Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Assistance needed with our March Role Models meetup and online editathon

Latest comment: 7 years ago26 comments8 people in discussion

Interest has recently been building up on our innovative Women's History Month Role Models initiative. In collaboration with Carol Black of Newnham College, Cambridge, and thanks to Victuallers of WiR and the support of Charles Matthews of WMUK, momentum is growing on our objective of creating at least a thousand new biographies of notable women associated with women's colleges and universities worldwide. Our problem is that we have little Wikipedian contact with the institutions involved. These include (to name but a few):

Please help us to sensitize those associated with these and similar institutions, encouraging them to contribute to our ambitions for Women's History Month. Feel free to forward our invitation to as many potentially interested editors as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, Charles Matthews: Unless you would like to adapt the invitation or the editathon page, tomorrow I will send the invitation (more or less as above} to talk pages related to WikiProjects on Women and to any other contacts communicated to me.--Ipigott (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the invitation looks good, Ipigott. I am close to the University of Texas at El Paso which has some very notable women associated with the university. I can reach out to them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I like it, too. Regarding the new redlists ("by education"), which is a good idea, will they be added to our navbox so that they are visible to editors who land on our meetup pages? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Duly added. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: I really appreciate your support. And thanks for your Oxford correction, Tagishsimon, and all the other Wikidata lists. I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there are any further reactions, especially from Victuallers.

Can anyone contact any American Wikipedians attached to universities? Perhaps we can be assisted by Emily Temple-Wood, Johnbod, KellyDoyle, LauraHale, lirazelf, LoriLee, Pigsonthewing, Sadads, and Stinglehammer. Rosiestep is a little concerned that with the emphasis on Cambridge, the Americans might be under-represented. I'm looking for volunteers to keep the Stars and Stripes flying on this one too.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott, oops, you're confusing me with someone else as I said the opposite on your talkpage and Roger's: "But certainly, we need to be inclusive of all continents (e.g. avoid UK/US content gender gap systemic bias), so I hope the plan is to include redlists based on some of these schools, Category:Women's universities and colleges too." --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

