Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 138
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 135 | Archive 136 | Archive 137 | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | → | Archive 145 |
Potential on-EN-WP WiR event --- "Redirect Her" (or) "Find Her"
Thinking about recent conversations on this talkpage regarding "Redirects", especially here and here, has inspired me to suggest an upcoming WiR event focused on Redirects: Redirect Her. Adding Redirect pages is mission-aligned with WiR as it supports creating a new page; that's our thing. Of course, our meetup page would state that we support compliance with Wikipedia:Redirect, and maybe we would provide additional guidance on the meetup page with WiR's point of view on Redirects. With redirects being an easier task compared to creating a new biography, such an event would be particularly good for newbies who want to edit Wikipedia but might not have the confidence to create a new biography yet. What do you think about a Redirect Her event?
Alternatively, I'm suggesting a broader-scoped event on "findability", tentatively titled as a differentiation, Find Her. This would include not only creating Redirects but also including other findability tasks, such as adding categories and/or inbound wikilinks. I recognize that adding cats and wls are article improvement tasks, but as WiR previously facilitated at least 1 other article improvement event, Double The Lead, I'm feeling bold to make this suggestion. What do you think about Find Her, to include redirects+cats+wls?
I'm particularly keen on us facilitating this event (in whatever form we decide) in March as there will be many newbies during Women's History Month keen on doing something to support improving women's representation on Wikipedia. Participating in Redirect Her or Find Her would be easier than creating a new biography while still supporting content gender gap work. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Within the "Find Her" area, adding someone to the relevant surname page (or making a redirect from her surname if she's the only name-holder) is one really useful thing - helps the reader who only knows a surname, and reminds people that there are Janes and Georginas in among all the Johns and Georges. (There are also given name pages, but I can't be bothered with them myself: no reader is going to look someone up as "Emily" or whatever, unless they're a mononymous pop singer, and I just don't see the point of a list of everyone in the encyclopedia called Pamela.)
- And of course I'm all in favour of adding redirects from all versions of a person's name which crop up in their sources or are likely variations, on the basis of what's in the article. (With and without middle name(s), married/birth name, etc) - or sometimes it needs to be a dab page entry or a hatnote. There isn't a quick way to know whether an article has already got a full batch of incoming redirects, all you can do is "What links here" and then look for them - it helps if you've installed the userscript which displays all redirects in green, User:Anomie/linkclassifier, as you can then see redirects easily. PamD 22:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
While I think it is certainly useful to identify more women, in view of the earlier discussions on this page I am rather concerned that hundreds of new redirects could dissuade people from creating new articles on those identified. Perhaps the campaign could provide an opportunity for changing the setup in order to give credit for creation to those who start articles from redirects but this might prove difficult as it could require changes to the basic wiki procedures. Alternatively, there could be a kind of request page to willing admins asking them to delete redirects connected to a draft ready for mainspace. This would then provide the usual creation credit and would encourage contributors to convert redirects into new articles. Last but non least, I think it would also be useful to include a redlinking feature as many of the women we are looking for will certainly already be mentioned in articles. For some reason, in recent years there has been far less redlinking, possibly because it sometimes gives the impression that an article still requires further work. Nevertheless, in many cases a red link might be more appropriate than a redirect as it is not always easy to find a suitable redirect target. In parallel, we could set up a list of new redlinks, possibly with short explanations which would assist later work on article creation. Hope I am not introducing too many complications.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The proposed event is about creating Redirects and adding categories and adding inbound wikilinks to existing women's biographies, so it shouldn't be necessary to convert the redirects into new articles in most cases. There is a request page to willing admins asking them to delete redirects and publish drafts ready for mainspace at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. TSventon (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanations, TSventon. I am aware of the Technical requests page. I just thought it might be more efficient if we could deal with one or two administrators who are aware of the campaign and would recognize the specific need for deletion. I think many of us prefer to deal with administrators we know, especially as it's not always easy to justify deletions. You might be right in thinking that most redirects will not be converted into articles but I very much hope that many of them will. I expect much of the research we undertake in connection with making redirects in the first place will reveal background worth further investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- In all this discussion we need to remember that there are two main kinds of redirects: (a) redirects from an alternative title, and (b) redirects from a name to an article about someone, or something, else.
- Those in (a) in general will not be converted to an article, and there is no reason to want them to be. They may sometimes get overwritten by a new article about a different person who is the primary topic for that form of the name (in which case a hatnote is needed to provide the link originally provided by the redirect), or a dab page for that name.
- Those in (b) may indeed get overwritten when an article is created for the named person ... or indeed for someone else of that name!
- Redirects are supposed to be categorised using the "Rcat" set of templates (see Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages, so the ones in group (a) ought to have {{R from long name}}, {{R from birth name}}, {{R from alternative spelling}}, {{R from diacritic}} or similar. Those in group (b) will have different templates: {{R from spouse}}, {{R to subtopic}}, {{R from member}} (of a band etc) and so on.
- There's another group of redirects, (c), which are alternative versions of the group (b). Say a redirect is created from Amaryllis Higgins to the article on the Higgins Academy, a school she founded, but we find she is also sometimes called Mary Higgins. The redirect from Amaryllis to the school can have categories like Category:British educators and Category:People from Liverpool, but we don't need the redirect from "Mary Lily Higgins" to also appear in those categories. I've only recently discovered that the second (etc) redirects to the school, such as Mary Lily Higgins, ought to be given a template: {{R avoiding double redirect|Amaryllis Higgins}}. That way, when the article on Amaryllis Higgins is created, Mary Lily Higgins will automatically become a redirect to her instead of to the school (if I've understood it right).
- There is a whole sphere of rather esoteric knowledge around redirects! Sorry for the information overload. PamD 20:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- PamD, I'll bet most people didn't know about all the the "Rcat" set of templates... and I admit to being one of them. My thought for suggesting this event in the first place was that among the many women's biographies that already exist, some might benefit from having a redirect, e.g., her pen name or all her different surnames including maiden name and after various marriages. I think it would be important that we specify that this event isn't about creating a redirect for, hypothetically, Jenny-Jenny Jones-Jones to List of people with surname Jones, even if such a person exists on one of our redlists (and Jenny-Jenny Jones-Jones is just made-up gibberish). This has the potential of being a real learning experience. It could also be an admin's nightmare, and as I'm an admin, and don't want a WiR-inspired nightmare, I'd be fine with rejecting the Redirects idea, if there's consensus that it could be quite problematic, and maybe only suggesting adding categories to her biography and/or inbound wls. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosiestep
among the many women's biographies that already exist, some might benefit from having a redirect, e.g., her pen name or all her different surnames including maiden name and after various marriages
Absolutely so, as I say boringly-often. I'm not sure how easy it would be to do this as a project or editathon, as there's no easy way to identify articles which do/don't already have all the appropriate incoming redirects, so no way to ensure that people don't check articles which others have already worked on, etc. But we do need to remind our members that when they create an article they should consider adding all appropriate incoming redirects to increase the visibility of their article, turn more red links blue, and reduce the chance of a duplicate article being carelessly created later. - We would never redirect from a red link to a list of surname-holders, but we do need to ensure that if we create the article for Ms Jones we remember to add her to that List of people with surname Jones. As an exception, if we had a red link for someone for whom there's useful information in the sort of list article which includes sourced content about the entries (perhaps a list of award-winners or something), then it would be appropriate to link to that list entry (there's even an Rcat: {{R to list entry}}!), so that the reader can find what information we have. PamD 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosiestep
- PamD, I'll bet most people didn't know about all the the "Rcat" set of templates... and I admit to being one of them. My thought for suggesting this event in the first place was that among the many women's biographies that already exist, some might benefit from having a redirect, e.g., her pen name or all her different surnames including maiden name and after various marriages. I think it would be important that we specify that this event isn't about creating a redirect for, hypothetically, Jenny-Jenny Jones-Jones to List of people with surname Jones, even if such a person exists on one of our redlists (and Jenny-Jenny Jones-Jones is just made-up gibberish). This has the potential of being a real learning experience. It could also be an admin's nightmare, and as I'm an admin, and don't want a WiR-inspired nightmare, I'd be fine with rejecting the Redirects idea, if there's consensus that it could be quite problematic, and maybe only suggesting adding categories to her biography and/or inbound wls. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanations, TSventon. I am aware of the Technical requests page. I just thought it might be more efficient if we could deal with one or two administrators who are aware of the campaign and would recognize the specific need for deletion. I think many of us prefer to deal with administrators we know, especially as it's not always easy to justify deletions. You might be right in thinking that most redirects will not be converted into articles but I very much hope that many of them will. I expect much of the research we undertake in connection with making redirects in the first place will reveal background worth further investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Potential on-Meta event; participation by other language Wikipedias; Cherchez la femme: Wiki Loves Finding Her
Hi @Chocmilk03, JasDolt, and SAgbley. As you are the current and most recent former representatives of m:WikiWomen's User Group (WWUG), I'd like to run an idea by you.
