There has been a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red about having an editathon on Women in Music. My preference would be for composers and instrumentalists. My reasoning is that music is an extremely important area with major contributions by women while many of our biographies in other fields also include education anyway. Maybe we could reschedule a special event on education later - April or May perhaps?--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could find a GLAM institution who is interested in doing an in-person editathon on Women in Music during this 3 week period. @Pharos, Kirill Lokshin, and Pine: and @Richard Nevell (WMUK): do you have your January calendar sorted out yet? Would you be interested in reaching out to your GLAM contacts about this collaboration? Kirill and Pine: if you haven't read about these collaborations, there's a great story in this week's Signpost detailing the process (and successes). (cc: @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Ipigott:) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
February is certainly Black History Month in most countries (see [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red here]. These dates seem to be fine with me. Should we confirm them as agreed?--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted to the principle people on the AfroCrowd page as I couldn't see where to post on their talk. Pharos answered somewhere and said would keep me advised of their dates.SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me, too. How about February 1-14, and add an un-sponsored event Feb 19-29? However, it may be too much to add a second event because of preparation for WHM. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Changed dates in the projection! I'm thinking we will need the extra 2 weeks for WHM prep, besides which, since it will be for a whole month, we might want to prep April's event too. SusunW (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Archives of American Art - Augusta Savage - 2371@Rosiestep, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl: As it's not long now until 1 February, we should be posting details of our Editathon on Black Women on the main page. If I understand correctly the dates are to be 1 to 14 February. Maybe we should make it from Monday to Monday, 1 to 15 February (so as to avoid hitting Valentine's Day for the last day). Can we simply call it "Editathon on Black Women". How about sponsors, icons, etc.? We also need to develop Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/7. Perhaps you, Rosie, could make a start on it. (See also my comments on WHM below.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: yes I agree 1-15 is better and I do not see why we cannot just call it Editathon on Black Women. Pharos event is still on for the 6th as are a couple of others so I'm thinking that works well for the time frame. As for sponsors, I don't know. I love this, but as we have found live women spur strong emotions, we could cut it to the head of the sculpture alone. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: looks like we all agree that 1-15 are good dates, so let's go with that. @Megalibrarygirl: I really like "Black Women's History" and "Black Women's History Edit-a-thon" has a nice ring to it, so I'll use that to create the event's page today. @SusunW: I, too, like the Augusta Savage photo, so let's be bold, and use it with out promo materials. I'd feel comfortable with not cropping it as, at a glance, the sculpture itself is powerful.
Since this one will be so big, one thing I was wondering is if a dedicated AFC queue might be possible. It's something I'm looking into, if anyone has technical ideas on how to implement it, that would be great.--Pharos (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Does he know? - a women biased article feed with lots of new stuff and pics
This is a suggestion that I have been considering. Would it be possible to create a "Did You Know" with positive systemic bias? We have enough material and the system for running it could be lifted from DYK. We could get more DHK noms by allowing imperfection. In order for this to work then we need to find a method of publication. We could not use the main page and our own portal is not popular enough. Can we find thousands of people who would follow a womens' only DHK feed. A phone app?, A Twitter feed, Pinterest, ???, ??? I suspect that the people who would like to read about history and culture from the view of female biographies and related subjects. If we ensured that we always had a picture then that would make it more visually appealing and it would make Pinterest etc work. Would journos talk about this? Follow it? I'm not suggesting that we compete with DYK, this would accept 1,000 characters, and approve everything in 10 days, and publish more per hour!! We already have lists of new articles we could publish nearly all of these and you would get a new one every x minutes or so.Victuallers (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea but I don't like the name! It seems to be targeting men only and directing the attention away from a female reader - I wouldn't read it TBH, I'd think "why do I care what men know or don't!!" LOL!! Is there some way of pointing the question to the subject material e.g. "Do you know her?" MurielMary (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking for the right place to suggest a Women in Journalism meetup when I saw your comment. It seems very timely for 2016, in part because of the stepped-up threats to journalists worldwide in recent years. Also, in my general researches, I find myself regularly coming across women who worked at some level of journalism (broadly construed) who aren't represented here, so it struck me as a potentially rich field. It occurs to me also that 'writers' is such a gigantic category that breaking it down into even just a couple of subfields could allow for more focused editathons.Alafarge (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Books by women
There are a number of books by women that should probably have their own page, and one way to get those would be to focus a meetup specifically on writing up such pages. Books like: early travel memoirs and pioneer memoirs; or missing books by notable women like Germaine Greer, Elena Ferrante, Octavia Butler, etc., etc. I imagine one could start a list by scraping in redlinked books from various Wikipedia categories & then crowd-sourcing it further.Alafarge (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I made a list and I started separating it not by nationality, but by type. So I've started with Children's books. We could expand with genres as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
How about Women in Sports, Women in Fashion, Women Authors (could be broken up into Women in Shadows (mystery), Women in Thought (philosophy), etc.) , or Women in Journalism? Just throwing that out there. My time is limited but I try to jump in to help on these when I can. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, being bold and putting it on the actual calendar. @Rosiestep and LovelyLillith: Writers/books/journalists is on calendar for April. Entertainers which Rosie has long wanted to do includes film, dance, fashion, comedy and stage. There are a lot of athletes in the various Halls of Fame Lillith, see July, so I think I got all of your wants included? Dates can always be changed, but if they aren't on the calendar they may never get moving. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Wikipedia is very weak on Africa. So I would welcome the opportunity to help out with the biographies of women from the Middle East and North Africa, both those involved in contemporary art and others from the cultural scene. As we have two intensive months on artists and writers coming up, we could perhaps devote just the first two weeks of May to this. I suggest you post these suggestions on the Events page where we can also discuss how to reschedule Women in Photography.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Photography has been on the schedule for many months. "[T]wo intensive months on artists and writers" says to me that we need to diversify our topics. Why can't we kill two birds with one stone and do photography and include MENA photographers? If the photography curator can provide images for a later editathon, it might be a reason to postpone, but I see no reason to keep toppling subjects that have been planned in advance. JMO. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This is my thought. Why not post more than one meetup page in a month? If only 1 or 2 or 3 people want to participate in that event, and create 2 or 4 or 6 new articles, we have gained much. First, Wikipedia has gained new articles. Second, WiR has gained new contributors. Third, Wir, may have gained new members. You mention "major contributors". Where is the downside of offering secondary options to major, minor, or new contributors?
As for MENA, the Guggenheim will focus on MENA artists. But I'm not convinced that m:Iranian Wikimedians User Group will focus only on artists or women. Each editor chooses. If I come across a Maltese or Afghan woman writer or ethnologist, I can contribute that article to a MENA event (We don't have to put a square peg in a round hole.). And, as I've learned in middle age that I am not unique, I know that others would share this view.
I remember sitting with the A+F folks in October 2015 in Washington D.C., and making a plan for WiR's collaboration as an online node for March 2016. I told Michael, Jackie, and Sian that WiR would be glad to collaborate, but how would they feel if WiR takes a broader approach -- includes feminists, activists, social reformers? They were very quick and gracious to say, "sure", "yes", "of course", although I doubt anyone had asked them that before. I want WiR to be that nimble... if someone else has an idea... go for it. I've been thinking about this a lot, and I firmly believe that in order for WiR to become a movement, we have to empower others from around the world who want to replicate our secret sauce: our brand and our scope. We have to be open to facilitating multiple events, in multiple languages at any given time. We have to encourage others to create meetup pages, send out invites, develop redlists, and so on. Amazing, that in less than a year, we've gotten to this point! Also, I think it may be time to elect some "Core Coordinators" (following the MILHIST and A+F models), in order to oversee the brand. I am responding to you here, but I'm also going to cross-post this on the WiR talkpage for greater visibility. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! @Rosiestep: Totally agree. I think flexibility is the key and I don't see why we cannot combine events and/or topics. We reach a much broader group if we have diverse criteria and combining possibly disparate areas allows us to cover disparate populations, making us much more inclusive. I love that we don't just focus on eliminating one bias, but many. We are adding diversity to the encyclopedia too and that can only improve the encyclopedia. As we write about women we tackle misogyny; edithons about black women, indigenous women tackle racism and cultural diversity. Art+Feminism the way we have structured it covers all classes, from working class women to those in the leisured upper classes, which I think is imperative. We don't talk much about classism on WP, but it certainly exists, as it does in most encyclopedias. I think no matter the topic/topics, we'll attract those who are interested in it. I don't really know that we need separate sign up sheets, why can't we just do one per month with diverse topics? Don't understand what "Core Coordinators" are, can you elaborate? SusunW (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Rosiestep: Then I withdraw all my previous suggestions/comments on this. I too had originally suggested having both the MENA modern artists and the photographers in May. But on re-reading the exchange (now on the events page), I thought I should give some support to the comment Susun made:
"Photography has been on the schedule for many months. Two intensive months on artists and writers" says to me that we need to diversify our topics. Why can't we kill two birds with one stone and do photography and include MENA photographers? If the photography curator can provide images for a later editathon, it might be a reason to postpone, but I see no reason to keep toppling subjects that have been planned in advance. JMO. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)"
I seem to be having a really bad day today, misunderstanding everything. I think in future I'll just concentrate on the content and leave other considerations to all you dynamic girls. Please accept my apologies.--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott absolutely no need for apologies of any kind. You are an amazing supporter and contributor and I think we are much better for your input and insights. My concern in the comment before was that I did not want to replace photography with artists. I see zero reasons why we cannot do both. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Copied from the WiR talk page:
The Guggenheim has invited WMNYC and WiR to collaborate in early May (7-10 days) focusing on MENA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/MENA). They are working on redlist(s). WMNYC will focus on a group of artists. If WiR is agreeable with working on MENA, we can focus on MENA women's biographies in general. (cc: @Pharos:). I know WiR has tentatively committed to focusing on photographers in May. The Guggenheim's curator may be able to sponsor a photography event later in 2016, but not in May. Do you want to keep photographers on the May calendar, or postpone till Guggenheim confirms; and if keep in May, thoughts on which days? May is a long way away and we do have our hands full right now, so no worries if you need to think on this a bit. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
We're also going to try to coordinate this campaign with other language Wikipedias (Arabic, Farsi, etc) on Meta, see meta:MENA Artists Month, similar to the recent Wikipedia Asian Month. The photography curator at the Guggenheim is quite interested in the Wikipedia outreach in general, and if not in May, will be glad to work with WiR and the community more in-depth in the future.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
