Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 39

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Rosiestep in topic Already 75 new members of WiR this month
Archive 35←Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41→Archive 45

Award winners and nominees

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I have been a lot of women award winners and nominees that have not been covered here. Originally, I have been placing them in the crowd-listed section by field (e.g. Mathematics) but I've been way too many names across various fields. Would it be possible to have a section for women who have been award winners/nominees? Or should I just keep putting the redlinked names I find by field? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: I certainly think it's useful to keep including them under any crowd-sourced WiR redlists to which they belong. As for starting a new set of red lists under awards, this sounds like a good idea. The only problem is deciding which awards are significant enough to be included. They will have to be generally acceptable as notable. Perhaps you could let us know which ones you have in mind. If they are considered important enough, they might well have led to lists or articles on Wikipedia. Category:Awards by subject and all the subcategories might be useful in this connection. I'm sure Megalibrarygirl will be interested in this too.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I've been looking at Hall of Famers, while looking for awards/medals/nominees that pass WP:MUSIC, WP:NSPORTS, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO just to name a few. If I were to list the awards I have been looking at, it'd be too long. Also Category:Award winners would be helpful to find which women are missing in already created awards that have categories. There's too many topics I've been looking at that it'd be easier if I could provide the names and medals/honours/nominees etc. and have other do the articles so I can reduce the number of women articles on my lists that I feel should be made. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: In that case, it looks as if it would be useful for you to start a page in your user space listing the red links and the related awards you think we need to work on. We can then see, as the page develops, whether we should include it as a separate WiR page of red links or whether we should incorporate the new names into our existing lists. I, for one, would be happy to provide assistance and help you to develop your listing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott and MrLinkinPark333: I think having an awards redlist is a good idea. There are so many awards that are notable that don't have pages, especially Mexican awards. I'm sure other countries are also similarly under-represented. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: @Megalibrarygirl: Currently making at User:MrLinkinPark333/sandbox/Missing women (awards). I have to warn you it's going to be very long though as I've been writing many lists covering various topics and this is the only time I've actually merged them onto a redlist on Wikipedia. I'll let you know once I'm finished. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: That's awesome. Feel free to add any awards you think may be notable here. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: You've made a good start on this. It might be useful to specify which of these awards are important enough to substantiate notability in their own right. If they are not, then we might need to pick out those who are also adequately covered in secondary sources. I'll try to contribute in the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: @Megalibrarygirl: I added the criteria I've been looking at. I'm nowhere near finished as I need to look at my notebook with my lists and continue adding. I think right now since it's the Olympics, we can focus on making articles on women Olympic medallists. I would also say Olympic women participants but that's too numerous. From what I've seen there's only 16 Olympic winning women redlinks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Whoa, MrLinkinPark333 that's shameful! Only 16?!!! Penny Richards is working on Olympic women redlinks. She would be interested in your list, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
From what I see yes. I'm not including any stubs. @Penny Richards: to take a look at my updated list. Missing Paralmypic winners on the other hand is a lot more. I don't want to count how many because I'm sure it'll reach in the 100s. :( --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really, but I'm interested in the topic; the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics would best be able to advise on this.Penny Richards (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

MIssing women winners and nominees by criteria

Since the above conversation is long, thought I should split this. An idea I had would be to make lists based on the four criteria WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NSPORTS, WP:MUSIC and WP:ANYBIO. Some names might not fit a criteria (for example inducted into a Hall of Fame/Walk of Fame}}. These names are just for women biographies. If I were to add the missing women's works that are missing that've won/nominated for awards, that's another story. (Perhaps a different list?) Perhaps if we could divide up the names once I'm done by criteria and have Wikipedians decide which ones they want to do while adding towards the lists as well. I'm only going by ones that I believe should be notable based on my POV but others can contribute as well :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

UNESCO event March 8th; WiR draft space

Latest comment: 6 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion

It was suggested to me, especially with March around the corner, that we consider developing a draft space for new articles.

In addition to A+F events, there will be a large, French/English language event at UNESCO in Paris and online, too. (I'll provide the link when it becomes available.) I think it's good to prepare for the influx of new articles. What are your thoughts about these methods? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

My concern is will either of those make the new articles targets for that group of editors who have expressed vocally that writing about women is "activism". I think we need to make sure to stress that articles should NOT be sent to AfC, but rather should be posted on this page. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I'm afraid I simply don't have time to provide WiR support on French-language articles too. I think we should rely on Les sans pagEs where they have already listed a number of meetups for March. As for creating WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Draft/, like SusunW, I think we should do everything possible to encourage editors of new articles to move them to the mainspace themselves. Draft articles submitted for approval under Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation are typically not reviewed for weeks and then frequently refused. I think we should encourage new or recent editors to create new articles in their user space as "user:Username/Newarticle". We could possibly create a section or editathon talk page where they could be listed but I think it would be more effective to invite new WiR members/editathon participants to ask for assistance on our WiR talk page. Maybe we should assist more actively in moving valid new drafts from user space to mainspace. They are listed every day on AlexNewArtBot.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
You can also simply scan Category:Pending AfC submissions for articles that look of interest. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red would not be expected to provide assistance to other language communities, e.g. Les sans pagEs will coordinate for fr-wiki.
Please see John Cummings's proposal here: User:John Cummings/WIR. Please review and let's discuss as it would take a lot of hands to make this happen. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosiestep: for introducing this, the main thinking behind this is that UNESCO plans to promote Women in Red to its partner organisations and on social media and so there are potentially going to be a lot of new people wanting to create new articles. I've seen perfectly good articles about women nominated for deletion more times than I can count and I'm just trying to find some sort of way of improving new editor retention. The current situation of articles that don't quite meet the standard being deleted rather than being returned to draft space is ridiculous and has made so many people give up. Having a draft space could also provide a way of new editors working together or with more experienced editors, that articles are collaboratively written in draft space as well as in main space basically.

