Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/140

Women in Red's stub contest is starting now

Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve women's coverage on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: A couple of questions:

The page lists a minimum length for entries but not a maximum one. Can we enter new articles that are Start class or better in the "new stubs" section (with the understanding that they won't subsequently be entered in the "destubbed" section)?
Will the recognitions be limited to editors who are explicitly participating, or will entries be created on behalf of people who aren't on the Participants list? I ask because this happened once before and caused some confusion.

Thanks. Nick Number (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, are we just counting content (and not codes or categories etc.?) I don't plan to use infoboxes on stubs... thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Number: Thank you for these queries. The idea is to encourage as many new articles as possible; that's why we put emphasis on stubs. However, I see no objection to a given participant's new start or higher class articles being included in the new stubs section in any given month provided they are not also included in the de-stubbing sections at any time during the competition. Any contributor who is a member of Women in Red may participate. It will however make things easier if those competing enter their names as participants and also list their new and/or enhanced articles on the contest page in accordance with the instructions given.

Participants who are not members of Women in Red will not be included among the winners although, as always, we welcome contributions from all Wikipedians.

dawnleelynn: For new stubs, we are aiming for running text or readable prose of 160 words or 1,000 characters. In accordance with Wikipedia:Article size, readable prose is "the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections". Similarly, de-stubbed articles should reach 250 words or 1,500 characters of running text. Any article can be submitted to Xtools article info which lists prose size and number of words.

This is copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/140.--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I continue on my work from September?

Hi there! In September I started adding to Wikidata entries for red-linked women writers/translators and translated an article on an Algerian female writer. Is it okay if I continue with this work and count any stubs created as part of the stub contest, or do I have to use one of the categories that we're working on in October?

Also, October and November are two months in which there's a group focusing on African cinema, so I might work on creating stubs for Algerian actresses as part of that - can it count towards this contest as well?

Thanks in advance. RubyALG (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RubyALG: You can add the stubs in both African cinema contest and here too. The minimum requirement is between 160-1000 words for a biography to be listed here according the rules mentioned in the project page. You can create stubs for the Algerian actresses and add them here. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RubyALG: Working on the basis of your Wikidata entries is a great idea. The stub contest is open to all areas of interest and all nationalities. It is certainly not limited to the other priorities for October although you are welcome to add stubs related to these too. They stubs need to consist of running text or readable prose of at least 160 words or 1,000 characters (i.e. excluding tables, html references, boxes, headings, etc.). We look forward to articles on Alyaa Alkadhimi, Samia Alatout and Haifa Al Sanousi.--Ipigott (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Abishe: and @Ipigott:. I'm going through the redlinked women's lists and adding English names to those whose names are only in Arabic, like I did with Alyaa Alkadhimi and the rest, then I will work on adding articles on them based on the Arabic articles they already have :) RubyALG (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A slight confusion

@Victuallers: I want to clarify from you about whether to add the articles according to the sequential order under our usernames or just add them at the bottom of the page. I made a careless error by not listing the articles that I created in a correct order but I later saw that you have also listed your articles at the bottom of the page instead of in a hierarchical order. I am sorry for the mistakes that I made. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Minor prob. - really confused me to find that my articles were too small to be "a stub". I was all fired up to create stubs and I'd chosen stub sized material. Looks like they may rejig for next month. Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Wouldn't it be clearer if we rearranged the list to use indentation so that it was:

Editorname
- first stub (flagicon, title, date)
- second stub (flagicion, title, date)
Another editor
- stub one...

