Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

No Importance Scale?

RESOLVED
This project is not to use importance ratings. sst✈(discuss) 08:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[ crosspost from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Assessment#No Importance scale? ]

Hi there - Re the {WikiProject Women} template: When I click on This article has been rated as ???-importance on the project's importance scale, I see Quality criteria, but no Importance criteria. Is there a link I'm missing?

Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an importance scale. It probably hasnt been made yet. But using the criteria of most other projects the scale should probably have 500-1000 top level topics (i.e. only the 1000 topics most crucially important for the project, articles such as "Woman", "Feminism", "Women's rights" and some of the most signficant women of world history). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Given the warring at Talk:Lera Boroditsky, I think it's time to set one (here's a template). czar 20:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Czar - Dood! Please do not mischaracterize my conversation with Maunus as a "war". I am sick of these macho-bs compensating-for-something so-called "wars" in Wikipedia (ref User:LeoRomero/scx#Assumptions). Aren't you? - Thanks, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth rather than finding consensus is the definition of "edit warring", which is the name of a WP policy... so it's not not some term of art. If you think it should be called something else, that's a conversation for its talk page. czar 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Czar. I'd rather do Content (so many of our articles are unreadable), but I'm beginning to enjoy The Asylum's inside-sports-on-steroids, now that I'm back on meds. So if you'll support a move to switch our language from "Wikipedia is War" to "Wikipedia is a Learning Playground", I will do as you suggest. - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather do content too. And I don't really support either statement, though I lean towards the latter. For what it's worth, we've already agreed that Wikipedia is not a battleground. czar 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It appears to me that someone added Cate Blanchett to top importance as a probable joke (the only other article at that level was "Woman" which is obviously the most crucial article for WP:WOMEN). And it further seems that Leo Romero is now unwittingly continuing this joke by adding relatively minor scientists of comparable significance to Blanchett (a relatively minor actress) to the Top importance. So yes, make an importance scale to avoid this kind of nonsense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
When we began we discussed in depth whether it was or was not necessary to have an importance scale and decided against it. It is as if one is saying a file is notable, but then ranking notability, which then leads down the rabbit hole of POV. Obviously the topic can be revisited, but still seems to me to be something that creates divisiveness rather than inclusion. But that's only my take. SusunW (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
If the WikiProject decides against the use of importance ratings, the line 
 |importance={{{importance|}}}
should be removed from {{WikiProject Women}}; but if the WikiProject decides in favour of the use of importance ratings, there should be a section named "Importance scale" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, describing the permitted values (Top, High, Mid, Low, NA). See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment#Importance scale - this section is automatically linked in two places: in the banner template itself, in the phrase "on the project's importance scale."; and in the template documentation, in the sentence "See the project's importance scale for details." These automatic links mean that if a section is added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, the section heading should not be varied from "Importance scale". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! @SusunW and Redrose64: I'm inclined to incline you further against having an "Importance Scale" in the first place. There's only one person who determines the Importance of any and every Wikipedia Article, and s/he's The Reader.

And, as a Reader, as well as an Inmate? To be totally frank and honest with you? At the end of the day, when all is said and done, In My Douchie Opinion (IMDO-ccbysaLoRETta): Madonna (entertainer) over Cate Blanchett. Or at least equal.

Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that an importance scale is inappropriate for this project. The scope of this project is simply too wide, and importance is too subjective. sst✈(discuss) 07:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Per consensus within this discussion, I have removed the importance scale from the {{WikiProject Women}} template. sst✈(discuss) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SSTflyer! You solved the problem in under 4 minutes. Magic. Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 09:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry for chiming in late. I would think that, if there were to be an importance scale, it would be in the project's best interests to see what articles and subarticles are given the most coverage by article and subarticle length in other extant, well regarded, encyclopedic sources, like Britannica for a general perspective or whatever the most highly regarded more directly relevant reference works might be, and basically follow their model. I have started a few pages of such listings like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus. Importance assessment could be useful in helping editors decide which articles to link to in other articles, or determining what content should be placed in which articles, and so on, but I think it would definitely be a good idea to have some sort of prospectus to work from first. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in the military article

I've started a discussion concerning the suitability of some content in this article at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Comments from other editors would be great. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Question on birth-death date parentheses

I've been revamping lists of women's halls of fame that I have previously worked on. "Why use parentheses in the table?" had been inserted years ago in one of the tables. What it is referring to is the table column that contains this: (1868–1952). All the women's halls of fame tables have this formatting. But I don't know why. It's like the lead sentence on a bio article has the birth and death date in parenthesis. I can't find any Wikipedia guideline to cite for this. Does anybody know why Wikipedia does it this way? — Maile (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:BLPLEAD in particular the bulleted list. Using parentheses to indicate the period when the person was alive is quite common in non-Wikipedia contexts too. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. This give me a policy I can cite if the subject comes up again. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject tagging – bot request