The idea of encouraging new editors to submit to AFC rather than creating WiR AFC may work, given that there are 1745 stuck in AFC limbo (as long as someone from WiR reviews the articles about women first), I wonder if there is a smart way of adding some kind of category to make this easier.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

John Cummings I absolutely do not think new articles should be submitted to AfC. It is not a forum designed to mentor and assist new editors. It is rather a forum designed to review articles to assess whether they could survive AfD. In that regard, they are often rejected without any mentoring whatsoever. In our essay [1] on creating articles for the project, we discourage submitting articles there and recommend that they should either be moved to mainspace by the creator or a trusted editor, or posted here on the talk page asking someone to review and move it. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW:, yes AFC is not really a workable idea is it... Its interesting that you already have a draft space for WiR articles but rather than a specific space people just post them on this page. @Ipigott: if people simply developed articles in their own userspace and added a special category or tag would this allow your bot to create a list of 'ready to publish' articles? This does seem more difficult and complex than simply having a draft space here though. John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
John Cummings, has someone started an EN-lang or FR-lang UNESCO wiki meetup page for the event? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging Nattes à chat regarding this conversation. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What about enlisting some of the Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers? They can keep an eye out for stuff in the new pages feed and work on it if need be. I used to do a lot of that myself, once. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, no page yet, I'm trying to come up with ways of helping the potentially large number of new users to have a good experience and continue to edit Wikipedia first. I'll put something together next week I'm sure. John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
John Cummings, that's fine and makes sense. A friendly FYI: Women in Red's March schedule already includes two other collaborations: Art+Feminism (articles) and Whose Knowledge (image campaign). So, on this talkpage, please be clear with any next steps/tasks you feel need attention for the Women in Red + UNESCO event. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep, will do, I'll post a separate message here in the next few days. John Cummings (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion @Andrew Davidson:, I guess my issue with this solution is that I'm thinking about this as a service specifically for new users and I want to reduce the number of steps and possible misunderstandings. Having a draft space within Women in Red for people to draft their articles would be the the easiest option for the new users and also would have a simple interface to see all the pages in that 'subdirectory' e.g here is a list of all the pages in my userspace, once an article had been published to mainspace it would disappear from this list. John Cummings (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: here is a working demonstration that will create an draft article in the userspace Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Draft/ and then show all pages in that namespace which can then be reviewed. This is the process with the least steps for new users available and is also easy to keep track of, I created two example pages as demonstrations you can see by following the link below.

Type the name of the article you want to start in the box and press Start article draft


To see all articles in the draft space click here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cummings (talk • contribs) 14:06, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this, John Cummings. The up side is that newbies would be working in a safe space. This would also be a good alternative to AfD. The concern is that I don't think there's any way to know how many articles might end up in this draft space, and of those, how many might include copyvios, nonsense, and/or other speedy-delete material. A year, 5 years, 10 years from now, we might have a really smooth process in place, but for now, I think we're all trying to understand potential issues (e.g. risk management). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


Thanks very much Rosiestep
My understanding is that copyvios anywhere on Wikipedia in any namespace are picked up with the same tool I know that copyvios in userspace get deleted. Speedy deletion material can be worked on until it is up to the standard of publishing and if that is not possible e.g nonsense it can be deleted.
The risks of the current system are deletions of almost good enough content and poor editor retention.
I could just create this system for the event and see if it works and then explore rolling it out wider if it does. What do you think?
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings and Rosiestep: I'm a bit confused. If the articles are created as a WiR draft are the members of WiR supposed to monitor the queue and move the drafts to mainspace or only if we are asked to do so with a post on our page? Seems to me that the administrators/coordinators of any event should have the burden for review on their shoulders, with WiR as back up, if needed. Since we as a project are focused on creating articles, we can't really create if we are heavily involved in gnoming. I'm not saying I am not willing, as time permits I often review requests posted on this page, but I want to understand the scope and expectations. SusunW (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately March is always one of our busiest months. I don't think we'll have time to experiment with a new system on WiR very effectively. May I suggest that John Cummings and any other experienced editors involved in the UNESCO editathon coordinate work on any additional advice or tools they think would help new UNESCO editors to create new articles. If they run up against any problems, they could of course always call on our assistance. I should also point out that our March editathon page (like all our other editathon pages) includes a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for creating women’s biographies which contains lots of useful advice for both new and more experienced editors. I would also recommend the WiR essay on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD. I hope the UNESCO editathon page will be posted soon so that we can include a link in our main page announcements and help to make the event a success. One last question: is anyone working seriously on redlinks for the UNESCO event?--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to talk to John hopefully later today. (I saw him last week). An event in 4 weeks on the day that we are running lots of other events is "a challenge". Changing our recommended method of working at the same time is an overstretch. Moreover I think that the French Women in Red will be none too pleased if we parachute our methods and people onto them. This is a lot to manage as Ian reminds us. Victuallers (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Wong (artist)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all! This page is driving me nuts. Everything I've uncovered describes Anna Wong as an internationally known printmaker, but finding meaty sources is turning out to be really hard. Part of the problem is that her name is common. The other part may be that apparently Chinese artists weren't documented as much. [2] If anyone can dig around and find something, feel free to add it to the article. I'd like to be able to move it out of draft for Jaggitha. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sue, your problem is timeframe. She was fluent in the 1970s and 1980s, thus, most everything is still in copyright or pre-internet. I find a bunch of book snippets but nada that is totally available for reviewing. It may take someone physically going to a library, as you are correct, it is a very common name and there are at least two artists by that name. I find nothing in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, hathitrust or archive.org. [3], [4], [5],[6] SusunW (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New WiR main page presentation

