Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Let's improve this layout, or stuff

I understand this layout's getting a bit cluttered. Let's fix it. But first, as a totally professional designer and stuff, I have two very important questions before I do anything else:

  1. Which sections/pages do you use, or use the most? What do you use them for? (creating articles, getting new folks an idea of things, or anything, really)
  2. Which sections/pages are the most important? Would you not be able to do what you do without them, or do they motivate you, or whatever?

If you have answers, just dump them here. Anything could be useful. Thanks! -— Isarra ༆ 16:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Isarra; so glad to see thata you're back! These are initial thoughts describing important pages/issues. I expect others will have additional ideas. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Hey, cool, thanks. I see a lot of overlap with some of my initial thoughts as well, which is nice. Comments inline; hopefully I'm still awake. -— Isarra ༆ 03:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Isarra:. I'm glad to see you're back too and ready to help us improve our page displays. To answer your initial questions, the main project page, with an average of about 30 page views per day and few edits, does not appear to attract as much attention as many of the other project pages. The talk page frequently attracts over twice as many page views and many more edits, while the individual editathon pages (currently Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/10), also attract considerable attention and lots of edits, as do the missing article pages connected to current editathons (now Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles). So maybe we need improve navigability between the main page and these pages. As one of the most active WiR editors, I would also welcome any features which would make it easier to edit the main page and the sections attached to it. For example, it is not at all easy to thank a new member for joining the project. If you go to the history of the Members section, all you get is a series of bot operations. In order to send thanks, e.g. to Cypherquest, you have to click on Cypherquest's [edit this profile] (which is counter-intuitive), and look at this. Anywhere else on Wikipedia, you can just look at the history of the participants lists. It is also difficult for us to make overall changes to the main page display without waiting for assistance from members of Project X such as you or Harej. If the features were more open, we could no doubt deal with them ourselves. But now you're here, I'll try to participate in the discussions on the various sections below.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott, would it help if each member profile had a "send welcome message" link? Or if the edit summary included the usernames of new members? (As for the bot, the long-term solution will replace the bot with people editing the list directly, which should be consistent with what you requested.) Harej (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: Thanks for the rapid response. First of all, these are only my personal reactions. I think it would be useful if other active members of the project including @Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Alafarge, Dr. Blofeld, and Victuallers: also commented on this and other points. But to answer your question, I don't think it would help very much if each member profile had a "send welcome message" link. What we need is a traditional history page, showing all the significant changes (not routine bot operations) where we can also see that a user has for example added something to his or her profile or has even deleted information. I don't really understand what the bot is doing anyway.--Ipigott (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. (As for the bot, it is checking (a) to see if new members signed up and (b) if they have edited in the past month, in order to keep the member list up to date. Because of its implementation with FormWizard the result is very complicated. I don't like this and hope to replace it with something more reasonable.) Harej (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott: having tabs for inter-page navigability makes a lot of sense. We might want to just automatically dupicate the ToC (but styled appropriately) onto the subpages in the extension for that, but this could be a good place to test layouts/how well having such a thing actually works now. Being able to thank users for signing up seems like an important use case as well, and not one I'd even thought of, so thanks! Keep them coming, please. Everything harej said. -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To everyone, I would like to say thank you for your feedback and your work developing this project. Isarra and I are going through this and it will inform our work on a WikiProject extension that will replace the current templates and duct tape with something that is easier to use. Harej (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The only think I object to are pages which I can't edit directly. I'm not a fan of pages which are controlled by elsewhere. I want to be able to edit something directly on a page. Not bothered on graphics, though I'm not general a fan of bright yellow!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As much as I agree with liking to just edit it all directly, it's a problem with scale. This works for little things, but when projects get bigger, you need to separate things out. Hopefully more integrated workflows will help mitigate the drawbacks, though. Having all the direct links around, being able to jump to full blobs, etc. -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Mainpage

Mainpage: it needs a makeover. Tabs at the top, like the GLAM pages, would be nice. Example: Wikipedia:GLAM/WiBrugherio. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Something definitely needs to be done for navigability, but what exactly are the problems with the current navigation? Why doesn't it work? Do tabs address all of it, or add anything else in particular? That may indeed be the right way to go, but I want a firm understanding of why first so we can optimise our solution here. -— Isarra ༆
One of the main problems of navigability is that the page is divided into individual sections which each need to be edited as individual pages. I have never been able to see why this is necessary and what advantages it presents. Why can't we have a main page like every other WikiProject which allows us to edit the page as a whole, including the various sections. One major disadvantage of the present approach is that it is extremely difficult to see what changes have been made without going into the edit sections of the various headings.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott, the reason for this now is because of a technical limitation; it is how we dynamically generate the table of contents based on the sections included. It also allows these pages to be "selectively" transcluded, such that the main page should (in principle) only show the most important/most recent parts and then you can view more details upon request. As I alluded to above we are working on the long-term fix for this. One thing I will look into is if we can get the effect we want (selective presentation of content) but have everything in one edit history. Harej (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the selective transclusion working at the moment? If so, how can we see its results? It would certainly help if there was just one edit history for the page. It would also if all the page views could be pooled rather than having separate bits and pieces for each section. But some of this may not be necessary if we move some of the sections outside the main page as has been suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't, which may be a major source of the problems you're having now. This project has been so successful, and grown so quickly, that it has outgrown everything we've expected. Which is good, but you need to [ add some noincludes around the longer bits (like so, perhaps) so the mainpage is less overwhelming. You want it to be a showcase of everything you have and are without overwhelming people. (unfortunately the noincludes do need to be manually updated and stuff) -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Isarra:... which is why we think switching to tabs is the answer. But not plain tabs. Cool, beautiful, dazzling, rock-the-world tabs... perhaps fontawesome tabs(?)... matching a cool, beautiful, dazzling mainpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Tabs won't solve a lack of organisation, though. It does seem to be an answer to some of the problems here, and definitely something to try, but you need to organise what's actually there more, too. Break it down into more manageable chunks at a glance so people can figure out what it is and if it's something they're actually looking for or interested in before being faced with the entire thing. Don't have too many things. That sort of thing. I've see articles where the ToC, which is supposed to help people just to the relevant bits, is just as overwhelming as the article itself. But while the content may be too much in one place, it's all important, all notable. This is when folks split stuff off into separate articles, as I understand it, with only brief summaries and a 'main article' thing - and the analog here would be supbages. -— Isarra ༆ 15:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Metrics