To finally move forward, I suggest tagging in several phases. The first one (probably it could be the most accurate) is tagging women biographies, that have an article in German Wikipedia. In next rounds we can tag other articles. In my current list, there are 34837 biographies, so that would be a very good start. SSTflyer has done some job, but I suppose, he would get blocked for making so many edits without bot flag. If it's not against the rules, then you (SSTflyer) can tell me, and I will add some more comments about my list. But I think it would be better to give it for bots, so if nobody disagrees, then I'm making that bot request, finally. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – the problem with blanket tagging women biographies is that in many cases these articles are more suited to more specific women projects. sst✈discuss 13:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Architecture should be under Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists, but in edit-a-thlon about architects there wasn't mentioned that banner. And putting this banner to all articles, which don't have any of women-related banners, was the main idea of previous talk. But yes - I understand your concerns. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Approve in Theory I am not opposed to tagging by bot and certainly would prefer that they are tagged with Women than to be untagged. Rather they have an umbrella tag than none at all. Just wanting to clarify that the only criteria for this first test is "biographies with an article also on German WP?" @Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: weigh in please. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Approve with the strongest possible language Reasons: 1) Back tagging by hand is extremely time consuming and our editors could be using that time to create content. 2) Knowing what is going on at AfD is impossible without articles being tagged 3) tagging women's articles incorrectly sometimes doesn't outweigh the benefit to having the article under one our umbrella groups 4) having better stats is important to our project 5) did I miss anything? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like SusunW (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, let's use birth year of 1950 or earlier, for consistency. And that bot request -- for WP Women's History -- could go in immediately. I'm curious how many of the 34837 articles would be effected. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly approve and encourage - If for nothing else, to track AfDs. And everything else stated above by Megalibrarygirl. Has anyone ever read WP Women's History criteria for inclusion? It begins at the top of the project page by saying the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century, which excludes a lot of women. Down the page, there is a section that is for criteria that is complicated, and varies depending on what other project is associated with the article. Ala "If X equals Y on project A, then we include. But with project B, X must equal Z and include C, D and Q." I was kind of hoping WPWomen could be more inclusive in its criteria. And a whole lot less complicated to figure out who belongs.— Maile (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile66 I am with you. The WP Women's History is really complicated to figure out. I have had various people challenge whether someone even belongs in the project. I'd rather have Women be inclusive than confusing. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW I think Wikipedia is meant to be open to everyone, so that includes the projects. I think I've seen something similar over the last year, can't remember where, that one or more persons decided they could pick and choose who should be a member of their project. As far as I'm concerned, most projects are dead as the proverbial door nail, and members should be happy to see anyone wanting to contribute positive efforts. Also, other than the current Women in Red efforts, I've only seen one project (WP Military History) that operates with any kind of organized structure and proactive methods of creating and improving content. That doesn't mean there aren't others, just that most of what I see among active projects are systemically combative. Let's cross our fingers on this one. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If the main aim for WikiProject tagging is for tracking AfDs of women articles, a possible approach would be to request the bot to skip tagging a talk page if the talk page is already tagged with any other women WikiProjects under the umbrella. sst✈ 07:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There are 1,104,417 biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. The number of living persons that should be tagged with at least one women WikiProject template should be around 15% of this number, and clearly this hasn't been achieved yet. sst✈ 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Recently, a lot of pages have been tagged - if this is to be believed, the number of tagged articles went up from 5,874 at the start of 27 Dec to 7,634 at the start of 29 Dec, which is an increase of 1,760 in 48 hours. However, the number of assessed pages only went up from 2,232 to 2,529 - an increase of just 197 whereas the number of unassessed pages went up from 3,642 to 5,105 - an increase of 1,463. I believe that whoever is adding the banners is not setting the |class= parameter in cases when it could easily be copied from other banners on the same page, that is, they are doing this and not this. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, I tagged a ton of new articles in the way you describe yesterday. I'm just tagging as quickly as I can to get through my backlog. I assumed the parameters would get added on their own... it all seems like magic to me. :/ Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
You have to realize that article quality ratings are project-specific. We cannot just copy ratings from other projects. If the main purpose of tagging is to track AfDs, ratings are useless anyway. sst✈ 04:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Article importance ratings are project-specific, and intentionally so (since what is very important to one project may well be of little consequence to another); but class ratings are by-and-large the same, since all should be based upon Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. You will not find, for example, a page rated B-class by one WikiProject but Stub-class by another.
Most WikiProjects recognise the "standard" quality scale (FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, FL, List, NA); quite a number use the "extended" quality scale which is the same as "standard" but adds seven more (Category, Disambig, Draft, File, Portal, Project, Template) only one of which (Disambig) is useful for pages in mainspace. Apart from the "standard"/"extended" difference, there are some project-specific custom variations: a lot of WikiProjects do not recognise A-class, some recognise FL-class in addition, and so on. WikiProject Women is one of those with such a custom class mask: it recognises the "extended" quality scale plus three more (Redirect, FM and Book).
For redirects, and most pages outside mainspace (except FM-class pages in File-space), it is not normally necessary to set |class= since it is determined automatically by the WikiProject banner template. So the only ones that we should care about are those in the "standard" scale plus Disambig and FM. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
So... I don't need to add the class parameter? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
If the talk page is that of an article (including disambiguation pages but not including redirects), or is that of a File: page which is a featured picture, the |class= parameter should be included and, if possible, set to a non-blank value. But if the talk page is that of a redirect, or any page outside mainspace that is not a featured picture, the |class= parameter may safely be omitted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64: There are several editors working very hard to add tags to talk-pages of women-related articles so that this project becomes aware of the existence of these articles. This is a task that can be better explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women#Non-writing_tasks by adding explanations such as:
This must be the third or fourth time that I've explained it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, about tagging. I wanted to give you folks some days to express yourselves. I finalize celebrating New Year and update the list, then will do the bot requesting job. You don't have to worry about that, you can continue writing amazing articles :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The request is here. Sorry for late response - have quite many things to do in other Wikipedias and Wikidata. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if the tagging BOT is operating, but this project already has 14,535 pages tagged. Good work! Ottawahitech (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