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

From the very first day we came up with a presentation of the main Women in Red WikiProget page in July 2015, we felt the support of Project X would be an invaluable asset. Several of our early members liked the icon-based social-network-like features, especially the member registration facility. Those originally behind Project X have now moved on to other assignments. As a result, Isarra, a former Project X enthusiast, has decided it would be easier for us all to have a project page more in keeping with Wikipedia's generally accepted standards. I think this is a step in the right direction but I remember when I suggested such changes two or three years ago, several of our members supported the icon-based display and the registration mechanism. As a result, we have maintained the Project X approach until now. Although the useful registration feature continues as before, the other headings are now fully editable components of standard Wikipedia pages, and we now have a normal Table of Contents. I hope we can all work together on devopling the main WiR page along these lines and I look forward to suggestions for further improvement. If anyone is against the move, now is the time to make your feelings known.--Ipigott (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Despite the limitations of the format of the WikiProject X prototype templates (the main of which being what I've now largely removed from the page), many of you have also commented on how well the formwizard approach to the members signup works, and while that was the direction we wanted to eventually go with handling for all aspects of WikiProjects under WikiProject X, we ultimately wound up essentially scrapping the intended implementation in favour of creating a full MediaWiki extension instead. Given that it makes little sense to keep your project on an interface that is no longer being developed or maintained, the most logical thing to do here, for the time being, was remove the problem templates while maintaining the things that have indeed proven a net benefit (in particular the members thing, also maybe the icons?). Whatever the case, it should be much easier for you to go ahead and do whatever you want with the page now - and if you want to bring any particular things back or have any other questions, please feel free to ask.
That being said, we (the WikiProject X team) haven't entirely moved on - as mentioned in the newsletter a few sections above, I have put in a new grant proposal to renew the WikiProject X project in order to complete the extension, CollaborationKit, that is intended to eventually replace all the on-wiki WikiProject X templates with guided interfaces like that currently implemented for the Members signup. If this is something you would like to see, I would highly encourage all of you to endorse the proposal so as to demonstrate to the grants committee that there is indeed still interest in this project. (And thank you to those of you who already have.) -— Isarra ༆ 22:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I am one of those who have supported the Project X grant application as I think they have done much to make WiR and similar projects far more visible. I hope, nevertheless, that further work will provide better opportunities for WikiProjects to become more directly involved in developments, and that WiR in particular will receive more attention than it has over the past 12 months.--Ipigott (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 
For the record, @Roger and I have been WikiProject X supporters from the get-go, having multiple meetings with Harej before and after we launched Women in Red in July 2015. WikiProject X developed a beautiful, modern, unique mainpage for us, as well as some modules/subpages, and we thank you for that, Isarra, as I know you lead the design team. Also, thank you for making the changes last night to our mainpage and module system per our communications during this last week. I think most will say this represents an improvement. Hope to see you in Berlin in April. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
You're totally welcome, guys. Not that I'm going to be in Berlin; I'm not actually involved enough with any official groups or organisations, go figure. -— Isarra ༆ 05:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Already missing the icons

I must say I am already missing the icons. I use some of them most days to check things out and update the data. While several of them are seldom used, I think it would be useful to restore those for Redlist index (pointing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index), Showcase, Metrics and Article alerts in that order. For your information, over the past month Redlist index had 413 page views and 62 edits, Showcase 180 page views and 19 edits, Metrics 171 page views and 2 edits, and Article alerts 66 page views and 22 edits. (Some of the info could of course be seen on the project page itself which had 3,230 page views over the past month.) On the other hand, About us had only 76 page views (and 0 edits), Resources 47, Events 22 (of which 7 yesterday), Research 22, External links 16, and Press 13. Although About us is obviously important, now that there is a link in the right place near the top of the page, I don't think an icon is necessary. The others are simply not used sufficiently to warrant icons. I could fish the icons out of the old Project X routines but I am not sure how to make them clickable. It would therefore be useful, Isarra, if you could restore the four most important ones. And thanks for all the time and trouble you are devoting to our page, despite the fact that you have not yet received a grant. (And I'm really looking forward to your biographies of female bees.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I too am missing the icons, Ipigott. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Ping Isarra. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I put them back as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/WiR header. It's one of them tab header things. I slapped it on all pages I put on it, but... er... you know. Do whatever with it actually makes sense. -— Isarra ༆ 05:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Isarra. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Just what we need. Thanks Isarra.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good article that may be of interest to WiR editors

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This article in the Guardian "Pushing Back: Why it's Time for Women to Rewrite the Story" talks about cultural gaslighting in literature. It describes how things men write are considered "universal" while women's writing somehow isn't. I think we deal with some of these issues when writing about women on Wikipedia. If we write about women, somehow that's seen by some as a "narrow" topic; which is strange since women make up more than 50% of all humans and are involved in nearly every field of endeavor in some way. The article is about literature, but it resonated with me. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Megalibrarygirl. Resonates with me, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: Sarah Churchwell is indeed a worthwhile columnist (see here for her past contributions). I'm just beginning to wonder whether the "MeToo" movement is slowly beginning to change the historically accepted view of man's unchallenged superiority, under which feminists are looked upon as outsiders to be pitied. Our coverage of more worthy women on Wikipedia should help to correct that view. Perhaps we should begin a drive on women authors (and their works) who have supported the place of women in world society, through both fiction and non-fiction.--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Yes, exactly. Men's contributions are somehow seen as inclusive of society and women's are viewed as separate or minority views and certainly only valid for women and at that only a small segment of women. Why is that? Why can't they both be parts of a whole? Different, but equally valid? Thank you for bringing the article to light. SusunW (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's liberation movement

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is an AfD on Women's liberation movement which was created in 2005. The discussion has got off to a good start but I think some of our members, especially SusunW, would probably like to comment too.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. "Let's just toss the grandmothers out of the whole picture and bury them", is not a solution. SusunW (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to fix this fix it? The discussion was closed as a speedy keep, but when one tries to access the discussion from the talk page, it isn't there.[7] If we are going to be able to rework the article, the discussion and sources included in the discussion would be useful to have. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 08:02, February 24, 2018 (UTC)
  Done; ping SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Rosiestep SusunW (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS subscription tweak

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've made some tweaks to your WP:AALERTS subscription. It now casts a much wider net, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts will report a lot more discussions. See [8] vs [9], with an extra ~25 AFDs that come from Deletion sorting. While those are not technically part of the project, I feel they could become part of the project, if they were deleted. Feel free to revert me if this is unwanted.

