Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Should the Community portal encourage creation of articles about missing highly cited female scientists?

FYI
 – Repost of relevant VP notice.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#Highly cited women scientists without articles. EllenCT (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Thomson-Reuters most cited scientists#Missing woman scientists. Praemonitus (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed an interesting area which merits expansion. Maybe we should provide links from the project's main page to red-links in lists such as this, specifying the area(s) in question. The evolving Women in leadership list could also be linked. It might also be useful to draw up priorities for coverage. These aspects will be easier to coordinate once the merger problems have been resolved.--Ipigott (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 👍 Like SusunW (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put the scientists up on the board here and Intertranswiki.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 👍 Like SusunW (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So I clicked on the link and every time I do that, I think I should not. I do not really understand, nor want to, what all these acronyms are about, but every single time I click on one of these "discussions" it is mind-numbing. Good grief but there are a whole lot of people on wikipedia who have ego and control issues. Why would something that has been posted for 9 months suddenly cause such angst? Way too much time spent on Wikipedia in general on non-article creation nonsense, IMO. My opinion is— yes missing article lists are appropriate, on a portal, on a project, just about everywhere, heck maybe repeatedly posted in these "discussions" to remind people why we are here. Building an encyclopedia is fundamentally about article creation and improvement. Just my opinion. (Note to self, do not click on acronym links before 3 cups of coffee). SusunW (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: I agree with you one hundred percent. I would also like to get on with the creation of new articles sooner rather than later. I hope the technical interests will give way to more pragmatic access. But I also agree with Rosiestep that it would be a great idea to start virtual edit-a-thons so we can encourage wider participation. Can we not draw up specific lists for virtual edit-a-thon enthusiasts for the month of September, possibly distributed through the other WikiProjects on women?--Ipigott (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott Usually I am able to ignore the hoopla and write. I really like the new leadership list and have always seen the value of Intertranswiki to increase the English wiki from notable data on other Wiki languages. I too like the idea of virtual edit-a-thons too. Getting the word out seems to be the biggest problem, since apparently there are issues with where one posts such notifications. SusunW (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: @Dr. Blofeld: In connection with Women scientists, Harej tells us on his talk page that there is now a report on the results he has obtained. It looks as if the list has been created automatically by drawing on Wikidata to list articles from the Czech wiki which have no equivalent in English. So it looks as if we are now very close to seeing progress on Women in Red too. If Women and Women in Red are merged, this aspect will need to be carefully integrated.--Ipigott (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott: The list is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report. As I state on my talk page, the prominence of Czech women in the list is more coincidence than anything else. I could create a similar list for this project, though my idea is to create them for other WikiProjects such as Women Writers and then aggregate them all on this project (whichever form it ends up taking). What do people think of that approach? Harej (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Yes, it would be great if you could create them for all these projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav, and then aggregate them at subpage(s) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red. I know you are busy, but do you have an estimate as to when you or @Isarra: could do the WiR move? Also, do you need anything from me to make this happen? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Good job. I think the best thing though would really be to create a missing article bank in one place, ideally under WP:Women where we can have pages by subtopic and nationality etc all neatly filed away and use navigation templates to browse missing content pages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: Rosiestep Can we draw up the missing directory in one place. I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in red/Missing article directory. We can then have sub pages by topic like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in red/Missing article directory/Scientists and if lists are long enough those in turn split by Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in red/Missing article directory/Scientists/Czech, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in red/Missing article directory/Scientists/Icelandic I'd also encourage merging the WP:Writers missing directory too to become Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in red/Missing article directory/Writers/Austrian etc. How does this sound folks?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Some feedback please on whether this is reasonable Rosiestep/Harej♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dr. Blofeld: @Rosiestep: @Harej: I think the general idea of having a central directory of missing articles on women is very sensible. Nevertheless, I would suggest moving forward carefully on this as Wikidata is likely to be able to turn up tens of thousands of biographies on women in various fields who have not yet been covered in English. I would suggest looking at the output of not more than a few hundred names in the first instance so that we can decide how they can be classified, sorted and possibly assigned to different WikiProjects or task forces. I would imagine human feedback will play an important role in deciding how we should go forward in the coming months. I expect we will also need to look at whether names covering various fields of interest are ascribed to the right group. And I am pretty sure that many biographies will be considered unsuitable for the EN wiki owing to lack of notability or insufficient acceptable sources. So let's take it one step at a time - although I am convinced the approach will prove to be an important contributor to future work on women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the directory and its subpages, we also need to sort out where the crowd-sourced individual redlinks which don't fit into any particular category should go, or small groups such as these notable women from Montana, Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History#Articles for creation. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to develop a strong classification system which will display red links by area of interest, country and, where possible, importance. I think the raw data from Wikidata will initially require human sorting. Tasks could be assigned to the various WikiProjects on women while new lists (leadership, etc.) could be handled by the Women/Women in Red teams.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: I understand that it's probably not an ideal thing for you to move this to Wp:Women given that you already had to move it from XX but there is consensus here to do so. Some input from you on this matter would be much appreciated, can you comment here? Cheers. Admittedly I'm not all that enthusiastic of having a big missing directory as like with Intertranswiki there's only a limited amount working on them anyway. I think it's best just to put some missing articles up on the main page which can realistically be started within a short time frame. The missing lists can become too daunting, but I think it's best and less confusing to store them all in one place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So what we need on missing articles is (a) a central store of raw data from WikiData, possibly based on area of interest (writers, artists, scientists, etc.), which seems to correspond to what Harej is now able to offer; (b) subsets based on (initially human) sorting by language/country and relative importance; and most importantly (c) priority lists by area of interest and country, based both on crowd sourcing and further processing of the automated output. These could then be used for real or virtual editathons, in connection with Women's History Month as well as more generally by the various WikiProjects or task forces on women, backed by lists of new articles or other levels of progress. If there is general agreement on this approach, I suggest we should move forward asap on Women writers (which now seems to have a considerable following) and possibly also on Women in leadership (which is just coming into focus). For me, at this stage, it is not a priority to reprogram Harej's routines to feed directly into Women. We can continue to use Women in Red until things have become more clearly focused. Once we have the basic lists, we can easily move them around for further processing.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Women business executives