Metrics have to move off the Mainpage. They have several subpages. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm hopeful others will weigh in with an opinion as I see a counter-argument: a long list of articles shows we're accomplishing a lot, and it might induce others to jump in. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Rosiestep. The metrics simply clutter things up on the main page. In any case, most people are interested in progress on the individual editathons which are on separate pages anyway. The metrics on the main page should provide succinct statistics on month-by-month progress (number of new articles created, number of DYKs, GAs, etc.) with links to the full listings on separate pages. Project X could assist by developing tools beyond AlexNewBot for monitoring the creation of new articles in current areas of interest as well as in the whole gamut of women's biographies and works created by women.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott, the way it should work is that Metrics is summarized on the main page with the option to view the full details. They should also be automatically compiled. We are working on this. Harej (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Harej: That's good news. Several of us spend hours and hours each week on manually compiling lists. Any idea when we can expect to see progress on automatic compilation?. I think for many of us it is by far the most useful feature Project X could offer WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Members List

Members' list needs to continue as a separate page. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it works well as is, or it needs to split out and be more separate page-y? -— Isarra ༆
Ok as is, I think, but others should weigh in, too, as this has been a major problem area in the past. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not OK as it is. It is not working as it should. It certainly looks attractive and some members have welcomed an approach similar to Facebook, etc., where you can add a photo and list your interests. But just look at how people are behaving in practice. For Art+Feminism in March, we had 71 registered participants on the editathon page, but only about 13 new WiR members, several without user pages! All in all, we only have 64 WiR members despite well over 200 participants in our editathons. So the approach is simply not working. See also my earlier comments.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ipigott, do we know why they are not signing up as members? A 32% recruitment rate is not terrible. We know from our research that people participate on WikiProjects despite not signing up as members; this was the case before the new WikiProject design. Harej (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Harej I think in this case, many in-person editathon participants signed up as a result of a mass messaging mailing suggesting they should join the project. Unfortunately they have not been active on WiR and will no doubt disappear from the list of active members in two or three months (good feature). But the point I was trying to make is that we have had 26 registrations for Women in leadership, 25 for architecture, 38 for science, 28 for religion, 46 for music, 38 for black women's history, 71 for Art+Feminism and now 38 for writers. Many of those who sign up time and time again for the editathons have not officially registered for WiR. As far as I can see, of WiR's 64 active members, only 28 have ever participated in an editathon and only 15 of these have been active in the last two editathons. By contrast, our current mailing list of active participants now runs to 80 names. Food for thought.-- Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Participants List

"Participants' list" for MassMessage (Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Invite/List). Can we rename it without breaking something: Wikipedia:Women in Red/Invite/List? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

Who all sends the messages, generally? As long as they know where it went, I see no reason why it should break if moved. But if you are going to move it, you also may want to consider using special:createmassmessagelist while you're at it in order to convert it to a shiny new interface that's easier to sign up with and send from. -— Isarra ༆
I've been doing the MassMessage thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been handling most of the invitations, thank-yous, etc., and also prepared the basic mass messaging list (although only administrators are authorized to send them out). It is a pretty arduous process based on an analysis of people's individual interests for each editathon. It seems to me that the most successful way of attracting new participants is to send invitations to related WikiProjects and interest groups. It is also helpful to tie up with in-person editathons. Any help Project X could offer here would of course be welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • If you or James are going to Berlin or Esino Lario, maybe you can show me how to deal with special:createmassmessagelist? In the meantime, ( Done) moved these and left behind redirects: (dropped Meetup/ replaced with WikiProject). --Rosiestep (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
    I can definitely do that, though admittedly I've never actually used the massmessage frontend myself (just rifled around its code a lot). There's no real rush, though - it supports multiple modes for a reason. -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Logo (file:Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG). We've gotten used to it. But the heart is salmon-colored, not red, and it should be red to support the whole "Women in Red" thing. Can you change the color? It doesn't have to be Red #FF0000; it could be Lava #CF1020 or something else. As I think you know, what we do is turn redlinks into bluelinks, so I've added periwinkle blue (#ABCDEF) as a secondary color: blue box around the logo. I really like #ABCDEF, so I'd like to keep it. The silhouette is of Kamma Rahbek. Can we change it up to other women's silhouettes from time to time? Would that be hard to do? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

To change the colour, you should be able to just go into the source and change the colour value for the object. Or, er, use inkscape or something. Changing the silhouette would be more difficult as you'd have to remake most of the image, though. -— Isarra ༆
Maybe a kind soul will help with the color change as you lost me at inkscape. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I made the change. What do you think? Harej (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Harej, thank you; I like it. :) What does everyone else think? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I also made File:Love Heart KammaRahbek red.svg because I didn't realise harej already had. That's the lava red you suggested. -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Isarra and Harej: love this color: File:Love Heart KammaRahbek red.svg. Love this name: File:Women in Red logo.SVG. Can we combine them to get the best of both? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Isarra: I filed the rename request on Commons. Harej (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Done. -— Isarra ༆ 01:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Isarra and Harej: thank you. Appreciate what you do for us. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Redlists

Redlink lists (Category:Women in Red redlink lists): we have many of them and they are very important. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

What do you think of compacting the displayed categories as described in User:Isarra/wpx_wir#Tasks? -— Isarra ༆
Isarra We don't have any displayed categories that I'm aware of. I looked at your link. Are you maybe referring to the items in the Navbox? If yes, those aren't categories, those are links to a redlist on a single topic, e.g. a redlist of social scientists. Did I misunderstand? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll see if I can make some mockups to properly illustrate what I mean when I can. It would be so much easier if we could just point to things and go 'YO THAT THING THERE', but alas... -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Isarra Skype or Hangout would work, too. Maybe some Saturday. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A hangout would definitely do it, but I'd rather we had a record, or stuff. And yeah, my thing was mostly just about how you link to the current ones on the mainpage; getting people to anything on the whole lot of categories is important, you're right. Maybe we could make some kind of wizard for getting people to something they're knowledgeable about? Buggrit, we need a proper database or something. -— Isarra ༆ 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Editathon pages

Editathon pages (Category:Women in Red edit-a-thons): we have lots of them, too, and they are also very important. I left a question about the naming of the meetup pages on the WikiCouncil page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Best practice for meetup page naming convention but no one has responded yet. Would we benefit from naming them Wikipedia:Women in Red/Meetup/10 vs. our current practice of Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/10? I think the benefit of going with the former is that all our project pages would be tied together, and all the activity associated with a meetup page would go towards accounting for project activity count. I think we should also have a redirect from the latter. We starting going multi-language in March and I think it would be easier for the other languages to replicate our work if all our pages are housed under Wikipedia:Women in Red/foo. But what do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