I've also made tweaks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, which will now cover pretty much everything women-related, which will catch things like all WP:WOMEN-related WP:PRODs and CfDs etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your enterprising efforts, Headbomb. I frequently look at the article alerts on WP:Women. Now I can see them all here. It should make it easier for all of us to try to save deserving articles. The other sections, GA candidates, etc., are also interesting.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Headbomb. Hmlarson (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sun and Her Flowers

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Any thoughts on this? Draft:The Sun and Her Flowers or anyone willing to take a look and help edit the draft so we can re-publish? Hmlarson (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmlarson maybe Rosiestep or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers project can help. I do people and the occasional building or institution. Book articles are not my forté, though I love to read them. SusunW (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmlarson, when I write articles about novels, I follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, e.g. using these recommended headers and so forth. Another thing I do is find an article on a similar book and compare how I've laid out my article vs. how that one is set up, e.g. find the most precise Category for the book and look at many of the books in that category. This gives me inspiration on how/when to quote lines from the book, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this is a draft of an article about a best-selling book of poetry by Rupi Kaur I found sitting in Page Review. I've done some cleanup as well as another editor. If anyone else is willing to review, that'd be great. Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Singapore Women Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Anyone interested in created articles on Singaporean women? The article Singapore Women's Hall of Fame has 30 redlinks of Singaporean women who were inducted into this Hall of Fame alone! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Anamah Tan, Constance Singam, Julie Tan Eng Poh and Tan Cheng Hiong look like suitable candidates for March, given their background in women's rights.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange weekly statistics from Wikidata

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Each week we measure how are efforts on WiR are reflected by the total number of women's biographies on Wikidata. These are posted on WHGI. This week, for the first time ever, the percentage of EN women's biographies on Wikidata has dropped from 17.49% last week to only 17.47% today. This results from an additional 1,010 new biographies overall but a net reduction of 41 women's biographies. (Last week the Wikidata count was 266,746, this week it's only 266,705, i.e. 41 less!) I have no idea what has led to these deletions or which articles they represent but they put the EN wiki at the very bottom of the list and the reductions appear to apply only to the English version of Wikipedia. Perhaps Jane023 can solve the mystery.--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly linked to this thread at ANI about Sander.v.Ginkel and articles he started being nuked en-masse. The edit history of the missing female Olympians list took a fairly big spike upwards around that time as a result. Some of the higher-value articles have since been restored. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Women articles for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

hi, this may be of interest - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#women articles up for deletion, not sure how the WIR alerts list works (does it list only WIR articles?). Coolabahapple (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For WIR, the alerts are set to cover all {{WIR}} (and sub-templates like {{WIR-1}}) tagged articles, plus those from WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women. A more complete listing will be available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, which will cover as many women-related things as possible.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
wow! thanks for the such a prompt response  Coolabahapple (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month starts tomorrow

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
 

For many of us who are veteran Wikipedians, March is the month we give a laser-sharp focus to women's biographies and women's works broadly construed. For this reason, I am taking some time today to personally reflect on the women's biography articles I created during previous Women's History Months. Concerted efforts were started in 2011 or 2012 by Missvain, which makes this the 8th year that Wikipedians are focused on this issue. I think we are making history. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You have far more years under your belt than me at this editing thing Rosiestep, but this will be my 4th year. I always look forward to it and have been preparing for several weeks now to figure out who to write about this year. SusunW (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to take an opportunity to share something a friend posted on Facebook earlier this year. I posted a little notice about the articles I was writing last year for WiR, briefly noting Susan Brown Chase as one of my subjects. She shared it, with the following comment:
"This is part of a recent post from Steven Pruitt, a fellow member of the Capitol Hill Chorale. It made me happy and hopeful, and I just had to share it. It doesn't only take marching in the streets. Changes in our everyday landscape can be just as important."
Changes in our everyday landscape - that's exactly what we're doing. So nice to see it framed that way.
(And don't worry - she's given me permission to share the sentiment.) :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A very encouraging comment, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Thanks for sharing it with us. Now that we have over 270 editors on our mailing list, there must be lots of contributors ready to help us with A+F this year. Just as a reminder, we created 3,074 articles in 2016 and 2,490 last year. It would be great if we could reach 3,500 this year. With the support of all the new editors participating in the 248 A+F editathons around the world—most of them in English—I think we stand a good chance.--Ipigott (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I create an events page within Women in Red

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Hi

I would really like people to join Women in Red when the contribute to the UNESCO editathon I'm running for International Women's Day as way of encouraging them to stay involved. Looking at the really cool sign up form you have which uses formwizard it looks like this will only work within the Women in Red space. Can I just run the event from a page that starts with WikiProject_Women_in_Red?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Victuallers: may be best to answer this. I am not remotely technical, but I know that our format has caused issues with integration of other pages and our own attempts to edit it. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure, @John. You can use Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/UNESCO 2018. The issues which SusunW mention are related to the WikiProject X "modules" which we're slowly moving away from as most of them are no longer suitable for a project as big/evolving as Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep, I created it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Events/UNESCO_2018 to avoid confusion, as its not a meetup. Unfortunately I have a technical issue, the Join Wikiproject button works in that I can create a profile, but when I create it it sends me to the profile and then only offers me the option of going back to the main Wikiproject page and not the event page, meaning people will get lost. Is anybody able to help me fix this? Either to never leave the event page or to offer me a way back to the event page. It loks like maybe @Harej: made the modules? So close yet so far..... John Cummings (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Is this in connection with your thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Is there a very easy to use registration or sign your name function/gadget for new editors? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64:, yes, but I've realised it's much better to encourage new people to join this community than simply sign their name on an event page. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Isarra and Harej: work on the modules and maybe one of them can help? SusunW (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
All: Harej has become a WMF employee and is no longer working on WikiProject X.
I am in contact with Isarra and have notified her about the issue you describe here, John Cummings, and about the Worklist module issue, Ipigott, which you brought up elsewhere.
John, when I click on the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Events/UNESCO_2018, the page is "bare bones" and only includes a link to become a member of Women in Red. Are you planning to do more with this page? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, thanks, yes I'm working on a draft here User:John_Cummings/WIReditathon. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 
@John Cummings: This page that you are working on is absolutely beautiful. I love that it's clean and uncluttered. and I love this image of the red and blue stick figures with the wiki globe; would it be possible add women's hair to half of the figures? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, thanks very much, yes I've tried to make it nice for new people so they stick around :) I'll try contacting the illustrator to see what they can do, my Photoshop skills are not what they used to be.... John Cummings (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings:-I just came here from your post at the village pump. I have done some small drive-by improvements to the UI on the events page, feel free to revert if inappropriate. Thanks — FR™ 09:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Force Radical:, thanks very much, great stuff, I'm the worst at templates. One thing if you know how to do it, I want to make the 'Get started' to sit on the left hand side of the page like the 'Activities' section, any ideas?
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
John Cummings-Its already aligned to the left. — FR™ 10:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