We could really do with drawing up a hotlist of notable Silicon Valley women execs. Just reading this for Raji Arasu. Just 9% of women in exec positions. We could surely find most of the 9% and get them started!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what Ian's list is all about. User:Ipigott/Women in leadership SusunW (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Ian started a list of women in leadership, sandboxed until WiR moves. It's not only important as a list, it's an important focus area. I have half a gumption to start WP:WikiProject Women in leadership or WP:WikiProject Women/Leadership or something similar. From Harvard Business Review (2013), "Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers": --Rosiestep (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
"Research has moved away from a focus on the deliberate exclusion of women and toward investigating “second-generation” forms of gender bias as the primary cause of women’s persistent underrepresentation in leadership roles. This bias erects powerful but subtle and often invisible barriers for women that arise from cultural assumptions and organizational structures...
"Double binds.
"In most cultures masculinity and leadership are closely linked: The ideal leader, like the ideal man, is decisive, assertive, and independent. In contrast, women are expected to be nice, caretaking, and unselfish. The mismatch between conventionally feminine qualities and the qualities thought necessary for leadership puts female leaders in a double bind. Numerous studies have shown that women who excel in traditionally male domains are viewed as competent but less likable than their male counterparts. Behaviors that suggest self-confidence or assertiveness in men often appear arrogant or abrasive in women. Meanwhile, women in positions of authority who enact a conventionally feminine style may be liked but are not respected. They are deemed too emotional to make tough decisions and too soft to be strong leaders."
Any woman who has ever held a job has experienced this dichotomy. Doesn't matter if they were in leadership or not. SusunW (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Rosiestep that it would be a great idea to have a WikiProject (or even a task force if that is the direction in which we are moving) on Women in leadership. It might finally allow us to move forward and encourage people to write articles. The Silicon Valley execs should of course be included along with all the other prominent leaders I have already listed. The sooner we can decide on how Women and Women in Red are to go forward, the better.--Ipigott (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've decided how Women and Women in Red are going forward; we are waiting for WikiProject X to move us. I would move us but I'm concerned I would break something because of the backend coding. I recommend we develop "departments" (focus areas; let's avoid the term task force) at Women. Leadership could be the first one. Entertainers (something I've wanted to develop for months but didn't want to start a WikiProject for it as I knew we were working on all of this other stuff) could be #2; and so on. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's hope the merge won't take too long. I'm happy to see you think Leadership should be the first focus area. I'm not too sure what you intend to cover with Entertainers but it looks as if it could have huge potential.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

September events

There are several upcoming events which may interest you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sept 7-20, 2015: WiR's first virtual editathon

SusunW, Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, Victuallers, Harej: I have a simple solution to this problem. Let's create a widely distributed announcement about a series of virtual edit-a-thons for the month of September in order to catalyze the current enthusiasm for the coverage of women on Wikipedia. Up to all of you to decide where to post the announcement (I would suggest the widest possible coverage) and how to assess the success of the operation. Discussion on Women vs. Women in Red should not delay progress on the overall goals. Maybe Wikimedia should also be associated with the cause.--Ipigott (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • If we really are going to have a virtual edit-a-thon in September, then we need to set it up now. As it was your idea, Rosiestep, perhaps you could make the initial arrangements. I'm sure we would all be glad to assist as necessary. Perhaps you could set up a page on Women in Red as a starter? It would be great if we could also address Women in leadership.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The editathon is a great idea but please let's assume a more relaxed approach to this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm really excited about working on the first WiR editathon myself, but as I've mentioned previously, I recommend we wait for the Formal Merge Proposal to complete its review process before adding subpages to this WikiProject. The Proposal will likely close tomorrow (Tuesday). So perhaps the following day (Wednesday), I'll have the virtual edit-a-thon page(s) drafted. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Ipigott (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Women in Red's first virtual editathon will occur in September. The focus will be Women in Leadership. We have a very strong redlinks list under development here, Women in leadership (which we'll move to better named location after WikiProject X merges WiR with Women). The editathon can last a week or maybe longer. It's our first one, so what are your thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest two weeks. As people do not have to move around physically, it should be easier to coordinate.--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sept 2015: Smithsonian APA Wikipedia Edit-a-thons

September will have a series of edit-a-thons on Asian American topics (Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedia APA) and it would be a good opportunity to focus on Asian/Asian American women. These events always benefit from the virtual attendance of experienced editors. gobonobo + c 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: Good suggestion. I've looked at the various lists accessible from the link you cite and see there are indeed a number of red links on Asian American women and related topics. Maybe it would help to create a separate list more in line with the goals of Women in Red, perhaps with an initial emphasis on biographies?--Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good idea. Let's start a list of biographies and women's works which align with the Wikipedia APA Meetup. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to participate in a virtual editathon, so ping me if you get one going. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Just seeing this. Great ideas @Gobonobo and Ipigott:. I'll be glad to participate in a virtual editathon. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Smithsonian APA (Asian Pacific American) Wikipedia Edit-a-thons will occur in September and I think it would be great for WiR to participate as a virtual group. I suggest we sign up for a weekend, perhaps September 5-6, create our own virtual meetup page for the event, edit remotely, and create a list of all the articles we created. Thoughts?--Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Space scientists

Here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list

  1. Stephanie A Snedden is a researcher in space science at Apache Point Observatory, US.
  2. Emanuele Daddi is a researcher in space science at CEA Saclay, France.
  3. Michele Limon is a researcher in space science at Columbia University, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, US.
  4. Patrizia A Caraveo is a researcher in space science at INAF Istituto di astrofisica spaziale e fisica cosmica, Italy.
  5. Neta A Bahcall is a researcher in space science at Princeton University, US.
  6. Gillian R Knapp is a researcher in space science at Princeton University Observatory.
  7. Andrea Cimatti is a researcher in space science at University of Bologna, Italy.
  8. Alice E Shapley is a researcher in space science at University of California, Los Angeles, US.
  9. Constance M Rockosi is a researcher in space science at University of California, Santa Cruz, US.
  10. Eva K Grebel is a researcher in space science at University of Heidelberg, Germany.
  11. Judith Cohen (scientist) is a researcher in space science at California Institute of Technology.
  12. Christine Jones (scientist) is a researcher in space science at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
  13. Gabriele Ghisellini is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
  14. Laura Maraschi is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
  15. Isabella Gioia is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica - INAF, Italy.
  16. Deidre Hunter is a researcher in space science at Lowell Observatory.
  17. Chryssa Kouveliotou is a researcher in space science at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
  18. Laura Ferrarese is a researcher in space science at National Research Council of Canada.
  19. Nancy Boggess is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
  20. Corinna von Montigny is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
  21. Stefi Baum is a researcher in space science at Rochester Institute of Technology.
  22. Judith Young (scientist) is a researcher in space science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Good Article