AfD for Nadine Poss

The German Wine Queen, Nadine Poss, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Poss. The question is about the notability of the representative of the German Wine Industry and is likely to be a test case for the other articles about women who have held the role. Bermicourt (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Princess Leia

There is a request to move Princess Leia to Leia. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

xx people

All women are "xx people" now, and mothers are "bearers"! [1] Is this how we want to go? - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Size matters - Conundrum regarding lists

MOS:LIST for reference. How big is too big?

As we maintain existing lists of women in various categories, and create new ones, it might be a good idea to think about the future once these lists grow. In 2011, I began dividing List of museums in Texas into regional lists, because at 129,935 bytes, my existing browser at that time froze and took forever to open the edit window. The same thing with the California museums that had reached 273,722 bytes in 2011. I now see that as a future for women's lists, and a little brainstorming wouldn't be a bad idea here.

Yesterday, I completed a retooling (for style and format) of Michigan Women's HoF and found it to be 295 entries with 43,384 bytes. The size is relatively small, because almost nothing is sourced.

Today, I counted the Ohio Women's HoF which has a little over 50% of the entries sourced. It has 366 entries on this list, and the article size is 107,814 bytes. It is not even plausible to source every entry, because the sheer size of it would make future editing inaccessible for some browsers.

So, whether it's the hall of fame lists, or any other, how do we handle the women's lists? Feedback is encouraged on this subject. @Crisco 1492, Giants2008, PresN, and SchroCat: Pinging the FLC gurus for thoughts. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: as they've worked on some of these lists and Women in Red will be hosting a focused editathon on HoF laureates later this year. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also going to ping @RadioKAOS: who has been editing the Alaska HoF list, and @Gobonobo: who has worked on multiple WHoF lists. — Maile (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: this edit won't have notified anybody - unless Crisco 1492, Giants2008, PresN, and SchroCat have this page on their watchlists, because all you did was add links, without satisfying the other conditions at WP:Echo#Triggering events. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I'm not understanding. Is it just the Yo template? Reading what you linked does not make it clearer for me. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
{{yo}} and {{ping}} are merely redirects to {{reply to}}, and it is immaterial which one of the three (or many others) that you use. The point is that you did not add a new signature in the same post as adding those names. It's also explained at Template:Reply to#Usage. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Actually, it was a two-sentence paragraph with my signature at the end. So, I guess I understand what you meant. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The number of paragraphs or sentences is also immaterial. This edit added your signature, but no links to other users. This edit added links to other users (that is what {{yo}} does) but no signature. Therefore, the circumstances necessary for a notification were not satisfied in either of those edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I got it. I finally got it. I inserted the links AFTER I'd signed, and that's why. — Maile (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to help much, but I'll be interested in watching, because the technical limitations aren't something I know anything about. Seems to me that it is a technology issue, as clearly the writer's ability to produce is not limited. I don't really understand why a list with 200,000 bytes would be any more problematic than an article with the same. For example Frank Sinatra which was recently promoted to GA has over 200,000 bytes. Why would we want to limit verifiable content due to a technological issue? Splitting the list into sections is possible, but then it requires notifying the reader that it has been split. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: Size is size, whether list or article. No difference. It's just that we're specifically asking about the lists here, because they could conceivably grow forever. We would limit the size, because Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to all editors. If an article is too large, then we are pushing out all but the ones with the best technology. — Maile (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 which goes back to one of the issues that I have with WP in general. I am a writer, not a technician. If the size is an issue, then the program should not allow one to create an article of that size. I can tell you that I have never, ever, ever looked at the size of any article I created. Would never have even occurred to me until this conversation and even if I had known about it, would not have known how to deal with it. I recently completed and meticulously documented (and archived each link in wayback) each woman member in the Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame and see now that it is at nearly 80K. What will stop anyone from adding to it and pushing this boundary of size? Nothing that I can tell. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