John Cummings: If we can't make the WiR signup take them back to the page after they do the form, does it seem a reasonable fallback to just tell people to hit the back button in their browser afterwards? But assuming it does work, we can also assume that for the purposes of this event, they'll be signing up from the event page only, and will want to then go back to said event page, correct? -— Isarra ༆ 00:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I got nothing, sorry. It may be possible, but too many things came up for me to be able to explore every avenue, and it didn't appear there was anything documented, at least, about this sort of thing. -— Isarra ༆ 15:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You may want to have the link to the signup open in a new tab or window or something so they can just close it when they're done, pehaps. -— Isarra ༆ 15:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

IWD, WiR and DYK

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Quick call if anyone had any biographies of women ready to nominate at DYK, we're a couple short with an intention to run eight women (i.e. the whole set) on 8 March. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have several articles if anyone is interested in nominating them. Marjorie Schick was just promoted to GA and South African Sonia Bunting could have several interesting hooks. I no longer participate in DYK, finding my time is more productive if I focus on article creation, than on monitoring nominations. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man - My sentiments about DYK mirror those of SusunW. That said, yesterday, I created the Luisa Cappiani and Bertha M. Wilson articles using PD sources. If you think I've modified the phrasing enough to qualify for DYK, you are welcome to nominate them, but no worries if you choose not to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, it was just an opportunity to promote women in general. I understand if you're no longer interested in that. Sorry I mentioned it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'm not sorry you mentioned it nor for the opportunity to showcase articles about women. All I was saying is that for me, the time involved in completing the QPQ and the nomination process is something that ends up being frustrating and takes me away from research and writing. There are other people who are better suited for the task. I have long been a proponent of developing a way for articles to be written, reviewed and promoted to DYK or GA by collaboration, where one person is not solely responsible for the whole process, but so far, have not figured out a way to implement it. SusunW (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, Rosiestep and SusunW have long ago voiced their clear disinterest in the current DYK process (something in which I understand and respect), but continues to create articles and promote women in general on regular basis, in other platforms. I think your comment was perhaps rather unfair. Alex Shih (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the fact that no-one here is interested in getting eight women hooks onto the main page for the whole day is clear, regardless of process. There's always an opportunity to rise above such things, yet clearly not on this occasion. It was a risk posting a note here, I know, and I wish I hadn't bothered, we'll manage it ourselves I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

No one here seems a bit of an exaggeration. 3 people have said they weren't personally interested in it. WiR has a lot more than 3 people involved. Maybe others will be interested, or maybe some will see the message and simply submit a DYK without replying here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Headbomb. Many potential options for DYK nominations were provided in the two posts above, so there isn't really any reason to be disappointed. I might try to nominate one from that list. Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Retirement of Dr. Blofeld

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

After all he has done to support Women in Red, especially in organizing the highly successful World Contest, it is upsetting to see that Dr. Blofeld has finally decided to retire completely from Wikipedia. I hope his work will not be forgotten and that his preparatory work for future contests will be put to good use.--Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree Ian. Been busy the last several days with real world stuff, but I did see this. Hope he will enjoy his new endeavors. SusunW (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
His work is valuable and appreciated. I hope he returns. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Could be worse, such as all 96,000 articles he started being deleted... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Editathon at the British Library on Women and Food

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone,

I got my copy of What's On at the British Library in the post today, and listed is a free editathon on the 23rd May. Here's the description: "Help redress the Wikipedia gender imbalance by spending a day improving its coverage of food related topics, especially but not exclusively those related to women, in this Wiki-editathon." It's free to attend, and I believe registration opens on the 8th March.

I don't know how far in advance we set topics to cover for the month, but I know someone mentioned the possibility of including food related female topics as a possibility. I'm wondering now if it might be a good idea to incorporate this into the plans for this editathon. I'll be taking the day off work to go along, and hopefully I'll have some time before then to expand the female chefs with Michelin stars list in user space somewhat. Miyagawa (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, in light of the #MichelinToo movement, I've moved the article into mainspace - List of female chefs with Michelin stars. Miyagawa (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Miyagawa: We already have "Women of the Sea" and "Villains" for May but we could certainly try to help out with food too, perhaps under #1day1woman. See our Ideas page for forward planning.--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott:Thanks, I'll add them all to the redlink lists there. Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Miyagawa: I suggest you add the redlinks from your list of Michelin chefs to our Food and drink page. I brought up the Ideas page as I thought you could perhaps find a slot later in the year where we could focus on food-related topics. Alternatively, you could simply list the topic at the bottom of the page as an idea to be incorporated sometime in the future. Btw, I've added your list to User:MrLinkinPark333/sandbox/Missing women (awards) which I think will soon be ready to move into the WiR project space. (cc. Megalibrarygirl)--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm in no way finished but I've stopped for now. Megalibrarygirl Ipigott I'm working my way through the hall of fames (but now realized that some need to be updated). Plus, I haven't gone through all the awards on my list. Would this be sufficient for now and later on we can add/remove as we go through the list? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Miyagawa: Like all our red link lists, this one will certainly develop with time. Nevertheless, it already contains quite a range of useful information and red links. I therefore think it would be useful to have it as one of our crowd-sourced redlists as that would not only encourage its use but would allow other editors to add to it more easily. Why not spend a day or two tidying it up and then move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Awards and honours?--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Miyagawa: you can add the names to this list where we already have awards listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Awards and conferences and I can separate them out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Awards and honours for you later. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing #1day1woman Global Initiative v. Women in History