If you think the idea of Women in Red facilitating a "findability" event in March (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#New WiR event: "Redirect Her" ''vs.'' "Find Her") is cool, and if it would fit in within the scope of WWUG, and if you have time+inclination, please consider a global event on wiki-Meta:
- Facilitated by WWUG
- In partnership with, or based on the work of, or some such language... Wiki Women in Red.
- Dates: 1-31 March.
- Focus: content gender gap, specifically, findability of existing women's biographies on any/all language Wikipedias.
- Scope: creating Redirects and adding categories and adding inbound wikilinks to existing women's biographies. Frankly, I don't know that all language Wikipedias use Redirects, so adding cats and adding wls makes sense if you're facilitating a movement-wide event with a findability focus.
- Naming it something like: Cherchez la femme: Wiki Loves Finding Her. This might attract non-EN-WP editors because of the French language part of the name. For those who are familiar with the French language, you'll understand that "Cherchez la femme" is an age-old expression, a cliché, so a fun twist to a "Wiki Loves X" campaign.
- Among other things, facilitating a movement-wide event would include:
- Creating a page on wiki-Meta.
- Actively promoting it on the women-related Telegram channels.
- Promotional outreach on Twitter/X and/or elsewhere.
- Creating a unique "logo" and "promo page".
- End of event write-up in April. Potentially, (a) a blogpost on the WMF Blog, and/or (b) an article for The Signpost, and/or (c) writing an article for other media in your countries.
- Mentioning it on the WWUG Annual Report.
- Note, this is a suggestion for a "campaign", not a "contest" whereby anyone would have to do any heavy lifting. A campaign is heavy-lifting enough. Contests imply additional work: Rapid Grant application, awarding prizes, filling out an end-of-event grant report. Leaving the work required of a "contest" for future years' consideration would be a recommendation if the 2024 event is fun and successful in whatever way you might define success.
Again: This is meant to be an idea dependent on your time and inclination. Brought to you by the folks at Women in Red. 
If you'd prefer that I transclude this to the WWUG talkpage, just let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosiestep: Thank you! I love this idea and thank you for the suggested roadmap, which is very helpful. Will talk to Jas/Stella and start prepping :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Even if this is a proposal from the Women's Group WWUG, I assume it will be open to male editors. It might be useful to make this clear.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. The topic relates to women, like the current SheSaid campaign. But editors should be welcome to participate without regard to their gender... same as all the other "Wiki Loves X" campaigns. I've never facilitated a "Wiki Loves X" campaign but surely, I hope, the WWUG representatives can sort out whom to connect with for guidance on promoting the campaign in an equitable way as they are all also members of geographic Affiliates. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Of course! The intention will be that the audience is general even if the topic is specific. I'll make sure to make this clear in any communications.
- @Rosiestep: thanks for sharing Nattes' message, I am in touch with her. Another great project. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Strong support for a Francophone Africa theme from me! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Ping @Chocmilk03, JasDolt, and SAgbley: I'm copying this comment here from the WiR Ideas page for your awareness:
"Hello @Rosiestep. I would like to propose a collaboration in March with les sans pagEs if WIR is willing to. It's is our annual Francophone Women* Writes Fortnight, and we are trying to get more participation from non French speaking projects. Here is the main page of the campaign Francophone Women* Writers Fortnight/2024.
I would be glad to propose this as a lot of women* francophone writers are from Africa which is very poorly represented on our projects, so this could be a way of having an intersectionnal impact. I'd be glad to help someone here who would like to put up a project page and a fountain tool for the campaign. Warm regards" Nattes à chat (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Candidate for new article: Mitsuko Tottori (Alphabet Run: M to N)
Please see: Japan Airlines appoints ex-flight attendant as first female president. There seems to be enough coverage of the appointment of Mitsuko Tottori to justify an article (assuming we want C-Suite business executives of major corporations).
From the same article and also possibly of interest: "A survey by the aviation specialist website FlightGlobal found that, at the end of 2022 there were 12 women leading the top 100 airlines, up from six a year earlier." A quick search shows that we have some, though not all of these: Marjan Rintel (KLM), Annette Mann (Austrian Airlines), Yvonne Makolo (RwandAir and IATA), as well as Lynne Embleton (Aer Lingus), Joanna Geraghty (JetBlue), Stephanie Tully (Jetstar), and Vanessa Hudson (Qantas).
As a start, I've added a few WIR redlinks to relevant airline articles. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Cl3phact0, thanks for these interesting ideas. You might consider adding these to the relevant WiR redlists, like the one for business women. Putting them there means anyone looking for article ideas can find them now and in the future. Here on talk they will soon be archived and would be unlikely to be found again. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Innisfree987! I'll try to add them to the relevant redlists too (I knew I was meant to do that – it's just not always obvious where exactly one is meant add them). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can add them any and all relevant topic lists that are tagged “(CS)” which stands for crowd-sourced. Happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Innisfree987! I'll try to add them to the relevant redlists too (I knew I was meant to do that – it's just not always obvious where exactly one is meant add them). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- We already have Mitsuko Tottori in Spanish and she has been widely covered in the world's leading newspapers over the past two or three days.--Ipigott (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well spotted! I missed that (and this too: wikidata:Q124321858). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Accepted at AfC by myself, but pretty flawed in its current state (some uncited info, and informal prose). A fun cleanup/expansion candidate for anyone interested in musicals and/or trans people of color. Mach61 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the article a bit, moved it to what seems their commonly used name of Mars Rucker, and added them to Rucker (surname). PamD 08:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Paper on women economists
A recent paper titled "The Representation of Female Economists on Wikipedia" by Nicole Venus of the University of Lugano, informs us that despite the overall poor representation of women economists on Wikipedia, initiatives such as Women in Red and WikiEdu have led to significant improvements in recent years. "Despite the seemingly low absolute number of contributions, initiatives promoting gender equality appear to be very effective in the attenuation of the under-representation of female economists on the platform." The paper introduces the concept of activist editors: "I identify three initiatives which specify closing Wikipedia’s gender gap as their main goal: ”Women in red”, ”Gender gap task force”, and ”Women scientists”. I label all users belonging to at least one of those groups as 'activist editors' ”.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive
| WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
It's not enough to turn red to blue. These articles must also be supported by sources to prevent being deleted by PROD or AFD. So join our efforts today and secure these articles' existence!
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have subscribed to the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- P.S.: I haven't found a reliable way to use WP:PetScan for detecting uncited woman articles because I couldn't find a category that's more precise than Category:Woman. Do you have any other way to detect uncited woman bio articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- CactiStaccingCrane: It's easy to find articles relating to women for each category. Just click on "Women" when you open the category. For example, all women-related articles are accessible here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Such a simple solution... and I couldn't even think of it! Let me add that to the "tips and tricks" section for the drive. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- CactiStaccingCrane: It's easy to find articles relating to women for each category. Just click on "Women" when you open the category. For example, all women-related articles are accessible here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Template:WIR (Women in Red talkpage banner discussion)
Good day to you all. I am here to try and find a way to resolve issues previously identified with having multiple instances of your banner template on some talk pages (example: Talk:Zarifa Ghafari). This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 23#Template:WIR but without consensus. A suggestion made by some at that discussion, was to discuss with the project to find the best way forward. And so here I am.
Firstly, can I emphasise that there is no intention to make any change which will disrupt the workflow of any editor or bot. However there are definitely improvements we can make. Can I draw your attention to the system currently used by Women in Green, which seems to be working very successfully. The details of all their events are held in one central page (see here) and their editors can type {{WIG|1}} or {{WIG|2}}, etc. depending on the event number.
My suggestion for Zarifa Ghafari would be typing something like {{WIR|108|140|150|246}}. Then the template could display all events in an inline style, e.g.
 | This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative in 2019, the Stub contest edit-a-thon in October-December 2019, the #1day1woman initiative in 2020, and the Geofocus: Central & Southern Asia edit-a-thon in November 2022 and hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes. |
or perhaps a list of events would be clearer, e.g.
| This article was created or improved during the following events hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.
|
We could even switch between the styles automatically depending on how many events are included. In fact, for the majority of uses where only one event is used, there would be no change in appearance at all.
None of the categories would change, so all the currently used tools would continue to work as normal (contrary to what was claimed by some in the TfD). And all changes will be carefully tested before deploying, in close consulation with any interested editors from your project. Look forward to hearing your opinions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi MSGJ, My recollection, which I feel is confirmed by reading through the 2023 thread, is that as one of the most active working groups on Wikipedia, the majority of those responding lean towards wanting all the banners on the talk pages and do not see an overall advantage in space saving or aesthetics on trying to reformulate the templates. The "downside" of multiple banners is mainly your aesthetic preference for the use of talk page space. We'd just like to keep the banners as they are please. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am aware of the preference of some members of this project. But I would just ask you to review the discussion and take on board the significant concerns from the community expressed there. I think if there is no compromise then this issue will keep coming up. May I ask what you don't like about the combined banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for not being clearer in my response MSGJ. I should have linked back to the discussion that the group had on this talk page about 6 months ago. This issue was discussed by the group. And the majority of those responding lean towards wanting all the banners on the talk pages.