At meta:MENA Artists Month, we are working to organize internationally, and also plan to adapt aspects of meta:Wikipedia Asian Month/2015 Edition with Guggenheim postcards or token physical prizes from the giftshop to top contributors. We hope to have WiR listed as a partner on that page too. The general scope is any MENA artists of the 20th and 21st centuries, with a particular highlight of the contemporary artists who are being recognized in the Guggenheim UBS MAP Global Art Initiative. The official list of MAP artists is not out yet, but I believe it is probably majority women; obviously it would be appropriate for WiR to focus on the women MENA artists.--Pharos (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: yes, photography stays on the schedule as is. I'm intrigued with the idea of a meetup page for an entire month, with multiple focuses. Sure, let's try it! How would you envision we do it, for say, May? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep Just like this one Art+Feminism but instead Photography+MENA and then put the red links lists in for photographers, Middle Eastern Women, North African women, and whatever artists list the Guggenheim comes up with. Surely with 4 categories (or maybe its only 3 if MENA women are in one list), people will find something of interest to write about. SusunW (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl: For what it's worth, in my opinion I believe strong focus on an area provides greater incentive for participation and the likelihood of achieving more significant progress. If the Guggenheim is arranging an event in early May (see the discussion on the Ideas and events page), then I think that perhaps a shorter, highly focused WiR editathon (for one or max. two weeks) on the MENA artists is what we should be aiming for. I had originally proposed two weeks on photography and two weeks on modern MENA artists but, on reflection, I think we should allow photography to stretch over the full month. The MENA editathon could then be scheduled, say, from Saturday 7 to Sunday 15 May (if these dates are suitable for the Guggenheim). This would of course require setting up a separate meet-up page linked to specially prepared lists of red links, etc. I hope Pharos and the Guggenheim will assist here as we have virtually nothing on the countries of North Africa and the Middle East on our current Artists page. If we use this approach, then we can target contributors who have been active in the area without confusing them with our focus on photography. Both photography (for the full month) and MENA 20th/21st-century artists could then be listed separately under our events for May.--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I won't be around in June so probably shouldn't vote, but I don't see why we couldn't have a set for LBT women for Pride month. SusunW (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good with me; let's also do LGBT women in June. I've spoken with some folks here in Berlin and I think we can get a sponsoring partner. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I love the idea of doing Hall of Fame laureates. Working off the Kentucky Women Remembered list I learned about women that I might never have heard about otherwise. But some of these women are going to be tough to write.
I found this link with some additional halls of fame but haven't followed any of the links listed so unsure about notability, etc.[1]. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Olympics women (new request; see below for discussion)
Rio Olympics will take place from August 5, 2016 – August 21, 2016
Comments - Aug
What if we changed the title of this redlist to "polar women" and include a section on Arctic women, e.g. "Pole to Pole"? Or we could just have a separate redlist for Arctic women and that would be fine, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm good with whatever just felt like if we didn't get it on the calendar, it'd get scheduled over. Ipigott was working on Greenland links, so may want to list Arctic separately, but I figured that there would be Arctic indigenous women in the earlier one. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate list for Arctic women given the large Inuit populations of Greenland, Canada, Alaska and the Russian Far East. We already have three Lists of Inuit. It may also be useful to make a distinction between native Arctic women and female Arctic explorers (the latter could possibly been combined with female Antarctic explorers as several seem to have explored both areas). Megalibrarygirl may have some views on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and SusunW:I like the idea of separating the explorers from the people who actually live and work in the polar regions. But I'm happy to start a list for whatever we choose. I'll look at the inuit lists too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: did we ever get the Inuit list/Arctic women made? I love our new tab system so that we can do multiples and was just curious. No pressure to do it, but it is creeping up on us. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: The lists that exist which Ian highlighted don't have any redlinks. Seems to me Inuit women could go on the indigenous list, but I read Ian's note that they should be separate. Maybe I misunderstood? Definitely think we need Arctic explorers on a list. SusunW (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: "Polar women" seems to me to be quite a good compromise as it doesn't seem to me to be too important whether they are associated with the Arctic and/or the Antarctic. Maybe we could just divide it into explorers and others if you think that is necessary. As for the "Lists of Inuit", I simply included it as I thought some of the women we cover could be included on it. But maybe it would also be useful to have a list of red links for Innuit women (or indigenous women living in the Arctic). I leave it entirely up to you.--Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: Brilliant! Weird how we sometimes get tunnel vision, I totally did not think of that option. I'm all for one list of polar women. Arctic and Antarctic on one list makes sense. Location will show whether they are north or south. I think the same goes for Inuit women, they can just be added to indigenous women and again, location will dictate, but with the added ethnicity. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Ipigott: Whew. OK. I didn't want to miss anything I should be working on. I'm very ADHD, so if I don't do something right away, I may forget about it. :P So I should rename the list to "Polar Women" and I can include women from places like Greenland, upper Canada, Arctic circle.... Siberia? How far does the Arctic extend? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl yes, let's just call it polar women and per the Wiki on the Arctic, it covers Alaska, Canada, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, and Sweden, i.e. cold places, so yes, Siberia. (Did you get the labor organizers list started? What's it called? I have names to add.) SusunW (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: At the moment we have about a week's gap between Indigenous Women and Polar Women. How about starting Polar Women on the 15th and continuing for the rest of the month, i.e. until the 31st?--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Any interest in an Olympics themed project, either aimed specifically at Olympians or even a broader women in sports event? There are a lot of reliable sources currently writing about Olympic athletes. The Rio Olympics will take place from August 5, 2016 – August 21, 2016. Knope7 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I can expand the list of red links. WP:Olympics has an article for each country's Olympic delegation which provides the names of each athlete from every (or nearly every) country. Based on a few searches I've tried, recent Olympians tend to have articles from reliable sources readily available. Knope7 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added a couple dozen names from the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia (picked because I figured they are more likely to have reliable sources written in English). If there's interest I can add more either from other countries (probably Olympic powerhouses like China, Russia, Germany, etc) or past Olympics (U.S. athletes from 2012 look well covered, although many could use updates, but athletes from earlier Olympic games have more gaps. Looking at the first women Olympic athletes could also be interesting).
Just to put in another plug for this idea, the Olympics will likely drive a lot of interest to athlete pages. In the U.S., NBC has extensive coverage across multiple channels as well as online coverage. It's also an event with international reach. The most buzzed about athletes, like Simone Biles, already have articles but a lot of the lesser known athletes don't. It's unlikely most of the women without existing articles will win, but you never know who will have the competition of their life and suddenly find themselves in the spotlight. There is also a lot of room for improving athlete articles if anyone is interested in that too. Knope7 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The Women's Football / Soccer taskforce has a fairly long list of missing players here. There are numerous editors who would probably love to contribute. Hmlarson (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Love it! Let's do it! September = Activists + Nurses. I really do like 2 (or more) simultaneous events as I tend to get bored spending a whole month focusing on just one thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay two more and then I'm going to write an article. Shirley Ware[6], [7] and I think we will have to do this one as an event because I doubt we will discover the names of the Mexican American women who carried on this strike. Empire Zinc Strike (aka Salt of the Earth Strike). When their husbands were forced off the picket lines, the wives kept the strike going. A movie was made, but we don't have an article on the actual strike. [8], [9], [10]SusunW (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, SusunW, Rosekelleher, and Megalibrarygirl: I certainly think we should cover nurses but I was wondering if we should not widen it to "Women in health care" as that would cover women physicians, women in medical research, and other health professionals in addition to women in nursing. As for Labor Day, it is not just a U.S. event, it is also celebrated in Canada. Maybe there are Canadian activists who should be covered too.--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott Lots of countries celebrate labor day, but usually on my birthday in May. I think we don't have to worry too much if our timelines don't fall in line with holidays, and can as always have an international focus. It doesn't matter to me if we have a broad focus on health professionals, but I had thought of nurses because we have done scientists and that includes many doctors but not really nurses. Nurses are usually the forgotten entity. Nurses are laborers whose work and contributions are often buried behind their more illustrious employers -- soldiers, doctors, hospitals, etc. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
SusunW We're certainly learning a lot more about you in these discussions, your birthday on May Day and your planned walking holiday in eastern Europe. I thought the idea of writing about Labor Day was because in North American it falls in September but if you want to extend it to the rest of the world, that's fine with me. (Btw, many countries do not celebrate workers on May Day and it is not a holiday in all European countries.) As you seem keen to cover various interests in the same month, perhaps we could devote the first two weeks of September to "Women in nursing" (or just "Nurses" if you prefer, although the profession seems to be increasingly open up to men too), while the second half of the month could perhaps address other women in health. I think we need to go beyond the scientists as many women are active at the organizational and philanthropic levels too and many have been instrumental in fighting for improvements to health services in the third world. But that is only a suggestion and I am, as always, happy to accept the general consensus.--Ipigott (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott LOL, yes, I do have a real life off WP, I know that is shocking to some ;) I think the US holiday inspired the idea, but I don't think we have to stick to so narrow a view. (I've got some Caribbean women labor leaders ready to add to the list when it's up and going). Labor is typically underrepresented so it's a great focus area IMO. And yes, I totally agree that the organizational and philanthropic areas are also a good focus area. I'm really liking the new tabs so we can just pick from a variety of topics throughout the month and like you am happy to accept the group consensus. SusunW (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and SusunW: I have a list of nurses here and I created this page Worker's rights, which I'm thinking maybe needs to be renamed? What do you think? I'll add more to the list, too. I know there's more than what I gleaned off the activists, so they are lurking out there somewhere. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers. For the record, there has been a suggestion here that we should take part in an editathon on Nigerian women from 20 September to 20 October. I think we can accommodate this along with our other editathons. I am not entirely clear about our plans for October. Do we all agree to architects and archeologists (see below)?--Ipigott (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This gets my vote - finding Nigerian women at all will be tricky. But finding Nigerian nurses or Nigerian women labour activists is even trickier. I did manage to clear out nearly all the leads we had for Nigerians - but thats a good reason to persevere - we need more. Some more non US/UK would score double on our drive to remove systemic bias. Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Pharos: I truly enjoyed architecture last year. It is fun to discover the women AND the buildings they did. Is the Guggenheim sponsoring another Women in Architecture editathon this October too? SusunW (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How about covering both women architects and women archaeologists this October? There is a fairly close relationship between the two and the red list of archaeologists is growing with inputs from Joe Roe.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Note, Pharos is also part of the core WikiConference North America organizing committee, so may be slow to respond.