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am wondering why we have two places to record our new and improved articles this month. Normally I use the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018 as I am writing about women who don't fit into the monthly categories. Please note, I'm not unhappy about this. This month, however, every woman I write about would fit where I've normally been entering them but also into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70. So far there are many more articles in the latter list and it's where I've listed my new article. Am I missing something?--Oronsay (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay This month only, 70 is the main editathon; however, if you want to participate in the contest running in March for The Women You Have Never Met, you need to use 00-2018. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
SusunW Thanks for your clarification.--Oronsay (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Radical Women: Latin American Art, 1960–1985

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just found out about this exhibit out in California. I didn't attend (for, perhaps, obvious reasons :-), but did find a list of included artists on their website:

https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2017/radical-women-latin-american-art-1960-1985/

Cursory inspection reveals a good number of artists we're lacking. Might be worth incorporating some of them into a list of redlinks. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Street Press' Women and Social Movements collections now available through The Wikipedia Library

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey everyone - thanks to a request from SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep, we were able to get free access to the Women and Social Movements collections from Alexander Street Press for use on Wikipedia! If you already have an account for Alexander Street Press you should be getting an email with the new login details shortly. If not, you can apply here! We hope these collections are of use to the project :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

OMG! Samwalton9 Thank you so very, very much for continuing to pursue access to this collection. I am totally stoked that you have done so, especially in time for Women's Month articles. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
So excited to finally have access to this. Used it to create Elmina R. Lucke a redlink from the Michigan Women's Hall of Fame. One thing I noted is that ASP's permalink generator inserts two "|" characters which interfere with WP's rendering of the URL. Amazingly, I figured out the technical solution...replace the "|" with "%7c" (in both places) and it will work properly. SusunW (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: It's great to see the resources already in use! That's interesting; I think I recall seeing the same issue with another website. Another solution is using Template:pipe :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Samwalton9 Thank you for that. I am really enjoying reading through the archive. Great stuff! @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: FYI. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, Sex and gender in the Bengal famine of 1943 could use a dedicated hand. I have many sources etc. Would do it myself but am too busy arguing. Cheers Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Maureen Baginski

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Spies § Maureen Baginski
 – —usernamekiran(talk) 12:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I will be creating an article on Maureen Baginski in the next few days. --DZI (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@DZI: If you have any question or doubts, or need any kind of help, please dont hesitate to post here, or on my talkpage. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 13:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Tweet of the Year?

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Every day we keep tweeting for Women in Red and we get some nice thinks said. We have had the United Nations and the BBC but this year we have UNESCO. Confirmed with this tweet. Thanks to Les Sans Pages and (my mate) MrJohnCummings. Victuallers (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Very, very cool! SusunW (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't tweet. So thanks to you and others who keep tweeting our articles out there. Each tweet is like a lit candle for one more woman whose story has not been forgotten. Kind of lights up the sky when that happens. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Victuallers: Yes, all these tweets and the photos on Pinterest help to spread the news. I'm impressed with John Cummings' multilingual approach. Have you seen Improve Wikipedia articles in (at least) five languages? It will be interesting to see how it all pans out tomorrow. The main Wiki4Women page is also impressive, especially the logo now that the boys have become girls. I see there's quite a bit of press coverage in other languages. Can no one alert the English-speaking media? What about all your press contacts, Rosie?--Ipigott (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Just seen that this was released a few days ago but doesn't seem to have hit the headlines.--Ipigott (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm reaching out to Channel4 in the UK who say they will ring me. Odd to see a press release that makes tomorrow Tuesday?? Interesting to see what happens at the end of March. I would quite like to include the image of the tweet on this page. Can anyone guess how we can do it? Our logo is cc by sa and the rest is mostly just an arrangement of letters which should be OK under US law. Can it be "fair use"d? Victuallers (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome Template?

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Hi all. Is there a specific welcoming template for the Women in Red Project? And if not, why not? I've just tried to welcome a new editor who asked a #wiki4women-related question at the Teahouse. There's nothing available in Twinkle's project-related subset, nor can I find anything in Category:WikiProject-specific welcome templates. This seems to be an ideal area to provide useful links, so perhaps I've missed it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes I doubt that we have one. Usually we just post on new members pages, but I don't know for sure. Perhaps @Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: would know. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Nick Moyes: When welcoming new members potentially interested in Women in Red, I use the basic template "Welcome" and then I add a word about Women in Red together with the invitation for the month. You can also find various invitations at March 2018. You are of course free to adapt them as appropriate. You could also draw on the template "Women in Red header". Perhaps we should put together something more neutral but I think it's always a good idea to include our editathons of the month.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott. I do quite a bit of new page patrolling, recent change patrol and responding automatically to welcome new users, so thought that being proactive in inviting anyone I encounter who creates or edits women's biogs could be useful by means of a template. Yes, those invitations you linked too probably are a bit too slanted as they stand. But something simple and welcoming that already included key editing links and WiR links and logo could still have its uses without needing to manually tailor other template welcomes each time. It was just an idea I thought could add to (not replace) the existing ways of welcoming people and help quickly enhance project awareness from people like me who are more on the sidelines, but still very supportive. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey Nick Moyes. It's a good idea to have a general one, like {{Teahouse}}. No one has created one yet so each of us does something different to welcome a new editor. If you (or anyone else!) is feeling creative and want to design something, that would be AWESOME! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, Rosiestep. I'll give it a go. I've never created more than a one-line template before. So don't hold out too much hope for anything stunning on first attempt! (BTW: I think we've resolved the UNESCO password issue I cc-ed you in to earlier today. See here) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Nick! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, so here's my rough mockup of an automated template that could be placed via Twinkle to welcome new users who've exhibited a clear editing interest in women's biographies, and who've been encountered whilst doing routine work at WP:RCP, WP:NPP etc. Currently, it could theoretically be added to any userpage with this markup: {{subst:User:Nick Moyes/sandbox/template}} Thoughts please? Nick Moyes (talk)
Version 1
 
 