- The closer of the template discussion summed up my opinion correctly:
Proponents of keeping the status quo argued that changing these banners would disrupt the workflow of the WikiProject, that it would result in a template with lots of code which would be difficult to maintain, and that it is rare for a WiR article to have more than one template.
- Reading through both threads (the merger request and the one from this talk page) does not indicate any technical reason to merge the templates and do not adequately establish any harm created by multiple banners. I think multiple banner tell their own story. I was just working on a page Talk:Mary Maher (journalist) and it is interesting to me to see the evolution of the page. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am aware of the preference of some members of this project. But I would just ask you to review the discussion and take on board the significant concerns from the community expressed there. I think if there is no compromise then this issue will keep coming up. May I ask what you don't like about the combined banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- The changes to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which happened not long after the 2023 TfD, has made the banner blindness issue much less of an issue I think (example). Curbon7 (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the recent changes to WPBS only affect class rating which this project does not use anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is incorrect. The changes also made the collapsed version of the Wikiproject banners in the shell significantly more compact, as shown above. Curbon7 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Actually the recent changes to WPBS only affect class rating which this project does not use anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I like the version with the list of events. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should only use the list version when there is more than one event? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why have two versions when one will do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Either works! (And certainly easier to code that way.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why have two versions when one will do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should only use the list version when there is more than one event? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ I would be happy to see a change which resulted in that neater display, and perhaps even a reduction to a one-line display in the compact banner shell display as long as it listed all the different editathons, BUT only if the revised version of any banner templates continued to provide the functionality needed by some of the WIR project members who use the banners to analyse, track, list, articles. The previous discussion raised a lot of acrimony because proposals were made which ignored these needs.
- Note that the example given at the start of this post, Talk:Zarifa Ghafari, looks like this, quite clunky if the WiR banners are outside the banner shell, but like this, much more compact if they are moved inside the shell. I've just moved them inside, though I now see that they've already been moved in and out again for the purposes of this discussion. I think we can agree that the former version was problematic. It's more questionable whether the second, more compact format (ie inside the banner shell) is also problematic.
- I don't know whether we have statistics as to how many of the WiR articles are tagged with more than one editathon banner: I know I contribute a fair number of 2- or 3-editathon articles but I think I'm in a small minority, and the vast majority of our articles only get one WiR banner. There may be many much more important things in Wikipedia to worry about that duplicate WiR banners. PamD 10:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- only if the revised version of any banner templates continued to provide the functionality needed by some of the WIR project members - yes this is an absolute commitment.
- I don't know whether we have statistics - Yes we do, please see Category:Pages with multiple WikiProject Women in Red banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. So that looks like roughly 1 in 20 of our WiR articles having 2 or more banners. Useful to know. (I took 44k as our total no of WiR articles after a rough adding-up of the numbers in the subcats at Category:WikiProject Women in Red articles - I'm sure there's a better number somewhere). PamD 08:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- My view is I strongly believe all WIR (talkpage) templates should be inside the banner shell (which is also less clunky, as Pam says). Ideally they'd be next to each other, rather than scattered randomly, but that's not an issue and RATER seems to do that anyway if I recall correctly. However, I don't believe it's a big issue whether once inside the shell if they are combined or not as above. Though if they were combined my preference would be list option (i.e. 2nd option), as I find that easier to read. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No other WikiProject uses multiple banners, and pages which do are being tracked via Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates and fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Four things:
- If I had to choose between Options #1 and #2 (noted above), I prefer #2 (bullet point list that includes event date).
I would be happy to see a change which resulted in that neater display, and perhaps even a reduction to a one-line display in the compact banner shell display as long as it listed all the different editathons, BUT only if the revised version of any banner templates continued to provide the functionality needed by some of the WIR project members who use the banners to analyse, track, list, articles. The previous discussion raised a lot of acrimony because proposals were made which ignored these needs.
I strongly believe all WIR (talkpage) templates should be inside the banner shell.
Ditto all other WikiProject talkpage templates.- But/And, MSGJ, let us acknowledge that Women in Red is one of the most active WikiProjects that has existed on any language Wikipedia, ever, and that this is due at least in part because we tend to make our own path in how to do things, vs. following along with what others are doing. Truly, our
... multiple banner(s) tell their own story
; no one else does that. For example, sometimes, our banner includes a unique logo (see Talk:Uri Ruiz Bikandi), ergo, is there a way to retain unique logos if we were to shift to Option #2 (bulletpoints that include event link+date+unique logo)? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about the unique logos, I hadn't thought of that! -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly support Rosiestep's point in regard to WIR paving the way for improvements to wikiprojects. I personally see no need to introduce changes simply because no other projects follow our approach. What we have developed serves the needs of our project and our participants have never complained about how we have developed individual coverage of our events. On the contrary, the extent to which our features are used demonstrates interest and support. In addition, Headbomb has introduced automatic listings of DYKs, etc., based on our event templates. This is, I believe, something of an innovation and deserves support. Rather than suppressing these progressive developments, it might be more sensible to encourage other wikiprojects to adopt what we have developed for WIR. In this connection, I believe Women in Green is beginning to follow our approach.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott I suggest that @MSGJ talks to @Headbomb to see whether a multi-project template could be engineered to provide all the facilities Headbomb needs for their automation.
- I'm sympathetic to the view that we currently sometimes take more than our share of the screen space by displaying muultiple banners. Although our logos are very pretty, I'm not sure that we can justify taking several different lines: perhaps when an article is in multiple projects, the first-named editathon should take priority and have its logo used: in most cases, there's a key "occupation" editathon which is more important than the A-Z or death-date one; geo topics might be a second claimant for top place / logo use, but leave that to the choice of the creating editor. PamD 08:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should leave it up to our contributors. Those who feel it is important to mention more than one event should be permitted to do so, just as contributors in other areas sometimes add long lists of wikiprojects even for short stubs. I'm not sure I can agree that "occupation" events should have priority over A-Z or death-dates. Victuallers frequently uses A-Z for his British or Australian biographies while many non-contributors may be interested in reviewing biographies of people who have died recently. The above statistic of one in twenty displaying more than one event is no doubt partly a result of all the discussions on the matter here. About a year ago I think the proportion was about one in a hundred or so but now quite a few participants seem to enjoy the challenge of adding as many events as possible. Such positive interest in targeting more than one event may serve as an added attraction for creating biographies. Those really concerned about the amount of space taken up by multiple event listings can always use the "collapsed" banner shell parameter (see Template:WikiProject banner shell) but I would suggest this should only be used on talk pages presenting discussions in addition to wikiproject templates -- otherwise there's hardly a need to save space.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly support Rosiestep's point in regard to WIR paving the way for improvements to wikiprojects. I personally see no need to introduce changes simply because no other projects follow our approach. What we have developed serves the needs of our project and our participants have never complained about how we have developed individual coverage of our events. On the contrary, the extent to which our features are used demonstrates interest and support. In addition, Headbomb has introduced automatic listings of DYKs, etc., based on our event templates. This is, I believe, something of an innovation and deserves support. Rather than suppressing these progressive developments, it might be more sensible to encourage other wikiprojects to adopt what we have developed for WIR. In this connection, I believe Women in Green is beginning to follow our approach.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Four things:
- No other WikiProject uses multiple banners, and pages which do are being tracked via Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates and fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I remember that when we started we were critisised for not including as assessment of class and importance in our templates. We were not following the accepted way that templates were meant to be. Now I notice that the standard has changed and class and importance are not being classed by every wikiproject but defined in the banner. So it seems that all projects are now moving to the standard that we were criticised for. Wikimedia has created a style of working. The style of working did not create Wikipedia.... (but it may ensure that we have tidy memorial). Now I write a biography every day full of grammar and typos and I'm moved to do so by several WIR editathons. After I have done my work and I am brilliantly assisted by more fussy editors then I see that there are lots of templates recording one, two or even three Women in Red templates. It also includes templates for WP Women, WP Women's History, WP Women Writer's, WP Women artists, WP Education etc etc. I don't mind. But the two or three templates Women in Red templates are the reason that the article exists. They may be the untidy bit but they are the reason that the article exists. The article exists because someone was inspired to add to Wikipedia. We can polish the talk pages and if someone wants to start WikiProject Tidy Talk Pages then thats OK with me. You can even add that WikiProject's template to all the new WIR articles ... but lets not forget that we are trying to create a free (diverse and balanced?) encyclopedia. Talk pages and Wikiprojects are a devise for inspiring volunteers to help. They are not the objective. If our WIR template designs are unsuccessful then it will be quickly fixed as we will lose our volunteers and there will be not more untidy WIR talk pages (we add our templates to stuff we work on). By all means, work on this, but please let style emerge from our activity. Activity will not emerge from style. Victuallers (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- My 2 cents which is worth absolutely nothing is that this feels like badgering. Revisiting this discussion every six months takes us away from our primary task of writing articles. MSGJ says "the significant concerns from the community expressed there" which is somewhat misleading and instead is actually
concerns from the few members of the community who were working on a project to redesign talk page templates
. I don't typically use multiple templates, even if I list an article I create on multiple event pages, but that is my style. I see no need to police other people's preferences. Simply because we don't conform to what other projects do is not a valid argument. If we did, we, like them, would probably lose participants. We encourage participation and if adding multiple banners encourages people to write articles, we have been effective. We have always marched to a different drummer, and that is perfectly fine. Absolutely, we can discuss changes and may even accept some proposals, but with that comes the caveat that we can reject them too. Like PamD, I think overall, "there may be many much more important things in Wikipedia to worry about that duplicate WiR banners". For starters, a functional search engine that doesn't require searching on google to find a WP article, an easier way for full citations to be generated without having to be a coding expert, etc. SusunW (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)- I also hope we can resolve this issue so we can stop troubling you with the technical aspects and let you all get on with your article writing which you are so good at. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- My 2 cents which is worth absolutely nothing is that this feels like badgering. Revisiting this discussion every six months takes us away from our primary task of writing articles. MSGJ says "the significant concerns from the community expressed there" which is somewhat misleading and instead is actually
I fully agree that the unique and fantastic images should be included. For a possible design that retains them (based on Talk:Uri Ruiz Bikandi) please see below:
| Women in Red    | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
And this could be presented in collapsed form like this