I would like to propose as a project that we try to get one or more articles to GA status monthly. I am certainly no expert having done my very first nomination this month, which is still awaiting an assessment. But, in working through the women on Primer Congreso, I ran across Sue Bailey Thurman. She was "considered the Michelle Obama of her day" and the coverage we had was minimal. I have been working on it and am surprised that I find nothing given the Ghandi and ministerial connections to MLK or even the Civil Rights movement. Surely there are sources. Would anyone be willing to work on this? SusunW (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I've put it up on the Wp:Women board as a duel goal with Amelia Bence. Happy to help myself but not for a few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Dr. Blofeld:. Still working on sourcing. I found the link between them and MLK -- apparently according to multiple sources they are who mentored King in Gandhi's teachings. They were and they weren't involved in the Civil Rights movement -- their vision was more internationalist. I saw that you added it and appreciate that :) SusunW (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You are in good hands with Rosie and the Doc. Personally I find the rules around DYK, GA and Fa stultifying. But each to their own. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Charline Arthur

Charline Arthur, created by a newbie, is obviously notable, so big thank you kindly to @Drmies: for ringing the "save this one" bell. I've done a little bit of this and that, but let's get Arthur sourced and spruced up and take her for a dance at DYK in the next 4 days. Alrighty? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Project renamed

In accordance with the recent discussion, I have made this project a sub-project of the broader WikiProject Women. I have also updated all the subpages and WikiProject membership pages. Please let me know on my talk page if anything goes wrong. Harej (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Harej Thanks for all your efforts. I've just noticed the announcements section on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red can no longer be edited.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Quick enough to fix. Should work now. Harej (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Thank you. Appreciate what you do for us. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Thank you for all of your help. I have one issue at present. When the blue articles are pulling in, it is alphabetizing them by week, not into the larger month list. If I just take out the week dates will that force it to alphabetize them throughout the month? SusunW (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Who Broke Wikipedia?

If you're noticing that the WiR mainpage is down, you may have noticed other Wikipedia pages are down, too. We're tweeting about it using hashtag: #whobrokewikipedia. Hopefully, it's a quick fix. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In my very non-technical terms, "OMG what is the sea of red? Someone has removed some important programming thingy". WikiProject Intertranswiki was a complete sea of red a few minutes ago. SusunW (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still getting errors when I try to link to WP:Women in Red. Ogress smash! 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Add ?action=purge to the end of the URL, it should do the trick, with thanks to @Harej.--Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Observation

I think we should brush aside some of the project concerns of late and just get on with building an encyclopedia. Issues can be ironed out over time, we have the batches of new articles featuring on the project page so that's all that really matters. I'm sure we can all assume a relaxed approach to the editathon and things will run smoother that way. Let's try to complete the Basque women and scientists shortlists by the end of next month, I've reserved them for next month at Intertranswiki too as we have a lot of Amelia Bence links to clear. I also think we should avoid creating too many sub pages and missing article lists because I think it can get a bit overwhelming. The best thing is to be narrow in scope and productive in the short term I think. Banks of ten articles which can reasonably be started in the near future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Eric Gregory Award - both men and women, pick whichever you can make an article about. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

List of missing articles from Wikidata

Thanks to the efforts of Harej, there is now a new list of articles to be created based on an analysis of articles in other languages based on results from Wikidata. You can see the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata. Unfortunately the link to the list from the main page of this project does not work. I see that some articles in the list have already been created but many that are now blue-linked do not cover the biographies of the people in question and therefore require attention. It might be useful to comment on priorities for the creation of new articles although I'm not sure how this can be done. Perhaps a new column in the table on "Comments" that can be edited by anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: a friendly FYI that the list you link to dates back to April 2015, and was generated by another editor. There are instructions on the top of the page about how to generate the list (or similar lists) in case others would find that helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I simply included this link for information as it seemed a good way to monitor progress. Are you suggesting I should recreate a new list for Women in Red or for Women writers? I'm not too sure what you would like me to do. I thought the list was the result of Harej's work but I now see it was created by Jane023. For anyone interested, I am copying Jane's instructions for creating new lists below (as the page you refer to has been archived):
"Glad you like it - I created one for you here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata. Basically, you go to autolist here and make a query for all female authors with this text: (no quotes) "CLAIM[21:6581072] and claim[106:(TREE[482980][][279])]". Next, you download the result as a text file and open it in notepad (or other editor of choice that doesn't mess up special characters). Next you dump that into a spreadsheet and filter for the Q numbers without enwiki sitelinks, but including a label and a description (I only included the top part for artists as there are way more of them than writers). Next, you create a new view of the filtered data with the wikimarkup and dump that into excel2wiki to get the table. Note you can set your language in autolist to download something other than English to get other language labels and descriptions too. Hope it helps, Jane (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)" (from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_artists/Archive_1).
I noticed that some of Harej's work on an analysis of templates for article improvement in certain areas had led to similar tables and therefore assumed the list of articles on women writers from Wikidata was based on his work. But maybe we can get Jane and Harej to collaborate on producing lists for Women in Red in tabular form for easier display and progress monitoring? Maybe we should also open up a section on Women in Red addressing the need for technical improvements? Any thoughts or reactions on this?--Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This is probably no longer necessary. Anyone can create lists tracking whatever they please on Wikidata, thanks to the new Listeria tool. See for example this list of female novelists. It doesn't separate the "red" links from the "blue" links because all links are blue, but every italicized link represents a red link on English Wikipedia and will take you to the Wikidata entry for the novelist and if not italicized, then to the Wikipedia entry on the English Wikipedia: User:Jane023/Female novelists. I have the list sorted by nationality and so for example, you can see way more "blue" links for Americans than for Japanese writers. Jane (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion...anyone think it's biased?

I'm wondering if anyone else has seen a trend like this. I started to notice that a lot of articles that show up in the Women's history 14 day list get tagged for speedy delete because they are "promotional." A quick look at the authors of the articles showed that they'd done other pages and seemed interested in the subject matter (in this case, feminism, Nigeria and Uganda respectively). The articles weren't promotional, either: they were just positive in tone and often needed copyedit.

I just thought it was strange seeing that there are a BILLION sports related articles that don't seem to get tagged this way.

Any thoughts?

