Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/3

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3

Outcomes list

Wouldn't it be more useful to organize the Outcomes list alphabetically rather than strictly chronologically? I noticed that duplicates are starting to turn up as a result (e.g two entries for Margaret Fulton Spencer; I'll remove one of these). It looks like the plan may be to create sub-sections by date, to capture the day-by-day accomplishments, but I would still advocate for alphabetization within sections.Alafarge (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! Sionk (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: I think it is a matter of being practical. I find it much easier to add new articles to the top of the list (and I think others will too) and it is also much easier to review new articles from the top of the list rather than looking for editing changes. In any case, the List of women architects provides an alphabetical listing. I have been trying to include all recent additions there. It is not difficult to catch one or two duplications in the list of outcomes. The important thing is that there should be a clear record of what people have been adding, not just for statistics but above all to ensure that minimum quality standards are met.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, makes sense.Alafarge (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

List of women architects

Can I suggest that if-and-when anyone adds a new article to the List of women architects, they also remember to add it to the appropriate non-gendered list too. We don't want to contribute to the ghettoization of women on Wikipedia do we?! There are handy links to all of the national "Architects" lists at the bottom of List of architects.

Likewise it's good for a link to be added to the relevant "Surname (disambiguation)" page, otherwise those also end up mostly lists of men.Alafarge (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The same goes for Wikipedia's categories. As well as adding a category in the Category:Women architects tree, we need to make sure the article is in a non-gendered category too. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Sionk. I have been systematically adding articles on women architect's to Wikipedia:Architecture. I also think the most important WP for biographies is WP:WPBIO. In my opinion, WikiProjects Women and Women's history should only apply if other women projects have not already been added.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit, I have been remiss at this. I have managed to check every article created by anyone posted on the list for WikiProjects and add my own articles to the WIR metrics and the list Ian posted in our outcomes, but it had not occurred to me to post on a greater list of architects. Maybe at the end of the editathon we can go back and make sure all are added to both lists. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that some people have been confused (as I certainly have) by the difference between diffusing and non-diffusing categories here on Wikipedia and have chosen to treat most categories as diffusing by default. Most subcategories defined by gender should be non-diffusing subcategories, meaning the page should be placed in both the main category and the subcategory. Useful information here: Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization and here: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.Alafarge (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

I wanted to share an informal timeline of the pioneering women in American architecture I've been building in one of my sandboxes, just as a research aid. In case it's useful to anyone else: User:Alafarge/sandbox3.Alafarge (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Great work on American women architects. Maybe it would be useful to extend it to the rest of the world?--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent adjustments to the project page

I have been a bit confused by all the adjustments to the presentation of the main project page over the past 24 hours. I have now realized that the new list of "Articles to be created" is a mirror of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in architecture. After I introduced my latest adjustments to the list, I found they were reflected on the project page. I later discovered Pharos was upset I had been tidying up the earlier list of red links under the heading "Beverly Willis Architecture Foundation" but in fact most of the red links were a result of name variations and misspellings. I managed to sort them out by redirects and spelling corrections and then included the remainder in the alphabetical listing under "United States" with pertinent links. I think this type of presentation is much more useful for those embarking on new articles, whether in physical or virtual editathons. For those still interested in the Beverly Willis list, it is as follows:

• Ruth Adams
• Judith Chafee
• Jane West Clauss
• Lisl Scheu Close
• Mary Gannon
• Carolyn Geise - now in main list
• Elsa Gidoni
• Beverly Lorraine Greene - now in main list
• Alice Hands
• Sofia Hayden Bennett (should be Sophia Hayden Bennett
• Grace Jewett
• Sybil Moholy-Nagy (should be Sibyl Moholy-Nagy)
• Susan Maxman - now in main list
• Barbara Neski
• Hilde Reiss
• Lillian Rice (should be Lilian Rice)
• Isabel Robert (should be Isabel Roberts)
• Patricia Swan - now in main list
• Mariana van Rensselaer

I have also tried to tidy up the page presentation but agree it is now useful to have the Outcomes closer to the top.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Participants

I have been keeping a list of participants in this event. Most created new articles although some edited existing content. The ones labelled (new) seem to have attended the physical editathons and then disappeared. I don't know if there is any way we can encourage them to return. Many of those listed have become regular contributors to Women in Red and will certainly participate in future editathons. @Rosiestep: It might be useful to maintain a central list of participants (some of whom are not members of the project) but I don't know how and where this should be done. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Ipigott, I think that's a good idea. What about a subpage of Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Events, each event having its own section? There's a lot we could do with this information. We could work on developing relationships with the editors. We could see if there's cross-over between events. Also, it would give us a readily-available invitation list for future events. Perhaps Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Events/Participants or just Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Participants might be better. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparent 38% spike in Women architects on English Wikipedia

By a fairly guesstimating count based on categories, it looks like the total number of articles on Women architects has spiked 38%! (451=pre-event; 622= post-event; % Change = 38%). If someone could sanity-check this number, it may be a good metric to showcase for future Women in Red efforts, although maybe not replicable because our architecture biography coverage has been particularly minimal before this.--Pharos (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, taking out the three non-biographies, we still have an apparent 37% spike. Is anyone able to technically confirm this jump in Category:Women architects articles with tools / bots / coding magic?--Pharos (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Not ignoring you. Watching for comments. No skills with technical mumbojumbo SusunW (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Another watcher. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pharos: If you are interested, we had 389 blue links on the list of women architects before we started (I had fully updated the list by 6 October) and there are 537 today. That means there have been 148 new biographies. (Several of those in our list on the project page are simply upgrades.) As for the categories, I added many "women architects" myself when I discovered existing articles were not fully categorized. I also discovered there were a number of articles categorized as women architects which did not deserve to be included in the "list of women architects" as they essentially belonged to another profession (e.g. models, novel writers, sports). But the figures from the "list of women architects" also indicate an increase of 38%. So I think we can publicize this figure if it is useful to do so. @Missvain: has been adding data from the new biographies to WikiData. I don't know if there are any indications there yet.--Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also just seen that there are 1,384 names on the main List of architects. To have 537 biographies of women is therefore not at all bad. The only problem is that the "list of architects" has probably not been updated as consistently as the "list of women architects". Counts of architects by category are not reliable as many names are included in more than one category.--Ipigott (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

With some technical help from @Jeremyb: I believe we have a solid number: a 40% spike in September-October! (394=pre-event; 551= post-event; % Change = 39.85%). See details and chronology of all articles on the Quarry tool, and a fun historical fact - the first woman architect on English Wikipedia was apparently Maya Lin.--Pharos (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Could use some sanity checking both of query structure and also spot checking. one particular thing to check is someone that was deleted and restored (or history merged). not just deleted and recreated.

also we need to account for bias in cats. some may be in Architects and a Women cat but not in Women architects. --Jeremyb (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jeremyb: you make a good point about the cat check. @Pharos: has anyone reviewed all the articles in [[Category:Architects]] to see if there are any additional women's bio which might be missing [[Category:Women architects]]? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page template

There's now a talk page template {{WIR-A 2015}} which can be added to the talk pages of articles created for this editathon. PamD 16:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)