You might use the WP:WIR twitter account to tweet each college, one by one, if there's a suitable landing page to which you could direct their attention? Might get a retweet and find people that way? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I knew some of the guys who were behind Twitter in 2005 and joined the beta shortly after it started but have hardly tweeted since. I simply do not have time to spend on the social networks. But if you, Victuallers or anyone else would like to take this on, it might get people interested. For now, I'll try to draw on traditional Wikipedia channels. They've actually provided a pretty good level of support over the years.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott: Do we have a landing page, or, put another way, what is the proprosition we wish to put to these people and have we documented it somewhere that we can point them to? I can draw up a list of twitter addresses; whoever has the keys to the WiR twitter account can tweet. Sounds doable. Who has the keys? Roger? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just noticed this one. Yes, I agree that Roger is Tweeter in Chief and could follow up on your suggestion.--Ipigott (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not far from Smith and Mount Holyoke -- and would be happy to support one of them if they are interested in hosting an event or participating. I don't know anyone at either of them. @Pharos: might have connections via Art+Feminism Sadads (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I have a contact at William & Mary, but she's unavailable until next week. Wikimedia DC can probably generate some interest at local schools, too. What about University of Maryland? I know there are contacts there, also. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offers, Sadads and Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I'm not suggesting they should host meetups but it would be useful if they could participate and let us know of red links which should be filled. Maryland sounds good.--Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll see one or two of my contacts at choir rehearsal tonight - I can ask. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Every little helps. "Tout commence par des chansons" (to coin a phrase).--Ipigott (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wooo! lots of promising comments here. I will get busy on Tweeting, but I have also put an invitation at "wikiproject universities" and the talk page of every uni we identified above. (Sorry made one up) Thanks to Ian for being bold and just doing it! I think one of the lures may be the lists that Simon and Charles have created. Is it possible to add a few more under a sub title on the editathon page so that others may be tempted to ask for a list for their favourite Uni? Victuallers (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Victuallers: Thanks for sending out invitations to all those universities. I'll also send them out now to a number of other talk pages. The problem with the Wikidata red links is that apart from the non-English-speaking universities, the red links are unlikely to be useful for people working on the EN wiki as there are no Wikidata entries in the other languages which have not already been covered by articles in English. I've linked to the list on Barcelona as it seems to be one of your contacts.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally yes - but the redlinks that Simon created have ODNB reference numbers which means that there is a good biog available and notability is fairly assured too. I did adjust the invite as it appeared that it was women's colleges only - which today in the UK are very rare. Historically that is where role models came from as it was your only choice on UK etc. Now that is not the case in 1st world, but not sure about all countries. Newnham are inviting 30 colleges to editathon and NOW only one is women only but there were a few more. Victuallers (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pssst, you are forgetting Murray Edwards College, Cambridge. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, Charles Matthews Oh dear - I realise my answer above is not only Anglocentric it ignores other languages... sorry. Tagishsimon's list for the University of Barcelona highlights this. These alumni are mainly in Spanish or Catalan, occasionally English and other languages. They are unlikely to be in the ODNB. The only was to approach them is to look at the wikipedia entry and then look to see what other languages are available. I see that we have an Oxford College but it only has one entry. Is there a solution to the translation problem? could we have a column with "en,es,ca" in it? Victuallers (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Victuallers, would the Wikidata redlists of biographies by educational institute be helpful? Some/all were created by Tagishsimon, and they're viewable in our navbox. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm grokking that Roger wants lists like the 'by education' lists, but (for non-UK people) minus the ODNB column, and plus a column which indicates & ideally links to other language wikipedia articles on the person. I've not got around to figuring out how to deliver that. Right now I can, for instance, filter a list of Spanish redlinks to include only those with an es.wiki article ... but that's not ideal. I'll see if I can get advice from the wikidata Request a Query page. If not, I can for sure create lists showing that for these redlinks, there is an article on another wiki (which can be accessed via the wikidata link). --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm very pleased with stuff so far though. I just feel that Brits have ODNB and the rest of the world need a similar first guess at how to start an new article. Victuallers (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Victuallers Tagishsimon It looks to me as if the lists of Wikidata redlinks are sufficiently developed as they are. It would probably be a never-ending project to tailor them for each institution and each language group. I have seen how the Germans have adapted lists of red links for the German-speakers and I expect others can do the same for other languages. As far as I can remember, we have never had such a comprehensive list of red links for any previous editathon. It looks to me as if any further work on red links should be based on the crowd-sourced approach under which editors could add names of successful women attached to specific institutions who have not yet been the subject of a Wikipedia article. Let's see if there are any developments along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just going from "the red links are unlikely to be useful for people working on the EN wiki as there are no Wikidata entries in the other languages which have not already been covered by articles in English". As I said I'm "I'm very pleased with stuff so far". It really is a great set of lists. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon
Facilitated by Women in Red
Help us to spread the news

8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University
Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all
Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions
Inform your communities of the need for their support.
Contribute in English or in your own language

Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

These editathons are welcome, but need to be conducted with discretion if they are to avoid the over-enthusiastic mistakes of Wikipedia:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina which did such harm to the reputation of women's editing on Wikipedia. There are simple ways to keep out of trouble: 1. Don't write about yourself, your friends or your institution; if these are notable enough somebody else will do that. If you are editing under an institutional banner, your edits may reflect upon your institution. 2. Concentrate on quality not quantity. A flood of substandard articles creates work for other editors. 3. Remember that BLPs of early career academics are rarely found to be notable under WP:Prof, except in exceptional circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Proposed design re-vamp

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

This is long overdue, but here is what I would like to propose regarding the design:

Make the introduction dramatically shorter. It should be approximately one sentence, with a link out to an "About Us" subpage.
Move extended introduction, press, and research sections to About Us page.
Make the tasks section link out to subpages representing high level sections. The idea is that it starts off as a high level directory with a few options (by occupation, by country, by institution, etc.), and then you get more detail the deeper into the directory you go. This keeps the main page very simple to navigate.
Reduce the showcase to just high level numbers, with links out to details. Such that when you scroll down to the showcase section, you let the numbers speak for themselves. We could also consider combining it with the Metrics section.