etc? That would make it easier to see what's going on. PamD 07:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I welcome your decision on the suggestion you have provided here. It is already practiced in WikiProject AfroCine/Months of African Cinema. So why can't we prepare and follow the same strategy here. Otherwise it will be a mess and all of us had poor starts by not sticking with the readable characters and words as what Ipigott mentioned in the project page. We have to rethink because when days pass, the number of articles will increase. So it will cause a big problem when it comes to the matter of counting the articles created by each users. Abishe (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are sensible suggestions but now we've started on one approach to article presentation, I think we should see how it evolves over the next few days. Changing things now might just lead to further difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes, this is basically what I was suggesting over Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Suggestion_for_stub_contest but @PamD: said it much more eloquently here. I don't mind to change the format but I'm also fine with seeing how it goes with the current setup. Mujinga (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers, SL93, Abishe, Dawnleelynn, and Ipigott: (first 4 names in the list + Ian) Despite Ian's fear that "changing things now might just lead to further difficulties", I've drafted a reformatted version of the list at User:PamD/stubathon format idea, which I think makes the list much easier to understand. Any thoughts? PamD 10:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC) @Dawnleelynn:Mis-spelled it before!PamD 10:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I saw the draft format and it seems to be okay. I think except the sign and date issue, the new pattern would work well. Let's see what others also think about it. Rosiestep also introduced new section for articles which do not meet with the stub ediathon contest guidelines and it would certainly encourage newbies to create more articles. Even I too can add few articles there. I think it's a good idea too. Abishe (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD: Thanks for the time and effort you have devoted to this new listing option and to all the other useful comments you have made in connection with the contest.

I should however explain that one of the reasons I adopted the current format (i.e. having editors add articles followed by four tildes) was that formats used in previous contests allowed anyone to list articles, including those created by other editors. As the final list of winners in one contest included articles by a WiR member who had enthusiastically participated but who had not listed the submissions himself, other participants questioned the validity of the outcome. This time round, I thought carefully about introducing a scheme in which only those who created or enhanced articles could post their results. Up to now this seems to have worked.

May I also point out that the major difficulty with the contest up to now has not been the way in which articles are listed but the difficulty participants are experiencing in determining the length of their articles (160 words of running text for new stubs, 250 words for destubbing). I have brought this to the attention of each participant individually and am pleased to see that many articles have now been adapted to conform to the rules. At this stage, I hesitate to specify which articles are too short as those who have listed them still have lots of time to work on them. I would however point out that there are still quite a number of these. If participants prefer to leave them as they are, they can of course move them to "Newly-created stubs which do not meet contest rules", kindly added by Rosie. It will certainly be useful to keep track of these, not only because we are interested in quantitative progress on WiR but because they could serve as candidates for future destubbing.

That said, if participants feel PamD's suggested method of listing is easier to follow, then I think we should adopt it without further delay. I will certainly not be making the mistake of adding contributions from other members or adapting any of the entries listed. At the end of the month, I will however specify which articles do not conform to the rules.--Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to at least respond although I'm not sure how much input I can give at this point. I've never created stubs or entered a WIR contest before this one. I am one of those substantive editors who creates medium to long articles. I thought joining the contest would motivate me to learn how to summarize content better and write shorter articles. And also to write more articles for WIR that way. I am happy with whatever listing method is used really. Your suggestion looks fine to me. I might tend to agree a bit with Ipigott about the signature but otherwise I think that's about it. If Ipigott thinks we should use your new format, I'm all in, so to speak. Thanks for your hard work. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too short?

I wish I'd joined in the discussions earlier, to help form the rules for this competition. The idea that something is "too short to be a stub" seems really weird. Anything which defines its topic, gives enough context, is adequately sourced and demonstrates notability (eg doesn't get itself deleted through any of the normal mechanisms) is a valid stub: it may have important external sources and external links, gives the reader a chance to find links to other wikipedias, etc. If WiR doesn't consider such an article a "stub", what is it? "Sub-stub" is usually used as a highly derogatory term for rubbishy little additions which fail to meet most or all of the above criteria.

But Wikipedia seems thoroughly confused about what a "Stub" is anyway! At the other end of the size scale we can read at Wikipedia:Content_assessment that a stub is "A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.", but at WP:Stub we see "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete." There's probably an esoteric distinction between "stub categorisation on talk page by WikiProjects" and "stub categorisation by template in article", too.

