Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created

I think its a mistake to present this list in alphabetic order. The Object here should be to encourage cross ediiting and collaboation. A better order for this purpose would be oldest should be last. IMHO. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

I have been removing articles from the list which become red-linked after being deleted. I was wondering if we should keep them listed so that people can try to revive them at some point? We may even be able to initiate a drive on restoring deleted biographies if anyone is interested. I know some national initiatives have complained that many of the biographies of notable (especially living) women created at editathons and introductory training sessions are deleted without reasonable justification. There have even been articles in the press. Should we address this issue here and/or on Women in Red? Any views Rosiestep, Dr. Blofeld, SusunW, Gobonobo — or anyone else?--Ipigott (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to remove the red links if they get deleted. Perhaps you should create a list of deleted articles somewhere in case some were actually notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered a notable journalist and actor by seeing a red link in the list. I did a bit of research and wrote an article on Mira Sethi, whose page had previously been deleted (multiple times!). Having a list of deleted articles could prove useful, but it will need some curation, as many deletions will have been legitimate. Pburka (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Ipigott should create a list then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Yes, I think there are more eyes at WiR so maybe copy the convo to that talkpage?
I've seen the redlinks and I am comfortable with leaving them alone (a) for historical purposes and (b) per @Pburka. And being practical, I think that the energy it takes to remove a redlink from this list and documenting it in an Edit Summary could be better spent doing something else. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's compromise. I nearly always look carefully at each article before I include it in lists of articles created. I leave out those which are obviously not up to standard and are likely to be deleted, especially those added by people wanting to promote their own work. But I also quite often come across articles which have obviously been added in good faith by inexperienced editors who don't know how to incorporate references, etc. I frequently add to the articles myself but there is simply not enough time to deal with them all. In cases where the individual seems really noteworthy (university professor, literature prizewinner, etc.), I think there might be a good case for giving them another go. A group of Australians working on women in architecture rightly cited several biographies of well-known contemporary women architects that had been deleted, mainly I think because they had been written by newbies during editathons without sufficient assistance. (The Australians now have a Wikimedia project to try to remedy the situation.) So names such as these could be revisited but I agree with Rosie that the majority of deletions are justified. I don't want to waste people's time but there may be a case for helping inexperienced editors to score more hits than misses in their early days. We could for instance take more care in monitoring AFDs before articles completely disappear.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huge list for April

@Rosiestep: I see we have both been making additions to this list which probably explains why it is so long. I don't really know how to go about sorting it out. I simply thought an efficient way of handling it would be to copy the articles from the Women Writers editathon. But then I see you added the same articles again but not in the same order. If you are sure all your additions are unique, I could simply delete mine. And I won't try to add anything in future otherwise we'll just get into more of a mess.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: At the beginning of the new month, after we're sure we've accounted for all articles (e.g. regarding April, I'll work on it this coming weekend), we use Excel to alphabetize the entries and remove duplicates both here and at WiR. So no worries if there are duplicates now. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: That seems like a sensible way of checking them. I wouldn't mind betting that virtually all of them have duplicates except for a few of those I added today. I would be interested to know how many duplicates you find on the WiR list as I have been trying to keep a check on them throughout the month.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About The Essex Serpent

Hi all. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post.
I've recently read the book, and was sorta astonished that it didn't have an article. 1 May 2018, set myself as a task of creating the article, but was delayed by othe WP:MOP-age tasks, and only created a little stub.
I know my limitations: good at identifying notable things to write about, good at finding references from impeccably reliable sources... but as for writing actual article content? Not so much.
I would appreciate your assistance with expanding this article. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]