The goal is to make the landing page very simple and easy to interact with while managing information overload. I'm ready to move quickly on this, but I want sign-off from the other members before making huge changes. Rosiestep, Ipigott, what do you think? Harej (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Harej for getting back to us on this: The main problem for me at the moment is that the icons do not appear until you scroll down the page. A major improvement would be to move them to the top where they can be seen and used from the start in the same way as we now have clickables at the top of our editathon pages. We used to have a much shorter introduction but some of us felt it was important to outline our basic strategy so that those new to the project could see our priorities. I'm not sure many people would take the trouble to go into "About us" and if they did it would already have taken them away from the main page. Press and research could probably be moved to separate pages provided there are links from the main page.

What bothers me is that in contrast to the main page, we are able to change the look and the formats of most of our other pages, especially the editathon pages, as we wish. Indeed, I think the "new look" resulting from Rosie's adjustments makes things more attractive and more dynamic. But the same colour schemes, boxes, etc., cannot be reproduced on the main page as it is out of our control. There are however two aspects of the main page which many of us would like to maintain: the user registration and maintenance, and the metrics. I was wondering if it would be possible to deal with these as separate module pages which we could place on the main page wherever we wish as it evolves. Even if you undertake some of the work you propose above, we are likely once again to be constrained to work within an unadjustable straightjacket. I've always found that one of the main attractions of Wikipedia is that with experience most editors are able to create and adjust formatting changes, adding new features they discover elsewhere. It would be great if we had the same freedom on Women in Red as it grows increasingly popular. I have not answered all your points in detail as I think it is important for you to understand some of the reasons behind our wishes to make general changes. But this is also an excellent opportunity to hear from others, especially those who like your proposals. It would be good if we could sort things out within the next few days as the main page is likely to be accessed frequently throughout Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm nearly always in favour of shortening the message and decreasing the difficulty of making changes when we want to. Twitter allows us about 20 words to say who we are. Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Victuallers. Short and sweet is good. There can be links/tabs to go into further detail. I agree that Rosiestep's new look has been good at accomplishing a lot of that. It's easier to find templates, for example, on the editathon pages. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. As a non-techie, simpler is far better. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for circling back, Harej. The re-design should support/promote: (1) our community, (2) our work, (3) project administration. The cleaner the look, the easier the maintenance, and the easier it will be to zig/zag as we grow, the better.

Mainpage. Agree with above comments from others re shorten the description succinct; retain Members and External Links; move icons/tabs across the top.
High-level-subpages: About Us (to include Announcements, Press, Research, Resources). Project Administration which will be a directory for items which are in the bottom rows of the navbox {{tl|Women in Red}}. Tasks (needs to be renamed Worklists or Redlists or?), Events, Metrics, Showcase.
Addressing your comments regarding Tasks and Showcase, just include icons on the mainpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Harej: I can go along with all these suggestions. I am happy to see there is general agreement on the need for simplification. It would also be good to have more extensive editing possibilities so that we can make changes without having to bother Project X. It would be great if we could move things around a bit more easily, change the colour schemes, add or reomve icons, etc. But if this proves too difficult, then let's just have a simplified page on the basis of the comments above.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured list candidate: Feedback requested

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach is currently a featured list candidate seeking additional feedback before it can be passed. All of the previously submitted comments for improvement have been incorporated. Please consider taking a look and adding a comment of support (or suggestions for improvement) to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1 so the review can be completed. Thanks.Hmlarson (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmlarson: Good to see you are helping to have another article on a woman promoted to FA. Unfortunately I am not at all familiar with the conditions for assessing article on soccer, even less lists. The first thing that struck me towards the beginning of the lead was the assertion that Wambach made "255 appearances for the senior national team" and "scored 184 goals". I see that Ref 2 informs us that she broke the record when she reached 159 goals on 20 June 2013 after participating in 207 games. And I see the table documents 184 goals by 19 August 2015. It would nevertheless be useful to have a source for this figure too. And I can't see where the figure of 255 appearances is sourced. I might well be off-target with these comments which is why I have made them here rather than on the FA review.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just seen there is no source for the last statement in the second paragraph. There is a risk this could be interpreted as original research.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Ipigott! I've added references for those issues. I am also new to this area - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Fernando Torres/archive1 is another example of comments from other editors. Thanks again. Hmlarson (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For anyone willing + able, this is the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Hmlarson (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Markopoulos