I like both suggestions. Regarding the Nigerian Women campaign which is scheduled to occur 20 Sep - 20 Oct, let's have WiR run it through 31 October to give our folks time to add more articles. That makes 3 focus areas for Oct, and when you add the scientists and philosophers which run through the end of the year, it gives editors 5 options, which is probably enough for October. But if something else arises, sure, we can address it.
I don't have bandwidth to set up any of the Oct meetup pages. If someone creates an Invite, I can MassMessage it. Thanks, all. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep I can create the invitation. I think it will be sufficient to cover architects and archaeologists. Buttons at the top of their pages with direct editors to the three others.--Ipigott (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Women's rights and gender equality editathons with the US National Archives
Hi all,
The US National Archives is doing 2 physical edit-a-thons in October in New York City and DC, plus a virtual editathon to bridge the two, and we'd love to make this a Women in Red event. All of the edit-a-thons are on Women's Rights and Gender Equality. This project is part of the "Amending America" campaignat the National Archives, in celebration of the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, and will include a viewing of original records and a talk by our archivists. Here are the project pages:
Our main team working on this is myself, Dina Herbert, and Sarah Anderson. We are still working on the details, but would love the help and input of all of you coming up with topics and resources, and in promoting the event to the Wikipedia community. Dominic·t20:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, Victuallers, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl: heads up. Does the National Archives have photos they can make available, Dominic? That would be awesome! Many of the architects and archaeologists I have worked on were pioneers in their fields. They also expressed the issues they faced with sexism. Is that sufficient to be within your scope? SusunW (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Dominic - thanks for reaching out to us; WiR would love to be part of this. If we don't get things sorted out beforehand, maybe we can do so on Friday at BP? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi SusunW , in response to this, feel free to check our [catalog.archives.gov catalog] to see the images we have. Our holdings are from the federal government and we have LOTS of photographs (8 million in our holdings; many online) so if these women were connected to the federal government we can work together to see what we have. Email me (dina.herbert@nara.gov) and we can work together to find what you need.DinaHerbert (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this Dominic. I've posted an announcement on our main WiR page. We look forward to reviewing the outcomes. Do not hesitate to encourage your participants to join WiR. If they need any assistance, they can simply let us know. I for one am always happy to assist. For those interested in creating new articles, some of the names on our Missing Wikidata list of redlinked women from the USA may be of interest. Maybe together with DinaHerbert and Nosrednaharas you could pick out a few of the more important names and post them on your editathon pages. We would also be interested in having a list of women covered by the National Archives who do not yet have a biography on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
How about "Women in food and drink"? We could include those in cooking, dieting, food production and winemaking as well as specialized journalists, critics and TV personalities. Maybe also national and international players in politics or important international organizations, including the FAO and some of those under Category:Food- and drink-related organizations. There are also a number of historical figures deserving attention. @Megalibrarygirl: If you think this is a good idea, you might like to start compiling a red-link list. Dr. Blofeld has listed the names of several women winemakers on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I like this idea too, Ipigott. I can start a redlist later today or tomorrow. I think we can extend it even further to include dishes themselves, since that's traditionally female oriented. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Women in food and drink... I like it. Let's do it. Maybe there are also some notable cookbooks, schools, orgs, etc. which could be redlinked.--Rosiestep (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: Glad to hear you both like the idea. Thanks for all the constructive suggestions. I think we need to be careful about including dishes though unless they are specifically related to a woman. I'm not sure whether dishes are traditionally female-oriented although some obviously are. I think we should stick with "Food and drink" rather than "Cookery". As for cookbooks, many of the top female chefs have published their own. There are also a number of prized historic works, some of them covered in other languages on Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing the list and will contribute to it when I have a bit more time. I take it that you both support scheduling an editathon for November.--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep:, I'll go with Food and Drink. I was being very "catalogy" with Cookery. LOL. I was thinking with foods if we are able to trace their origins... it may be useful. Like the inventor of the potato chip, George Crum, we know about, or for a better example, the chocolate chip cookie invented by Ruth Graves Wakefield. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: I am really looking forward to doing a food+drink editathon. I think we should promote it heavily in October across all the country WikiProjects (WikiProject Mexico, etc.) as, of course, there are notable food+drink women in every country. The timing, November, is very good because of harvest festivals and Thanksgiving#Observance being in the fall. I will mention it in my talks this month in Wash DC and Italy. @Pharos: do you think any of your connections would be interested in this? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pharos: Good idea. @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I don't want to push things too far but how about encouraging participation of some of the other language Wikipedias in contributing in their own languages (French, German, Spanish and Italian come to mind). With the collaboration of Wikidata, we might be able to transform it into a truly international event. Rosie, why don't you sound them out at your meetings?--Ipigott (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
While I very much hope food and drink will attract interest, I think there is a risk results will be similar to those for August when we only had a total of 68 new articles from our two editathons (36 on polar women and 32 on indigenous women). For November, I therefore suggest our main area of focus should once again be Women Writers (on which we had almost 400 articles in May). I also strongly suggest we should collaborate with Dr. Blofeld and set up some kind of contest, perhaps simply called The 1000 Challenge for Women Writers. If there is general support for this, I could try to work with Dr. Blofeld and set something up in good time. As we need to be well prepared, I would like to have reactions asap from @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Montanabw, Gobonobo, MurielMary, Big iron, and Victuallers: and anyone else reading this page. We certainly need something to get WiR moving full steam ahead again!--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The 1000 Women Writer's Challenge I think should include both article improvements and creations, and GAs, not just new entries. A mechanism to get people working on existing articles and cleanup too. I would keep that as an ongoing challenge for now, but it's possible you could run a contest for women in red as part of it to boost production and reach the goal quicker. Prizes could be books about women, or you could create a list of books that editors want and create a book fund and people can donate their winnings to help others out with books etc. I'm certainly not going to pressure for it myself, I'm busy!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of "Women in food and drink" a lot, sounds intriguing and I'm sure there are a lot of articles to be written/improved! Definitely not keen on the title "Cookery" though, seems to conjure up ideas of the traditional female stereotype of women in the home rather than casting the net wider to women in the professional realms of food. I'm not sure about the "1000 challenge" idea, how would that work? A challenge to produce 1000 articles/improvements on women in general, or on a specific topic? MurielMary (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@MurielMary: I see the contest as a means of encouraging the creation of new articles as well as the improvement of existing ones. I am not convinced we need physical prizes although there does seem to be a possibility of obtaining books or book vouchers for awards. As far as I have seen, many editors simply like to take part in a contest, even if it is in an area they do not usually address. Combined with our standard editathon approach, I think it would bring in new people and perhaps allow us to have one of our most successful months. I think at least it's worth a try. To answer your other query, is there any reason why we should not simply call it "Women in Food and Drink"? I don't like cookery either. Food and Drink would also cover other areas such as food production, wineries, television contests, government and international administrations, medical aspects, dieting, etc., etc.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, we both agree on the title! Again about the 1000 challenge, is that to get 1000 articles on a specific topic within a month, or 1000 articles on any topic related to women? MurielMary (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think 1000 Women Writers to start with. Create a core list of women articles, and a missing list and combine them. For people who don't like contests, I suggest creating a book fund for Women and people can donate some of their earnings into a book fund and buy books about women for other editors to contribute here upon demand.. So rather than working for personal gain, people who don't want prizes can work hard to buy other editors books they need to write about women. Genius ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on whether people would want it to be 1000 missing articles or see a way that we could bring about existing core and other notable article improvements at the same time. I think overall a general improvement/creation contest combined for women writer's would work best. Something like:
20 points - new article
25 points - destubbing or cleanup
50 points - improvement of a Core Article
200 points - Good Article
The contest ends when 1000 articles have been created or improved, so you'd be guaranteed 1000 article improvements or creations.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To answer MurielMary's question, while our WiR editathon would be for the month of November, the contest could start at the beginning of the month and continue as long as it takes to reach 1000 new or improved articles. At least that's the way I see it.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused by what the goal is here. WIR is about turning red links to blue links, i.e. creating new content. While I definitely agree there is a need for articles to be improved, I do not think this project is the right project to take on that task, as it is steering us away from our goals. I think it's a lofty idea and I think that if a contest gets people to participate in it, then that's great, just not for this project. Women in food and drink is not something we've done before and it sounds interesting to me. Women writers works well with it, if we are interested in doing writers again. I prefer to diversify our topics, but surely I can find women who wrote cook books that fit both categories ;) SusunW (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding Women Writers to our November schedule. Let's do it. A campaign for 1000 Women Writers sounds like fun. Improving articles is a Women in Green initiative so you might want to connect on those project's talkpages regarding destubbing, etc. Personally, I don't want points for the articles I create; I just want to write. But others may like to accumulate points. I know MILHIST gives out chevrons based on points for their various drives, and that's cool. But they don't require you to deal with points if you don't want to; hope this campaign has the same mindset? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I'm really glad, Rosie, to see you think it's worthwhile trying it out. Nothing specific about the contest has been decided yet. Maybe we should adopt points or maybe we should just see who creates or improves the most articles. Personally, I think that as this is our first venture into the area of contests, we should be as flexible as possible. @SusunW: I appreciate your concerns but other contests along the sames lines, for example the current 1000 Nordic Challenge, have mostly been concerned with the creation of new articles. If the Women Writers approach is a success, in future we can be more specific with what we want to achieve but for starters I think we should give the more general approach a chance. As you say, if you create biographies of women who have written cookbooks, you gain on all accounts! So think of it like this: our WiR objective is to create new articles but if we can attract even more participants for both article creation and article improvement, we will be on the right track. In any case, as usual our own Women Writers editathon will be aimed first and foremost at article creation. I really hope we can persuade you to give this a try. You are after all one of our most enthusiastic participants.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