Ah well, I'll just get on with my usual work (including a lot of stub-sorting, without being too bothered about this competition. And I'll find one of this month's articles to add to editathon 140 in my list of WiR monthly contributions. Happy Editing, rant finished. PamD 09:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD: For clarification, Rosiestep has made several suggestions about having a stub contest, most recently on the Ideas page in September when she wrote "Following up on the conversation on the WiR talkpage regarding A 20/20 vision: 20% for 2020?, I'm proposing a 3 month (Oct-Nov-Dec) stubathon of maxi-stubs (>1000 bytes of prose). This event, like all the others we do, will also welcome article improvement, in thise case, expanding the prose of a mini-stub (<1000 bytes of prose)." Several other contributors also said they liked the "maxi-stub" idea while others specifically thought shorter stubs should be avoided. It's difficult to find all the earlier discussions on these points as both the Ideas page and the WiR talk page are frequently archived.

For my own part, I certainly agree with you that short informative stubs form an important aspect of Wikipedia. In some cases, they remain as they are for years, in others they are soon expanded. I spend quite a lot of my time looking through old encyclopaedias and biographical dictionaries, especially those from Scandinavia. Many of the articles I write are based on the names I find there, perhaps just a line or two emphasizing an important detail. On this basis, I am then often able to uncover more lengthy sources suitable for creating a Wikipedia article. I'm really sorry you have misgivings about this stub contest. Next time I try to introduce a new editing incentive, I'll make sure I let you know beforehand. Your articles, suggestions and your long-standing enthusiasm for the Women in Red project have contributed much to our success.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new subsection on this contest's page for "Newly-created stubs which do not meet contest rules". I hope the wording feels welcoming for those who create an article which falls outside the limits of the "contest", but meets Wikipedia definitions of Stub. If anyone would like to re-word that section, please be bold and do so. It is meant to be welcoming. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally comfortable with that section and I think it will be helpful. I am pretty sure I will not win the contest but I want to contribute to the overall goal, so I may add some new articles to the new section. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent addition, Rosie and have mentioned it in my comments to PamD above. I have really been surprised at all the difficulties people have experienced in achieving the minimum specified length.--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, while it's too late to make adjustment to the October contest, we can certainly make changes for the November contest based on the feedback we're getting. A third iteration is also possible for the December contest based on November's learnings. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting seeing how different editors have had issues with the stubs. Before this contest, I never created any stubs or entered a WIR contest. I do write substantive articles most of the time, including doing some for WIR previously. My issue was keeping the articles short enough for stubs. My only attempt at a stub prior to this turned into this: Blackland, Texas. LOL! dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn: I don't usually write stubs either, except in the few cases where I try to cover a red link in an article and cannot find more than very basic information. Perhaps one way out is to list the article as a stub when it reaches around 180 words and then continue working on it. I don't think people should have to reduce the size of their new biographies just for the contest. Several contributors seem to agree that any new biography should be listed as a new stub, even if it technically has already reached start class or higher. Perhaps this should be clarified in the November version of the contest. We live and learn...--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott Yes, I saw that bit about listing bios that were bigger than a stub in the contest under stubs, but not being able to then destub them next month (obviously). That's the only reason I left Mabel Strickland Woodward in the stub section for now. I'd rather move that one out of the contest than to make it stub size if the rule changed. The rest I am doing are meeting stub size limits thanks to you! :) It is going so much smoother now with your help. I just didn't see that tool in the instructions. And Blackland, Texas, was just one I meant to make as stub for another article, just in the same way you did it for a redlink. It wasn't supposed to have much info. Ha! Anyway, it should be clear. Just stubs should qualify or it's confusing... dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images for stub contest

I uploaded an image to Commons. I added the category Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red - 2019 successfully. The image does not show up on the category page or on the specific image section on the stub contest page. I do see a message that says, "This category is not shown on its member pages unless the appropriate user preference is set." I don't know what preference to set. A little help please? Thanks! Oh, the file is called Tad-Lucas-Rodeo-Cowgirl-on-Bronco-c1920s-Doubleday-RPPC.jpg dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn: I can't see any problems with you image. I have added it to the media gallery on the stub contest page. The categories only apply to Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott Aha, I see what step I missed. I understand how it works now. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So Hard...