 | This non-existent page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Notice the names of the events display when you hover your mouse over the icons. A text-based idea can also be used. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- I support either one of these suggestions. No other group uses multiple separate banners when they could be collapsed into one (and there are numerous projects that could do so). MSGJ has gone above and beyond accommodating the technical aspects here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ: The "show" version of this looks good. Would it not be possible to make show the default? That would no doubt satisfy most contributors but there could be a "hide" option for those interested in saving space.--Ipigott (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- All banners behave in the same way. The uncollapsed version if put outside a banner shell and the collapsed version if inside the shell. The purpose of putting them inside a shell is to take up less space, but we can still indicate a summary of the information in the collapsed version. Sorry if I didn't understand your point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that looks really rather good: Within the banner shell a WiR line with row of our icons (or, usually, just the one), with the option of "Show" to get more detail. As long as it still satisfies the needs of @Headbomb: etc who use our templates for other purposes of recordkeeping etc. PamD 12:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your comments. While there is some apprehension and skepticism, I see enough support to explore this further. I will follow up on Template talk:WIR in due course with more mock-ups and proposals. If you are interested, then see you over there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some editors commented in this section but aren't pinged at Template talk:WIR#Version which will accept multiple events, so here's your ping (cc: @Curbon7, SusunW, Victuallers, and WomenArtistUpdates). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Rosie, I see above that if we agree with this (small) group then they will stop asking for our approval and allow us to get on with our work... I like the last bit - Let us get on with our work. Now lets imagine that we did agree and I want to start "Men in Purple"... do I need their permission to have a template that doesnt conform to mundanity? Do I think that directing our time to template design could result in some very consistently designed talk pages .... of course. There are 5.5 million talk pages on the en:wiki... why are we getting so much attention? Is it because people disproportionally see our new talk pages? Great! With an extra splash of uniformity they wont notice them at all. Please can I request less help. I want to get back to writing and improving articles .... which is actually the prime objective. Let us get on with our work. Victuallers (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, you are free to gather input anywhere you wish, MSGJ, but please don't make decisions about Women in Red "over there" until consensus is reached "over here". Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Call for final comments on the banner conversion
Looking for any last comments on the banner conversion. The banner will look identical in 95% of cases, and only look different when multiple events are used. Editors seem to like it and we are just double-checking that all the technical processes will still work as normal. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot agree that most editors like your proposals. From the above comments, including those from the two founders of Women in Red, the consensus seems to be that no further changes are needed. The current displays also seem satisfactory for me. So let's just leave things as they are without any more changes. At least it now seems in order for us to add multiple WIR events to the talk pages of our articles.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can I suggest you come to the template talk and look at the proposals in detail. Have you even looked at the mockups presented there? I have bent over backwards to ensure that editors' views are accommodated. At the end of the day, a compromise a needed which meets all the needs of the project and of the wider community. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- And to clarify, yes it is absolutely possible to add multiple events to talk pages. That was the whole point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I realize, Martin, that you have been working in good faith on this matter for the past four years and that it must be frustrating for you that your recent proposals have not been welcomed with open arms. I will leave it to others to look at your work/proposals on the template and the extensive discussions on its talk page but as I have said, I think the way things are working at present is what most WIR contributors would like to see continuing. The space-saving aspects you have addressed unfortunately seem to have little appeal. I have also noticed that the possibility of adding more than one pertinent WIR event to women-related talk pages appears to be gaining increasing popularity and attracting new interest in the project. Membership has been increasing and opportunities for multiple events has significantly risen since the beginning of the year as related contests have emerged (whether or not they actually lead to multiple listing on talk pages). That seems to me to be a very positive outcome. I therefore see no need for further changes.
- I should perhaps point out here that I have also spent a considerable amount of time trying to help you along with the recent adaptations of the Banner Shell environment in connection with women, not only for new articles but also for a significant number of older articles. I think it would help us all along if we could call an end to further discussion and spend more time on creating new articles and improving and re-assessing older ones.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this perspective on the banners:
"I think the way things are working at present is what most WIR contributors would like to see continuing. The space-saving aspects you have addressed unfortunately seem to have little appeal."
Innisfree987 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)- I think the space saving is very necessary, and would prefer the information about WiR events that happened several years ago to be hidden completely (I find it difficult to imagine this being of any use to anyone). The goals of WiR are important, but the WiR banners are not several times more important than all other project banners. Martin's proposal is probably a good compromise overall. —Kusma (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry your imagination does not allow you to understand why multiple banners are important to this project, but then again, I cannot understand why you won't just leave our banners alone when they are not causing any demonstrable harm. I agree that
"I think the way things are working at present is what most WIR contributors would like to see continuing. The space-saving aspects you have addressed unfortunately seem to have little appeal."
Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)- I have not touched any of the banners. I just do not think being informed four times that Victuallers may be a new editor (as on Talk:Mary Corkling) is a good use of space. An overabundance of banners like this just leads to banner blindness and makes it more difficult to see the actual talk page. Of course on a page like Talk:Mary Corkling that has essentially no page views the harm and the use are both close to zero (the banners are even hidden by default in the mobile version). On talk pages with actual content and actual page views, we should try not to have so many banners that it gets difficult to see the discussions, and in order to get to that point, all WikiProjects have to be considerate of the amount of space that their banners are taking. —Kusma (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- WomenArtistUpdates In what way does having multiple separate banners have benefits over what MSGJ is proposing? Other than being more visible by using more screenspace, and the project already being familar with the current system. Given the proposal can easily handle multiple events/editathons/etc. with custom images and names, tracking seemingly as before, etc. Thanks. I should note I have no strong feelings on this, beyond ensuring all project banners are within the shell, but agree consensus here is required for changing the banners. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kj cheetham, My concern is the unintended consequences of changing the use of templates. We are creating a very robust dataset of WiR editathon activity. It is a given in data collection and analysis that you don't want to lose any granularity in a dataset, even if you don't know exactly how that will be used in the future. any [one] can turn an aquarium into fish soup, but no one has yet figured out how to reverse the process. Therefore, because it does no harm to have multiple banners, it makes the most sense, for posterity, to keep the banners. We don't know what a data analyst might do with this information to research closing the gender gap on Wikipedia, but please, let's preserve it as we have it right now. Thanks for asking and thinking about this. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree unintended consequences is a concern, as it's a non-trivial system. I also 100% agree don't want to lose any granularity in the dataset (I'm reminded of the similar saying you can't unbake a cake), but in this case I don't think any would be lost? I'm just making sure I understand what's happening really, rather than trying to push anything. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand how granularity would be lost either? Or really how this would impact future hypothetical "Wikipedia researchers"? JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
{{WIR-123}}{{WIR-234}}does not lose any information when you convert it to{{WIR|123|234}}. You still have the same two numbers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree unintended consequences is a concern, as it's a non-trivial system. I also 100% agree don't want to lose any granularity in the dataset (I'm reminded of the similar saying you can't unbake a cake), but in this case I don't think any would be lost? I'm just making sure I understand what's happening really, rather than trying to push anything. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kj cheetham, My concern is the unintended consequences of changing the use of templates. We are creating a very robust dataset of WiR editathon activity. It is a given in data collection and analysis that you don't want to lose any granularity in a dataset, even if you don't know exactly how that will be used in the future. any [one] can turn an aquarium into fish soup, but no one has yet figured out how to reverse the process. Therefore, because it does no harm to have multiple banners, it makes the most sense, for posterity, to keep the banners. We don't know what a data analyst might do with this information to research closing the gender gap on Wikipedia, but please, let's preserve it as we have it right now. Thanks for asking and thinking about this. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- WomenArtistUpdates In what way does having multiple separate banners have benefits over what MSGJ is proposing? Other than being more visible by using more screenspace, and the project already being familar with the current system. Given the proposal can easily handle multiple events/editathons/etc. with custom images and names, tracking seemingly as before, etc. Thanks. I should note I have no strong feelings on this, beyond ensuring all project banners are within the shell, but agree consensus here is required for changing the banners. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have not touched any of the banners. I just do not think being informed four times that Victuallers may be a new editor (as on Talk:Mary Corkling) is a good use of space. An overabundance of banners like this just leads to banner blindness and makes it more difficult to see the actual talk page. Of course on a page like Talk:Mary Corkling that has essentially no page views the harm and the use are both close to zero (the banners are even hidden by default in the mobile version). On talk pages with actual content and actual page views, we should try not to have so many banners that it gets difficult to see the discussions, and in order to get to that point, all WikiProjects have to be considerate of the amount of space that their banners are taking. —Kusma (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry your imagination does not allow you to understand why multiple banners are important to this project, but then again, I cannot understand why you won't just leave our banners alone when they are not causing any demonstrable harm. I agree that
- I think the space saving is very necessary, and would prefer the information about WiR events that happened several years ago to be hidden completely (I find it difficult to imagine this being of any use to anyone). The goals of WiR are important, but the WiR banners are not several times more important than all other project banners. Martin's proposal is probably a good compromise overall. —Kusma (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this perspective on the banners:
- I cannot agree that most editors like your proposals. From the above comments, including those from the two founders of Women in Red, the consensus seems to be that no further changes are needed. The current displays also seem satisfactory for me. So let's just leave things as they are without any more changes. At least it now seems in order for us to add multiple WIR events to the talk pages of our articles.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I see that now despite the strongly expressed opposition above and lack of consensus for this change, MSGJ is going ahead and doing it (e.g. Special:Diff/1197668850) causing the bots to run around replacing all these templates, in violation of Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Is it time to bring this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior to the drama boards? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you have misunderstood but the changes are the result of detailed discussion on the template talk page. The only part which attracted opposition was the merging of separate banners into one, and I am not doing this. In fact the only page which has merged banners is Talk:Josette Bruce because this was used as a demonstration while testing. I am not planning to merge any others at this time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- A detailed discussion recorded in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- There has been detailed discussion here. I’m glad to hear you’re not moving forward since obviously it would be unacceptable if someone chose to disregard discussion where they didn’t get the response they wanted. I hope I have not misunderstood you on this. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- David Eppstein: As far as I can see no meaningful changes have been made to the way in which multiple events are displayed on our talk pages. The change you refer to above was in connection with the template for WIR #9 and has no lasting effects.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
DE-WP edit history pages
I came across the EN-WP article on Daniela Stoffel, while doing WP:NPP. In doing my review of it, I also looked at the DE-WP version, and the edit history of the DE-WP version. What caught my attention was that edits before 8 May 2020 have no highlights while subsequent ones are all blue highlighted. Does anyone know what this signifies? -- Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Rosiestep is it something like Pending Changes protection being enabled then? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kj cheetham... maybe?