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Critic, writer and curator Leigh Markopoulos has just died. Quickly looking over her bio I believe she would pass WP:GNG, sadly not during her lifetime. I haven't the time today to attempt it but if someone is feeling energetic that would be a good addition. freshacconci talk to me 20:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Estelle Lazer

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Estelle Lazer is up for deletion. 104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Evita Robinson deletion- Black history month

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It's worth noting that the Evita Robinson article referred to at the top of the previous section was deleted at AfD, not by CSD. The same editor had also created Lindsey Day which was declined at AfC and an hour later moved into mainspace by a different editor who noted "four news profiles about the subject of the article appear to confer sufficient notability" - perhaps one of those had been added since the AfC decline, but only one as far as I can see. It must be dispiriting to come to an editathon and get your work rejected like this. PamD 09:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A look at the AfD debate [1] shows that the article was almost unanimously felt to be dire, only one editor thought it might be improved. The evidence suggests that the deletion was not unreasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC).

This is already a pretty long thread but I really feel the last comment deserves a response. It seems to me we are dangerously close to ignoring emerging trends in the way news and items of interest are communicated. Much has been written about Trump's use of Twitter but when a Black woman is recognized in a host of blogs and internet media, the sources are simply ruled out as unacceptable. It might be sensible to take a new look at what justifies notability in today's world. Is it more important to have a few lines in a local newspaper or a biographical dictionary or dozens of reports in new media sources consulted by millions? Here we seem to be discussing a borderline case but it is becoming increasingly difficult to include the biographies of contemporary African and Asian women on the EN Wiki, even if they are covered on the new media. It much easier to write about them on wikis in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"only one editor thought it might be improved." The editor was Montanabw who has 55 GA and FAs to her name, and made over 72,000 edits. She offered links and suggestions on how the article could be improved but was shouted down by eight editors experienced in policy- but full of negativity. It is worth looking at this AfD to see what is going wrong with AfD. There was no consensus established- I can't explain the theory of consensus to an audience and then justify that. ClemRutter (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Unger

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Unger --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have looked over GeoffreyT2000's recent editing history. He has listed several article for deletion which received unanimous "keeps". This is wasting everyone's time and upsetting a number of article creators.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

And since losing these he seems to have switched to speedy deletion noms, which go through in the blink of an eye. Someone with admin rights should check these out. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me find a list of his speedy nominations? I'll give it a once-over, but I might not be the best person to do so. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I just look at his user contributions, where already deleted one stand out in red. There may be another way for admins. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

That's...er, that's what I did, too, actually. I looked at one or two, and they might have passed muster as deletion - I'm no good when it comes to determining notability of academics. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

See also User:GeoffreyT2000/CSD log available to everyone . DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

A new dictionary

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Gobonobo/Gender Gap red list/Feminists Who Changed America. 103.6.159.71 (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Feminists Who Changed America; also, added link to it on the WiR navbox and the #37 meetup page. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable Hispanic American Women

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Another source which I've turned up - it may be found here. Looks to be potentially quite useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm adding this source to the ideas board where I have proposed an editathon on Latinas for September. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The occupation list is actually quite valuable, vs. just alpha. Is there an easy way of creating a WiR redlist, short of retyping? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Swiss women

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Switzerland is bare-bones list. A much detailed wikidata list (split into sections by occupation) exists at User:Magnus Manske/Swiss Women in Red. Should it be moved here? Also pinging Magnus Manske. 103.6.159.88 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us on this. It is indeed a far better list. I like the breakdown under different headings. If Magnus Manske is happy about moving it, then I think it should replace the current list. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl can sort out the present list which appears to be crowd sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Magnus Manske: If I remember correctly, we put together the list from a source given to us from a member of the French-language wiki project. Most of them are feminists, if I remember correctly. Personally, I like keeping the crowd-sourced and the wiki-data lists separate. They serve different purposes and pull from different sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Or, instead of moving, can we recreate as a WiR Wikidata-generated redlist? cc: Magnus Manske --Rosiestep (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've amended our Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Switzerland such that it is a wikidata-generated page, per (I hope) all of the others in /Missing articles by nationality/ ... this means that the by-hand list is currently languishing in the history of that page here. We need to decide what to do with it. Some comments:

I've not used Magnus' list, though I learned from it ... section=106, which refers to wikidata's P106 Occuption property, was the means of splitting the data into multiple tables. I've added P106 Occupation as a column. The advantage of a single table is that it can be sorted on any of the columns; someone wanting to look at Swiss women by date will have problems with the Magnus list.
But: all other of our /Missing articles by nationality/ wikidata lists lack the occupation column: that needs to be added to each & every one of them, something I'll get around to doing.
We also have some hand-coded 'by nationality' pages, but I suspect they're not well supported by our navigation pages. So, for instance, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Nigeria (both by-hand lists) which I think are not linked to from the WiR template, nor from the newly revamped Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists. As I cannot find navigation to them, I don't know how many other such pages we have.
We can easily list wikidata and by-hand 'by nationality' lists from the WiR template and from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By nationality, and probably should: but that's a job for tomorrow (as is rescuing the Swiss now residing in history). Which means you good folk have 20 hours or so before I play again, giving you time to make any comment here (are there more by-hand by nationality lists?), or to take matters into your own hands before my return. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I added the by-hand Swiss list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality, which seems to be the centralised place for all by-hand nationality lists. 103.6.159.88 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems with edit-a-thons

Latest comment: 7 years ago28 comments11 people in discussion

I completely understand your situation. I recently hosted a Wikipedia edit-a-thon for Black History Month, and we got several new editors involved in adding to and creating pages. A handful of new articles were immediately flagged for deletion, one of which was deleted within days despite the hours of hard work a new editor put into the article. The article was written by a woman on Evita Robinson, a black female who had been mentioned in multiple major media outlets for her business endeavors and for her place in the urban travel movement. I was very disappointed with this because of how discouraging such actions can be, particularly for new users. PersnicketyPaul (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@PersnicketyPaul: But why didn't you defend the article at AfD? Surely you were only encouraging your editathon attendees to create articles which you believed to be Notable, so you must have had points you could have made in that discussion to try to avoid deletion? Or, as part of hosting the editathon, did you cast an eye over the articles they'd created and do any necessary cleanup (eg toning down of promotionalism) to help ensure the survival of the articles? PamD 22:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@PersnicketyPaul: Googling around I've found several refs which might form the basis of a solid stub: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/travel/black-travel-noire-nomadness.html?_r=0 https://skift.com/2017/01/30/travel-megatrends-2017-this-is-the-year-of-the-modern-female-traveler/ http://www.theroot.com/the-black-women-of-new-orleans-have-spoken-the-roots-y-1791945http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/15/africa/black-travel-discriminatory/165 , if your attendee wanted to give it another shot - though obviously I can't see the deleted article so don't know what sources it included. PamD 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Pam, Thank you so much for addressing this issue. I'm still not too familiar with the AfD process and didn't realize I could defend the article myself, but I will definitely keep this in mind for the future. I will also consider advising contributors to use their sandbox for article creation until they are up to standard. I agree that there are sufficient sources on Evita Robinson and will attempt to rebuild the article. PersnicketyPaul (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @PersnicketyPaul: That's interesting, and suggests that there's a real need for more guidance for people running Editathons. Speaking with almost zero experience of such events, I'd think that it would be good practice for the organiser to add all the resulting articles to their watchlist (sharing this with a team of experienced editors if it's a prolific event) so that they can monitor any subsequent edits - could be useful improvements with lessons to learn, or CSD / PROD / AfD nominations, or conversion to redirect (which is a subtle form of near-deletion), or merge proposals if it turns out there's already a near-identical article, etc. The organiser could then intervene where appropriate. Perhaps it should be agreed that organisers of Editathons for newbie editors have some sort of a "duty of care" for a while afterwards, to avoid those editors being discouraged by trigger-happy deletionists etc while they're still travelling home from the session! Or does such guidance already exist but isn't in an obvious-enough place to be found and read by all its target audience of Editathon organisers? I don't know. PamD 08:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@PamD:, I completely agree and I'll definitely keep this in mind for our upcoming edit-a-thon events. I had actually put the articles created from the edit-a-thon on my Watchlist and fixed them up so they wouldn't cause any additional issues, but I suppose that wasn't enough. Next time around, I'll be sure to focus on developing articles within a Sandbox space and only creating pages when they're 100% ready.