SusunW This issue is not limited to Wikipedia. Maybe it is something Wikimedia should address - I also don't have enough technical knowledge to understand if they can. But I do know I've been on other websites, whether on my own computer or a public computer, where it takes forever to download, and I finally give up and go to another site. Or there are websites so large they just freeze a browser. I have seen comments on reviews where objections are raised based on size alone. Some articles are probably longer than the average reader is interested in pouring through. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As a side issue I see that most of the entries in the Michigan Women's HoF list, for example, are unsourced. There is a large BLP problem with many of those who appear to still be alive, and they should, by all accounts, be removed from the list. When I read that "It is not even plausible to source every entry" I am always deeply concerned: ALL our information should be sourced, and especially when there is a BLP issue. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Most of the hall of fame lists are under sourced like that. I agree with that you say, and that's another issue to be resolved. Nothing stops an editor for creating a list, or adding to it, without sourcing. The burden of sourcing falls upon whoever comes along later and notices. Years or decades later. — Maile (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • To comment on several points: 1) 100kb is a good general rule for splitting a list, though you could split earlier if you find it over-sized regardless, or later if there's not a good split point. 2) Splitting a list depends on the content; for a hall of fame list, by alpha (A-M, N-Z) makes sense, as would by induction year; splitting by induction reason also could work (a lot of alumni lists split on what the alumni went on to do, and some award lists split on the reason for the award). 3) When you ping someone, you have to sign in the same edit, or the ping doesn't get sent- doesn't matter the template. --PresN 16:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pres: there are multiple possibilities for division. Alphabetical may be easier in the cases mentioned above, but chronological division and whatnot are also possible. I'd avoid a thematic division, as it's all too common to end up with overlap (think of how difficult it is to put all works of fiction in a single genre... same principle) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Another issue that I think that's related to this, Maile66, is that once a list is too large, it becomes nearly unusable. It's too much work to try to slog through a very long list. I'm not a fan of List of feminists or List of women scientists because I think that they are too long. I think they need to be split up into other pages. I not only hate reading the List of women scientists, I dread adding to it because it's really hard to read and use because of its cumbersome size. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, just for the record because I just looked at the List of feminists you linked above. It contains 774 names and has 156,857 bytes. That one does not have a banner from this project, but it's a puzzler as to what purpose a list of 774 names serves. Especially with something so broad as the label of "feminist".— Maile (talk)
It is definitely related. As I went through the 295 names on the Michigan list while cleaning up the formatting, I thought of giving up many times but I am not a quitter. I guess. Both Michigan and Ohio (the 366 names) were begun 10 years ago, so you can imagine. Somewhere along the line, editors were squeezing unsourced mini biographies into the little "Area of achievement" column, in lieu of actually creating a separate article. I've decided against tackling a clean-up of Ohio, because it's a huge underting. But the overall question is, where do we go from here? — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Totally understand Maile66, Rhode Island had me questioning my sanity on more than one occasion. Maybe we work on something to clean up the lists during the HoF editathon? It's on the board for July. SusunW (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
You did a really classy job on Rhode Island @SusunW: But, yeah, what starts off as a good idea can sometimes turn into, "Is there any end to this long list? What was I thinking? "— Maile (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Maile66 Arkansas and Tennessee by comparison were a piece of cake. Would that we had a way to obtain photos of some of these historic women. It is amazing to me how very few of them have photographs. SusunW (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with those who say that very large lists should be split into smaller lists. Once you start doing the sourcing work required for a list to become FL material, it becomes unwieldy for editors and readers when there are hundreds of entries. It takes longer for the articles to load and they become a little more difficult to edit, particularly if you want to check any sources that you add. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Divide by alpha or by induction date?