This is such a difficult contest. The last 50 words are the hardest for destubbing!!! Please give honorable mentions to all participants! Ugh... SWP13 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you need help with, we are here to collaborate and improve women articles. Trillfendi (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SWP13: Any stubs/articles which are still too short can be added to the section "Newly-created stubs which do not meet contest rules: October". All additions and improvements are of course welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRODed article of the contest

I created the article Priyani Wijesekera with the intention of adding to this contest. But it is the first article of the contest to be nominated for deletion. Unfortunately women biographies are often vulnerable to such deletion nominations. I also think it's my fault to create an article like this. Abishe (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have survived.--Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has survived now because of your assistance. I should have responded earlier. Abishe (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How to post an article for revision

Hello! I am participating in the October stub contest and have just finished my first entry. It's still in my sandbox - how do I post it to you for revision? it's my first article ever and i'm new here, please help :)Less Unless (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless: Hi, I am delighted new users like you are focusing on creating and expanding articles about women. Your debut article Delphine Fawundu is a perfect start to your career as it looks really nice. Keep going. Now you can add further entries created by you in the contest page under your first article link that you added. Thank you. Abishe (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe: Thank you very much for the support! I got help from another user publishing it, but i still don't understand what to do when I'm done. Do I just click the Submit draft for revision? But how do I know you will get it? Sorry for the dummy questions, haven't figured it out yet. And sure, I'll continue! I really enjoyed it. Less Unless (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless Hi and I can understand your difficulties but I am bit puzzled on how to exactly answer you regarding this issue. For example I have tried out an example for you see this first and then see my sandbox. At the bottom of the sandbox of mine you will see a template stating that the review is pending. I am sorry if I mistaken. Abishe (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe:So if I understood you correctly, there is no special revision team within the Woman in Red project. All the new stubs\articles are reviewed in turn by the reviewers. And after my article is reviewed I just add it to the contest list. Right?Less Unless (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less Unless: Any articles are reviewed by New page reviewers who are even not part of Women in Red. For further understanding to clarify about it you, I also add the fact that there are a total of 1877 new page reviewers if I am not mistaken. Anyone with the new page reviewer right can review any articles and I too have that right. On the other hand, you don't need to wait until your article is reviewed in order to list in the contest page. First of all, you should be able to prove the notability of the article. Then there won't be any issue. Even I can review your articles once you add up here. Abishe (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe: Now I got it! Thank you very much for your time! Less Unless (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

These articles should be woman bios?

Someone is adding food stubs to the stub section. Aren't these supposed to be woman bios? Just checking... dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn: They should strictly speaking be biographies but could you be more specific?--Ipigott (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott Under the stubs section, see Omelette de la mère Poulard and Foods of the Southwest Indian Nations articles by valereee. The subject of the Foods...article is a cookbook. The subject of the other one titled an omelette is an omelette. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're both articles related to recent new bios; the omelette is the Omelette de la mère Poulard, and there's also a new bio of "la mère Poulard", Anne Boutiaut Poulard; the cookbook Foods of the Southwest Indian Nations was written by a woman, Lois Ellen Frank, who also has a new bio article. Penny Richards (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