Hello, WikiProject Women in Red, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I noticed you've made one or more edits to women's biographies. Should you be interested in helping to redress the balance of articles about women, you might wish to consider joining our Women in Red Wikiproject. Less than 18% of biographies here are about women - and you could help increase this!
Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask at the Teahouse, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help you.
Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Nick Moyes This is indeed an attractive display and I think it could be used in many cases in lieu of the standard welcome, perhaps in some cases also in conjunction with physical meetups. The only problem is perhaps that there are so many things for people to look into that they might not be able to see wood for trees. Maybe the WiR main page is the best page to look for "Resources" but we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources. Unless I have missed something, there is no specific indication of how new editors can become members of Women in Red (or is this intended first and foremost for those who have already joined up?). It might also be useful to include a link to our Ten Simple Rules for Creating Women's Biographies. It may also be a good idea to have a less complex version as many of the linked pages have "see also" sections linking to the other pages listed. In particular, Wikipedia:Introduction is the first page of a comprehensive series which guides new editors through all the essentials.--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback thus far. I will be frank and say that my approach to this was to aim at those really, really new editors who've probably never even heard of a WikiProject, and who've probably made less than a dozen or so edits. I based it on one of the shorter welcoming templates that you can see at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. I intentionally didn't add a 'join us' link to avoid you being filled with people who sign up and then never do anything. The link to the WP:WOMRED page is there in the first welcoming paragraph and as a link from the red logo. i.e. help new users with basic editing first, then give them the steer towards WiR should they wish to follow it. Can't do any more today - have some birthday celebrations to attend. But there's absolutely nothing to stop us creating more than one welcoming message template - for the more committed editor or event attendee,for example. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So, taking the above comments onboard, I've now modified it - see below. I remain unconvinced it should include a 'join me' link. I think the WiR sign up page might well be too overwhelming for brand new editors who are not yet committed to the cause of the project It would be very likely to yield far too many false positives, as raised in the thread a couple below this one. As this welcome message template is intended to be placed on pages of newcomer we spot editing women's biographies, just giving them the basic help links, plus links to key WiR advice should be enough. But tell me if you want something different. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Version 2
 
 

Hello, WikiProject Women in Red, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
I noticed you've made one or more edits to women's biographies. Should you be interested in helping to redress the balance of articles about women, you might wish to consider joining our Women in Red project. Less than 18% of biographies here are about women - and you could help us increase this!
Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask at the Teahouse, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help you.
Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: That's good to know. Maybe a link back here would be sensible, too? (see below.) Tell me if you'd prefer a link to Help:Introduction instead of Wikipedia:Introduction. Once there's consensus on content I'll save it into Template space. I thought a suitable name would be {{Template:Welcome-womenbio}}. Any subsequent variants you choose to create could then be named {{Template:Welcome-womenbio short}} or {{Template:Welcome-womenbio event}}, etc. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Version 3 (adding a link to this WiR Talk Page)
 
 

Hello, WikiProject Women in Red, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
I noticed you've made one or more edits to women's biographies. Should you be interested in helping to redress the balance of articles about women, you might wish to consider joining our Women in Red project. Less than 18% of biographies here are about women - and you could help us increase this!
Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) This automatically inserts your name and the date. If you get stuck, please see our help pages. If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at the Teahouse or at the Women in Red project's Talk Page. Alternatively, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help you. Again, welcome! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. Giving this a lot more thought overnight, I'm thinking that the Women in Red Welcome template should only include our links. I fear that duplication of links might be confusing. Another benefit of only our links is that the template will be smaller. I'd make the changes myself, but I'm not sure where the template is currently sitting, so I would appreciate if you would do so. A possible name for the WiR template could be: {{Template:Women in Red welcome}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Rosiestep. Like you, I've also been giving it further consideration, and I think we're each approaching this from quite different perspectives, but that each is equally valid and has a slightly different application here. So I started to write a detailed explanation of how I saw a template being deployed by users of Huggle,Twinkle and other WP:NPP-type patrollers and welcomers. It all got rather wordy, and the hour has got very late. So maybe I'll rework the rationale later if you need me to. But, but in the meantime, I've created a completely different mockup of what I suspect you're thinking you'd prefer to deploy. I genuinely believe they each have a use in quite different circumstances, and that one for 'wikinewbies' must contain general help links, but that the other (for those editors who've already demonstrated a distinct interest in the Project's goals) doesn't need them at all. So I see no reason why this Project should NOT have two templates available to promote it and to support these two different sets of potential contributors. (note: my intial post had a fundamental typo in it . . . I meant to say "I see no reason why this Project should not have two templates available to promote it and to support these two different sets of potential contributors." Nick)
Template2 version 1 (see section below)
 
 

Hello, WikiProject Women in Red. It's great to see you have an interest in improving Wikipedia's articles about women.

The Women in Red Wikiproject works to encourage more women biographies to be created, thus turning 'red links' into blue ones. Less than 18% of biographies on Wikipedia here are about women - and we really welcome your help to increase this figure!

Perhaps you've already signed up with us, or maybe you took part in one of our many themed online campaigns, or attended a real-life editathon? Or maybe you simply set to work editing and we spotted your contributions to articles about women. It matters not. You're here and keen to edit - that's what counts! So, here are a few useful links to get you going. Don't miss our huge list of 'red-linked' names. These are the women we haven't yet got articles on, so we hope you'll find something of interest there to set you off editing.