I see a lot of advice on dividing the lists into smaller individual lists, and no real opposition to do so. It would be appropriate here to decide which method should be followed. If we divide by year, we are limited to the names we see. If we divide by alpha, we are limited to the years we see at a glance. Which style best suits this project? Please add your thoughts below. I would suggest using Ohio Women's Hall of Fame as the measuring stick, since it is the oldest and largest. The last entry was for 2011, and I find nothing on the internet to suggest Ohio has continued their women's hall of fame since 2011. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm kind of neutral on which way these should be split, except for the need to split them. And that maybe this project should come up with some kind of standardization about that. When I think of lists, these or any others, I think in terms of redlinks that give editors/newbies ideas of articles that need to be created. With my viewpoint, alpha or chron splitting would be about the same.— Maile (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Divide lists by year

142 names for years 1978-1989
122 names for years 1990-1999
102 names for years 2000-2011
  • IMO, which amounts to a hill of beans, chronological makes the most sense. Easiest to continue expanding and splitting if necessary. Since the majority of English surnames begin with letters throughout the alphabet (S, J, W, B, R, A, T) and having no idea where those surnames will fall in any given nomination year, seems like alpha might require more repeated restructurings. SusunW (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Divide lists by alpha

Invitation to take part in Wiki Loves Women's Writing Contest

Wiki Loves Women celebrates Wikipedia's 15th anniversary by launching the Wiki Loves Women #15Challenge writing contest to increase the number of biographies on notable African women on Wikipedia. Please join in and celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating in this bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of notable African women on two language versions!

There are 3 ways to participate
It is all meant to be an easy going contest... no hassle... just for the pleasure of working together on a theme that still has such little coverage on Wikipedia (even after 15 years...) Isla Haddow (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl certainly we can write an article in 15 days. ;) Got anyone in mind? SusunW (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
SusunW, I'm open to suggestions. I'll do some digging around, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and 1bandsaw: I saw that 1bandsaw answered on WiR. What about Malouma? She would work for both this and our own music editathon, as she is a singer and a senator. There's an article on French WP. Okay, I am awful with French translations, but it also gives her Arabic name Arabic: المعلومة منت الميداح, which could be helpful. Also the French spelling Maalouma and English spelling Malouma I am getting hits from. SusunW (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
RS abound: bbc, Le Monde 2009 Le Monde 2014 [2] Washington City, US embassy Al Jazeera SusunW (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, well now I am totally intrigued. This article says she see that the most important honor of "la légion D'honneur" ... from (French president) Nicolas Sarkozy] SusunW (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm game. :) Let's make a WiR team and start with her, if everyone's amenable. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I'm down with that. I'll start the file and post a link. Can you create the team and tell them we're working on her? SusunW (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SusunW/Malouma

@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: count me in. I may not be very available till Sunday because of the Wikipedia15 event, but I can do the French translation before the weekend is over. As for Arabic, Keilana has some degree of proficiency with that. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: et al. Woot! I am synthesizing one source at a time. So it is slow going but there's at least a start of structure going. She's interesting already. Activist, rebel. I like her :) SusunW (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. I'll start the team and add your names to it if I can. I'd like to do some of the others, too, if we can. The Kenyan women sound interesting, too. :) Also I have access to a ton of databases so I'll hit those for sources on Malouma. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: This is great! Ian, thank you, thank you for the find on the Legion of Honor award. I searched and searched and got no hits. Explains why it is important to have collaboration on international sourced :) Sue, the article is here User:SusunW/Malouma. I stuck it off to the side above, so that it would stand out. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: If you can touch up Malouma a wee bit, you can move the article onto the main space where we can all chip in. Please let me know when you move it. I have some other stuff too.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: I've added the Kenyan musicians to the music redlinks page.--Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I can do that, but if I do, the clock starts ticking if we want to nominate it for DYK. On the other hand, she's moving right along, so that may not be an issue. Also we would need to affix that under construction banner so we don't get AfDed before we get it more polished and I have no clue where that is located. Anyone? SusunW (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
SusunW, Template:Under construction would be good if we move it to mainspace, but even if we're all working on the draft in your space, it might help to use Template:In use so that we don't wind up in edit conflicts. I would also suggest we might want to move our discussion here to another page (the talk page for the page?) so as not to flood this project talk page with our team discussions. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello all ! Glad to see you jump in !
I wanted to bring a clarification because 1) I got several requests about that and 2) the French teams started doing that anyway :)
So, I wanted to clarify that it is perfectly fine for a team to work on several articles if they feel inclined to (we need many articles, see Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Women/Writing Contest/Articles suggestions sooooo many red links !). BUT only one article should proposed for the prize of best article in the end per team.
However, if some work on several articles, that may help to celebrate team work or get a special prize.
This said... the talk above reveal cool team work :) 
If some wonder... translation is perfectly fine. Anthere (talk)