Is this the wrong place to vent about this? Can I haz a veggie burger? JK Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you didn't order the fries, but they came with it.
@Megalibrarygirl: I think this is the right place to vent about it. Links, please? I hadn't noticed what you've brought up here, but I think we should definitely link to AfD articles here if we think they could be improved with some extra hands, or if they appear to be be inappropriately nomed. Charline Arthur (see above section) was an AfD'er, rescued by Drmies. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I've already fixed them... but I'll do links next time. I'm just wondering if this is a trend, but if it is, it'll help to document it. My post was a vent... and I was hungry. Lol. Om nom veggie burger! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen ludicrous stuff get kept but relevant if borderline-could-use-work articles about women get kicked. It's definitely A Thing. Ogress smash! 03:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. It's why I want us to write our own criteria. If we cannot get Wikipedia as a whole to look at modifying its guide to encompass the historic bias against writing about women—how do you write about notable women when they were footnotes and not noted in history—we have to ensure that we are diligent. Every article about women needs to be marked as part of a woman's project so we get notified if it is proposed for deletion. Every proposed deletion needs eyes on to see if it is salvageable. (Megalibrarygirl tonight's menu: garbanzo bugers with fresh oregano and a wee bit of onion and jalepeno, served with lime infused mayo and radish carrot slaw. So many flavors your mouth will be having a party.)
Who says knowledge can't feed you? Tasty flavors!

But on a more serious note, I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this. Also, I think you're right about modifying the guide. It's super frustrating sometimes. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As someone who is not that interested in sports, and certainly not watching American football I can assure you that an awful lot of American football players get deleted. (I find this irritating because of "notability is not temporary" - we are throwing away good content for no reason.) Many premier league association footballers for poorer nations get deleted because they are not known to be in "Fully professional leagues".
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Totally hear you and agree Rich Farmbrough. There is a whole lot of misunderstanding of what is and what is not notable and that notability is ≠ fame, or even national or international notability; what is and what is not significant coverage and that depth of coverage is different that length of coverage. But, unless and until the community changes the criteria on who can nominate files for deletion or what steps must be followed before a nomination takes place, we must be diligent. SusunW (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles about women that get prodded, but also historical figures that aren't easily googled, indigenous people, particularly from non-English-speaking nations and so on. WP has a systemic bias problem and also a WP:RECENTISM problem. I would suggest that the creation of lists, with a paragraph for each individual, might be the way to go with stub articles; avoids losing the content and allows easier re-creation of an AfD succeeds. I know that where I have seen an article I think worth keeping pop up at an AfD, I immediately userfy a copy, just in case... Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree, worthwhile content that is correctly not allowed an article (under the present regime) can always find a home, even if it has to be created as an over-arching article. WP:REFUND is useful in these cases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Women in leadership list

Congratulations on the recent progress on Women in Red/Women. We now seem to have a sound basis for future action. I think my sandbox page Women in leadership would be far more effective if it could be moved to Women in Red (unless there are strong reasons for including it under Women). I hesitate to make the move myself as I am not sure how it should be handled. If you still intend to start a WikiProject on women in leadership, then that would also be a good place to put it. Once it has become a fully fledged WikiProject page, I think we will be able to attract new interest in adding to the list and, above all, in creating articles on the many important women listed.--Ipigott (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: thank you for your nice note. We can move Women in leadership to WP:WikiProject Women/Women in leadership or WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in leadership. I would suggest the latter, but what do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree "WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in leadership" would be the right place for it. Maybe you could move it yourself and provide any necessary links from the project pages. I'm not sure whether you still want to go ahead with the editathon but if so the two weeks from 7 to 21 September may be suitable. If you would like me to assist in this, please let me know and explain exactly how I can be of help.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: did some work on both of these issues. Will return after work. In the meantime, I created a redlink for the leadership virtual edit-a-thon at the WiR events section. If you'd like to create the edit-a-thon page, that would be helpful and appreciated. A friendly FYI, if I were creating it, I'd look at many other edit-a-thon pages, and use them as a guide. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rosie for moving things forward. I'll try to help create an edit-a-thon page by the end of the week but I'm tied up all day tomorrow. It would be good to have volunteers for assisting with the event over the two weeks in question (7 to 20 September). I'll certainly be available myself and maybe SusunW could also help out. Perhaps Victuallers too? Maybe you can also come up with other names if you think we need more? As for contributors, it would be great if we could attract both existing editors interested in writing biographies on women as well as new ones. Work on leadership would provide good focus and there are certainly enough names on the list but maybe you would like to broaden the scope?--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I'll be more than glad to help with anything I can, as long as it does not require technical ability or Wikipedia knowledge, of which I have very little skill. Point me in the direction I can be most helpful and I'll be glad to jump in. Can we put Gobonobo's box of Wikiprojects on the instructions page for the editathon? I'll be glad to peruse created articles to make sure they are in projects.
@SusunW: I think you underestimate your ability. You would certainly be a great help encouraging new users and helping them with their articles. Can you point more specifically to Gobonobo's page.--Ipigott (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Rosie, I managed to find enough time to put together a first draft of the edit-a-thon page in my sandbox at User:Ipigott/ Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2015/Women in Leadership edit-a-thon. Please make any amendments or additions before moving it to the project page.--Ipigott (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ian, thank you for that. I've made some edits and seek your feedback before I move it. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
You've done a great job, as usual. It now looks far more attractive. The only comment I have is that the Participants section (as it stands) does not look too inviting for new, inexperienced editors. Maybe you could explain that both inexperienced and experienced Wikipedians are welcome to join in, adding their names to the list.--Ipigott (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks great too. If we could, I'd really like to put this box on there and encourage people to use the appropriate boxes so that the project can track them.
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=start|listas=}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women artists|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Women scientists|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's Health|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Social Work|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Education|class=start|importance=mid}}
}}
barring that, is there a banner for WikiProject Women which we can just ask them to affix to all articles? And my last request would be to add the photo wanted template. I can never find that when I want it and it would be helpful to add to Gobonobo's box. SusunW (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: Thanks for all your suggestions and encouragement. I'm not sure where you got your "box" from and would really like to see it "en clair" to see whether it can be applied to this project - and how. To me, it looks like a list of women's projects which could be listed on an article's talk page. Maybe the various possibilities should be given on the project page rather than on pages focusing specifically on Women in leadership? Or if it is on Women in leadership, perhaps we should adapt it accordingly?--Ipigott (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott I don't understand the programming term. It's Gobonobo's box and is actually just a bunch of Wikiproject banners strung together so one can easily copy and paste them. I have found it to be very useful. I did try the WikiProject Women banner and it now seems to be working, but I always find that there seem to be multiple projects that are applicable. Even if we just put a sentence in the editathon that says "Please apply the WikiProject banner for WikiProject Women and WikiProject Biography", we'd be ahead of the game IMO as there would be a talk page created and a tracking mechanism. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Rosie: I think Susun's suggestion is very useful for Women in Red as a whole. Perhaps the main page could contain a section on creating new articles with key info including WikiProjects for inclusion on talk pages? If we could develop such a section, Women in leadership and other "departments" could also link to it.--Ipigott (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott and SusunW: A friendly observation... I think this section is very rich in information and so I recommend we move it to WiR so that others can join in the conversation. However, I won't do it unless both of you agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
By all means move it - together with any other points under discussion you think would be of interest. I note, btw, that Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2015/Women in Leadership edit-a-thon is still a red link under Events. I think you should move User:Ipigott/ Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2015/Women in Leadership edit-a-thon there, maybe with the suggestions I made above on the Participants section. There are so many red links around at the moment that navigation is becoming rather difficult - and I can no longer remember where everything is! Even if further changes to the announcement are needed, they can always be edited in later. Once the page is on WiR, we can bring it to the attention of the other WikiProjects liable to be interested as well as to other sites carrying announcements for September.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott, I wish you'd stop telling people what to do and just do it for heaven's sake. Neither Rosie nor myself own the project, if something needs to be moved do it. Way too much time and effort has gone into discussing things already when it could be going into content. A lot of things you're asking of Rosie you could quietly do yourself without much hoo-haa I'm sure.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: I understand your frustration but in fact Rosie specifically asked me to comment on her edits before moving the page. I always try to take people's wishes into account rather than bulldozing ahead. Furthermore, I have never organized an editathon and bow to more experienced editors in that connection. But I take your point. In furture, I'll attempt to be a little more proactive. I'll also see what I can do to follow up on Rosie's suggestions for promotion (below). Maybe you could help too?--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I moved it so the first WiR edit-a-thon is officially on our calendar. Next, it needs promotion. Here's an example of how I promoted last year's Litquake editathon, [[1]]. I hope someone (a) feels inclined to create an invitation for the leadership editathon and (b) we can all work at distributing it on project talkpages, user talkpages, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Rosiestep "We need" to tackle the Basque women and Women scientist lists for the edit-a-thon OK? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If we can keep the invitation announcement relatively simple, I might be able to put something together soon. You have some useful additions on Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Litquake Edit-a-Thon which I'll try to work into Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Male-to-female transgender question