The names probably affect things a lot less than if it's properly linked and whatnot. As long as people can find it, it shouldn't matter? I could be wrong about this, though. -— Isarra ༆ 01:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Event Planning

Event planning: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Events Can we rename it: Wikipedia:Women in Red/Events? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

 Done --Rosiestep (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Headers

Headers: --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

Other

FYI, we also have these: --Rosiestep (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016

Wales contest finale

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Finale. The month contest/editathon ends on Monday. Already this weekend we've seen new articles like Rebecca De Filippo, Gwladys Yvonne McKeon, Annie Lloyd Evans. Penny Richards has been doing a remarkable job with Welsh women and has started or improved at least 20 articles now I think. She'll be getting the book on the 100 Welsh women. If anybody can still create some articles on Welsh women over the weekend and Monday to get into the spirit of things, please add them to the bottom of the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ones still to start:

Redlinks from the Dictionary of Welsh Biography:

Red linked writers mentioned in Aaron, Jane (2010). Nineteenth-Century Women's Writing in Wales: Nation, Gender and Identity. University of Wales Press. ISBN 978-0-7083-2287-1.

Thanks for the mention! Now that I've finished my Awaken the Dragon contributions, my grand totals for the event are: started 23 new articles about Welsh women (including stubs), started 14 new articles on other topics (including stubs), and destubbed 7 articles (mostly bios of women). Whew! Fun stuff.Penny Richards (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations, @Penny! Well done, and you are so deserving of the book. By my count, I created 13 new articles for the Dragon project, of which 3 were women's biographies, and the balance were old buildings and such. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WIR wins Wiki Loves Nigeria

In parallel with Black History Month and our editathon there was a contest launched by Wiki Loves Nigeria. The contest was for most articles, best article etc. I think there were a couple of WIR contestants. The results were made available two weeks ago but they were tricky to find and took some time to arrive. I'm pleased to report that WIR was well represented and Bilikiss Adebiyi Abiola took first place which included the video created here. The results are available here Victuallers (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Victuallers, well done and congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
WOOT! Congrats Victuallers It was a great article and she was really inspiring. I enjoyed doing her DYK review :) SusunW (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations Victuallers, your tireless work on WIR articles cannot be overlooked. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Super! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, and hopefully can be a template for future initiatives (I mean onwiki, but of course it would also be nice to export the raffle idea to other countries, including here in NL for dangerous waste such as old batteries, used "french fry" fat, and other dangers to our waste system today) Jane (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Once again you have been making your mark on another poorly represented country. As a result of several new articles on Nigerian women, I had jotted down the need for a List of Nigerian women writers but I had not realized (or had forgotten) there was a competition under way. Next time you should make sure we include a clickable tag at the top of the editathon page for the month - just as Welsh women are there for April. Are you aware of any similar plans for the future?--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all (insert "picture of bloke doing awkward curtsy with a smirk" here) Good idea @Ipigott: - I think the Nigerian women list (created by the project) is still there but I did a lot by using the African WIR list (not many Nigerians left) and just searching for images of free-use images of women politicians....( a nice feature of asking for free-use is that you lose a lot of inappropriate stuff!! ):-) I agree we should have clickable tag as that is working out as a very useful feature. Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, There are two English language teams participating in Wiki Loves Women, a project to address the gender gap in Africa. They are from Nigeria and Ghana. I've spoken with both User Groups about collaborating with Women in Red to expand the topics that they can work on. In fact today I had a chat with the full Nigerian Team and they expressed an interest in creating list of Nigerian women for the topics that WiR is working. Olaniyan Olushola is a key contact for the Nigerian team. I'll point him here for help and advice about creating red link lists and to have his questions answered. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear All,

I am interested in this project and i am looking for the perfect way of introducing it to my Team Nigeria, especially as a way to contribute to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Women. We would like to participate in this Month ( Women in Photography). I will appreciate if someone can guide me through.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Rosiestep, and Victuallers: You are the gurus of how to do an editathon. Can you help Olaniyan Olushola? I can help with article creation, but I'm thinking that is not what you are meaning Olaniyan. SusunW (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
My questions is more of where to create the Red Links. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ozone. Very happy to hear from you. I see you are very active with WUGN; were you in Berlin last month for WMCON? I don't believe I met you, but there were a lot of people...
The way to participate in this month's virtual editathon is:

  • Sign-up in the participants' section of the meetup page
  • Choose which article you're going to create either from your own research or from one of these lists:

I hope this answers your questions, but if not, or if there are new questions, please let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rosie, Olaniyan Olushola's main question is where to put the redlink list for Nigerian women photographers after his team creates the list. I think that you answered it by pointing him to the Crowd-sourced women photographers redlink list @Megalibrarygirl:, he might appreciate help creating their first list.) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm happy to help create the list, Olaniyan Olushola. I'll see what I can dig up. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
OK: I've started adding Nigerian women to our photographer's list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Photographers#Nigeria. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk)