WP Asian Month occurs in November
@SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Pharos, Ipigott, and Dr. Blofeld: WiR has been asked to participate in WP Asian Month, which occurs each year in November. I think we could easily support that effort, along with Food+Drink and Women Writers. The campaign aligns with our desire to work with other WikiProjects when scopes allows for it. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There's increasingly too many things going on at once on here now LOL! I'll be running the Africa Destubathon then, so it's Africa month for me! Yes, WIR can support it, people can work on Asian articles if they wish as well!♦ Dr. Blofeld06:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I don't know what you mean about too many things, especially as you mention the Africa Destubathon which isn't within Women in Red's scope. While some of us might like the idea of Food+Drink, there are all those people who don't and aren't going to be say so, but will just ignore that one. Women writers might interest some editors but not everyone. Asian women might interest some people but not everyone. In terms of new content production, offering variety is good at Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep There seems to be an increasing number of events across wikipedia and editathons, I'm increasingly seeing multiple things going on each month. Isn't there an Afro event soon as well? Last I heard November would be food and drink month! How about Asian women in food and drink ;-)? Yes, people can choose what they want to do of course, and I didn't say the Destubathon was in WIR's scope, I said for me and what I'm doing it would be African month, so it would be difficult for me to focus on Asian women! ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: We have an African slant in October with Nigeria so I see no reason why we should not have Asia in November. I think nevertheless with the huge scope offered by Women Writers, not to mention Women in Food and Drink, we should not launch it as a fully fledged editathon but rather along the same lines as our September/October support for Nigerian Entertainers. I'm also surprised to see that there is absolutely nothing about November 2016 on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month. (You say it is organized every year but I can find nothing before 2015.) AddisWang who organized the EN 2015 event could possibly throw some light on this. Last time round it was arranged on a multilingual basis. I must say, I am extremely impressed by all the language links in the LH margin on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month. Perhaps WiR could benefit from their approach if even we want to become truly international. Once we know which countries are being specifically targeted this time, we could perhaps also encourage our participants to create articles about women writers and food experts in those countries. Likewise, the organizers of Wikipedia Asian Month 2016 could promote an interest in biographies about women. In any case, once there is an official announcement, we should include it among our own announcements on WiR's main page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a big event across any language who wishes to participate. There is one focus: write articles regarding Asia. All countries in Asia; none are excluded. The organizers aren't going to give special promotion to women writers any more than they are going to promote geographic features, buildings, or fashion. Their focus is solely to promote writing articles about Asia. For WiR, participating in Asian Month would mean offering an event where editors would write articles about Asia but within our scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Sorry to push you on this, Rosie, but can you reveal your sources? As far as I can see from last year's event, they do not simply want articles about Asia. They were very specific about the countries to be covered: Mainland China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand (but not important countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and all the Middle East countries). So we really need to know what they intend to cover this year. If you open Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month and look at List of participants (i.e. show), you'll see that the EN project was not all that big. Interestingly, I see that a number of our contributors (including @97198, Another Believer, Gobonobo, and Megalibrarygirl:) took part, writing women's biographies. Last year, in response to a question about other WikiProjects participating in the event, it was suggested that they should set up their own projects separately. So I really think we need more details before we announce anything.--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks to bring this up, here are some of my thoughts.
In a previous discussion, I think the plan is, if the topic of November is Women in culinary, people who write about Women from Asia in culinary can be part of the Asian Month, as well as Rosie mentioned, that just have a general space that editors write articles about Asia within WiR scope, and vise versa, who write an article in Asian Month within WiR scope will just be part of WiR.
About International part, firstly, we will have a recommending list this year, thus we can provide a to-do list from WiR to other language communities. Secondly, we wish to have some offline event this year, but we know to many people outside Asia, running an Asian Month event may not sound either fun or attractive. But a feminism event or a WiR event specifically focus on Asia will solve this problem.
@Ipigott: I can see our WAM page is bit confused so here are some clarification: Those countries are just we have communities to send postcards, not meaning rest are not important. Our rules will just be writing anything about Asian besides your language speaking country.(Exclude English Wikipedia since it will be complicated) I'm not sure about other WikiProjects thing. I mean we suppose welcome everyone to join the Asian Month, its just we will not provide either any leverage to specific topics or saying we want to focus on any specific topics. Out participating community is keep rolling that many communities actually signing up after the event begin last year.--AddisWang (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks for these useful clarifications. I'm glad to hear you welcome the participation of Women in Red in connection with our Food and Drink priority for November. Personally, I think there might be even more interest in covering female Asian writers, as our second priority for November is Women Writers. We look forward to a specific announcement on Women in Asia 2016. If something already exists, please let us know where we can find it. We can then encourage our members to participate. You speak of arranging a physical event with the support of WiR. While the easiest location might be in the United States or Britain, it might be even more effective to arrange something, for example, in India. I see there is an active programme of meetups in India. Perhaps you could liaise with those responsible and arrange something for November. Or even the orgaizers of Wikipedia:Meetup/International Women's Day, India/2015.--Ipigott (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks! Didn't notice the topic of Writer, but yeah of course! Women in Asia 2016 sounds cool, I guess people can list their contribution on both WiR and WAM page. Currently we have Columbus, Ohio and New york organizing the event in November, as can be seen on this page. Maybe when I outreach to other communities to see if they willing to do something offline, I can ask if they want to have a genreal WAM event, or a WiR event specifically focus on Asia.--AddisWang (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks. Contemporary Chinese Art at the Guggenheim is certainly something WiR should be supporting. Perhaps Pharos is involved? Personally, I think you should firm up your WAM arrangements first. We can then see how best WiR can collaborate. In any case, we would be delighted to help with lists of red links. I'm also sure many of our members and editathon participants would be keen to take part. We just need to provide them with reliable details. I would suggest you try to put together a WAM 2016 page by mid-October.--Ipigott (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yes, we're working on Contemporary Chinese Art at the Guggenheim in NYC, and tying that into the global WAM effort. I really think WiR could be the cornerstone of the WAM effort on English Wikipedia this year, why not do it that way? The WAM campaign has been very successful in many languages, but less so in English, so this may be a way of bringing together what I believe are the two largest online-focused editathon events in the Wikimedia-verse. It should be remembered that WAM will be promoted in all languages through a big sitenotice, so all the more reason for WiR to take advantage of joining this opportunity in November.--Pharos (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pharos and AddisWang: Despite Rosiestep's reservations about WiR being able to have any impact on WAM, this looks like a real opportunity, especially for those who welcome diversification. I hope both of you can put something together. We could perhaps target modern Asian art for the first week of November, and then leave things more open for the rest of the month -- not forgetting Writers, and Food and Drink. Let me know when we can announce/prepare for something more specific.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep Yes, it was great you came up with the opportunity to participate. But the reservations you expressed were "The organizers aren't going to give special promotion to women writers any more than they are going to promote geographic features, buildings, or fashion." From the exchanges above it now looks as if the EN component of WAM is specifically interested in cooperating with WiR, even to the extent that there are proposals for a "feminist" event; there seems to be full support for collaboration on both Food and Drink and Writers. There is even talk of a "WiR event specifically focused on Asia". Pharos has gone as far as suggesting that "WiR could be the cornerstone of the WAM event in English." But before we start working on anything more concrete, I still think we need to be able to link to an official WAM announcement. The way I see it is if they can include our priorities in their announcements, we can also try to encourage our participants to create articles about Asian women in the fields we are addressing. I'm certainly very sorry if my wording caused you any offence. None was intended.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl While general improvements to the Asian lists would be great, I was wondering whether you would have time to expand the Asian country components on the lists for Women Writers and Women in Food and Drink. I could also try to create lists from Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep:Hey I feel there are some small misunderstanding maybe due to my poor expression. Rosie made a correct statement that WAM does not support any specific topics but any topics about Asia. We want people to improve anything they are interested and not feeling have a lot of restrictions. But that does not against a single offline event or an online campaign focus on a specific topic towards the WAM. We would like to work with WiR that allows editors from WiR to contribute WAM in their own ways, as well as we would like to work with other thematic groups on enwp (I just don't know a very active one and WiR is very successful and well-known). But we can not put WAM into any kind of direction that may make other editors think their contributions is viewed less important. Sorry if I did not clearly understand your opinion. I will soon adjust the WAM page on ENWP and draft an announcement which will figure out how to incorporate WiR into it.