Ok, I have a question. Does WiR cover male-to-female transgender people as part of the scope of the project? Personally, I think that transgender women are women--just women with a different life experience. I know some feminists disagree with me for various reasons. So I wasn't sure whether to tag an article (this one: Bukak Api) which is a documentary about M to F transgender people with a wikiproject women's history tag or wiki women's artist tag. It made me think, too, should we count the bios of M to F transgender people are part of the scope. I say yes, what do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that consensus on Wikipedia is unambiguously of the same opinion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Since trans women are women, yes. Ogress smash! 17:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. "women are women--just women with a different life experience" totally encompasses all women. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. I thought so, but I wasn't sure. My own experience leads me to the same conclusion, but I know I'm more liberal than the average 'Murican. Thanks everyone! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether we include Genesis P-Orridge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
Now I want to see Throbbing Gristle. What an awesome band name! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My opinion, and it is that so POV, is that P-Orridge is making a statement about the social construct of gender. I doubt s/he would want to be specifically identified as either. Personally, I have no problem including he/r.SusunW (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who self-identifies as a woman is a woman. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership
Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015

The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Women Who Work

Perhaps we could make this the "poster" article of the drive ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Smithsonian APA Center & Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon on APA women

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon invitation

I have put together a short invitation for the 7 to 20 September event on Women in Leadership at User:Ipigott/Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2/invitation. I will move it to Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2/invitation around 9.00 GMT on 30 August with any improvements made in the meantime. I would also appreciate information on how and where the invitation should be distributed.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I think you did a wonderful job, @Ipigott, and I only made a minor tweak.
Regarding how, (a) start a New Section on the user's or WikiProject's talkpage, (b) add Subject (You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership), (c) paste the invitation into the editing area, (d) add your signature, click Save.
Regarding distribution, here are a few suggestions for where, and maybe others have additional ideas. We could split these up between a few of us. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. post it to the talkpage of all of WiR's members
  2. the talkpages of WikiProject Women's daughter projects
  3. WikiProject Biographies' talkpage
  4. the talkpages of editors who have recently created women's bios (lots of editor names here)
  5. notify some of the Chapters, Task Forces, and User Groups
  6. Also, we should tweet about it.
Does this make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Rosiestep:. I'll follow your advice.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I've done what I can for a start. I'm not too familiar with the chapters, task forces and user groups -- so perhaps someone else could take this on. I think tweeting is a good idea too but I am not an active member of any of the social networks.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott thank you for your work. I can post on a few pages, but like you don't have twitter. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to send out another round of invitations based on the other main contributors to some of the other pertinent WikiProjects when we get closer to the start date, i.e. on 5 or 6 September. Maybe this is the best time to tweet too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Montana women!

A big thank you to @Montanabw: from your fellow WiR members for facilitating the Montana history editathon, which focused on women! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Our first Montana history editathon is, well, history! With five new editors and several other observers, Four new articles were created:

Additional previously-existing articles for improvement that were part of the editathon included:

Yay Big Sky! Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Women, minority women at that, and a dove! Very representative of western women SusunW (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Totally, I loved the page on Helen P. Clarke. I learned a lot. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi I tried to only include redlinks in the redlinks list but that doesn't seem to work with Listeria. The list of novelists was nearly 5000, so to split it I inlcuded citizenship and removed the Americans, which are good for about half. The redlinks in the list are now bluelinks in italics. Advantage to Listeria lists is the addiition of more data than just the label. To start a stub article from one of these italiziced items, use PrepBio https://tools.wmflabs.org/magnustools/prepbio.php Hope it helps. The list will be updated automatically. Possibly for other types of women biographies, similar listeria lists should be set up. Any thoughts on how to separate these out? Jane (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Hi! Hopefully some of you might have time to look at a few of these AfD's. I think a few could be rescued. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I added some info on both Baranco and King. Baranco should never have been nominated per the nominator's own comments. King will be hard and require a bit of research, but NO one creates a body of work and keeps being hired in entertainment without a reputation. I need to work on other things, but will try to look at a few more of these later. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
SusunW You rule. I agree that there's a real climate of AfD'ing articles instead of fixing them. I have noticed that the user who AfD'd Juanita Baranco does this a lot. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I completed the whole bio on Engelbrecht. Whoever nominated her should have their ability to do that revoked. SMDH. Her filmography needs to be input, it is in the "Drombuschs" article. I am too tired to do it and must sleep. zzzzzzzzz SusunW (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Baranco and Engelbrecht appear to have been rescued. Koov surely will come off the list soon. Only one I am not finding any info on is Urzúa. Will put in some time on her tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw! Thank you. This is awesome. :) BTW, I can't find Urzúa either. She might not be notable enough, but the snotty discussion on the talk page made me want to try. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I added Anna Leahy to this list. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Koov came off the list today, yay! I reworked Leahy, made it sound more encyclopedic and less like a list of accomplishments. Also added selected works from WorldCat. Am marking these with Women or Women Writer's or whatever have noted that on none of these were a woman's project notified :S why is that? SusunW (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you for tagging them. I found these articles while patrolling pages... I really do see a lot of abuse out there in Wikiland... not always related to just the fact that the articles are about women... sometimes it's just that the editor doesn't "like" the topic it seems--like Li Quan (Wildlife conservationist). Of course, I'm creating a narrative for these scenarios when maybe there isn't one, but my observations are so far include that there is an awful lot of AfD and speedy delete going on when the articles really could just have been improved. I don't know if it's just laziness or what, but it seems to me that if an editor isn't willing to put time into research, they shouldn't be willing to AfD or speedy delete. At best, they should tag the page for improvement. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say how awesome the work you all are doing here is - it's so nice to see some of these valid articles that otherwise might just disappear get saved because women pitch in to make sure they surpass standards to the point where they can't be deleted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It takes a village @The Drover's Wife:. I agree with your take Megalibrarygirl and it may be "my" own narrative, but it seems like a whole lot of control issues. Wishing to tell other folks what to do, rather than taking initiative, which I don't think they should even have AfD tagging ability if they aren't willing to do the research. Kind of like have you done x, y, z? If no, then it cannot be nominated. Seems weird that one cannot upload a photograph if one hasn't checked off all the right boxes, but one can slap a deletion on a file having done nada. SusunW (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I added Jane Bordeaux... another speedy deletion that seems spurious. BTW, how do you think we could approach the admin levels about changing the AfD and Speedy deletion policies, SusunW? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The biggest problem with Bordeaux is finding sources. Every source cited for her is created by her. Non-RS. No clue who created this entry Star Trek but if that could be verified would help. Found an interview here. Not much else from Mexico. SusunW (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Look up at the top of this talk page, topic Documentation standards -- warning this might be canvassing -- I get the distinct idea that it won't change. We just need to be diligent and mark every single file about women with a women's project page notice, though I have yet to figure out why we aren't being notified, but maybe Rosiestep gets something?? SusunW (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
SusunW We may not be notified since I just tagged the page. It seems like Bordeaux should have some references out there. It's driving me nuts. As for changing the system...I am always optimistic about change: I just need to know how to start it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I pulled IMdB, not usable as a source, but it says she had repeat performances in Gideon's Crossing. Maybe that is a side door? I find nothing on Mexican servers. Sorry SusunW (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
SusunW Thanks for looking. I came up empty on my databases, too. It seems like she should be out there, but she's not. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: I think we need to put in a request on the WikiProject Women talkpage regarding getting article updates such as what was set up at WP:WikiProject Women writers#Articles; it would include all sorts of article alerts! I don't know who set that up when we established Women writers last year. But I think that's what we need. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be good to have an alert list. One big problem is making sure all articles are articles are tagged on the talk page because I think that's what triggers the alerts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep I think we need to put in a request. I've been trying to tag pages if they had no talk page set up. This exerciser has made me realize, need to check them all. Surely a bot could do that? If it is on our task list as a created file, does it have a Wikiproject tied to women? If no add to list SusunW (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: Yes, I agree, I think we need to do it. Please check out the talkpage of WikiProject Women writers to see the process. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
OK... I read the page and I think that this WikiProject has to set up two subpages: one is for the subscription code (which can be customized) and the other is for the actual output of alerts. There are two different codes which are pasted into each of these pages. Then you list the page with the bot and add it to the WikiProject page. But it seems that if the article isn't properly tagged in the talk page or via an infobox, it can't get picked up by the bot at all. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, how you do it still went over my head, @Megalibrarygirl:, but I think it means it is critical to get the talk pages set up with WikiProject data. Surely there is a program that can identify such, but I truly do not know. Maybe someone who is more technically inclined @Gobonobo and Rich Farmbrough: knows if there is already such a list, if not how we would get one created, and if it is possible to have it automatically add WikiProject Women or if that must be manually done. SusunW (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been adding pages to projects by hand. Would be nice if a category listing would automatically tag an article! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: You were very helpful developing the project banner bot run request at WikiProject Women writers so I'm wondering if you have the time and inclination to help us with setting it up for WikiProject Women (or here at WiR)? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: There may be logistical or scalability issues with adding WikiProject Women banners to every woman's biography. There are 1,284,765 biographical articles and if 15% of them are women, that would be some 192,714 talk pages, a rather large task even for a bot. Someone like Anomie might know if there are limitations. But I wonder if there might not be another way to accomplish the same thing. Article alerts have a feature request, so maybe Headbomb or someone else there would know of a solution. Or someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting may be willing to set up a dedicated subgroup for women. There is already one for people, so alternatively, maybe there is an easy way to transclude only the women from that page. Another possibility might be to create a gender parameter for the WikiProject Biography banners or somehow use Wikidata's sex or gender property for items. gobonobo + c 18:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We ran into issues with WikiProject Biography in the past, but that one has millions of articles (the daily alerts of that project exceed the monthly alerts for most other projects, especially with BLP PRODs and the like), and the old code was very inefficient. I think the main issue would simply be that ~200,000 biographies would create a LOT of alerts, and it's very hard for humans to keep up with that level of output. But I don't see any reasons for why WP:AALERTS couldn't handle ~200,000 pages. I also don't see an issue with any tagging bots, although given the large number of articles to be tagged, the bot logic would probably need WP:BAG approval. 'If you need technical help setting up the alerts, come to WT:AALERTS, and we'll give you a hand setting things up. If you need help with the tagging bots, try WP:BOTREQ. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all of this information. Where do we go from here? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Headbomb. My understanding is that it is only possible to enable article alerts after we have added a WikiProject banner to talk pages. Is that right? Would it be possible to run article alerts based on something else, like a parameter at Wikidata? gobonobo + c 01:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The subscription methods are detailed at Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscribing#Basic_subscription. There's four basic ways to subscribe, and you can pick and choose which you want (all four, or any four). WikiProject banners (the most common for projects), Categories (the most common for taskforces), Infoboxes, or Deletion Sorting. For what you're looking to get (e.g. all women biographies) this sort of thing, it seems like you'd want a |woman=yes in {{WP Biography}}, or use {{WP Women}}, or something to that effect. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break / Roadmap