Demo of Wikipedia Requests system for Women Scientists

I have added a new worklist for the Women in Red for women scientists. This is based on a new central database called Wikipedia Requests. The goal is to centralize the to-do lists of Wikipedia, making it easier to share lists and keep track of what needs to be done. The list is updated automatically. Give it a try and let me know what you think. (Current known bugs: red links don't show up as red links and "internal links" to Wikipedia articles don't work right. I hope to have those problems fixed soon.) Harej (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is there going to be a mechanism for IP editors to contribute red links to Wikipedia Requests? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good question, 211.30.17.74. The mechanism that lets you use your Wikipedia username on other websites, including this tool, seems to be based on people having usernames. But if Wikipedia allows anonymous edits, this should allow anonymous requests! I will have to figure out how to make that work. Harej (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Will the Wikipedia Requests system run in tandem with WP:RA, or will it be its own thing? When you open the wizard to make a new article, you are given the option to request an article and it directs you to WP:RA. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Will I be able to search for requests like 'translation from french wanted' AND 'red linked article requests'? Would it be possible to designate some requests as 'uninteresting to me' and then have them fall to the bottom of a personal list? (Or, conversely, 'interesting to me' and then have them float to the top?) --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The Content Translation feature, which is totally separate from this, is working on a recommendation system for articles to translate. It's very cool. Other than that, there is currently no way to tag requests based on type of work requested, though I would like to do that in the future. Being able to build personal worklists is an interesting idea. I like it. Harej (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, @Harej:, the Content Translation feature is again not usable by IP editors - I can't even see anything beyond a 'you should login' page when I click 'try it now!'.
How will duplicate requests (Jean Laby) be handled? I made that request a while back, you bulk-imported it into the system, then @Keilana: re-requested it, so now there are two separate requests for the woman scientist Jean Laby - odds are, they're for the same person, the physicist. Shouldn't there be some kind of a popup going 'hang on a minute, we've already got a request to make an article for Jean Laby in the woman scientists wikiproject, do you want to merge these two requests?' ?
If you're able to designate translation requests as 'uninteresting', perhaps this should be able to expire after a time, because theoretically the other edition's copy may have improved to the point where it might become interesting as a translation project. Or else have a 'never ever going to be interested in this' level.
If you implement a tagging system - could it be possible to go 'Australia' as a tag, and then have the system go 'do you want to put this person in 'Australian scientists' category (assuming you've also got it tagged as 'science'), or do you want to add 'wikiproject australia' as a project of interest? I mean, to use the tags as a folksonomy to suggest the controlled vocabulary of existing categories and wikiprojects... May or may not be easy or even possible, but it would help if you don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the wikiprojects and categories out there. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding duplicate requests, I've been closing duplicate requests as "declined" and then linking to one that stays open. I agree that if there already is a request for a given article title, there should be a notification that pops up encouraging you to check the other requests. I have added implementing that to my to-do list. As for tagging, currently there is support for tagging by category and WikiProject; I may want to include Wikidata items in the long run, but it would make the process of filing requests more complicated and I wouldn't want to add such a complication unless it added clear value beyond categories and WikiProjects. And I don't want to create entirely new systems of folksonomies since we already have categories and I see no good reason to create parallel categorization systems. Harej (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I mainly use wikidata items as a way to find potential sources for translation - I'm unclear what other benefits it provides, although it would help enrich the requests, if wikidata is available on the topic. I was suggesting the folksonomy as a 'suggested categories' and 'suggested wikiprojects' helper tool, so that people would easily be able to add that a woman in red is also a biography, and she might be under a national project or a subject area project as well - and there might be some relevant categories, too. (woman scientist, living people, Australian physicists, etc. etc. etc.) That kind of 'reminder-of-all-the-intersections' tool would assist people in making cross-wikiproject requests and provide more data on the request that could be helpful for distinguishing similar requests (like two people of the same name). Alternatively, it could even be something like two clouds of 'popular categories' and 'popular wikiprojects' and encouraging people to drag and drop the relevant ones into the boxes for your new request. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

MENA Artists Month - WiR folks invited

We'd like to invite WiR folks to improve content on Middle Eastern and North African women artists for Wikipedia:MENA Artists Month, with the Guggenheim and other partners - write or expand three articles, and you'll get a small art prize mailed to you from the museum. Sign up today!--Pharos (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Pharos, can you create the WiR page for the event? The Affcom meetings and responsibilities are time intense so haven't had a chance to do it myself. Or I can do it when I get back from WMCON. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
For the time being, I've provided a link from Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/13.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

MENA Women

To gain more traction, what do you think about exapnding the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/13 from MENA Women Artists to MENA Women? Maybe do so mid-month? I could ask my friend Emna from Tunisian for some help with a redlist in the meantime? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of AfD

There is currently an AfD in process for the BLP Janet Brumby who received the Queen's Awards for Enterprise. Atsme📞📧 15:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving an article -- need admin help

Hi! Can any admins out there help me move this article? The page Sooreh Hera is a redirect to another page that doesn't even mention her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Am curious why you don't overwrite the redirect page? Are you worried about potential controversy on this one?Alafarge (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
It said I couldn't, Alafarge. I've never run into this issue before. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sooreh Hera - Done. But I'm an admin, and it wouldn't let me do that, either. So, I did a copy and paste onto the redirect page. Hope this works for you. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile66! That's super! :D Weird we couldn't move it properly. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I've rescued the page history from User:Sooreh Hera, so it's all together at Sooreh Hera now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

I'm noticing a troubling trend at Articles for Creation. Many of the AfD crowd are rejecting articles there and letting them languish in draftspace. One, Draft:Karla K. Morton, was a poet laureate in 2010 for Texas (not a small state). The same creator had Draft:Carlotta Corpron rejected. Carlotta is not an insignificant artist. In the past, I helped clean up some of the Art and Feminism articles that were drafts. I don't know what we can do about this, but I find the feedback given to the writers to be unhelpful. Also, the editors who are rejecting don't seem to really understand notability. One is a librarian (not that one, SusunW!) who I've seen at AfD and who I think would know better about notability, the other says the same thing over and over again. :P Bleh. Well, I'm venting, but I wanted you all to be aware of this! I may have to start sticking my nose into AfC, too.... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this is a problem. Great work that you are caring about it. And I must say, the articles looks good. And to be fair, they look better the stubs I create. I create on average >40 articles per day, meeting notability, but I think they wont pass the Draft reviewers... Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought they were good, too, Sander.v.Ginkel. I don't like seeing AfD deletion regulars acting as gatekeepers, either. I stumbled on the Draft:Carlotta Corpron because I was going to write about her. Now I'm concerned there's a gatekeeping issue. Bleh. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Do any of the creators have enough articles to become autopatrolled? I saved one from AfC purgatory last month and it wasn't that the writer wasn't notable it was, as it almost always is, a sourcing issue. All of the claims made in YouTube and on blogs were easily substantiated by the Mexican Literary Encyclopedia and several news articles from Vanguardia, El Universal, etc. I don't think AfC is a training venue, or I didn't get the sense that it was. It appears to be a means of evaluating if articles are ready for mainspace or not and if not rejecting them. After I had written three articles, I was told never to submit articles to AfC because I clearly knew how to document files. As soon as I had 25 articles under my belt, yet another good Samaritan put me on autopatrol. Seems to me the best thing we can do is arm new editors with a crash course in sourcing. SusunW (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, SusunW, that's good point. It may be worth lurking about AfC to see if there are any promising editors there. I've reached out to the editor who created the Carlotta article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
With the whole spectrum of artists, it is extremely easy to find fansites and the artist's personal website. Those IMO should be used only for clues of word pairs to search for books and news articles in RS that cover them. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree... I just wish AfC reviewers would take a second to teach new editors something for a change. :P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a potentially huge problem; AfC is where good article ideas go to die. I've gotten pretty bold about telling people to avoid AfC at all costs. If I'm mentoring an individual, I usually suggest they draft in their own sandbox and then when we both agree the article is ready to pass start-class, they can ask me or another person with autopatrolled rights to move it into article space. (In the meantime, 16 trillion more articles on porn stars and professional wrestlers go sailing through, meh) I don't have the time to do the metrics on the percentages of AfC articles that are declined for good reasons versus reasons that can be summed up as, "newbie is lost," but I suspect that there is too much assembly-line rejection, and I know for a fact that I see problems with articles on artists, women and rural topics get routinely turned down without any kind of friendly hand. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw Yes, yes, yes. Sad but true. The ones I've rescued have all been notable--a singer who did solo concerts at Carnegie Hall and a writer who had won multiple international awards--and were declined for not being notable. Simple sourcing fixed the issues. SusunW (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you are telling people to avoid AfC, Montanabw, but I think it's problematic that anyone would have to tell someone to avoid a potentially useful service. I think if the Teahouse folks were more involved in AfC, that would be good, but there are a number of people who are not helpful about this at all. I think I'm seeing the same pattern of types of articles being rejected out of hand without understanding their notability. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm having the same problem with this draft at AfC that has been rejected twice as "non-notable", https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Nade_Haley. Yet the artist has had numerous museum shows, over 100 group shows, been published by MIT press, Princeton U Press, NYTimes, has permanent public art works, etc. If anyone has a moment to look it over and approve/support it that would be wonderful and much appreciated. If this is the wrong place to make this request, please direct me to the correct page/forum, as I'm a relatively new editor. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Netherzone:, I'll take a look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