@AddisWang, Pharos, and Rosiestep: I'm afraid I find all this increasingly confusing. May I ask AddisWang if there is anyone in your group who can explain exactly what you would like WiR to do in support of WAM (if anything) as I am not sure we are able to interpret your messages correctly. For example, perhaps you could invite one of your team to explain exactly what you mean by "that does not against a single offline event or an online campaign focus on a specific topic towards the WAM". Rosie probably had the best overview after all. In retrospect, perhaps we should simply announce the event on our main page once a clear WAM announcement has been published and leave our members and participants free to join the EN event as they wish. If Pharos wants to organize a separate collaboration, we could also try to encourage participation in connection with the modern Chinese art editathon at the Guggenheim but there are obviously limits to what we can realistically encourage our members to contribute to WAM under WiR. I really wonder whether we should be spending so much time and effort trying to understand these priorities as my interventions have obviously not been deemed realistic. Rosie, if you have specific suggestions here, I strongly suggest you should handle further coordination as I certainly do not want to cause misunderstanding or offence. For those interested, I have found initial references to WAM 2016 here and here. I expect these will be updated before November.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand so here's what I suggest. Asian Month occurs in November. Every language Wikipedia is invited to participate in any way they wish. They can choose to hold in-person events (e.g. WMNYC's Guggenheim event). They could choose to do virtual edit-a-thons. Women in Red has been invited to participate. We have agreed to do a virtual edit-a-thon. Our participation will be separate from anything else that anyone else does on English wikipedia. For example, maybe MILHIST will work on Asian battleships. Maybe WikiProject video games will write articles about video games created in Asia.
WiR will create our own meetup page -same as usual- and will write articles about Asian women and/or their works.
We'll need Wikidata-generated redlists for each Asian country.
November's WiR invitation will state that we have 3 events going on: F+D, Writers, Asian Women.
If other language Wikipedias want to copy our efforts (focus on Asian women), awesome!
Rosiestep This comes as quite a surprise, Rosie. I think what you suggest is taking on quite unmanageable proportions. I'm surprised you say we have already agreed to do a virtual editathon as I thought we were discussing the scope of our participation here. (When was the invitation sent and how did we reply?) I'm also rather surprised that no account has been taken of my own suggestions that we should try to include an Asian dimension on Food and Drink and on Writers, especially as there appeared to be strong support from AddisWang. You suggest we should produce redlists for all the Asian countries. At the moment, the only redlist for an Asian country is a Wikidata list on Japan, kindly created by emijrp in January along lines very similar to those used in the lists created by Edgars2007. (Interestingly, I see it contains about 15 writers which we could well take on board.) We also have our WiR list of API women, compiled mainly by Megalibrarygirl, which has a few red links for each of 12 Asian countries. (By the way, there seems to be something seriously wrong with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata created by Jane023 -- it does not contain any red links. If it could be adjusted to display red links, it might be very useful for November.) At a pinch, I suppose we could put together Wikidata lists on the major Asian countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and maybe others with a European presence/interest such as Thailand and Singapore) but it would be a huge task to create them for the other 40 or so Asian countries. Furthermore, I don't think many editors would have the time or inclination to consult them all. In any case, I'm not too optimistic about the participation or results we could expect with a fully-fledged editathon covering all aspects of Asian women. I think a more focused approach on our priorities might be more successful. Unless there is strong support from others, I would suggest once again that we announce WAM on our main page (allowing all interested to contribute as some did in 2015) while highlighting on the editathon pages for F&D and Writers, the opportunity to create biographies on Asian women. If we were to do this, I think we could include Asian countries in our lists for these priorities. Perhaps it would be useful to present these different options on out main WiR talk page to see what others feel about them.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott I updated the redlinks page with a new query that only returns the redlinks in English Wikipedia. Special thanks go to the Welsh Wikipedia for implementing a similar query in a Listeria list showing Welsh redlinks. Jane (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks very much for providing a new list of redlinks on writers in the European countries. It will be a great help for our editathon on Women Writers in November. Would it be feasible for you to create a similar list for at least the major Asian countries in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month?--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Note that the women writers list is already split by country and note also that at the bottom under "Misc." there are still lots of women whose wikidata items have not been updated with their citizenship. I can create another list filtered for women born in a certain group of countries I suppose, but be aware that not all women on Wikidata have their birthplaces filled in either. When you say "Asian" do you also mean place of residence? Because I am not sure I can filter for that at all! I can create a generic list of human women with citizenship in specific countries which is not filtered for writers though. Not too sure if that would be useful, but I could split it by occupation. Best, Jane (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata redlists
Ipigott, no worries. Also, I think the Wikidata Asian country redlists would be a good idea. Would you be comfortable naming those pages using the "Women in Red" naming convention rather than putting them in your sandbox? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I have a specific problem with my Wikidata lists. Until now I have kept them all in my user spece because I don't want to initiate a conflict with Harej and his Project X colleagues who have been creating their own versions of Wikidata lists and posting them on the main WiR page. They have names such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women in architecture/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report. I far prefer the format I have been using (originally developed by Edgars2007) as it provides a summary description of each person, dates and places of birth and death, country, and where possible a photograph. Unlike the Harej lists, mine include only women about whom there is already an article in one of the Wikipedia languages. I think the illustrated display is far more conducive to article creation and have made wide use of it myself. Let me have your thoughts on this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
We did Women in religion last year. Not my topic of choice, but I created articles. I'll go with the consensus, but it would not be my preference. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott, and SusunW: - I'm still on a wiki business trip; then home for 3 days and working at my day job; and then 4 more days of wiki travel through next weekend; so not able to work on this at the moment. Maybe someone else? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: We're talking about next March so there's plently of time. But perhaps Keilana has useful contacts who could help out here too? I could also look around if you wish but I too am finding it increasingly difficult to devote as much time to Wikipedia as I would like.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not ready more carefully. Was at airport, returning from SD site visit for Wiki Conference North America. How about something broader, such as Women in Travel, be it ships, trains, planes, horseback, dogsled, even nomadic women, if that's not too much of a stretch. Also, I assume A+F will be back in March, too, but no reason why we can't support multiple options. The UN may have yet another suggestion; looking forward to learning about the direction they're thinking about in terms of Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Circling back to December, I was thinking that at some point, we might like to work on Women's Works, e.g. things that women have created: books, sculptures, schools, etc. This doesn't have to be the Dec topic if something else pops up, but perhaps a suggestion for a future topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, and SusunW: I think anytime for women in Aviation is good. I didn't realize how under-represented women in Aviation were on Wiki till I started fleshing out the Women in Aviation Hall of Fame page and I was floored by how many important women (around the world) are not on Wiki. I created a Women in Aviation page that you can check out--I even found a lot of photos for the articles. I'd be happy to create other women in transportation lists, though. :) In addition, the Women in the Military list is getting longer and we could also consider that, too. There's a lot of overlap with the Women in Aviation because of the WASPs and such. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I'm totally happy with women in Aviation and would write on Military women too, though it cuts against my pacifist grain. That being said, if I could write about religion with NPOV, surely I can do the same for military women. I'm still hoping we can get Education back on the board at some point. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl good to see you back. Maybe educators in January with philosophers? They seem to go hand in hand. Rosiestep suggested aviators be broadened to travelers to include women in automotive industries, as pioneers, mountaineers, etc. for December. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Rosiestep:, I'm good with women in travel for December. While I think the military list is getting pretty long, I'd actually like to reformat it a little and I think I can add more names, too, I realized after some thinking about it. Sorry run on sentence. Still trying to kick my brain back in gear. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that things have been more or less sorted out for November, we need to firm up for December. I think we all agree on Women in Aviation but I'm not too sure how we can associate all the other travel-related topics. If we simply take "Women in Travel", by far the most common occupation is Women Travel Writers which are closely related to our November focus. If we take the automobile industry, we come up with occupations such as mechanical engineers and racing drivers, but there do not seem to be too many women to be covered. We could indeed try to focus on Women in Mountaineering although to me that does not seem to be naturally related to aviation. Something to do with religion was also mentioned but it's not too long since we covered Women in Religion. I suggest we might focus on Women Anthropologists which is quite an important sector in its own right. I know our work on scientists has already covered quite a few of them but it might be worthwhile targeting them more specifically. "Women in the Military" has also been mentioned. Is that likely to attract participation? Anyway, I would appreciate reactions and suggestions fairly soon.--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott I'm good with whatever is decided, though I concur we have done religion and would like another topic. I tend to pick things I am interested in learning about, no matter what editathon we do, so as long as the topic is broad enough, I'm in. Military seems a logical paring. Just as there was with nurses, many women fliers started there. There is a lot of overlap, as Megalibrarygirl said, though I don't know if Sue has had time to work on the lists. Anthropology is great, and if we don't cover it here, perhaps February would be good? SusunW (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Ipigott:, I'm good with whatever we pick, too. There's a pretty good list of military women with overlap for the aviators. I think I can easily expand the military women too. :) There's a really active Military WikiProject, so we may attract some of them, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: As you've probably noticed, I've also prepared a Wikidata list on women in the military but it's rather short, no doubt because there are so few military categories for occupations on Wikidata. So to conclude, flying in to the end of the year we'll do Women in Aviation and Women in the Military in December. It'll also be the last month for the current round of Scientists and Philosophers.--Ipigott (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Sounds good! I'll try to add more military women. I think I may create a WiR list for military broken down by country. The one we have crowd-sourced right now is by name only. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: - I think Women in Aviation and Women in the Military are great topics for Dec. I was wondering if we could also add a country or other geo region for people who might like more variety? I don't have any geo region in mind, except not Asia, Africa, Antarctica, or Wales, as we've already covered these in 2016. I'd also say not Canada as that would be a good one for August 2017 (to coincide with Wikimania Montreal). Perhaps Central America or Baltic or Caribbean or...? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep I'm always game for working on the Caribbean, as the coverage on WP for the area is dismal. The plus is that you have not only a wide variety of cultures, but languages too, since the islands include Dutch, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish as well as all the Kriol varieties :) P.S. In case anyone forgot, we start travel for Thanksgiving tomorrow and I will be out of pocket for a week. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. I'll try to put together a Wikidata list for the Caribbean today or tomorrow and prepare an invitation including all three, perhaps with a word on the BBC too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I suggest we keep to the Caribbean islands. The mainland countries could be handled separately. Producing Wikidata lists for all the islands would require considerable time and effort. At this late stage, I think I'll just keep to the main islands.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created separate lists for Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas, and Barbados. The last three are short but the first four are more interesting. We already had Cuba. I have not included the French islands as they are considered to be part of France and their inhabitants have French nationality. Probably not worthwhile including the Dutch ones or the other smaller English-speaking ones. (cc Megalibrarygirl)
@Rosiestep and Pharos: I truly enjoyed architecture last year. It is fun to discover the women AND the buildings they did. Is the Guggenheim sponsoring another Women in Architecture editathon this October too? SusunW (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How about covering both women architects and women archaeologists this October? There is a fairly close relationship between the two and the red list of archaeologists is growing with inputs from Joe Roe.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Note, Pharos is also part of the core WikiConference North America organizing committee, so may be slow to respond.