1bandsaw I have diddly squat idea how to move this text to the talk page of the draft, but feel free to do that. :) Very cool about the "In use" and "under construction" templates. I did not know such existed. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Anthere and SusunW: OK. Now I understand why Susun wants to keep the article on her user page until the "team" has completed work on it. I'll continue to contribute to the user page until the article is "ready". I don't know what you mean by the "clock starts ticking" but I realize that once it's on the main space, anyone will be able to contribute, potentially upsetting the team work. I am confused by references to either "4 countries" or "6 countries" in connection with the competition. Which countries are these? Can articles be about any woman from an African country or do they have to be related to women from English-speaking or French-speaking countries?--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • One of the possible qualifying criteria for an article to be posted as a "Did you know..." item on the Wikipedia front page is that it has been created in article space within the last seven days. Thus moving the article to article space starts the clock on this window of eligibility. (See the "Did you know.." rules for a more complete description of what is required.) isaacl (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Errr.... I think it is fine to either move it to the main space or to keep it in the user space. My own choice is to always work in the encyclopaedic space *precisely* because I can get help from other contributors, whilst if I keep it in my user space, there is somehow an understanding that I do not want others to join. And I am usually happier to get some help than not :) But just do as works best for you.

4-6 countries... ok... there is a bit of confusion here :) Let me explain.

A project called Wiki Loves Women was just started this week. It is a project of content liberation. More explanation on m:Wiki Loves Women. We got some approved funding from Institut Goethe to run this project in 4 countries (not yet fully decided). But many months ago, Wikimedia Foundation also told us it would support 2 countries (we have a phone call due next week to talk about that again to see if they are still on the same page). In this project, Wikipedians in Residence will get in contact with Public Institutions or Civil Society Organisations in their countries and will identify already existing content about african women (pictures, texts, records, videos, stats) and will negotiate with those organisations so that all this content may be uploaded in Wikimedia projects.

Since the project was approved just before Christmas, we wondered how we express our happiness about this news :) And since the project was due to start basically mid january, we thought it cool to organize a little writing contest about african women. It has four benefits in our opinion.

  1. it is a funny way to quick start our liberation project;
  2. it is a cool way to get new biographies about women;
  3. it is a cool way to actually identify biographies that should be written about notable women still not featured in a wikipedia article;
  4. it is the opportunity to raise awareness about the limited content about african women *even after 15 years*.

But the writing contest is not limited to any country. It is about african women. Continent wide.

Anthere (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anthere: Thanks for your explanations. Apart from the competition, I would still be interested to hear which specific countries you are covering in your project.--Ipigott (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I will remember to keep you up to date here as the project progress. Anthere (talk)

User:Wikicology, do you think you could note the effort being made here and hold off on future hasty deletions?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Future hasty deletion? I have no idea of what you mean by "Future hasty deletion". Of course I'm aware of this contest and I will surely contribute my quota to its success as an African Wikipedian. You probably should have leave a message on my talk page. I don't see any reason for the ping here and the tone is worrisome. See my AfD stats. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Precisely for that reason that you nominated it for deletion prematurely and don't have a long history of doing so. I just didn't want you acting as a sort of protector for Africa and nominating other ones for deletion because you think it's the right thing for Africa. Our coverage of Africa is generally extremely poor, especially biographies of women, and I think we can afford to be more lenient with them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Dr. Blofeld. I strongly agree with you on the need to be lenient. Trust me, I will be more lenient than expected. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No notice of RfDs

Since it appears that article alerts do not include notices of Redirects for Deletion I would like to bring the following discussion to your attention in regards to the redirect Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

AAlerts should cover RfDs. If they don't show up in tomorrow's report, file a bug report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, User:Headbomb. Can you tell us what section of the Alerts this nomination should appear in? Is it under AfDs, or is there a dedicated section for RfDs? FYI this WikiProject’s banner was added to the talkpage before the last BOT-update-run (banner added on 05:09, 18 January 2016, whereas alert section was updated at 12:50, 18 January 2016). Can you think of any reason for this RfD to not be included in the list? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I just confirmed with Hellknowz (talk · contribs) that this is a bug/malfunction. He's looking into it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a separate section for RfD in the report. It's that the {{RfD}} usage has changed significantly and we weren't notified, so RfDs haven't been reporting for some time. The bot sees the page as in the category, but doesn't post it because it cannot confirm the right template. Used to be {{Rfd/core}}. Checking template is to prevent incorrect pages being tagged due to template misuse, such as the page to be discussed being transcluded in a navbox or something and suddenly 1000 pages being in RfD (this actually happened once). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month at DYK