CEE Spring 2016

CEE Spring 2016 is happening now through the end of the month. There's been a big push to create bios on CEE women so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wanted to join in. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See also blog post. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Photographers redlist updated by Listeria

I just noticed that Listeria did a Wikidata update on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Photographers. I'm amazed. Beyond awesome. Is that happening to our other crowd-sourced redlists? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It happens to all WD based lists, that uses {{Wikidata list}}. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Edgars2007: Do we just add {{Wikidata list}} to the bottom of each of our redlists, or is there more to it than that? I think adding it would benefits all of our redlists, with photographers as a great example. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
No, it's not so easy. You have to reformat the list, so it really uses {{Wikidata list}}. But are there really some WD generated lists, not based on that template? Note, that this doesn't apply to manually created lists - those have to be updated manually. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: Regarding your question, I really don't have any idea. What I'm trying to figure out is how much work would it be to get all the WiR "by focus area" redlists in this template {{Women in Red}} to include the two sections (manually-generated and Wikidata-generated; e.g. like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Photographers)? And as we move forward and develop additional WiR redlists, can we structure them to have both sections? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Janet Brumby

Perhaps I've overlooked it, but the close for Brumby was to delete and I'm not seeing the reason for that determination. The arguments and the numbers if we actually did support number of votes don't equal a delete rather they appear to me to be a "no consensus" decision. I have asked Fuchs to point me to the explanation, but would appreciate any assistance in requesting a review of the close. Thanks in advance. Atsme📞📧 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

AN/I regarding "Ghost" Artists - Scam protection. Fraud of industrial scale

I'm at work. If someone has time, can you please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#"Ghost" Artists - Scam protection. Fraud of industrial scale.. There may be an issue with some women artist articles, perhaps something to do with our March editathon? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Drmies: I checked every 5th name for the first 300 articles on our list. Checked full name, surname and hyphenated names separately, i.e. smith-jones was checked under both smith and jones. Find zero hits to this list. SusunW (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@SusunW: thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and SusunW: I took a look also, under letter R. Among a dozen artists, I found one typo (which could have looked like a ghost under the misspelling), and one possible ghost (Gustave Riom, though it may actually be fine, it looks like a period piece to me not pastiche), but the others were perfectly real if obscure artists. Since one of the concerns expressed was possible 'planting' of Wikipedia pages, I used only journals and books from the Big Wide World as reality checks. Short of better evidence, seems like much ado about nothing. I thought Ultraexactzz summed up the nonproblem well on the admin page. Alafarge (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Alafarge Great! Thanks for your work. I'm thinking it was in error too. We can't all have done various spot checks and found nothing. SusunW (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Third most active WikiProject

With the latest update of the WikiProject Directory, I am pleased to announce that WikiProject Women in Red is the third-most active WikiProject, with 142 active participants, and the most active WikiProject on a specific subject matter! Thank you all for your hard work. Harej (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • @Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl: Did you see this? I am not so interested in where we rank, as I am that we are remaining active and thus, making a difference in the coverage of the encyclopedia. To me, it really does make a difference that the project is supportive and inclusive. May we continue to grow and be productive. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow! This is very cool! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
OMG, amazing, awesome, wonderful, and (to quote my younger son), stoked! That bottle of champagne we've been squirrling away... time to pop it open! And copy @Victuallers:. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
We can haz champagne? Yes please! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The original target was 100 participants so thats a 42% overshoot - any update on whether we made 10% difference to number of articles? Oh and well done all! Must work but tweeted this Victuallers (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed quite an achievement. Maybe we should bring it to the attention of all those listed here. It might be difficult to maintain our third-place status in the coming months as much of the recent success probably stems for the Art+Feminism editathon. But maybe Women in Entertainment (together with Women in Jewish history and possibly LBT women) will help us along in June. We should start preparing for June now - any volunteers?--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

June

Women in Jewish History edit-a-thon or collaboration

Hi WIR! I'll be running an edit-a-thon on Women in Jewish History at the Center for Jewish History in New York coming up on June 5th, 2016. I was wondering if you might consider collaborating with us for the event. The meetup page is here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/WomeninJewishHistory2016. It would be great to have a virtual edit-a-thon connected to the event for a week or two, but I'm open to any form of collaboration you'd be willing to take on. Thanks in advance for considering it! --Lange.lea (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lange.lea: thank you for reaching out to us, and sure, we're in! I've added it to our June calendar. If you have time to create the WiR meetup page, that would be helpful; you can use this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/14. @Pharos:, can we send invites to the editors who attend the in-person event on June 6th or can you just mention the WiR event in your invite? @Megalibrarygirl: do you have time to create a redlist using the redlinks from here Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/WomeninJewishHistory2016? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Fabulous! Thanks so much! Working on the WiR meetup page now. I see you have Women in Entertainment and LGBT Women as other June events--I'll make sure to see where we might find overlap with Jewish women in both. I'm sure more names can be added to our event page, and I can tell attendees about the other events as well. --Lange.lea (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that page started, @Lange.lea:. We're trying to spread the workload around here and appreciate extra hands as we are running multiple, simultaneous, virtual editathons these days. We love redlinks so the more the merrier (of course, within the bounds of WP:N). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
LGBT Women