valereee: Thanks very much for these two interesting articles which obviously coincide with Women in Red's concern to cover women's works, etc. Nevertheless, strictly speaking, perhaps as dawnleelynn suggests they should not be included under the stub contest. The contest is indeed designed to concentrate on women's biographies as these are used by WHGI and other tools to assess the extent of the gender bias and our efforts to reduce it. The introduction on the stub contest page reads: "From October to December 2019, we are holding a three-month contest on stubs relating to women's biographies." I have no strong feelings about this but perhaps the articles would be more suitably included under #1day1woman and tagged WIR-108. Keep up the good work! I'll have to try that omelet one of these days.--Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott and dawnleelynn, I always add women's works to our articles lists. That omelette is internationally famous, is one of the biggest tourist attractions in France, and was invented by a woman to solve a problem other innkeepers hadn't been able to solve. The book was the first about Native American cuisine to win a James Beard award -- publishers told that woman there was no such cuisine and that she didn't have the credentials to write one, so she went out and got herself a PhD in cultural anthropology and wrote the book, lol. I don't care about the contest, but if women's works aren't included, I think it's kind of a shame. Women's notable works are just as important for us to be writing about as notable women are, imo. --valereee (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and don't bother with going to the eponymous restaurant for the omelet -- I understand it's become a price-gouging tourist trap with terrible service. Any other restaurant on the island will serve you the same omelet for a third the price and treat you with some respect, apparently. :) --valereee (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, Ipigott, and Penny Richards. Thank you all for your helpful comments. I have contributed to WiR for awhile now, but this is my first contest. I'm still learning the ropes. And may I add that the articles are extremely well done and very interesting. I appreciate the advice about the restaurant. I also applaud that woman for overcoming the obstacles to write the book on cuisine. Most of the articles I write are about women overcoming obstacles to compete in men dominated sports. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnleelynn, no worries, it's a perfectly reasonable question to raise, and if we decide not to include non-bios, it's fine. And thank you for your kind words, I loved both of these women, ended up nom'ing both for DYK because I want people to see what they did! :D Many of my own articles are food-related somehow, and I'm often puzzled at how few views they get. How can food not be generally interesting? EVERYBODY EATS! :D --valereee (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee I should have said most of the WiR articles I write are about women overcoming obstacles in sports. Otherwise, I write articles about many other things in rodeo, and some things that have nothing to do with rodeo. And yes, food is so important. There are so many regional foods one could write about, and I would think that could be interesting. Cheesesteaks in Philly, Bar-b-que in Texas (and other states), deep dish pizza in Chicago, etc.! I am sure these have articles already but I know there are probably subjects out there that haven't been covered yet. Yes, your articles sound perfect for DYK. I don't DYK all my articles, only ones that have some good hooks, and are interesting. Anyway, thanks again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you for only DYKing the ones that have an actual good hook :D --valereee (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted drafts count?

Erm, I just submitted a draft stub for Pamela Pigeon (1st female commander in British spy agency) and then saw this contest. Couldn't resist submitting it here as well--but that's in part because I'm starting to feel that male editors are (disproportionately?) dissatisfied with material about women. Based on my limited experience, admittedly, but the negative feedback has been contradictory. Anyway, I want other eyes on this so that the stub doesn't get shot down just because it's a stub about a woman. Pigeon wasn't at Bletchley Park, but she worked on similarly important stuff, so there'll probably be a TV series or film about her soon! Tarkiwi25 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkiwi25: I see it was moved to mainspace on 3 November - so it certainly qualifies. Interesting article. Let's have some more.--Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Tarkiwi25 (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like it would make a great movie! PMCH2 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for destubbing

Quite a few of the stubs created in October have already reached Start class but many could be candidates for destubbing in November. These include:

Ada Arnstad, Norwegian politician
Risa Sugimoto, Japanese squash player
Friedel Morgenstern, German actress
Lydia Panapasa, Fijian netball player
Nellie Miller, American barrel racer
Martine Reicherts, Luxembourg EU official
Jenny Sacerdote, French couturier
Karol Wight, American museum director
Catherine Ann Cullen, Irish poet
Nino Kipiani, Georgian lawyer

--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on stub classification on WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women

I created an article for Kelly Brown Douglas last month as part of the leadership challenge. On the talk page, the article has been classified as Stub class by the WikiProject Biography and Wikiproject Women. But the article has 900+ words. So why would that be a stub? Just wondering if I am missing something. Thanks! PMCH2 (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]