Fair enough as thsat is their product and its clearly what copyright was intended for. The BBC did allow us free reign with cameras and brought in VIPs for us to interview. I met the "Bridgman" in Bridgman v. Corel and a Pankhurst activist. In both cases we had an interesting debate about what WiR and the Wiki are doing. Those who have been here from the start must marvel that we would have the BBC pushing WiR themed editathons in 13 countries. Victuallers (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is this US or UK issue? BBC.com is just popular as BBC.co.uk. They may have United States copyright claims on their publications - I am not sure.
  2. Is there anyone willing to say that this sort of list cannot be copyrighted? Please consider what is said at Wikipedia:Copyright in lists-
    1. "You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic" - WMF legal
    2. not allowed - "✗ ordered rankings based on judgement, such as the top 50 most influential Muslims"
  3. I do not know about the case of unpublished lists of ~3 items, but this situation does seem similar to published lists of 50-100 which Wikipedia has declined to republish in the past
  4. BBC would likely want to keep their other content like videos. I am asking about the list of 100 women
  5. Andrew D. talks about fair use. Per WP:FAIRUSE, that seems not allowed on wiki. Am I mistaken?
  6. Wikipedia routinely has articles about copyrighted works, including paintings, movies, music, and books, without actually hosting a digital copy of that work. There can be a Wiki article on this list without actually hosting the list, if need be.
  7. I get that BBC wants to collaborate with Wikipedia on this. What I am unsure about is that if there are differing expectations on the implications of this. I was expecting that if they want their list here, and if it is copyrighted, then they would release copyright. I would like to get the copyright release while everyone is alert and ready to make decisions, if possible.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I think its dubious that you can claim copyright for a list." Of course you can. UK law is perhaps the longest established in recognising this. Whilst not seeing this as a problem here, this is an obvious sort of issue which ought to be clarified by bodies like WMUK in setting up such projects. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright does not protect facts. It is a fact these women were a part of the 100 for their year. It's no different than a list of hall of fame inductees. There is no creative content in this list: none of the women are ranked by impact, for example. The essay cited above is not wiki policy. However, I'm not a lawyer. Perhaps Montanabw who is can speak from authority. My argument is based on logic: facts can't be copyrighted and the list of 100 women is only a list of the fact they were included. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry, I'm sorry but I don't know the legal answer to your question, e.g. I'm not a lawyer, or copyright expert. What I do know is this: I spoke about the 4 lists (2013-2016) during the last 5 weeks with WMF and WMUK staff, as well as BBC producers in the UK and the US. No one brought up copyright concerns. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"100 women" is not an objective fact, it is a creative collation of 100 women, exercising an editorial choice as to who is on that list. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My viewpoint as one of the volunteers taking part in long and detailed discussions in 2011 that ended up being captured in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, yes this list is subjective in origin, and hence has sufficient creativity to be copyrightable. The choice of which women are in the 100 is a subjective one of the production team or primary editor for the series at the BBC. The BBC needs to give a free release if they wish the list to be freely reused.

With respect to Rosiestep's comment, it is not surprising that the BBC may not have considered copyright for the list itself, and it may well be the case that the BBC has no intention of claiming copyright. There is sufficient doubt for a release statement to be required. As you may expect, the burden of proof is to demonstrate an appropriate release, rather than to take a default assumption that it's free because it appears that it seemed irrelevant at the time. @Moonriddengirl: for a view? --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick points from me:
  • I mentioned this discussion on wikimediauk-l, and @LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) has responded saying that she'll look into this with the BBC in the next few weeks.
  • I view this as the same as a list of awards: I think if we have a copyright problem with this list, then we'd also have a copyright problem with, for example, the list of nominees and winners at 88th Academy Awards (a featured article). So I'm not too worried about this - but it would be good to have complete clarity from the BBC if possible.
Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other examples of such lists. The Evening Standard do an annual list (rebranded as 'The Progress 1000'). Another example is FIFA 100. TIME also do lists, see Time 100. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that the Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century had to remove the actual list because its content was copyighted. The discussion there might help. Basically, copyright status kind of depends on the list, but where a list is created based upon the work of the publisher, then probably yes. Conversely, a list of Academy Award winners or such can easily be compiled from appropriate sources and, like The White Album, cannot be copyrighted. Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is technically copyrighted, since there was creativity involved in compiling it, but I probably won't bother doing anything about it considering the implicit permission. Technically, explicit permission is required, and I may contact the BBC to ask. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 08:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation - 2019 cleanup[edit]

I just deleted text with the note "WP:COPYVIO per WP:Copyright in lists - discuss at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list?. This was a problem in 2016 and in subsequent years more lists with BBC conventional copyright have come to Wikipedia.