@Another Believer: do you have time to create WiR's LGBT Women meetup page, and if yes, could you do so here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/15? If you're aware of any additional redlinks, would you please add them here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/LBT Women? Thank you in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Women in Entertainment

Would be happy to see someone create our meetup page for June's pre-planned event, Women in Entertainment! Please use this link to do so: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/16. Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Arrangements for June

Our tentative plans for June include our own editathon on Women in Entertainment (WIR15) from 1 to 30 June, an editathon on Women in Jewish History in connection with the New York editathon on 5 June sponsored by the Center for Jewish History, and the possibility of supporting Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016 with a focus on LBT Women in connection with editathons in San Francisco on 11 June and Minneapolis on 18 June as well as Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2016/Remote Participation. In order to avoid too much overlap, perhaps we can focus on Jewish Women from 1 to 15 June (WIR16)and on LBT women from 16 to 30 June (WIR17). I can probably find time to handle the editathon page, invitations, etc., for Women in Entertainment but I will not have time for the others. Maybe it will be sufficient to prepare editathon pages with clickable links? @Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Another Believer: Any other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to be able to help with June events. Will be out of pocket for all of June and have no idea if we will have reliable internet. Packing begins in a couple of days, so I have little left in me for this month as well. Sorry. Will see y'all in July and wish you luck.SusunW (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I can help set up the meetup pages if you want to do the invitations, Ipigott. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I agree we have an ambitious schedule for June (typically a "vacation" month for many editors) and think your suggestion is an optimal way to go so let's cement those plans with 1 event for the entire month and the other 2 events to run for half a month. If you can work on the entertainment invite, that would be most helpful; and please let me know if you would like me to MassMessage anything. @Megalibrarygirl: The Jewish Women meetup page has already been created (WIR14) but may need to be tweaked (e.g. dates). The Women in Entertainment has been created, so that one is ok: WIR15. That just leaves LGBT/LBT? Women needing a meetup page; could you please use this Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/16? I will insert the clickable buttons on top of the pages once we have all three (WIR14, 15, 16, right?); I can do that this weekend. Also, I'll work on the invites for the half-month events. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks for going along with my suggestion. I'm tied up all day tomorrow but can send out the additional invitations for Women in Entertainment on Sunday if you can handle the mass messaging.--Ipigott (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I put together the LGBTQ page at the link. Is there anything else I can help with? :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: As an example for naming purposes, this is our last invite: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Communications/13. For June, do you think we should have 1 invite with links to each of the 3 events; or would it be less confusing to have 3 different ones? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I do think one might be more confusing, but that said, since this is a busy month, I think we should do whatever is easiest for those who will have to send them out. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: I think we should opt for less confusing vs. easy. That said, we'll need invite14, invite15, invite16 (they should be different colors) to coincide with WIR14, WIR15, WIR16. I'll deliver the all 3 to our members via MassMesasge. Ipigott has volunteered to distribute the non-member invites for Entertainment. So we could probably use some help with distributing the 2 others to non-members after the invites are created. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: I'm happy to help as long as someone tells me how to do the MassMessage thing. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: As I think MassMessage is an admin tool, I'll use it to invite everyone on the WiR list to each of the 3 June events after the invites are created. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I'm sorry I couldn't participate in this yesterday as I was tied up in a conference all day. I must say that I think there is a danger of overkill if we send out three or more different invitations to everyone on the MassMessaging list. Apart from anything else, it will cause considerable clutter on their talk pages. Those who have received an invitation to the main event of the month will in any case have their attention drawn to the others by the clickable tags at the top of the editathon page. I would nevertheless support sending out invitations to people with interests in the other areas to be addressed who have not yet received an invitation. Hope this is clear. I had in fact already created an invitation to Women in Entertainment but you might like to change the colour, Rosie. (I've now done Jewish History and LGBTQ invitations too.) I'll wait until you've handled the MassMessaging before I send it out to the additional list. (BTW, it is possible for non-admins to use MassMessaging too if there is a good reason. I saw this somewhere on the relevant talk pages when I was researching the whole thing but can't remember exactly where.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep: Hi Rosie. You seem to have missed the last message. I was hoping you would send out the MassMessaging invitations for Women in Entertainment but if you are too busy I can do them manually. Just let me know if the invitation itself is OK or if you want to change the colour, etc. In any case, if I don't hear from you over the next few hours, I'll start sending them out myself later today. You'll also be pleased to hear that Edgars2007 has produced a Wikidata list of redlinked women actresses which I've added to the project page. I found the one on photographers very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible polar women month in July/August

Hello again WiR! The idea of a month-long "Polar Women" or "From Pole to Pole" was floated back in December 2015. Back then Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research initially intended to just have a 3-hour wikibomb on the 23 of August, however we got so many nominations (>150) that we got a group of 20 volunteers together to start tackling the list.

The draft biographies are beginning to be uploaded (we hope to upload a few dozen drafts before June 5). If you're still interested, it'd be great to do a virtual editathon during July or August. All of the volunteers are new to Wikipedia (which is why the initial drafts have been written as word documents in a shared dropbox folder) but they seem keen to learn Wikipedia editing and work with WPWiR.

Let me know your thoughts! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep! I'm really looking forward to getting the MSword documents into wikipedia draftspace where collaborative editing is so much easier! Originally the SCAR event on the 23rd of August was to do actual editing, whereas now it's morphed into a presentation and celebration of new Wikipedia biographies, and a panel discussion of the role of women in polar research, exploration, conservation and policy. So I guess from the SCAR point of view, I'm keen to get as many pages up and improved by the 23rd so earlier is better in that sense. However I totally understand if that's not possible given the calendar restrictions for WiR! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder – Jewish Women's History Online Editathon

You are invited...