Pam, I have recreated the article for Evita Robinson as part of another edit-a-thon I've managed, and since it has been speedily deleted before, it has been marked for deletion immediately once again. This time around, I did contest the deletion and left a reply on the user page of the administrator who has tagged the page for deletion. I used several of the sources you listed above, in addition to others. I just wanted to thank you again for your prior support and guidance with this issue, and I also wanted to see whether you'd be able to weigh in on this page if you find it necessary.

A trick that might reduce premature deletions is for members of an editathon to first prepare articles in their sandbox. The article would be put on-line only when the convenor and other members felt it was ready to go. This would spread responsibility more widely. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

There are three things going on this thread

Advising newbies on how make themselves less vunerable
Advising Editathon Organisers on how to change procedures to minimise the attacks
How to stop the aggressors in their tracks

What a state of affairs. We all have a very enjoyable time cooperating and building an encyclopedia, but our editcount has given us a certain immunity. We have to stop the aggressors in their tracks. Like dung beetles the aggressors do a valuable job and they are convinced they are right because they are following all the rules. They are following all the rules but psychologically are incapable of factoring in human emotions. Call it wikiautism if you like.

We can only change their behaviour by rewriting the rules they assiduously follow- as we are never going to persuade them to be less aggressive. Take for example WP:ACSDspeedy delete of articles: These rationale have the code numbers A1...A10. They are open to abuse because we haven't made it clear that these rationale can only be used if and when it is clear that is the author not a newbie struggling to master editing. I propose we actual write that in the policyWP:SPEEDY.

The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here.

should become:

The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here.
Speedy deletion can only occur when the administrator has checked that the author is not a new editor struggling to make their first edits. Speedy deletion cannot happen if a registered-editor has created less than 5 articles or has an edit count of less than a 50, In those cases an encouraging advice template devoid of threats should be left on their talk page, and the full deletion process used instead.

That will be the backstop position. Any user can summon up a speedy deletion by using the A1..A10 tags. WP:ACSD There is currently no preamble to these. I suggest we provide one to explain to our aggressors the presumed limitations on these

Articles Wikipedians support new users, endeavouring to make them comfortable while they are gaining the basic skills, thus the article criteria below can only be used when the author has already created 5 articles of any length and they have made over 50 edits. The full deletion procedure will also be inappropriate.

I write that as an example- but advice must be given to the overworked administrator, and the frustrated aggressor. details and numbers and terminology is all open to discussion. I just want to extinguish the fire not treat the burn victims afterward. ClemRutter (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Though I agree that we need to change current edit-a-thon procedures, I object to calling deletionists "dung beetles" unless, ClemRutter, you are willing to verify that everything currently produced by so-called edit-a-thons is better than "dung". The main problem here as I see it, is that most people have come to associate the word "edit-a-thon" with "introduction to Wikipedia", which it certainly isn't. I see that the term doesn't appear to be bluelinked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/36. Such a "female bio editathon" page with general advice and a talkpage (split perhaps by popular occupations) could be very helpful to us in March for all sorts of things. Jane (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am rather fond of dung beetles and their positive contributions. I keep my opinions to my self on the value of a whole range of topics :- though sport and entertainment do seem to be important to some while passing me by. I would still be willing to train at one of their dedicated edit-athons. I am like all other editors in this cooperative voluntary project.

So focussing on the issue- we are spending an inordinate amount of time on trying to persuade shy folk to become contributing editors. Their first tentative edits are often dire but valuable in that it helps to build up their confidence. Assume good faith. is relevant here. With a few positive comments from the community- they learn. Forming storming, norming, performing describes the process they will pass through. So I have written a proposal- you have read it and agree that something needs to be done. Others have also read it but just don't understand the problem- and predicably defend their corner.

When training at an editathon far too much time is spent on discussing ways to protect the editor first article. Many students wont contribute as they have heard that their work may be deleted of the syntax is too hard, many of the trainees at institutional events are there because they need to understand the system that some of their staff use. It really is an exercise in persuasion. So we do need to have the admins and speedies on board.