- For another example -now that I'm going down this rabbit hole- here's the edit history for the DE-WP article on Berlin, with blue highlight edits and no highlight edits scattered all about. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Pending changes or semi-protection? talks about highlighting on EN-WP at least, and an example I've seen today: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Characters_of_the_Mortal_Kombat_series&action=history -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe that Pending Changes protection is applied to all articles on de Wikipedia. The blue coloured edits have been reviewed by a pending changes reviewer and the white ones have not, but the reviewer who approves an edit to an article is expected to check that edits since the last approved edit are acceptable. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense.
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- For completeness, unreviewed edits are coloured pink. If you want to get an edit reviewed you can ask at de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen/Anfragen when the edit is 24 hours old. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it all boils down to "andere Länder, andere Sitten". Even so, at 93 German "depth" has a long way to go before it reaches English at 1219.--Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of this difference is explained by policy differences, and not so much a measure of English Wikipedia's superiority. The German Wikipedia does not have metadata on talk pages, so most articles do not have talk pages. And they do not have nearly as many redirects as we do (and almost no unprintworthy redirects). Basically, "depth" isn't a very good measure because the ratio of non-articles to articles (which is squared in the formula) is not necessarily a good proxy for quality. If the German Wikipedia were to create empty talk pages for every article, their "depth" would increase a lot. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kusma: Thank you for these useful explanations. I had not realized the German wiki made such little use of article talk pages. You are certainly right that as a result the "depth" value is misleading. It might be useful to provide further explanations at Wikipedia article depth. There ought to be a more reliable way of providing an overview of the quality of articles in different languages. I frequently consult articles on the German wiki and often find them to be better presented than those covering the same topic in other languages. See, for example, the excellent work in German on Lucy Hicks Anderson.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is a lot of excellent content in dewiki (unfortunately there are also lots of articles with only general references and lacking inline citations, which is one of the reasons why I have stopped translating and just rewrite articles from the same sources instead). Credit for de:Lucy Hicks Anderson should go to the original author of the French version fr:Lucy Hicks Anderson, though, Victoire F. —Kusma (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kusma: Thank you for these useful explanations. I had not realized the German wiki made such little use of article talk pages. You are certainly right that as a result the "depth" value is misleading. It might be useful to provide further explanations at Wikipedia article depth. There ought to be a more reliable way of providing an overview of the quality of articles in different languages. I frequently consult articles on the German wiki and often find them to be better presented than those covering the same topic in other languages. See, for example, the excellent work in German on Lucy Hicks Anderson.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of this difference is explained by policy differences, and not so much a measure of English Wikipedia's superiority. The German Wikipedia does not have metadata on talk pages, so most articles do not have talk pages. And they do not have nearly as many redirects as we do (and almost no unprintworthy redirects). Basically, "depth" isn't a very good measure because the ratio of non-articles to articles (which is squared in the formula) is not necessarily a good proxy for quality. If the German Wikipedia were to create empty talk pages for every article, their "depth" would increase a lot. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it all boils down to "andere Länder, andere Sitten". Even so, at 93 German "depth" has a long way to go before it reaches English at 1219.--Ipigott (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- For completeness, unreviewed edits are coloured pink. If you want to get an edit reviewed you can ask at de:Wikipedia:Gesichtete Versionen/Anfragen when the edit is 24 hours old. TSventon (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense.
- I believe that Pending Changes protection is applied to all articles on de Wikipedia. The blue coloured edits have been reviewed by a pending changes reviewer and the white ones have not, but the reviewer who approves an edit to an article is expected to check that edits since the last approved edit are acceptable. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Pending changes or semi-protection? talks about highlighting on EN-WP at least, and an example I've seen today: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Characters_of_the_Mortal_Kombat_series&action=history -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
20% woman articles by the end of the year
That elusive goal is finally in sight. What should we do to celebrate/accelerate the trends? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Send 50 male athelete stubs to AfD every day. Make a big celebration party for 400k women bios like we had for 6 million articles? —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is likely to attract media attention, so I would suggest some kind of competition like Wikipedia:Six million articles. The maths is more complex as biography articles and female biography articles need to be counted, rather than just any articles, so a winner could be chosen rather than calculated. TSventon (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- From the get-go, while Roger and I were developing plans to announce the establishment of Women in Red at Wikimania 2015, we talked about "moving the needle". Adamant that 15.5%, the newly announced percentage, was abysmal, we agreed that improving on it was to be the goal, without the need for an illusory number, e.g., 20%, 25%, 33%, 49%, 50%, 51%. With 20% in sight, I am so happy to visualize that needle moving through time and space, headed to who knows where. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is probably better to celebrate 400k women than reaching 20%. —Kusma (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- From the get-go, while Roger and I were developing plans to announce the establishment of Women in Red at Wikimania 2015, we talked about "moving the needle". Adamant that 15.5%, the newly announced percentage, was abysmal, we agreed that improving on it was to be the goal, without the need for an illusory number, e.g., 20%, 25%, 33%, 49%, 50%, 51%. With 20% in sight, I am so happy to visualize that needle moving through time and space, headed to who knows where. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless we find some way of encouraging more biographies of women each month (maybe along the lines of our highly successful World Contest), it looks as if it will take quite some time to reach 20%. Over the past couple of years the increases have slowed considerably. From around 15.5% in July 2015, for each following July we reached 16.35% in 2016, 17.02% in 2017, 17.67% in 2018, 17.89% in 2019, 18.51% in 2020, 18.98% in 2021, 19.30% in 2022, 19,61% in 2023 and today, six months later we're at 19.73%. If we continue increases of around 0.2% per year, we might expect to reach 20% by mid-2025. Part of the slowdown is a result of the general reduction in the rate of Wikipedia growth but for some reason enthusiasm for creating biographies of women does not appear to be as great as that for men. It would help if we could find new initiatives for attracting new contributors and for encouraging existing participants to create more biographies. At present, each month we create around 1,500 biographies. Can we aim for 2,000 a month as in previous years?. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If "enthusiasm for creating biographies of women does not appear to be as great as that for men" the % would be slowly declining, surely? Instead it's very slowly rising. I think we can probably say that the famous low-hanging fruit are now only to be found in small pockets. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, that's very true. IMO it might be more efficient for us to translate women bio articles from other languages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod: Good to have your comments on this. You are of course correct that the proportion of women's biographies is still slowly increasing. But if you look at the actual numbers of new biographies, between our most recent counts on 11 and 18 January, there were only 325 new biographies of women out of a total of 1,163, or about 28%. As there are approximately the same number of women as men in the world, then editors appear to be more enthusiastic about writing biographies of men rather than women. See also our metrics page for higher percentages of biographies of women born in recent years, especially if athletes are excluded. As for low-hanging fruit, there are increasing numbers of women in politics and business who deserve to be covered, not to mention all those who have received significant awards. I'm no expert in sports, but I wonder if women are covered as systematically as men.--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- For interest, with my NPP hat on, we're coming to the final week of an intensive drive to deal with the backlog so the numbers will be skewed, but as of right now for the new unpatrolled (i.e. made by people without the autopatrolled flag) according to User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting there are massively more entries under "Biography" generally than "Women". -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kj cheetham I think that the numbers in the backlog under "Biography" generally (2964) and "Women" (99) are probably skewed by volunteers patrolling articles on women first, leaving a backlog of mainly male biographies. Also the "Biography" category includes some women not included as "Women" and articles not about individual people. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kj cheetham: A few of us have been working specifically (skewing???) on the Women articles. From around 400 not long ago, on NPP Women we're now averaging less than 100 a day. I think you'll also find that the assessment of these articles has significantly progressed.---Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree, given I'm one of those volunteers! I assumed "Biography" included both men and women, but it does certainly include some extra articles too (e.g. about events rather than individuals) and the automated identification of categories isn't perfect. I wish I'd paid more attention to it a month ago, though the previous backlog drive probably also skewed it as it didn't get to zero to fully reset it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. By skewed I just meant those NPP stats are not really a good metric for considering the ratio of new biographical articles, especially given the backlog drive, rather than actual skewness, but I still thought they were interesting. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Johnbod: Good to have your comments on this. You are of course correct that the proportion of women's biographies is still slowly increasing. But if you look at the actual numbers of new biographies, between our most recent counts on 11 and 18 January, there were only 325 new biographies of women out of a total of 1,163, or about 28%. As there are approximately the same number of women as men in the world, then editors appear to be more enthusiastic about writing biographies of men rather than women. See also our metrics page for higher percentages of biographies of women born in recent years, especially if athletes are excluded. As for low-hanging fruit, there are increasing numbers of women in politics and business who deserve to be covered, not to mention all those who have received significant awards. I'm no expert in sports, but I wonder if women are covered as systematically as men.--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, that's very true. IMO it might be more efficient for us to translate women bio articles from other languages. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If "enthusiasm for creating biographies of women does not appear to be as great as that for men" the % would be slowly declining, surely? Instead it's very slowly rising. I think we can probably say that the famous low-hanging fruit are now only to be found in small pockets. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless we find some way of encouraging more biographies of women each month (maybe along the lines of our highly successful World Contest), it looks as if it will take quite some time to reach 20%. Over the past couple of years the increases have slowed considerably. From around 15.5% in July 2015, for each following July we reached 16.35% in 2016, 17.02% in 2017, 17.67% in 2018, 17.89% in 2019, 18.51% in 2020, 18.98% in 2021, 19.30% in 2022, 19,61% in 2023 and today, six months later we're at 19.73%. If we continue increases of around 0.2% per year, we might expect to reach 20% by mid-2025. Part of the slowdown is a result of the general reduction in the rate of Wikipedia growth but for some reason enthusiasm for creating biographies of women does not appear to be as great as that for men. It would help if we could find new initiatives for attracting new contributors and for encouraging existing participants to create more biographies. At present, each month we create around 1,500 biographies. Can we aim for 2,000 a month as in previous years?. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think part of the reason here is because it has been almost 9 years since this project first started and new editors just don't know this project exists. Old editors would assume that it's this WikiProject's job to write woman biography articles, in other words, they have defaulted back to the thought that Wikipedia has achieved gender equality 'in some way'. Of course, we know that this is not true. I'm thinking that we should organize the 2nd World Contest this year. If 4000 redlinks turn blue in this contest, aka a similar result to the 1st World Contest, we would have a 0.2% increase of woman bio (19.73% + 0.2% = 19.93%, very close to the goal). I don't know whether we should have a money prize in this contest, but I think that the submission procedures of the first contest needs to be further simplified somehow, perhaps by using an edit summary like in the drive that I'm organizing. Onboarding procedures should also be simplified a bit and the reviewing process should be incentivized in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the original World Contest assumes that participants are well-versed on creating new articles. We should teach new participants how to use Google Translate image translation features (to assist in source access), how to cite and give them topic suggestions based on their interest. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think part of the reason here is because it has been almost 9 years since this project first started and new editors just don't know this project exists. Old editors would assume that it's this WikiProject's job to write woman biography articles, in other words, they have defaulted back to the thought that Wikipedia has achieved gender equality 'in some way'. Of course, we know that this is not true. I'm thinking that we should organize the 2nd World Contest this year. If 4000 redlinks turn blue in this contest, aka a similar result to the 1st World Contest, we would have a 0.2% increase of woman bio (19.73% + 0.2% = 19.93%, very close to the goal). I don't know whether we should have a money prize in this contest, but I think that the submission procedures of the first contest needs to be further simplified somehow, perhaps by using an edit summary like in the drive that I'm organizing. Onboarding procedures should also be simplified a bit and the reviewing process should be incentivized in some way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
WiR@Skábmagovat 2024
Tiõrv pukid! The Inari Sámi Language Association, the Giellagas Institute at the University of Oulu, and Wikimedia Finland are organizing a workshop this Saturday and Sunday in conjunction with the 2024 edition of the Skábmagovat indigenous film festival starting tomorrow in Inari and worldwide online January 29–February 6. So I ofc started my usual table of WiR based on the producers, screenwriters, etc. for films in the festival and noticed just how many of these women are missing in enwp and in wd. Anyone up for a challenge of getting these women into enwp by the end of the festival in a couple of weeks? :) I will continue to flesh out the table as I get more info and as I create items for the women and their films in wd. And I will try to get an article up about the film festival on enwp so it can be linked to by the end of Friday. - Yupik (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've started a draft for one of the participants at Draft:Evelyn Lorena, additions from others are welcome :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Adding to this, I've also started Draft:Eva Thomas. ForsythiaJo (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
BBC Women in 2023
When I was creating the table for Skábmagovat 2024 mentioned above, I noticed that editors on the Catalan Wikipedia have created an article for all but one woman on the BBC Women in 2023 list. Moltes gràcies a totes i tots! <3 - Yupik (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Impressive work by the Catalans. I see some of their biographies are extensively sourced and could form the basis for EN equivalents.--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to Organize Feminism and Folklore 2024 WIR Writing Competition
Dear Members of WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 138,
Hope you are doing well.
We extend a heartfelt invitation to you to organize the Feminism and Folklore 2024 writing competition, which is scheduled to take place from February 1, 2024, to March 31, 2024. This year's edition of Feminism and Folklore will concentrate on feminism, women's issues, and gender-focused topics, aligning with a Wiki Loves Folklore gender gap focus and featuring a folk culture theme on Wikipedia. We would like the members of Women in Red Wikiproject to add folklore to their February/March events.
This year we have created two new Tools for the Feminism and Folklore project. The tool is called Campwiz. This tool is created by the international Tech team of Wiki Loves Folkore especially crafted for Feminism and Folklore project. The tool works as same as fountain or dashboard but has extra abilities required for jury and submission of articles.
To create a new campaign on Campwiz, organizers to follow these steps:
- Go to the tool link: https://tools.wikilovesfolklore.org/
- Select your wiki on which you want to organize the campaign (enter the name or short code, such as "en" for English Wikipedia).
- Give your campaign a name example "Feminism and Folklore 2024 WIR on English Wikipedia)".
- Select the start and end dates (note: keep your start date as Feb 1 and end date as March 31).
- Provide a description for your campaign (you can briefly describe the campaign in this section).
- Make sure to keep the checkboxes ticked for "Allow users to submit articles that were not created but expanded." if you want to use the campaign for expanded articles also.
- Keep minimum added bytes as 4000 and minimum added words as 400 and click next.
- In the jury section, keep the checkboxes ticked for "Allow jury members to participate in the campaign" and "Prevent jury members from seeing each other's votes." As per your preference.
- Under the jury search box, type the username of your jury and click on the "+" button to add; you can add multiple jury members.
- Click next to review and then click on save.
This tool is now available for public use during the Feminism and Folklore campaign. You can find more information about these tools here: https://tools.wikilovesfolklore.org/
There are also some changes in the rules and criteria's. Please go through the rules below.
- Minimum Length: The expanded or new article should have a minimum of 4000 bytes or 400 words, ensuring sufficient depth and coverage of the chosen topic. The local organizers are free to choose the minimum length criteria as per needs of their local Wikipedia and must be clearly mention on local project page.
- Language Quality: Articles should not be poorly machine-translated, ensuring that language quality and readability are maintained at a high standard.
- Timeline of Creation or Expansion: The article should be created or expanded between 1 February and 31 March, aligning with the specified contest timeline.
- Theme Relevance: Articles should directly address the theme of feminism and folklore, exploring connections between gender, cultural traditions, and intangible heritage.