Women in Jewish History worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

All are welcome to forward this invitation to anyone who might be interested in participating. I have already posted it on the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Jewish history, Judaism, Jewish Encyclopedia, Biography and Israel.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Useful Wikidata lists

Hello! As spin-off of an itwiki request on this talk, wikidata sysop ValterVB has prepared some lists of missing women article on enwiki from wikidata, that you can find here in local on User:ValterVB/Sandbox/Liste/DonnneNoEnWiki1. Would you like to add them on some general project page? We (he) can provide a better translation for the introduction. Every feedback for improvement is useful also for other languages!--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

He also put a nice link to wdfist, if you want to learn to use this tool--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a lovely list. On WiR's main page you can add the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#By geography, or historical ties to a region, where it would get more exposure. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: These are lovely lists! And looking at them more closely, I see that they are by era (dates) rather than geography. A big thank you for generating them and for letting us know about them.
All, I think we should add them to {{Women in Red}} for easy access in a new subsection, Redlists By Era or Redlists by Date Ranges or something similar. Agree? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This is super cool. I like listing by time period. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Rosiestep if you want different lists I think ValterVB can work on them. They can be done based on nationality too. Of course these lists have lower maintenance but they are not flexible like those manually edited where you can add proposal for totally new article. They are intended to fill a gap, which is a more critical problem for wikipedia that are not frwiki, enwiki or dewiki. In any case you should move them from ValterVB's user (sub)page to a more common namespace.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea; I copied the pages into WiR subpages. There are 2 parenthesis marks in the "By time period" section of {{Women in Red}}, which I don't know how to get rid of; maybe someone else does? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Are they still there or is it solved? in any case Listeria updated a list so it should be ok. I was worried that moving the pages might have affected the update.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
In User:Alexmar983/sandbox I've learned to make list, I move another decade, (1950- 1959), in the template. It is not a big list to process, names seem all reliable.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Diversity Conference

You may be interested in the upcoming Wikimedia Diversity Conference at the National Archives in Washington, DC on June 17–18, 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: There doesn't seem to have been much forward planning on this. Maybe those in the D.C. are may be interested.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

First of the Antarctic Women Draft articles!

Hello again WPWiR!

I though I'd give a quick update on the ongoing Women in Antarctica Editathon.

Since my earlier posts (in Dec 2015 and April 2016) a group of volunteers has been writing biographies based on nominations from the Antarctic research community. From the initial 150 nominations a set of 30 have been improved enough to be nearing ready for upload (currently MSword drafts stored in a dropbox folder).

If anyone has a moment, it'd be great if someone help wikify and tidy the pages that have already been added or expanded: (Draft:Deborah Steinberg, Draft:Erin Pettit, Deneb Karentz, and Lynne Talley). I plan to post here when we upload further batches of drafts if that's ok. It'd be useful to have extra biography-article experience when guiding them through AfC. The current redlink list is here.

Thanks again! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Evolution and evolvability! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Megalibrarygirl! It's great to have an editor with more biography experience then me take a look at them. Good edits. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If anyone has a moment, here are a couple of new or expanded drafts that could benefit from a reviewer's eye: Helen Fricker and Karin Lochte.
Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

In collaboration with Adam Cuerden, I've added a "Featured pictures" section on the main WiR page under "Showcase". As you can see, we already have quite a few. Please feel free to add any other FPs within the scope of WiR and our editathons. If you upload any new images you think might be potential candidates for FPC, I'm sure Adam would be happy to help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: Just ask! Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam ... thx. Ive been tweeting your victories at #wikiwomeninred. I'm not sure we can spot photographic "perfection" like you. Penny has created pages of our best images on Pinterest which you may care to peruse as a quick guide. (I like those of Lavinia Shulz). After all we have just done a session on professional photographers so we should have quite a few. If you could tell us which then I would find time to enter a few into the FP process. Victuallers (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Now, some of this may be expected - many militaries only allowed women recently, for instance. But I still think we can do better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM

On Wikimedia-l, there's this:

"Hello all! What kind of activities have been organised together with or related to cultural institutions in May? Let us know and write a (short) report about it for the newsletter 'This Month in GLAM' so that the worldwide and local Wikimedia community can read what happened in your area. Also this will encourage others to participate and donate material. You can start writing here: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom If your country/area isn't mentioned on the page, you can always add it to: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/May_2016/Contents Please mention also the coming GLAM activities on our calendar on: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Events/June_2016 If anyone needs help/explanation about the newsletter, please ask! Thanks & greetings!"

-Romaine http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Romaine

Does anyone feel like writing up the MENA artists' editathon, which was the online for node for the Guggathon? It would be nice if someone could give it a go. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

AfD Natalia Toreeva

I just got pinged on this one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva, but am leaving for work. Perhaps someone wants to take a look in the meantime? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Will look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

TED speaker challenge

From 6 June to 6 July we are holding a writing challenge about TED speakers. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk. In January TED made a data donation with metadata about 2000+ TED talks. On the TED.com website there are many many more talks, but only the "top talks" are in the data donation so you need to check the overview list of the TED speakers in the in competition here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. Often the talks have multi-lingual subtitles, but you can also access the English transcription directly with a link to quote the talks for use in Wikipedia articles. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. A full third of TED's list of speakers are women, and so far none of the Wikipedia projects I checked come close to that percentage for articles about these people. It may very well be that the men who give TED talks are more notable than the women, but I find it an interesting statistic. If anyone here is interested in a list of just the female redlinks, let me know and I will try to make one and post a link to it here. Jane (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jane023:, and yes, I would appreciate if you could develop the redlinks for these women. @Megalibrarygirl: may be able to assist with organizing the data into a TED women redlist. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I also advise everyone to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Article_alerts, on average, one article a day is tagged for AfD -- and those are ones assessed for our project (who knows how many others disappear into the vortex?) Yesterday, they tagged three. Some, admittedly, are pure PR puff pieces, but many are not. Need more eyes on that list. Montanabw(talk) 05:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw the title and thought the challenge was to get Rosie, Susan or Susun or ?? onto a TED talk :-) Hmmm thats not such a bad challenge. More seriously this looks like a good subject if we can avoid too much UK/US bias. I've just updated today's banner on #wikiwomeninred and I thought of @Jane023: as I add a lady born on this day who mostly painted flowers. Victuallers (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll make a redlist, Rosiestep and Jane023. OMG Victuallers could you imagine one of us on TED? That would be cool. Somehow I doubt I'd sound as smooth as a TED speaker. ;P Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Redlist is here TED Speakers Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I'd have got the same reaction with the names of 3 blokes??? More seriously why not? TedX is possible and TED would be a good aim. Maybe Jane023 might tell us what proportion of 2,000 TED speakers were blokes? If that is 16% then we DO have a problem. Victuallers (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Just thinking about the day we get a Wikipedian to speak at TedX regarding WiR has me beaming like a sunflower. Thanks, @Jane023 and Megalibrarygirl, for the TED women redlist. Jane: only a third of TED speakers are women? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I believe Andy has suggested that TED get in touch with Emily. That would definitely be cool if they did. There is a TEDx group in Milan and I had hoped to be able to something with that group and Wikimania, but the village will be crowded as it is. :( Jane (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thx for figures Jane.Rosie.POTW: A TED speaker would be cool. A third? I see some headlines So historically we seem to have
  1. Historically one in every six notable people were female (16-17%) and now the figure is two in every six (one third). Or....
  2. History only records 17% of notable people as women ... which is about the proportion we still ignore. (50% - one third) Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jane and Roger: Thanks for the numbers. Jane, Em is a great choice. Look forward to meeting you in Esino Lario. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Julia Friedman