Please don't forget WP:DYK during Women's History Month, March 1-31, 2016. The 2016 theme (in the United States) is “Working to Form a More Perfect Union: Honoring Women in Public Service and Government”.— Maile (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Would that they would make a whole slew of photos easily available from the government archives. :) Can't wait. Lots of redlinks to be done. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
So we are perpetuating systemic bias by focusing on writing articles about women from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia? Topics from these countries already have plenty of coverage. Surely there are many more GNG-meeting women in history from other countries. sst✈ 12:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the complaint SSTflyer. I don't see that anyone here was promoting a US/UK/AU slant to articles. The US and Belize (the only other country I am aware of) honors women with an entire month, everywhere else its Women's Day, of which the International Theme this year is "Pledge For Parity." Women in all countries have worked in Public Service and Government. There are literally thousands of women, US citizens and not whose photos have been taken by the US government and are in the public domain. WiR is working on lists of Art+Feminism for the event. Feel free to add names from throughout the world to the lists. SusunW (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
From the Women's History Month article: "It is celebrated during March in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia" – Wikipedia systemic bias means that women from these countries are better covered than women from other countries. sst✈ 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there something stopping you from submitting DYK nominations that feature women who are not from the US, UK and Australia? DYK isn't going to get that picky by national origin. Just do it. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
SSTflyer WP's event last year covered women from throughout the world for a month as it will this year. Regardless of whether the women's country of origin honors women for an entire month, we had a concerted effort to cover women internationally. (Note that the article above is about Women's Month, which few countries have authorized. There is also an article on International Women's Day). I took Maile66's comment as one to promote that the efforts made last year to nominate, get approved and queue DYK nominations continue. SusunW (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Technology

What is the status of wp:WikiProject Women in Technology? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Can someone add this to the upcoming events?

GLAM editathon #2 on Montana Women's history coming up: WP:GLAM/Montana history. Can someone post the info in the appropriate spot? Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw I have zero idea how to do that, but I am sure Rosiestep either knows how or knows someone who knows how. SusunW (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I added it to the main meetup calendar, {{Meetup/February 2016}}; feel free to rename if you want to make it more descriptive. Also, is that where you wanted it? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there some central place for the Women's topics stuff? (Women in red, women in science)? I jut get pings at my talk page, so I'm not sure... Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation

Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Women Librarians

Hi, i have been recently adding projects to American librarians and just wondering if i should add the women project or if there is a more specific one, maybe Women scientists? thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Coolabahapple Thank you! It would be great if you add the banner. Either woman or Women scientists brings them into the umbrella. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
okay SusunW, will do:) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW, done, hooray (not helped by laptop meltdown and having to use old slow notebook since new year)Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coolabahapple: @SusunW: I don't have this page watchlisted (I just chip in the occasional Women in Red stub), and I've come here following Coolabahapple's link after querying why he'd labelled Lynne Brindley as a scientist. I really don't think it's a good idea to label librarians as scientists. We aren't. And I speak as a (retired) female librarian with a B.Sc. in Maths and an M.Sc. in Information Studies. I don't imagine that anyone working on scientists in the "Women scientists" wikiproject will be at all pleased, or interested, to come across librarians, except for a tiny minority who may have had a career as a scientist before por after being a librarian. PamD 17:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@PamD: @SusunW: Okay, I am continuing to go through the librarian categories and will now not add any more women librarians to the women scientist project (although depending on the definition of a scientist most could/should be placed there), but will ensure they are covered by the women project umbrella by placing them with other projects, as appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Coolabahapple: Thanks. If you're worried about these women, it might be more useful to create a Category:Women librarians. PamD 23:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@PamD:, good idea, although that cat has been deleted in the past, i will be following up the deleting admin to find out why. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@PamD: @SusunW:, following up, the admin (Malik Shabazz) referred me to the original deletion discussion here - WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 21#Category:Woman librarians, and also to this - WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, on reading these it doesn't look very hopefull... Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Referring to women by their last name?

I know editors are not supposed to refer to subjects of articles by their first name. But when referring to women what last name should be used - maiden or married? See: Diane_Rehm#Personal_life. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I use the name which they were called at any given time, unless they are so famous that any other name is mute (for example, calling Elizabeth Taylor by any of her married names would be ridiculous as she was not known by those ever). For example, in the article you linked, I would have called her "Aed" until her 1959 marriage and after that Rehm. She clearly was not "Diane Rehm" when she was born in Washington, D.C. SusunW (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If you click on Diane_Rehm#Personal_life you will see the dilemma. We don't know what her name was when she married her second husband. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Generally, I'd use the same name you'd use in the title throughout. You can add "nee" or "born" in the opening sentence of the lead and mention her former names, but for childhood, You could say "Diane Rehm was born Diane Aed..." and then finesse the language as needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw I am totally curious, why would you do that? No one who actually knew the person, nor will contemporary sources, call a woman by a later name. If one is looking for early life events, one must look under the name at the time as well as the later name or you will miss sources. Heck, many people I grew up with don't even know my married name. If the source is from a later time period, it will generally refer back to the former name, as in an obituary. Yes, yes, I know WP has a rule (actually several--names, consistency), but WP also has a demonstrable gender gap/bias. As a whole, just because the guidelines pretend as if women don't exist, we don't have to buy that, but I acknowledge there is no chance of getting it changed. No one is confused by women's name changes, as it is done the world over. So indicating that it would be confusing in an article isn't a valid argument. Ottawahitech I read the personal life section before, no one reading that would know she was married before as it is not addressed until later in the article. The way I would have handled it was to say Aed married briefly and divorced. Her second husband was... SusunW (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ottawahitech case in point, searching under Aed ... her first husband was George Hamaty [4]. Knowing his name, one can possibly find a better source. SusunW (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Like her autobiography [5] SusunW (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It's "née", acute accent over first "e", as it's of French origin. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but my own take is that the person should be referred to throughout by their best-known last name wherever possible; it is usually informal style to use first names, or refers to people of "inferior" status (children, servants. etc.). Also, to switch names in the middle of the article confuses the reader. There are always WP:IAR exceptions, of course (such as referring to a parent and child, sometimes use of first names is unavoidable). I also think that women being called by their first name when similarly-situated men are called by their last names is another of the many ways women are treated as somehow "less" -- in this case, by being addressed akin to a manner used to address children.