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Roadmap

Archiving

I added talk-page archiving at the top of the page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Thank you! The page was getting very long. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Metrics

@Harej: If you take a look at the list of new articles created in August, you'll see that it's amazing... lots of articles by lots of editors. The issue is how to generate a complete list. If you check out the edit history of the metrics page, you'll see that we've added articles to this list mostly in two non-automated ways including: (a) editors have been adding their own entries; and (b) I've been adding entries from these non-permanent lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers#Articles recently created and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists#New_articles_created. The problem with the 3 lists I've been adding from is (a) it's a tedious process to grab the entries and then format them for our metrics list; (b) there are duplicates between the lists and what editors have already added themselves; (c) I believe the 3 lists aren't capturing everything within our purview. Is there a way to automate the generation of a permanent list, neatly formatted to our specifications, of newly-created articles that fall within WiR's scope? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Nearly 800 articles (Assuming there aren't too many duplicates). This is great. Totally agree with you Rosiestep that it should be an automated process. Thank you for taking the time to manually create the lists heretofore. SusunW (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles on women and women's works are certainly gaining more attention thanks to all the recent enthusiasm. There have actually been far more than 800. Just in the past 14 days, Sander.v.Ginkel has created 864 new articles while Lugnuts has created 570. Both, like many other editors, have in fact been concentrating on short stubs on women in sports. While these are important, it seems to me that the basic thrust of most of the areas being addressed by Women in Red is concerned above all with all the other areas of women's achievement. So I have one or two suggestions in this connection. Over the years, under AlexNewArtBot routines have been developed to detect new articles on a daily basis in a wide variety of areas including women artists, women writers, women's history and women scientists. Recently a routine has been developed under AlexNewArtBot for Women in Red incorporating a string of rules based on the occurrence of terms relating to women in a wide variety of areas. For those of us who use the list for monitoring new articles, it is rather frustrating to be confronted with such a large number of sub-stubs about women in sports triggered by the rules "10 /(female|women).*(sports|athlete|coach|sportscaster|olympics)/ 10 /(sports|athlete|coach|sportscaster|olympics).*(female|women)/". I therefore suggest we invite AlexNewArtBot to create a separate facility for monitoring new articles on women in sports based on the priorities of WikiProject Women's in sport. I also suggest that the AlexNewArtBot rules for Women in Red should be expanded to include rules on leadership in finance and the economy, for example, something along the lines of "10 /(female|women).*(economics|finance|market|executive)/". Once we have more usable output from AlexNewArtBot, Harej could then perhaps create routines to provide a more ordered listing as suggested. All that said, I think it is useful to have human monitoring of article creation too as it provides us with an opportunity to detect new users, help enhance additions by inexperienced editors (e.g. categories, references, general markup) and invite more active participation in pertinent WikiProjects. Hope I am not being too technical or long-winded here but we need to think seriously about the best way to go forward. Any other reactions or suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
To make sure I understand what the ask is: the goal is to create a list of new articles created using the New Article Bot mechanism or something similar, but divided into different subject areas (ideally ones that correspond with extant WikiProjects), and tied into recommendations into how to improve those articles. Does that sound right? Harej (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Sorry, but, no, that is not what I'm asking for. I am asking for an auto-generated, continuously-updated, permanent list of all articles created on English Wikipedia within WiR's scope. I would like the list to be editable, so that we could remove false-positives. I'd like it to be an alpha/numeric list by month. The occupation, religion, etc. is of no consequence as some months there will be more of this, and other months there will be more of that. If the article's class, i.e. stub, were a part of the entry, that would be a great. Does my request make sense? Can this be done? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Circling back with you on this, and I know you are really busy with other things, but I am dreading the copy-paste routine I should be doing right now to account for all the women's bios created in September, and am wondering if you think you can come up with an automated list of new women's bios as I described in the above post? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • On Meta [[2]] (just the August section), you can cut and paste it back if you wish - I can't make edits like this on en:Wikipedia b/c of my Arbcom restriction - deep joy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Created a list of articles about women, that are in German Wikipedia, but aren't in English Wikipedia, sorted by iws. There are 1000 articles to write (of course, some of them aren't notable for enwiki). Feel free to do whatever you want with that list :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Edgar2007@ Thanks for that. What are the numbers? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
I've added (mainly red) links to the English article of the same name. After spending half an hour on the first one in the list, using the translate tool, only to find on creating the talk page that an article with the same name had previously been deleted, I added links to AfDs.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
As I said - numbers are count of interwikis. And thanks for AFD links. Wanted to do that myself, but it was already quite late and wanted to get some sleep :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 Thanks for your list. I've linked to it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Tasks#Redlink lists. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:<POLICY>

For those AfD subjects which easily yield up the requisite Reliable Sources, the relevant entity to quote is WP:BEFORE - encourage the nominators to perform WP:BEFORE before nominating. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

JL-Bot

I'll point out on the side that User:JL-Bot/Project content could be of interest to this project. Basically, this bot would create a listing of recognized content (DYK, GA, FA, etc...). It would save you from maintaining things like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Featured Articles manually. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Yup, need that, but probably at the project mainpage: WP:WikiProject Women.
If anyone knows how to and is inclined to getting it set up, that would be great. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh yay! Thank you @Headbomb:. These are some of the things we have been wanting from almost day 1. (Rosiestep it really does take a village, but if we keep asking, we seem eventually to make the right connections. Clearly Gobonobo is a wealth of information for us and much appreciated for the help in connecting us!) SusunW (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that if we have the banner categorising properly, all this stuff can be done through categories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC).