There have been lengthy discussions on Julia Friedman which is at AfD. This appears to have resulted in the relatively new author's decision to take a break from Wikipedia (see my talk page). @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: You - and any others - might like to contribute to the discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Ipigott. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've tweeted the new article which is just fine and new editor I hope will stay. I've invited her here. Victuallers (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say this, but there is undisclosed COI editing going on here. The intention seems to be to promote one particular artist. What is worse is the bad faith attempt to hide this COI by claiming others as "rogue editors" and this clarification attempt as an "insult". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but there is what going on here? Seriously, talk, talk, talk I create an article and have to defend -- not its content but "myself"? I am an considered by Lemongirl942 an "irrational woman making crazy claims" and I act "in bad faith". I have no COI with any party here except God for giving me the idea to make a red woman article in the first place. What a mistake. And everybody reads this nonsense with no objections. And, now, when the AfD is 9:1 in favor of KEEP you can read from User:freshacconci that, "As it stands, it looks like the AfD will close as no consensus." No consensus? Geesuz, isn't 9:1 overwhelming consensus? And everybody reads this nonsense with no objections.
There was one editor - a guy who happens to study logic and philosophy - who clearly noticed what was going on:
"Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)''
Josh Milburn was the only one who read this nonsense and objected. Everyone should send him a kitten. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for misrepresenting what I said, Wwwwhatupprrr. I stated that it looks like it would be closed as no consensus which means it defaults to keep. As in, the article stays. But somehow you managed to twist my words around as some sort of attack. And as it was explained to you by another editor, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. AfDs are not simple votes. We seek consensus. I read the arguments as no consensus -- in my opinion. I stated that to reassure you that the article would most likely be saved. But somehow that is an attack. Anyway, as I said on your talk page, I'm finished with the wild accusations and will move on to other things. I wish you the best. freshacconci talk to me 01:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reading what I wrote User:freshacconci. I stand behind my comments. But, it is great news to read that you are finished with "your reassurances" directed against beginning women editors, and your support for editors who attack beginning women editors. I wish you the best. As for myself, this whole experience -- in many instances your actions -- have created a horrible first-time editorial experience. I hope you are happy with yourself in Canada with your few artist friends that you know and openly admit to promoting on Wiki, all written "objectively" and "neutrally"[1] of course. Rest assure, I will not be moving on in Wikipedia. --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a policy called WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Lemongirl942. I do understand your position. And thank you for quoting wiki policy! Did you not read my comments above? Why do you insist upon quoting and saying the same things? I have answered you. And, btw Singapore is a wonderful county [2] so please do not get in trouble.

Now then, you have no idea about the material under discussion, it is afterall art history. That is fine. So, since you don't know about the material you want to attack the editor of the material which you don't know anything about. And, you don't know me. That makes 2 things you know nothing about. According to Wikipedia, that is fine too.

However it is NOT fine with me that you do not read what has been written or acknowledge what I have written. So, for the second time (WP:SECONDTIME) did you read this?

I have no COI with any party here in this Wiki matter except God for giving me the idea to make a red woman article in the first place.

Next, did you read this?

"Try to think about it from Wwwwhatupprrr's perspective. Reddogsix (in addition to tagging the page, leaving Wwwwhatupprrr a series of warnings and nominating the article for deletion) has taken it upon herself/himself to make a (wholly inappropriate) deletion request concerning the article's sole image, and has refused to engage in meaningful conversation with the article's creator, or make any sincere effort to improve the article themselves. Xxanthippe declares the new contributor's article an "oleaginous BLP, which is likely to be an embarrassment to its subject, [filled with] Boosterism and puffery", while dismissing the editor him/herself as "a redlink spa". And you remove the Wwwwhatupprrr's comments and leave misdirected warnings (Grumpy? Yes. Uncivil? Maybe, maybe not. Personal attacks? No.). All of this because someone (mistakenly) believes that the subject of the article is so obviously not notable. If I was Wwwwhatupprrr, I'd be pretty pissed off too. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)''

A simple yes or no will suffice to these two questions. Thank you --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

You just quoted: I am an considered by Lemongirl942 an "irrational woman making crazy claims" Now please point out where I said this. Otherwise this is a strawman attack. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be happy to. But first, it seems only appropriate that you answer my 2 questions first, given that they are unanswered. Please answer them. Thank you --Wwwwhatupprrr (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read both of what you posted - which have ironically strengthened my suspicion of COI editing. Further discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Wwwwhatupprrr. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Some new users

Hello WPWIR! I've got some new users to introduce:

They're helping out with the Women in Antarctica Editathon. I've let them know that they can always come here for advice and inspiration! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Janstrugnell, Allisonlee9, Caroldevine24, and Ngwilson:, welcome to Wikipedia and Women in Red! If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask either by contacting me directly or by posting here on the WiR talk page. :) We are always happy to help review, find additional sources and other types of work. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Additional new users to introduce: Mcpolaar (contribs) and Jenna knox (contribs). Great work guys! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

New antarctic biographies for review

Jannstrugnell has been hard at work this weekend uploading drafts - making quite a dent in the Women in Antarctica redlist generated by SCAR. If anyone has a moment, it'd be fantastic to have some extra eyes cast over them Any additional supporting references are always of use. Thanks already to the many editors who've already been swooping in to help out with formatting etc! We're planning on writing to subjects to request photos once they're accepted onto mainspace. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the LGBTQ editathon

You are invited...

LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Please copy this invitation to potential participants.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

16.28%

I have just noticed Rosiestep has included this improved figure in the introduction on the main page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that Max Klein's most recent figures (based on an analysis of Wikidata information) show that from 29 May to 13 June, 5,593 of the 22,646 new English-language biographies, i.e. 24.70%, were on women while the "all time" figure for the EN wiki is indeed 16.28%. This is quite an achievement.

Of particular note is the fact that the EN wiki was at the top of the list for the number of new biographies on women over the most recent updating period. Better percentage increases were however achieved by several other language wikis including Egyptian Arabic 65.76%, Bulgarian 35.19%, Spanish 30.20% and Catalan 27.74%. As for the "all time" results, Korean is in the lead with 23.23%, followed by Japanese 22.10%, Thai 22.06%, Norwegian 20.84%, Persian 20.46% and Swedish 19.98%. As all these results are based on Wikidata, we really need to ensure all our new women biographies are at least entered in Wikidata as "female". --Ipigott (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_11&oldid=1235702763"