- No Orphaned Articles: Articles must not be orphaned, meaning they should be linked from at least one other article to ensure visibility within the Wikipedia ecosystem.
- No Copyright violations: There should be no copyright violations, and articles should adhere to local Wikipedia policies on notability, ensuring that the content meets the standards for notability.
- Adequate references and Citations: Each article should include proper references and citations following local Wikipedia policies, ensuring the reliability and credibility of the information presented.
Learn more about the contest details and prizes on our project page here. Should you require any assistance, please feel free to contact us on our meta talk page or via email.
We eagerly anticipate your enthusiastic coordination and participation in Feminism and Folklore 2024.
Thank you and Best wishes,
Feminism and Folklore 2024 International Team
"Learn Wikidata"
This might interest some of you, "Learn Wikidata", created by the folks at Vanderbilt University. -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- There's also a good introduction to Wikidata from the University of Edinburgh (which is not just for professionals such as librarians).--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Question on image copyright
I'm working on a draft for Mary Lake Polan and one of the sources for it are this NIH profile. There are two images used in the profile and I can't see any copyright notice. Since the NIH and NLM are governmental organizations, would these two images fall under public domain due to being a publication of the US government? SilverserenC 19:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Per NLM's copyright policy, they host copyrighted images as well. Also, not all copyrighted images have a copyright notice on their website. Therefore, I don't think the pictures are usable as the copyright statuses are unclear. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Annoying. Why are they allowed to use copyrighted images without notice? Isn't that a violation of copyright law as well? Does it change anything, MrLinkinPark333, that the top image there can also be found here in a journal publication about Polan. And unlike all the other images used in the article, which do have copyright to their relevant publications included or "Photo courtesy of Dr. Mary Lake Polan", that first image of Polan does not. SilverserenC 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- As the article is copyrighted by Elsevier, it's probably not usable. It is odd that is the only picture without a notice. You can always email NIH to figure out what is the copyright status of the image. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that imply the image is PD, since the Elsevier journal article was published 6 years after the latest updated version of the NLM/NIH profile? It's not like Elsevier can just claim copyright of the photo after the fact from another publication. Not including a copyright notice on it, when they did for all the other photos in the article, would seem to mean it's PD and didn't need such a notice. SilverserenC 22:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- A specific year of when the photo was published and if there was a copyright notice would be needed. The NIH itself says the website was first published in 2003. Any 2022 American publications would automatically be copyrighted per Hirtle. There are two possible ways this could be PD: 1) published between 1929 to 1977 without a copyright notice 2) published between 1978 to February 1989 without notice and wasn't registered within 5 years. However, as neither NIH nor Elsevier has a year for the photo, its unclear on whether it can be used. As this person is alive, you might also have luck finding a usable Creative Commons licensed photo. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that imply the image is PD, since the Elsevier journal article was published 6 years after the latest updated version of the NLM/NIH profile? It's not like Elsevier can just claim copyright of the photo after the fact from another publication. Not including a copyright notice on it, when they did for all the other photos in the article, would seem to mean it's PD and didn't need such a notice. SilverserenC 22:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- As the article is copyrighted by Elsevier, it's probably not usable. It is odd that is the only picture without a notice. You can always email NIH to figure out what is the copyright status of the image. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Annoying. Why are they allowed to use copyrighted images without notice? Isn't that a violation of copyright law as well? Does it change anything, MrLinkinPark333, that the top image there can also be found here in a journal publication about Polan. And unlike all the other images used in the article, which do have copyright to their relevant publications included or "Photo courtesy of Dr. Mary Lake Polan", that first image of Polan does not. SilverserenC 21:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Jill Jerold
Good morning.
I am writing in the discussion of this Wikiproject because I have recently created an article on the Spanish Wikipedia about Jill Jerold, the first black woman ever to appear in a Marvel Comics title.
I know that this is not the appropriate place to request the translation of an article, but I do so through this medium in the hope that it can be translated and expanded with more sources and information in the English version, since I have not I found as many sources as I would have liked.
Peridotito (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Peridotito, I agree that the article would need more sources for en Wikipedia, but unfortunately I can't find any. Hopefully someone else has more specialist expertise on Marvel Comics than I do. There is an article on Millie the Model, so it would be possible to mention Jill Jerold there. TSventon (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
CfD
Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 26#Category:Women in Red edit-a-thons. I believe it is uncontroversial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Victuallers, the Goal Setter
Dear Victuallers, your post earlier this month inspired me: you reached your goal of 365 women's biographies in 365 days. So I've decided to set one for myself, though admittedly, it's a bit less taxing than yours: by 31 Dec 2024, I'll have created a grand total of at least 2,500 women's biographies. I'll track my progress here, which shows that as of today, I'm at 2,177 (so I'll only need to create another 323). Anyone else have personal goals for 2024? Also, can someone with design skills please create a Victuallers, the Goal Setter Barnstar that we can award to Roger, and subsequently, to anyone else who publicly shares their WiR-inspired goal and reaches it? Thank you! -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think my count is also somewhere around 2500, but I don't know of a good way of counting it exactly. Is there a way of doing this without manually logging each one? (I've also been creating roughly one biography per day for the last few years but not on a strict basis: if I miss a day and fill in another one on another day, it balances out.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh this sounds like fun, particularly if there is a way of working out how many women's biogs we've written automatically. I think mine is between 1,000 and 2,000 .... but I don't really know. Is there a tool? One every day is a higher target. I actually did quite a few more to achieve one start a day. Victuallers (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- David Eppstein: Under About on the main WIR page you'll find a link to this tool. I must say I've never managed to get it to run. Perhaps someone can help. As for goals, I've never tried to create an article about women every day but I see there have been years in which I've managed to create well over 200. As far as I can see, I'm now at just over 1,900 women articles. I hope to reach 2,000 fairly soon. My main goal for 2024 is to encourage more contributors to become members of women in red. Many of this year's new members are the result of my efforts. I hope I will be able to attract even more next year.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I couldn't get that tool to work either, but backing out anything that wasn't a woman (I did not count women's organizations, women's schools, or women's works) of the 1510 articles I've created 1177 of them were women's biographies. My goal for the last few years has been to take at least 1 article a month to GA status. This year I thought I'd try 2 per month, and with the help of many collaborators, I managed 29 nominations. Sometimes it takes me more than a month to create an article, so I doubt I could write even 100 in a year. Since I often find my "next victim" from the article I am presently writing, I am thinking I am going to see how long of a chain I can make. Not sure how exactly to explain that but write an article on a woman that has a redlink for another woman, write that redlink and pick up another from her article. I am wondering if I can make a chain longer than 5. We'll see. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- David Eppstein: Under About on the main WIR page you'll find a link to this tool. I must say I've never managed to get it to run. Perhaps someone can help. As for goals, I've never tried to create an article about women every day but I see there have been years in which I've managed to create well over 200. As far as I can see, I'm now at just over 1,900 women articles. I hope to reach 2,000 fairly soon. My main goal for 2024 is to encourage more contributors to become members of women in red. Many of this year's new members are the result of my efforts. I hope I will be able to attract even more next year.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recalculation. So RosiestepDavid EppsteinIpigott - the tool didn't work (damn) so I thought Id check my own figures. I thought I had written somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 women's biogs. I downloaded the lot to a spreadsheet and over some hours sorted them into piles. Seems I have written 2,400 articles about women. I ignored the articles about books written by women, women's societies and girl's schools as they were included in the remainder. The total number of articles that are not women biogs is about 900. I was surprised. I think we should encourage a coder to create a list of the top 1,000 wikipedia editors with their number of articles AND summarised for a) gender bias and b) US/UK v. the rest bias. The researchers below could take that as a suggested action to encourage greater diversity on Wikipedia. Oh and Rosie - a nice sounding stretch goal would be "2025 by 2025" :-) Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Victuallers Love "2025 by 2025". At least a barnstar. Would someone who is handy be willing to create it? Where could we keep track of those who reach the goal? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Recalculation. So RosiestepDavid EppsteinIpigott - the tool didn't work (damn) so I thought Id check my own figures. I thought I had written somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 women's biogs. I downloaded the lot to a spreadsheet and over some hours sorted them into piles. Seems I have written 2,400 articles about women. I ignored the articles about books written by women, women's societies and girl's schools as they were included in the remainder. The total number of articles that are not women biogs is about 900. I was surprised. I think we should encourage a coder to create a list of the top 1,000 wikipedia editors with their number of articles AND summarised for a) gender bias and b) US/UK v. the rest bias. The researchers below could take that as a suggested action to encourage greater diversity on Wikipedia. Oh and Rosie - a nice sounding stretch goal would be "2025 by 2025" :-) Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I might do another century challenge for 2024, this time with death years (which are sometimes more reliably established than birth years). As for counting my WIR bios... I might be in the same ballpark. Lemme check....Okay, just did a quick scan through, but I believe I've started 2353 biographical articles about women. I've apparently started 44 articles about men, companies, organizations, names, places, and awards--so it was easier just to count those and subtract. On Sunday I should start my 2400th new article (by my count, not Wikipedia's--we seem to count slightly differently and I've given up trying to make it match). I think that works out to about 200 per year. Once I took off a month from starting new articles, and only did destubs; that's also a good thing to do, and I should do it more often. I also want to do more integrating with WikiQuote in the new year; it's not difficult and it's good to add to the stock of sourced quotes by women.Penny Richards (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- What a great idea for a tool! Hope someone is inspired to make that! Lijil (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect on Louise C. Purington