I like both suggestions. Regarding the Nigerian Women campaign which is scheduled to occur 20 Sep - 20 Oct, let's have WiR run it through 31 October to give our folks time to add more articles. That makes 3 focus areas for Oct, and when you add the scientists and philosophers which run through the end of the year, it gives editors 5 options, which is probably enough for October. But if something else arises, sure, we can address it.
I don't have bandwidth to set up any of the Oct meetup pages. If someone creates an Invite, I can MassMessage it. Thanks, all. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep I can create the invitation. I think it will be sufficient to cover architects and archaeologists. Buttons at the top of their pages with direct editors to the three others.--Ipigott (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How about "Women in food and drink"? We could include those in cooking, dieting, food production and winemaking as well as specialized journalists, critics and TV personalities. Maybe also national and international players in politics or important international organizations, including the FAO and some of those under Category:Food- and drink-related organizations. There are also a number of historical figures deserving attention. @Megalibrarygirl: If you think this is a good idea, you might like to start compiling a red-link list. Dr. Blofeld has listed the names of several women winemakers on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I like this idea too, Ipigott. I can start a redlist later today or tomorrow. I think we can extend it even further to include dishes themselves, since that's traditionally female oriented. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Women in food and drink... I like it. Let's do it. Maybe there are also some notable cookbooks, schools, orgs, etc. which could be redlinked.--Rosiestep (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: Glad to hear you both like the idea. Thanks for all the constructive suggestions. I think we need to be careful about including dishes though unless they are specifically related to a woman. I'm not sure whether dishes are traditionally female-oriented although some obviously are. I think we should stick with "Food and drink" rather than "Cookery". As for cookbooks, many of the top female chefs have published their own. There are also a number of prized historic works, some of them covered in other languages on Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing the list and will contribute to it when I have a bit more time. I take it that you both support scheduling an editathon for November.--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep:, I'll go with Food and Drink. I was being very "catalogy" with Cookery. LOL. I was thinking with foods if we are able to trace their origins... it may be useful. Like the inventor of the potato chip, George Crum, we know about, or for a better example, the chocolate chip cookie invented by Ruth Graves Wakefield. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: I am really looking forward to doing a food+drink editathon. I think we should promote it heavily in October across all the country WikiProjects (WikiProject Mexico, etc.) as, of course, there are notable food+drink women in every country. The timing, November, is very good because of harvest festivals and Thanksgiving#Observance being in the fall. I will mention it in my talks this month in Wash DC and Italy. @Pharos: do you think any of your connections would be interested in this? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pharos: Good idea. @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I don't want to push things too far but how about encouraging participation of some of the other language Wikipedias in contributing in their own languages (French, German, Spanish and Italian come to mind). With the collaboration of Wikidata, we might be able to transform it into a truly international event. Rosie, why don't you sound them out at your meetings?--Ipigott (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
While I very much hope food and drink will attract interest, I think there is a risk results will be similar to those for August when we only had a total of 68 new articles from our two editathons (36 on polar women and 32 on indigenous women). For November, I therefore suggest our main area of focus should once again be Women Writers (on which we had almost 400 articles in May). I also strongly suggest we should collaborate with Dr. Blofeld and set up some kind of contest, perhaps simply called The 1000 Challenge for Women Writers. If there is general support for this, I could try to work with Dr. Blofeld and set something up in good time. As we need to be well prepared, I would like to have reactions asap from @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Montanabw, Gobonobo, MurielMary, Big iron, and Victuallers: and anyone else reading this page. We certainly need something to get WiR moving full steam ahead again!--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The 1000 Women Writer's Challenge I think should include both article improvements and creations, and GAs, not just new entries. A mechanism to get people working on existing articles and cleanup too. I would keep that as an ongoing challenge for now, but it's possible you could run a contest for women in red as part of it to boost production and reach the goal quicker. Prizes could be books about women, or you could create a list of books that editors want and create a book fund and people can donate their winnings to help others out with books etc. I'm certainly not going to pressure for it myself, I'm busy!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the suggestion of "Women in food and drink" a lot, sounds intriguing and I'm sure there are a lot of articles to be written/improved! Definitely not keen on the title "Cookery" though, seems to conjure up ideas of the traditional female stereotype of women in the home rather than casting the net wider to women in the professional realms of food. I'm not sure about the "1000 challenge" idea, how would that work? A challenge to produce 1000 articles/improvements on women in general, or on a specific topic? MurielMary (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@MurielMary: I see the contest as a means of encouraging the creation of new articles as well as the improvement of existing ones. I am not convinced we need physical prizes although there does seem to be a possibility of obtaining books or book vouchers for awards. As far as I have seen, many editors simply like to take part in a contest, even if it is in an area they do not usually address. Combined with our standard editathon approach, I think it would bring in new people and perhaps allow us to have one of our most successful months. I think at least it's worth a try. To answer your other query, is there any reason why we should not simply call it "Women in Food and Drink"? I don't like cookery either. Food and Drink would also cover other areas such as food production, wineries, television contests, government and international administrations, medical aspects, dieting, etc., etc.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, we both agree on the title! Again about the 1000 challenge, is that to get 1000 articles on a specific topic within a month, or 1000 articles on any topic related to women? MurielMary (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think 1000 Women Writers to start with. Create a core list of women articles, and a missing list and combine them. For people who don't like contests, I suggest creating a book fund for Women and people can donate some of their earnings into a book fund and buy books about women for other editors to contribute here upon demand.. So rather than working for personal gain, people who don't want prizes can work hard to buy other editors books they need to write about women. Genius ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on whether people would want it to be 1000 missing articles or see a way that we could bring about existing core and other notable article improvements at the same time. I think overall a general improvement/creation contest combined for women writer's would work best. Something like:
20 points - new article
25 points - destubbing or cleanup
50 points - improvement of a Core Article
200 points - Good Article
The contest ends when 1000 articles have been created or improved, so you'd be guaranteed 1000 article improvements or creations.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To answer MurielMary's question, while our WiR editathon would be for the month of November, the contest could start at the beginning of the month and continue as long as it takes to reach 1000 new or improved articles. At least that's the way I see it.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused by what the goal is here. WIR is about turning red links to blue links, i.e. creating new content. While I definitely agree there is a need for articles to be improved, I do not think this project is the right project to take on that task, as it is steering us away from our goals. I think it's a lofty idea and I think that if a contest gets people to participate in it, then that's great, just not for this project. Women in food and drink is not something we've done before and it sounds interesting to me. Women writers works well with it, if we are interested in doing writers again. I prefer to diversify our topics, but surely I can find women who wrote cook books that fit both categories ;) SusunW (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of adding Women Writers to our November schedule. Let's do it. A campaign for 1000 Women Writers sounds like fun. Improving articles is a Women in Green initiative so you might want to connect on those project's talkpages regarding destubbing, etc. Personally, I don't want points for the articles I create; I just want to write. But others may like to accumulate points. I know MILHIST gives out chevrons based on points for their various drives, and that's cool. But they don't require you to deal with points if you don't want to; hope this campaign has the same mindset? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I'm really glad, Rosie, to see you think it's worthwhile trying it out. Nothing specific about the contest has been decided yet. Maybe we should adopt points or maybe we should just see who creates or improves the most articles. Personally, I think that as this is our first venture into the area of contests, we should be as flexible as possible. @SusunW: I appreciate your concerns but other contests along the sames lines, for example the current 1000 Nordic Challenge, have mostly been concerned with the creation of new articles. If the Women Writers approach is a success, in future we can be more specific with what we want to achieve but for starters I think we should give the more general approach a chance. As you say, if you create biographies of women who have written cookbooks, you gain on all accounts! So think of it like this: our WiR objective is to create new articles but if we can attract even more participants for both article creation and article improvement, we will be on the right track. In any case, as usual our own Women Writers editathon will be aimed first and foremost at article creation. I really hope we can persuade you to give this a try. You are after all one of our most enthusiastic participants.--Ipigott (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
WP Asian Month occurs in November
@SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Pharos, Ipigott, and Dr. Blofeld: WiR has been asked to participate in WP Asian Month, which occurs each year in November. I think we could easily support that effort, along with Food+Drink and Women Writers. The campaign aligns with our desire to work with other WikiProjects when scopes allows for it. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There's increasingly too many things going on at once on here now LOL! I'll be running the Africa Destubathon then, so it's Africa month for me! Yes, WIR can support it, people can work on Asian articles if they wish as well!♦ Dr. Blofeld06:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld I don't know what you mean about too many things, especially as you mention the Africa Destubathon which isn't within Women in Red's scope. While some of us might like the idea of Food+Drink, there are all those people who don't and aren't going to be say so, but will just ignore that one. Women writers might interest some editors but not everyone. Asian women might interest some people but not everyone. In terms of new content production, offering variety is good at Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep There seems to be an increasing number of events across wikipedia and editathons, I'm increasingly seeing multiple things going on each month. Isn't there an Afro event soon as well? Last I heard November would be food and drink month! How about Asian women in food and drink ;-)? Yes, people can choose what they want to do of course, and I didn't say the Destubathon was in WIR's scope, I said for me and what I'm doing it would be African month, so it would be difficult for me to focus on Asian women! ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: We have an African slant in October with Nigeria so I see no reason why we should not have Asia in November. I think nevertheless with the huge scope offered by Women Writers, not to mention Women in Food and Drink, we should not launch it as a fully fledged editathon but rather along the same lines as our September/October support for Nigerian Entertainers. I'm also surprised to see that there is absolutely nothing about November 2016 on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month. (You say it is organized every year but I can find nothing before 2015.) AddisWang who organized the EN 2015 event could possibly throw some light on this. Last time round it was arranged on a multilingual basis. I must say, I am extremely impressed by all the language links in the LH margin on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month. Perhaps WiR could benefit from their approach if even we want to become truly international. Once we know which countries are being specifically targeted this time, we could perhaps also encourage our participants to create articles about women writers and food experts in those countries. Likewise, the organizers of Wikipedia Asian Month 2016 could promote an interest in biographies about women. In any case, once there is an official announcement, we should include it among our own announcements on WiR's main page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a big event across any language who wishes to participate. There is one focus: write articles regarding Asia. All countries in Asia; none are excluded. The organizers aren't going to give special promotion to women writers any more than they are going to promote geographic features, buildings, or fashion. Their focus is solely to promote writing articles about Asia. For WiR, participating in Asian Month would mean offering an event where editors would write articles about Asia but within our scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Sorry to push you on this, Rosie, but can you reveal your sources? As far as I can see from last year's event, they do not simply want articles about Asia. They were very specific about the countries to be covered: Mainland China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand (but not important countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and all the Middle East countries). So we really need to know what they intend to cover this year. If you open Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month and look at List of participants (i.e. show), you'll see that the EN project was not all that big. Interestingly, I see that a number of our contributors (including @97198, Another Believer, Gobonobo, and Megalibrarygirl:) took part, writing women's biographies. Last year, in response to a question about other WikiProjects participating in the event, it was suggested that they should set up their own projects separately. So I really think we need more details before we announce anything.--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks to bring this up, here are some of my thoughts.
In a previous discussion, I think the plan is, if the topic of November is Women in culinary, people who write about Women from Asia in culinary can be part of the Asian Month, as well as Rosie mentioned, that just have a general space that editors write articles about Asia within WiR scope, and vise versa, who write an article in Asian Month within WiR scope will just be part of WiR.
About International part, firstly, we will have a recommending list this year, thus we can provide a to-do list from WiR to other language communities. Secondly, we wish to have some offline event this year, but we know to many people outside Asia, running an Asian Month event may not sound either fun or attractive. But a feminism event or a WiR event specifically focus on Asia will solve this problem.
@Ipigott: I can see our WAM page is bit confused so here are some clarification: Those countries are just we have communities to send postcards, not meaning rest are not important. Our rules will just be writing anything about Asian besides your language speaking country.(Exclude English Wikipedia since it will be complicated) I'm not sure about other WikiProjects thing. I mean we suppose welcome everyone to join the Asian Month, its just we will not provide either any leverage to specific topics or saying we want to focus on any specific topics. Out participating community is keep rolling that many communities actually signing up after the event begin last year.--AddisWang (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks for these useful clarifications. I'm glad to hear you welcome the participation of Women in Red in connection with our Food and Drink priority for November. Personally, I think there might be even more interest in covering female Asian writers, as our second priority for November is Women Writers. We look forward to a specific announcement on Women in Asia 2016. If something already exists, please let us know where we can find it. We can then encourage our members to participate. You speak of arranging a physical event with the support of WiR. While the easiest location might be in the United States or Britain, it might be even more effective to arrange something, for example, in India. I see there is an active programme of meetups in India. Perhaps you could liaise with those responsible and arrange something for November. Or even the orgaizers of Wikipedia:Meetup/International Women's Day, India/2015.--Ipigott (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks! Didn't notice the topic of Writer, but yeah of course! Women in Asia 2016 sounds cool, I guess people can list their contribution on both WiR and WAM page. Currently we have Columbus, Ohio and New york organizing the event in November, as can be seen on this page. Maybe when I outreach to other communities to see if they willing to do something offline, I can ask if they want to have a genreal WAM event, or a WiR event specifically focus on Asia.--AddisWang (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@AddisWang: Thanks. Contemporary Chinese Art at the Guggenheim is certainly something WiR should be supporting. Perhaps Pharos is involved? Personally, I think you should firm up your WAM arrangements first. We can then see how best WiR can collaborate. In any case, we would be delighted to help with lists of red links. I'm also sure many of our members and editathon participants would be keen to take part. We just need to provide them with reliable details. I would suggest you try to put together a WAM 2016 page by mid-October.--Ipigott (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yes, we're working on Contemporary Chinese Art at the Guggenheim in NYC, and tying that into the global WAM effort. I really think WiR could be the cornerstone of the WAM effort on English Wikipedia this year, why not do it that way? The WAM campaign has been very successful in many languages, but less so in English, so this may be a way of bringing together what I believe are the two largest online-focused editathon events in the Wikimedia-verse. It should be remembered that WAM will be promoted in all languages through a big sitenotice, so all the more reason for WiR to take advantage of joining this opportunity in November.--Pharos (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pharos and AddisWang: Despite Rosiestep's reservations about WiR being able to have any impact on WAM, this looks like a real opportunity, especially for those who welcome diversification. I hope both of you can put something together. We could perhaps target modern Asian art for the first week of November, and then leave things more open for the rest of the month -- not forgetting Writers, and Food and Drink. Let me know when we can announce/prepare for something more specific.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep Yes, it was great you came up with the opportunity to participate. But the reservations you expressed were "The organizers aren't going to give special promotion to women writers any more than they are going to promote geographic features, buildings, or fashion." From the exchanges above it now looks as if the EN component of WAM is specifically interested in cooperating with WiR, even to the extent that there are proposals for a "feminist" event; there seems to be full support for collaboration on both Food and Drink and Writers. There is even talk of a "WiR event specifically focused on Asia". Pharos has gone as far as suggesting that "WiR could be the cornerstone of the WAM event in English." But before we start working on anything more concrete, I still think we need to be able to link to an official WAM announcement. The way I see it is if they can include our priorities in their announcements, we can also try to encourage our participants to create articles about Asian women in the fields we are addressing. I'm certainly very sorry if my wording caused you any offence. None was intended.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl While general improvements to the Asian lists would be great, I was wondering whether you would have time to expand the Asian country components on the lists for Women Writers and Women in Food and Drink. I could also try to create lists from Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep:Hey I feel there are some small misunderstanding maybe due to my poor expression. Rosie made a correct statement that WAM does not support any specific topics but any topics about Asia. We want people to improve anything they are interested and not feeling have a lot of restrictions. But that does not against a single offline event or an online campaign focus on a specific topic towards the WAM. We would like to work with WiR that allows editors from WiR to contribute WAM in their own ways, as well as we would like to work with other thematic groups on enwp (I just don't know a very active one and WiR is very successful and well-known). But we can not put WAM into any kind of direction that may make other editors think their contributions is viewed less important. Sorry if I did not clearly understand your opinion. I will soon adjust the WAM page on ENWP and draft an announcement which will figure out how to incorporate WiR into it.
@AddisWang, Pharos, and Rosiestep: I'm afraid I find all this increasingly confusing. May I ask AddisWang if there is anyone in your group who can explain exactly what you would like WiR to do in support of WAM (if anything) as I am not sure we are able to interpret your messages correctly. For example, perhaps you could invite one of your team to explain exactly what you mean by "that does not against a single offline event or an online campaign focus on a specific topic towards the WAM". Rosie probably had the best overview after all. In retrospect, perhaps we should simply announce the event on our main page once a clear WAM announcement has been published and leave our members and participants free to join the EN event as they wish. If Pharos wants to organize a separate collaboration, we could also try to encourage participation in connection with the modern Chinese art editathon at the Guggenheim but there are obviously limits to what we can realistically encourage our members to contribute to WAM under WiR. I really wonder whether we should be spending so much time and effort trying to understand these priorities as my interventions have obviously not been deemed realistic. Rosie, if you have specific suggestions here, I strongly suggest you should handle further coordination as I certainly do not want to cause misunderstanding or offence. For those interested, I have found initial references to WAM 2016 here and here. I expect these will be updated before November.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I understand so here's what I suggest. Asian Month occurs in November. Every language Wikipedia is invited to participate in any way they wish. They can choose to hold in-person events (e.g. WMNYC's Guggenheim event). They could choose to do virtual edit-a-thons. Women in Red has been invited to participate. We have agreed to do a virtual edit-a-thon. Our participation will be separate from anything else that anyone else does on English wikipedia. For example, maybe MILHIST will work on Asian battleships. Maybe WikiProject video games will write articles about video games created in Asia.