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my brain has shrunk today

I was looking for where to add a redlink for a missing bio, but there were too many options so after a while I got dizzy and had to come here for a sit down. Here she is Frida Schytte, Danish violinist (helpful links if you can read: Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Danish again). I am a musical dummy and have a tin ear, cloth ear, whatev-ear, so I would be as much use on a violinist's bio as I would be on bomb disposal (probably not that bad really, and wouldn't be so disastrous if it went wrong; I'm probably just too lazy to do it but don't want to admit that to myself). Belle (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Belle, too many options with respect to Wikipedia in general, or with respect to this specific page? Harej (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
This project; artists? by focus area? by nationality? (incidentally both those links go to "by nationality"), on this talk page? on another project? (she had a decent size article on the Dutch wikipedia, so I thought maybe the intertrans project). I just went for the easy option in the end; and it looks like somebody has filled the redlink, so it was all for the best. Belle (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep discovers her redlinks returned unanswered by Mr Willoughby who professes himself engaged elsewhere. (Wicked and Wikipedia by Jane Austen)
Belle, my apologies. I created those two pages (nationality; focus area) and then promptly flubbed the attempt, making them identical. What I had wanted to do was to move all of this stuff, User:Rosiestep/Gender Gap, to a centralized place at WiR, and hoped that others in time would add their sandbox goodies, too. I've recovered from my fainting spell, so let me try it again. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
No worries, Rosie, I would still would not have known where to put her as she didn't easily fit anywhere in those categories. Belle (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@Belle: The "focus area" page needs to be more welcoming to the editor who wants to add a new category with a new entry. Any suggestions for how to accomplish that... wording... etc.? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I added a bit to the introduction to hopefully encourage shrinking violets like me(!) to take the plunge. Belle (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Belle. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com

People might be interested in signing up for this, the biggest newspaper archive resource in the world!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! I applied. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

October events

9–11 Oct 2015: WikiConference USA

WikiConference USA is coming to Washington, DC on October 9–11, 2015! Registration is open. You can also propose a session or apply for a scholarship. Deadline is August 31st.

I've proposed a session here, Submissions:2015/Women... it takes a village and would appreciate your feedback, as well as your support, if you are so inclined, in the Interested Attendees section. The greater the number of editors who express interest in the submission, the more likely that the submission will make it onto the schedule. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a million Rosie for putting together such a pertinent presentation. I'm sure it will attract wide attention. If your proposal is accepted (as I expect it will be), I think Women in Red will have to continue to be a WikiProject in its own right rather than a task force under Women. Given your interest in extending the work on women to wikis in other languages, it might be useful for you to try and find someone from another major language group, perhaps Spanish, to help with the presentation? Maybe Harej from Wikimedia/WikiData could join in too?--Ipigott (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Lovely proposal Rosiestep but it won't let me sign it. It says I don't have an account. *sigh* I thought creating a Wikimedia sign in was supposed to create one for all platforms? But, when I try to create one, it won't let me. I'll check back and try again, but have guests in from out of the country and have been busy all week and not on much. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Gobonobo, Ipigott, and SusunW: thank you. Regarding the sign-in issue, I've addressed it with harej; hoping it is resolved quickly. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: WikiConference USA's website is not hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation so you'll need to create a separate account there. Sorry for the confusion! Harej (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I had to clear my browser and sign off the computer and back in before it would finally accept a captcha code. *sigh* but hopefully, I finally have an account? Thank you for your help Harej, technology is not my friend. SusunW (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

My talk proposal, "Women... it takes a village", and panel presentation, WikiWomen's User Group, have been accepted. I'm working on the talk's slide deck and I'm very open to hearing from you, our WiR members, on what points to cover in the speech. Please speak up! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Guggenheim Museum folks are organizing a Women in Architecture editathon in NYC for October 15 (cooperating with Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design), and a global campaign for Women in Architecture events in October 2015 (both at Guugenheim affiliate museums and elsewhere), and are looking for more interested partners in other cities! Also, we have an Action list that could use some help  :)--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pharos: Thanks for letting us know about this. It is seems like an awesome editathon opportunity for WiR as a remote participant. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

We'd like to invite Women in Red's participation in the upcoming October Women in Architecture editathons, and especially in online coordination and list development. The Guggenheim team has started a Women in Architecture action list but it's currently only at the NYC event page, and should probably be merged with other on-wiki lists and moved to the global events page. If a section of the global event page could be curated by Women in Red like the Wiki APA page, that would be ideal. Incidentally, more in-person nodes are welcomed as well, currently only NYC is on the official list, but a bunch of other cities are in development!--Pharos (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Would this make sense as the next campaign to follow-on Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/1 and Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2?--Pharos (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pharos: Yes; great idea. Do you feel like getting started on Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:: Thanks, I've added it here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3! Everyone please join now :) Wasn't sure what to fill in for "facilitator", would welcome you and others in every capacity.--Pharos (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pharos: Nicely done, and that's quite a redlist! Next up: event promotion. (a) Create an invitation. You can use the WiR invites from our first and second events as go-bys (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/1#Event templates and Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2#Event templates for examples) or create something unique. (b) Distribute the invitation to user talkpages (i.e. members of WiR, WikiProject Women, Wikiproject Women Wikipedia Design, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Women artists, etc.) and project talkpages. Be mindful about inviting editors to a virtual event too far in advance as they may forget all about it in a month's time. I'd say early October might be good, but go with your gut if you'd prefer sooner or later than that. There's nothing exact about this. (c) As a professional courtesy to participants, I also recommend creating a thank you and distributing it soon after the event; there's an example here. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been looking at the announcement for the upcoming Editathon on Women in Architecture (15 to 25 October). I must say I find the list of red links (which was apparently added by Pharos) pretty daunting. I have researched several of the names and encountered major problems with notability. I think our participation and that of new contributors would benefit from a more manageable list, say of up to 200 names, with basic details such as dates of birth and death, country of origin, degree of importance or notability. As the "physical" editathon is being held at locations in the United States, Canada, India, Germany, Finland, Britain, Serbia and Australia, would it not be possible to put together priority lists for each of these countries? Alternatively, perhaps a few of our own members could handle 20 or 30 names each and put together a priority list for our own participation? We could also draw on recent lists of women award winners and highly rated articles from the wikis in other languages. Both would help in establishing notability. In this connection, this List of architecture prizes and Category:Architecture awards with all the links to wikis in other languages might prove useful. --Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pharos: hi there. How was the large list of redlinks compiled? And can it be reconfigured by nationality? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Page watchers

In connection with our distribution of information about events, editathons, etc., I think members might be interested to know how many page watchers there are for each of the wikiprojects related to womem. The statistics are as follows:

  • WP Feminism: 192 (watching recent edits 52)
  • WP Women's history: 133 (36)
  • WP Women scientists: 82 (37)
  • WP Women artists: 58 (28)
  • WP Women's History Month: 46 (22)
  • WP Women writers: 39 (21)
  • WP Women in red: 33 (33)
  • WP Women's sport: 30 (8)

The others (Women, Women Wikipedia Design, Women's Health, Jewish Women, Women of psychology, Women in Technology, Military history/Incubator/Women in warfare and the military) each have less than 30 page watchers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_2&oldid=1090457830"