If you get stuck, please see Wikipedia's help pages. If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at Women in Red project's Talk Page, or leave a question at the Teahouse. Alternatively, contact me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help you.
Thanks for helping to turn red links into read articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: I'm glad to see we're making progress on this. I'm not sure whether you are familiar with the lists we receive once a month from Bobo.03. For example today we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Candidates/February 2018. As you can see, the list gives details of all those who have created at least two articles on women or their works over the past month and are not already members of the WiR. The reason I mention it is because it frequently includes a number of new editors of the kind you also seem to be targeting. I hope we are not duplicating initiatives here. You will note that the invitations we send out each month contain the priorities of the month. I think it might also be useful to adapt your template each month along the same lines. Hope this is not too confusing.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick Moyes: I think we don't need to include the link to "Help:Contents" or "WP:TH" or the "Help Me" message because the editor should have already received the Welcome template and the Teahouse template. And if the editor hasn't received them, then I can add them before I add the Women in Red Welcome. This way, we don't muddy the waters. Also, please:
... change the wording of this link from "Dates for future online 'editathons' and real-world gatherings" to "Online 'editathons' and real-world gatherings related to women's biographies, women's works, and women's issues".
... change the wording of this link from "So, here are a few useful links to get you going." to "So, here are a few links we think you might find useful."
... remove, "Don't miss our huge list of 'red-linked' names. These are the women we haven't yet got articles on, so we hope you'll find something of interest there to set you off editing."
... make the images smaller as some people will be viewing this notice on their mobile devices. Thanks, Nick! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Ipigott:. No, I don't think anybody mentioned the pre-existence of a reporting system from Bobo.03 when I initially asked about the existence of a welcome template. I've just re-read it to check, and, in doing so, I've spotted a fundamental error in my last posting, in which I missed out the word "not". I actually meant to say: "I see no reason why this Project should NOT have two (or indeed more) templates available to promote it and to support these two different sets of potential contributors." i.e. Template 1 (red border) for complete newbies to Wikipedia who a welcomer has spotted happens to have made edits to women-related articles, and Template 2 (gold border at present) for much more focussed welcoming and encouragement to join Women in Red). The tool abd reporting you mentioned looks like a great way to flag up and respond to editors actively working on women's biogs, and then to welcome them. So you do actually seem to have that side sewn up. But anyway, I've now incorporated all of Rosie's requests into Template 2, including image reduction (though it did display OK on my tiny iPhone5 screen). In the final link do we really need 'women' mentioned three times in one sentence? It's more likely to make it wrap onto a second line in some screen setting, I suspect. Anyway, see below:
Template 2 version 2
 
 

Hello, WikiProject Women in Red. It's great to see you have an interest in improving Wikipedia's articles about women.

The Women in Red Wikiproject works to encourage more women biographies to be created, thus turning 'red links' into blue ones. Less than 18% of biographies on Wikipedia here are about women - and we really welcome your help to increase this figure!

Perhaps you've already signed up with us, or maybe you took part in one of our many themed online campaigns, or attended a real-life editathon? Or maybe you simply set to work editing and we spotted your contributions to articles about women. It matters not. You're here and keen to edit - that's what counts! So, here are a few links we think you might find useful.

If you can't find what you are looking for there, feel free to ask at the Women in Red project's Talk Page. Alternatively, contact me on my own talk page
Thanks for helping to turn red links into read articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, can we set up 2018 lists-by-occupation for A+F? I am thinking maybe some top 25 or so artists per country that have articles in some language wiki but not English. So these could be tweetable and doable lists to share out to anyone interested in participation on Thursday. Maybe I am late to the party - do we already have these? I am thinking of lists of female public art creators, art collectors, art museum founders, directors or curators (these are all likely to be based locally in countries and therefore only have articles in local wikis). Best and good luck this week everybody! Jane (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jane023 - We have these lists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70#Redlists (lists of redlinked articles to be created). Is this what you mean? Or do you think we should have separate lists for French art collectors, Dutch art collectors, etc.? --Rosiestep (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ooh nice lists - yes that is exactly what I meant. And of course maybe a cross-section of these per country for the ones with the highest impact (not sure if I could build that with a query though). Impact might be measured by page views in the local wiki (no idea how to measure that) or by number of sitelinks to otherr projects (missing in English). Jane (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Headbomb would know how to sort that information, Jane023 Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jenny Kemp

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hi, i was looking at deorphaning some oz literature project articles and came across a play, The Black Sequin Dress by the above playwright. i reckon she's notable enough (ie. goog, goognews) for a standalone so if you have a "WIR playwrights/theatre" list can she be added, thanks. ps. "Women in Theatre Editathon" anyone?  Coolabahapple (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Coolabahapple! I'll add the name to our redlists. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

#VisibleWikiWomen with Whose Knowledge

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everyone! Just a note to remind our editors that Whose Knowledge is kicking off the #VisibleWikiWomen effort to collect and upload images of notable women. The campaign takes place between March 8 and March 31. Let's help them with their effort. If you upload a freely licensed image, use the category Category:VisibleWikiWomen on Commons. I think you can also use the hashtag #VisibleWikiWomen around Wikipedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Riehl

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had noticed Emily Riehl on a list of WiR articles-to-create, so I figured I should call attention to the AfD for it. She's the author of two books, the first of which was reviewed enthusiastically by the MAA, and the latter is one of John C. Baez's recommended texts for learning category theory. I also found two interviews [10][11], and the Notices of the AMS selected her as a mathematician worth profiling [12]. Manually counting her Google Scholar h-index, I get 14, which is respectable for pure mathematics. She also teaches for edX [13]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in ~16 hours

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just FYI, there is an edit-a-thon scheduled for Thursday morning in Europe: https://www.eventbrite.ie/e/wikipedia-editathon-rcsi-female-firsts-tickets-43324480688

It looks like their focus will be on the contributions of women in medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I notified the organizer via email that WiR is available 24/7 if they would like any virtual assistance. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick Moyes for reminding us of these. If you are interested in all the others this month, you can find most of them here. It's a good listing, as it starts with those today. Some of them also have meetup pages on Wikipedia. I've been in touch with many of the latter, drawing their attention to our agenda for Women's History Month and encouraging them to use our resources.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Eleonora Rossin at AfD

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This talented opera singer is obviously notable. She's covered in detail in two of the Italian sources. There must be many more in the Italian press.--Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I raised two questions on the article talk, Vienna State Opera and Abbado 2000 recording. Can't find any of it which makes me a bit suspicious. {{discogs artist}} has nothing about her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Her recordings are also mentioned here. But I must agree there does not seem to be much press coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure about the quality of that source. I added what I could find about recordings to external links, and told the main author to use inline citations, - which seems not understood. Perhaps you could convince him that it's absolutely necessary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned about the References - there are no inline citations, so that the nos. appear under References heading and the links under External links. Afraid I'm not in a position to fix this.--Oronsay (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
From the comments on the article's talk page, it looks as if this is a bogus article.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Already 75 new members of WiR this month

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

But many of them have never edited! See details here. It means we now have over 340 names on our mailing list and 281 on our official membership list.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

This is wonderful news, Ipigott. Thank you for maintaining these records. Really appreciate it! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_39&oldid=998549122"