I see no ambiguity in the rules - BBC owns the copyright to this list and they have not shared it with any copyright license compatible for inclusion into Wikipedia. Keeping it here is a violation of copyright. I proposed this for "WP:Articles for deletion" which was the incorrect process. Instead I think this needs Wikipedia:Revision deletion back to 2013 special:diff/580584156. The edit after that added a copyrighted list without permission.

Any thoughts about the copyright of lists, deleting the article history to that point, or any other aspect of this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf, PamD, Scope creep, Johnbod, Edwardx, and Tagishsimon: Thanks for recently commenting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC) (2nd nomination). I was incorrect to propose this for article deletion, and am considering putting this into the process at Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion. Any thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the removal of this content. This content has been there for years and there's no evidence it's a problem for the BBC or anyone else. Bluerasberry's opinion of the matter is not a legal finding per WP:NOLEGAL. Their recent deletion nomination was closed as Keep and so they should not be seeking to make an end run around this without good consensus and proper authority. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree, although I understand Bluerasberry's concerns. I would think if there was any problems with the article, @Diannaa: would have previously examined it and there would have been a record of any work done. As there isn't then there is no copyright concerns. I know that is dodgy argument at the best of times and the copyright folk can't be everywhere all the time, but this is a major BBC program and if there was a problem, the copyright team would have addressed it long ago. The article is now 3 years old, plenty of time for any concerns to surface. The BBC themselves, who I detest, have a very heavyweight copyright department. The BBC's purpose is partly educational, section 1.36.4, so if they thought there was copyright problem here, they would be in like flint. So I see no problem with the contents of this list. You can see that they have it in the World section of BBC news [[1]]. So they are selling it everywhere, dozens of countries. So if there was slightest problem, they would be on to the WMF and the article would be correct or deleted. scope_creepTalk 15:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be different if this article was about a list, if that was the sole substance of the work produced by the BBC. It's not, however, it's instead about BBC programmes that have been broadcast in multiple series. The lists of which women were featured in each broadcast series are then arguably no more substantial than an outline or table of contents, and no more intrusive on the BBC's copyright than an episode list or plot summary. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with postdlf; if the sole subject of the list was a subjectively chosen list, it would enjoy copyright protection. (See for example Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, where we include only the top 10 songs.) But since it's in effect also an alphabetical list of women who participated it a TV series, it should be okay to include the entire list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata[edit]

Please also help to improve the Wikidata entries for these people! I've been working on a Wikidata-driven version of the lists at User:Mike Peel/100 Women, which you can add to by going through Wikidata entries for each person, setting Paward received (P166) ('award received') to this article, ideally adding point in time (P585) ('point in time')=year as a qualifier, e.g. [2]. This also helps link between the different language articles, and in the long run we can use the Wikidata information in the infoboxes for these articles. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Wikidata with the 2018 entries now - see the Listeria-generated list at User:Mike Peel/100 Women. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top row, Ninth row[edit]

There is a column in the earlier tables with contents such as Top row, Ninth row. What does it mean- could someone that knows add an explanation to the tables?--ClemRutter (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Row and column information should be removed. There is no distinguishing how the women are listed in the program. It's not a ranking or any particular grouping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability question discussion[edit]

I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women on whether the women listed on this program are inherently notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 list[edit]

Yupik has compiled a list of those for 2019, showing which ones have been covered in the English version of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

What do others think of splitting the lists by year? I'm happy to do this, if there's a consensus for it. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems self-evidently a good idea. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I think it's better to keep the lists on a single page for now, unless there's a good argument for splitting it into lists by year. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What lists? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lists by year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images available[edit]

Hello, if useful for this or other related pages, I have uploaded images from the BBC 100 Women 2019: The Female Future London Conference at BBC Radio Theatre Thursday, 17 October 2019 more about this event at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545 feel free to use them as you see fit to help depict BBC 100 Women and the awardees. Igbofur (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Igbofur (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to identify these 100 Women![edit]

Please tag the people in these images if you can identify them:

Thank you, Igbofur (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page of listed woman on 2020 list[edit]

Article for Elin_Williams was deleted for reason G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban'. 24 December 2021. The previous written page is still viewable via cached page on Google. Is it possible to revert this page, or could create a new page using references from the old page. Thoughts? Rhagfyr (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:100_Women_(BBC)&oldid=1213816364"