- Regarding "2025 by 2025"... Last night, I started an article on Louise C. Purington. As the page "Louise C. Purington" was created as a redirect in 2022 by Penny Richards, the article will be "credited" as started by Penny. No worries! Why I'm bringing it up is for the sake of understanding the technology better. Does anyone know how to change the credit in cases like this from the person who created a redirect to the person who created the article? I know of no way of doing it other than to have deleted the redirect first, which I could have done as an admin, but didn't. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I run into this issue all the time, because when the redirect is deleted (often happens to make way to move a draft), that counts “against” the person who made the redirect. My articles created tally says almost 2% of the pages I’ve created have been deleted but it’s almost all cases like this. (And then two failed attempts to set up archives before I understood namespaces, ha.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I like 2025 by 2025 too but why wait so long? Couldn't we start with 2024 by 2024? We need to introduce additional incentives sooner rather than later and I'm pretty sure I could hit the 2024 target over the next few months. As for existing redirects, these are a real problem. Many of the articles I have created have been on the basis of women involved in various organizations or who have been married to men already covered. I've not worried too much about it but I realize the credit goes to whoever created the redirect. Maybe we could propose some "official" means of having a redirect deleted in order to pave the way for a real new article. I have a feeling many contributors might avoid creating articles on the basis of existing redirects and that many deserving women may simply remain as redirects for years to come. Perhaps one of our future monthly priorities could deal specifically with redirects. In advance, we could prepare lists of those deserving their own biograpies, etc., etc. As for the tool which continues to malfunction, as it's based on Wikidata, maybe Maximilianklein, Tagishsimon, Edgars2007 or The Earwig could help. It seems to me it would also be helpful if the two current submits could be reduced to just one. For reminders, the tool is here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I was wondering about the problem of the redirects @Ipigott @Innisfree987@Rosiestep - if you created a page under a different name first (as if you didn't know the redirect existed) - e.g. Louise Purington, rather than Louise C. Purington, you'd get page creation credit. And then redirect the redirect, as it were? Maybe that's breaking some rules, or isn't possible, I'm not an admin so am a bit hazy on that? DrThneed (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- DrThneed: If you're really concerned about inappropriate redirects, especially if you intend to create new articles, you can always ask an administrator to delete them. While I'm here, I would like to let you knoe how much I appreciate your many solid biographies of New Zealand women, including all those academics since the beginning of the year. Impressive work!--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Aw thanks for the kind words @Ipigott! Right back at you - I see all the tidying up and rating and other work that you and others put into pages other people (including me) made, and much appreciate it! I don't think I'll be able to keep the current pace up (about to get family visiting for a few months) but motivation is high! Good point about getting redirects deleted instead. DrThneed (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- DrThneed: Creating the redirects either before or after creating the actual article is something I try to remember to do with each biography, but I admit to being lax about it. I am ever so grateful when another editor comes along and creates those redirects. Yes, the person who creates the redirect gets the credit for it, and that is absolutely as it should be. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- DrThneed: If you're really concerned about inappropriate redirects, especially if you intend to create new articles, you can always ask an administrator to delete them. While I'm here, I would like to let you knoe how much I appreciate your many solid biographies of New Zealand women, including all those academics since the beginning of the year. Impressive work!--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- ETA: And you are absolutely right, existing redirects do put some people off creating pages, because it certainly does me (it also annoys me immensely when I click on a blue link in an article and find myself at a husband's page instead, because if I didn't click I wouldn't know she was a Woman in Red). DrThneed (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- If I am understanding the proposal correctly, I think the difficulty would be running afoul of WP:COMMONNAME. I.e. the alternate page title should only be kept if it is in fact the right title for the page—I imagine that often the redirect occupies the correct title. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DrThneed There is a gadget or script you can use whereby all redirects show up in green (and pages proposed for deletion in pink, and various others). I can't at the moment remember what it's called, but it means I always know whether something is a redirect. Of course it won't distinguish between a redirect from another version of someone's name (not a red link), and a redirect to an article on her husband / school / book etc (a sort of red link).
- The whole issue of redirects and the credit for the replacement article is interesting. I create vast numbers of redirects, and sometimes find I'm getting notifications as the "creator" of an article which someone else created years ago over-riding a redirect I'd created, either for the same person/topic or for someone/thing quite different (which is fine by me as long as they add a hatnote to replace the original redirect, which they don't always do).
- There was a discussion elsewhere on this talk page at #Simple guide sought, about creating a dab page over a redirect and doing it in an elaborate way in order to get the credit as creator.
- It would be sensible if Wikipedia's systems could work out a way to recognise the person who converts a redirect to an article (or even a dab page) as the true creator of that resulting article, both for credit and for the purpose of sending notifications of AfDs etc. Perhaps we should suggest it.
- But of course if you create an article over-writing a redirect, you can include it in your own records of "articles created" and list it in WiR editathon listings and anywhere else, and you know you started it, which is what is important. I keep a manual record of the articles I create, so I can annotate it with why I created them ("Heard about this on news this morning", "Found a red link in xyz", etc), and am very glad I got into that habit from the start. PamD 10:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DrThneed Found it: the way to colour redirects green is a Userscript called "linkclassifier". See User:Anomie/linkclassifier. PamD 10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @PamD! Useful script. It's not a huge issue for me, I've only created one page over a redirect so far (which was a redirect to a disambiguation page for....a different name!) so my manually created list versus the tool-created list only differs by one. But I agree it would be great if the systems were set up to make it easy to get the page credit. DrThneed (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DrThneed Found it: the way to colour redirects green is a Userscript called "linkclassifier". See User:Anomie/linkclassifier. PamD 10:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was wondering about the problem of the redirects @Ipigott @Innisfree987@Rosiestep - if you created a page under a different name first (as if you didn't know the redirect existed) - e.g. Louise Purington, rather than Louise C. Purington, you'd get page creation credit. And then redirect the redirect, as it were? Maybe that's breaking some rules, or isn't possible, I'm not an admin so am a bit hazy on that? DrThneed (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I like 2025 by 2025 too but why wait so long? Couldn't we start with 2024 by 2024? We need to introduce additional incentives sooner rather than later and I'm pretty sure I could hit the 2024 target over the next few months. As for existing redirects, these are a real problem. Many of the articles I have created have been on the basis of women involved in various organizations or who have been married to men already covered. I've not worried too much about it but I realize the credit goes to whoever created the redirect. Maybe we could propose some "official" means of having a redirect deleted in order to pave the way for a real new article. I have a feeling many contributors might avoid creating articles on the basis of existing redirects and that many deserving women may simply remain as redirects for years to come. Perhaps one of our future monthly priorities could deal specifically with redirects. In advance, we could prepare lists of those deserving their own biograpies, etc., etc. As for the tool which continues to malfunction, as it's based on Wikidata, maybe Maximilianklein, Tagishsimon, Edgars2007 or The Earwig could help. It seems to me it would also be helpful if the two current submits could be reduced to just one. For reminders, the tool is here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I run into this issue all the time, because when the redirect is deleted (often happens to make way to move a draft), that counts “against” the person who made the redirect. My articles created tally says almost 2% of the pages I’ve created have been deleted but it’s almost all cases like this. (And then two failed attempts to set up archives before I understood namespaces, ha.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding "2025 by 2025"... Last night, I started an article on Louise C. Purington. As the page "Louise C. Purington" was created as a redirect in 2022 by Penny Richards, the article will be "credited" as started by Penny. No worries! Why I'm bringing it up is for the sake of understanding the technology better. Does anyone know how to change the credit in cases like this from the person who created a redirect to the person who created the article? I know of no way of doing it other than to have deleted the redirect first, which I could have done as an admin, but didn't. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am absolutely inspired by the achievements in this thread! My own goal for 2024 is very modest compared to the rest of you - I want to ensure all current women professors in NZ have pages by December. The list is currently 144 (although some of those have now become emeritus or left NZ) but will likely grow a bit in the next month or two as more promotions are announced. Mostly I'll be working on Wikidata though, as I only have about 5000ish advisors left to disambiguate in the NZThesisProject and want to get them done by year's end. And along the way there'll be some new women Fellows of the RSNZ. DrThneed (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DrThneed I'd help out with a couple of NZ professors! If you have a list that is? Lajmmoore (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's very kind Lucy! Of course I have a list, and a template that I generally start with. I have conflicts of interest with a few on the list (Louise Parr-Brownlie, Tammy Steeves, Hazel Chapman, Emma Wyeth, Dorothy Oorschot) but pick whoever you fancy, there's plenty to choose from! Some are easier than others but you don't generally know that til you start. DrThneed (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @DrThneed I'd help out with a couple of NZ professors! If you have a list that is? Lajmmoore (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)