Request for input in deletion debate

This is regarding the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding deletion debate. Please note, I am so weary of this article that I no longer care personally whether it is deleted or not. However, I do think this is a potential example of the systematic bias against women in Wikipedia, so would appreciate if you could take a look. If the article survives I will gladly persist in trying to get it into mainspace.

Everybody who has voted in the debate so far have been male and I can't help but think that if the subject was male they would be taken more seriously. To me this is a borderline case of notability and I'm convinced there are others out there who would have sympathy with me. I may be wrong; this may not have anything to do with sexism, but I wanted to flag it up here in case I have a point. Again, I have lost interest in the article and am defending it more as a point of principle. Neilho (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it makes a pretty poor case for notability at present: the main claim is "was on an episode of a reality TV show" and "has made lots of money in business" (but not through any notable vehicle), and that's...pretty weak. I also think whoever who has renominated it umpteen times without fixing the need to make some sort of case for notability besides that did their case no favours. Since there's accusations of the creator having a CoI there, they might well be better letting it get deleted and coming back when they've been forgotten about with a draft article that actually makes some claims to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: Please comment on the actual MfD page, not here. Not only does discussing it here go against WP:MULTI, the closing admin will ignore anything not on the MfD page or the draft that it directly relates to. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I was responding to the discussion here as a response to Neilho's concerns, I chose not to participate in the MfD because I don't feel strongly about it either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Another one

Stub class AfD here: Miss_Monaco. Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Feminist promo event sent through WP:AFC?

Do you all know about this event? They specifically mentioned your project. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Guye, it looks like they got it sorted, but thanks for the heads up on this! 1bandsaw (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Military women AfD

There are 2 AfD's I noticed that I think could use some fresh eyes. They are: Carri Leigh Goodwin and Monica Plank. Both are part of educational assignments. It's super late here for me, and I haven't run references yet, but both cases involve the US military and tragedy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin women

I just stumbled across Wisconsin Women Making History. If anyone is interested in this as a source. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Maile66, I started adding redlinks from the site to the lists at Women in Red and I also wrote an article about one of the women, Ardie Clark Halyard, who opened the first black-owned bank in Milwaukee and also was heavily involved in the NAACP. Thank you for the source! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Good for you! One of the links under "Contact", at the bottom where it says "How to nominate" is a "Click here" link that leads to a spreadsheet list of 185 names they have on the site. No details, just the spreadsheet. I discovered this site when looking for sourcing for Jessie Jack Hooper, knowing nothing about this woman except for a redlink on Minnie Fisher Cunningham. With information found on the Wisconsin site, I was able to expand my web search terms and otherwise find enough sourcing to complete the Hooper article. — Maile (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Maile66:, Nice! I love finds like these. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sisterhood Is Global Institute

Sisterhood Is Global Institute was on NewPages. I added some quickly found links so it would not be up for deletion. However, maybe someone here knows of this institute and can add a little content and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This one just got nominated for Speedy Deletion. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed the CSD tag, and posted why on the talk page. Who knows by tomorrow morning. Please help out with this article, to keep it from being deleted. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Elvie Hill

Hi WP:WOMEN contributors, the following article popped up on my Google News results because of the "Wikipedia" keyword: [6] - it contains the line "I jumped onto the computer to see who this Elvie Hill was. With no Wikipedia reference to her, I was astounded that this lady was so unknown today if the quality of her couture had been so highly regarded,” - I figure this WikiProject may be able to help! -- Chuq (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I'm going to add her name to Wikiproject Women in Red's Art+Feminism relinks for Women's History Month. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women/Archive_6&oldid=1256579662"