WiR will create our own meetup page -same as usual- and will write articles about Asian women and/or their works.
We'll need Wikidata-generated redlists for each Asian country.
November's WiR invitation will state that we have 3 events going on: F+D, Writers, Asian Women.
If other language Wikipedias want to copy our efforts (focus on Asian women), awesome!
Rosiestep This comes as quite a surprise, Rosie. I think what you suggest is taking on quite unmanageable proportions. I'm surprised you say we have already agreed to do a virtual editathon as I thought we were discussing the scope of our participation here. (When was the invitation sent and how did we reply?) I'm also rather surprised that no account has been taken of my own suggestions that we should try to include an Asian dimension on Food and Drink and on Writers, especially as there appeared to be strong support from AddisWang. You suggest we should produce redlists for all the Asian countries. At the moment, the only redlist for an Asian country is a Wikidata list on Japan, kindly created by emijrp in January along lines very similar to those used in the lists created by Edgars2007. (Interestingly, I see it contains about 15 writers which we could well take on board.) We also have our WiR list of API women, compiled mainly by Megalibrarygirl, which has a few red links for each of 12 Asian countries. (By the way, there seems to be something seriously wrong with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata created by Jane023 -- it does not contain any red links. If it could be adjusted to display red links, it might be very useful for November.) At a pinch, I suppose we could put together Wikidata lists on the major Asian countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh (and maybe others with a European presence/interest such as Thailand and Singapore) but it would be a huge task to create them for the other 40 or so Asian countries. Furthermore, I don't think many editors would have the time or inclination to consult them all. In any case, I'm not too optimistic about the participation or results we could expect with a fully-fledged editathon covering all aspects of Asian women. I think a more focused approach on our priorities might be more successful. Unless there is strong support from others, I would suggest once again that we announce WAM on our main page (allowing all interested to contribute as some did in 2015) while highlighting on the editathon pages for F&D and Writers, the opportunity to create biographies on Asian women. If we were to do this, I think we could include Asian countries in our lists for these priorities. Perhaps it would be useful to present these different options on out main WiR talk page to see what others feel about them.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott I updated the redlinks page with a new query that only returns the redlinks in English Wikipedia. Special thanks go to the Welsh Wikipedia for implementing a similar query in a Listeria list showing Welsh redlinks. Jane (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks very much for providing a new list of redlinks on writers in the European countries. It will be a great help for our editathon on Women Writers in November. Would it be feasible for you to create a similar list for at least the major Asian countries in connection with Wikipedia Asian Month?--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Note that the women writers list is already split by country and note also that at the bottom under "Misc." there are still lots of women whose wikidata items have not been updated with their citizenship. I can create another list filtered for women born in a certain group of countries I suppose, but be aware that not all women on Wikidata have their birthplaces filled in either. When you say "Asian" do you also mean place of residence? Because I am not sure I can filter for that at all! I can create a generic list of human women with citizenship in specific countries which is not filtered for writers though. Not too sure if that would be useful, but I could split it by occupation. Best, Jane (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata redlists
Ipigott, no worries. Also, I think the Wikidata Asian country redlists would be a good idea. Would you be comfortable naming those pages using the "Women in Red" naming convention rather than putting them in your sandbox? --Rosiestep (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I have a specific problem with my Wikidata lists. Until now I have kept them all in my user spece because I don't want to initiate a conflict with Harej and his Project X colleagues who have been creating their own versions of Wikidata lists and posting them on the main WiR page. They have names such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women in architecture/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report. I far prefer the format I have been using (originally developed by Edgars2007) as it provides a summary description of each person, dates and places of birth and death, country, and where possible a photograph. Unlike the Harej lists, mine include only women about whom there is already an article in one of the Wikipedia languages. I think the illustrated display is far more conducive to article creation and have made wide use of it myself. Let me have your thoughts on this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
We did Women in religion last year. Not my topic of choice, but I created articles. I'll go with the consensus, but it would not be my preference. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott, and SusunW: - I'm still on a wiki business trip; then home for 3 days and working at my day job; and then 4 more days of wiki travel through next weekend; so not able to work on this at the moment. Maybe someone else? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: We're talking about next March so there's plently of time. But perhaps Keilana has useful contacts who could help out here too? I could also look around if you wish but I too am finding it increasingly difficult to devote as much time to Wikipedia as I would like.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not ready more carefully. Was at airport, returning from SD site visit for Wiki Conference North America. How about something broader, such as Women in Travel, be it ships, trains, planes, horseback, dogsled, even nomadic women, if that's not too much of a stretch. Also, I assume A+F will be back in March, too, but no reason why we can't support multiple options. The UN may have yet another suggestion; looking forward to learning about the direction they're thinking about in terms of Wikipedia. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Circling back to December, I was thinking that at some point, we might like to work on Women's Works, e.g. things that women have created: books, sculptures, schools, etc. This doesn't have to be the Dec topic if something else pops up, but perhaps a suggestion for a future topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, and SusunW: I think anytime for women in Aviation is good. I didn't realize how under-represented women in Aviation were on Wiki till I started fleshing out the Women in Aviation Hall of Fame page and I was floored by how many important women (around the world) are not on Wiki. I created a Women in Aviation page that you can check out--I even found a lot of photos for the articles. I'd be happy to create other women in transportation lists, though. :) In addition, the Women in the Military list is getting longer and we could also consider that, too. There's a lot of overlap with the Women in Aviation because of the WASPs and such. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I'm totally happy with women in Aviation and would write on Military women too, though it cuts against my pacifist grain. That being said, if I could write about religion with NPOV, surely I can do the same for military women. I'm still hoping we can get Education back on the board at some point. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl good to see you back. Maybe educators in January with philosophers? They seem to go hand in hand. Rosiestep suggested aviators be broadened to travelers to include women in automotive industries, as pioneers, mountaineers, etc. for December. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Rosiestep:, I'm good with women in travel for December. While I think the military list is getting pretty long, I'd actually like to reformat it a little and I think I can add more names, too, I realized after some thinking about it. Sorry run on sentence. Still trying to kick my brain back in gear. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Now that things have been more or less sorted out for November, we need to firm up for December. I think we all agree on Women in Aviation but I'm not too sure how we can associate all the other travel-related topics. If we simply take "Women in Travel", by far the most common occupation is Women Travel Writers which are closely related to our November focus. If we take the automobile industry, we come up with occupations such as mechanical engineers and racing drivers, but there do not seem to be too many women to be covered. We could indeed try to focus on Women in Mountaineering although to me that does not seem to be naturally related to aviation. Something to do with religion was also mentioned but it's not too long since we covered Women in Religion. I suggest we might focus on Women Anthropologists which is quite an important sector in its own right. I know our work on scientists has already covered quite a few of them but it might be worthwhile targeting them more specifically. "Women in the Military" has also been mentioned. Is that likely to attract participation? Anyway, I would appreciate reactions and suggestions fairly soon.--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott I'm good with whatever is decided, though I concur we have done religion and would like another topic. I tend to pick things I am interested in learning about, no matter what editathon we do, so as long as the topic is broad enough, I'm in. Military seems a logical paring. Just as there was with nurses, many women fliers started there. There is a lot of overlap, as Megalibrarygirl said, though I don't know if Sue has had time to work on the lists. Anthropology is great, and if we don't cover it here, perhaps February would be good? SusunW (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW and Ipigott:, I'm good with whatever we pick, too. There's a pretty good list of military women with overlap for the aviators. I think I can easily expand the military women too. :) There's a really active Military WikiProject, so we may attract some of them, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: As you've probably noticed, I've also prepared a Wikidata list on women in the military but it's rather short, no doubt because there are so few military categories for occupations on Wikidata. So to conclude, flying in to the end of the year we'll do Women in Aviation and Women in the Military in December. It'll also be the last month for the current round of Scientists and Philosophers.--Ipigott (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Sounds good! I'll try to add more military women. I think I may create a WiR list for military broken down by country. The one we have crowd-sourced right now is by name only. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: - I think Women in Aviation and Women in the Military are great topics for Dec. I was wondering if we could also add a country or other geo region for people who might like more variety? I don't have any geo region in mind, except not Asia, Africa, Antarctica, or Wales, as we've already covered these in 2016. I'd also say not Canada as that would be a good one for August 2017 (to coincide with Wikimania Montreal). Perhaps Central America or Baltic or Caribbean or...? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep I'm always game for working on the Caribbean, as the coverage on WP for the area is dismal. The plus is that you have not only a wide variety of cultures, but languages too, since the islands include Dutch, English, French, Portuguese and Spanish as well as all the Kriol varieties :) P.S. In case anyone forgot, we start travel for Thanksgiving tomorrow and I will be out of pocket for a week. SusunW (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. I'll try to put together a Wikidata list for the Caribbean today or tomorrow and prepare an invitation including all three, perhaps with a word on the BBC too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I suggest we keep to the Caribbean islands. The mainland countries could be handled separately. Producing Wikidata lists for all the islands would require considerable time and effort. At this late stage, I think I'll just keep to the main islands.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created separate lists for Dominican Republic, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Bahamas, and Barbados. The last three are short but the first four are more interesting. We already had Cuba. I have not included the French islands as they are considered to be part of France and their inhabitants have French nationality. Probably not worthwhile including the Dutch ones or the other smaller English-speaking ones. (cc Megalibrarygirl)
Idea: How about LGBT women, as part of the Wiki Loves Pride campaign. This could include LGBT activists, actresses, businesswomen, entertainers, politicians, scientists, etc etc. Thanks for your consideration. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Like Thanks so much! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