Training is a small part of the edit-athon. I do it, as a retired teacher I am familiar with the learning process. There is a lot to get through- far too much for the average participant to absorb in a 2hr session, training is very different from reading bullet points at a lecture. Teaching at a training session is on an even higher plane. Trainers need simple rules to guide their tutees though the Scylla and Charybdis of getting their first articles accepted. It is a brilliant idea to put together "a female bio editathon". Can I suggest that you start one right now at WikiProject_Women_in_Red/female bio editathon advice. I'll be at Cambridge and I have on User:ClemRutter/training links to booklets I have produced for other training sessions, and I am proposing to add some advices page as a preface to Wellcome Library:Creating an Article- traditionally and with Visual Editor
(16 pages). I really don't have the experience to produce them myself though (hint).

Done. Jane (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

In wikipedia we work together. So, if the system I have suggested above is too radical- what is a better way? The problem basically is that a group of us are being undermined by a group of loyal wikipedians that refuse to address the problem- and oppose any attempt to be constructive. Can I ask them what do we have to do at an edit-athon training session to alert them that our particular editors should not be zapped until they have enough experience to do it 'correctly'? ClemRutter (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The proposal would have the undesirable feature that any newbie (paid editor, promotionalist, POV warrior) with less than 5 articles would have them remain in Wikipedia for ever, even though they might be junk, and then move on to a new account or username and repeat the process ad infinitum. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Tweak the wording- I don't propose to enter the dots and commas game. I am happy to imagine that as soon as one of our less valued contributors has passed the threshold he is then 'in play' and can be retroactively zapped. If you suspect that the editor wears multiple socks- then do the count across all known accounts and use full Delete procedure.

Assume good faith. is relevant here. ClemRutter (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that one of the problems is that a considerable number of article reviewers have been recruited recently. They are constantly being urged to work faster and review up to 20 articles each and every day. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many assign tags without sufficient care, encouraging undue deletion. I am equally concerned about new editors who have reasonable drafts refused time and time again. I agree with those who think we need to change the rules, especially for articles written by newbies.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

- If you are going to propose this, I think it would only make sense for this to apply only to A7, as there already is some feeling that deletion on these should not be immediate. Surely you don't mean this to apply to empty or indecipherable articles, vandalism, or schoolchild pranks. I'd also suggest i makes much more sense to apply it to first article not first five articles. After the first article people should learn; and if we are going to tolerate needing to use one cumbersome process to remove a first utterly unacceptable article, it is making things worse yet to have to do it four more times. But even if modified, I think any of us who have actually been working at screening new articles would think it very counterproductive; it is detrimental—not helpful—to new editors, for them to continue to submit questionable articles.

Altogether, I think this is not a good idea--. The new page editors are not newly arrived--they are mostly people who have been doing it all along; the change was to remove those without sufficient experience to do it right. They have more roles than to mark articles for deletion--they also indicate which are basically acceptable, and mark what needs improvement. They are already supposed ot know which ones can be deleted by speedy, and which need Prod or AfD--the choice is not between keep/speedy delete --rather, the role of speedy is to quickly indicate the hopeless. There are errors, but they are much less than they used to be. When I started working with new articles 8 years ago, I estimated there were about 10% errors (in each direction); now, I think it's less than half that. 5% error is as good as can be expected from a process here. eight years ago there were a number of stubborn admins who deleted single-handed, apparently under the assumption that they would make no errors. I don't think there is any admin doing that any more, except for the most harmful material. So a speedy A7 means not just the opinion of a patroller, but of two people, one of whom at least is supposed by the community to know what they're doing. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No I am not going to propose it- I have left it here for discussion, and then if it gains consensus I would expect one of our wikiwonks to take it through the process of ammending the document- as this is an area within which they excel. I would prefer them to identify any sticking points now, and revise the idea here so when it is proposed it passes nem. con.. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with operating like a police state is that it creates fear and a perception, whether real or imagined that the authorities have run amuck. A teaching environment nourishes talent and trains people by example, in how to do things. It seems quite apparent that all the focus on policing of WP has created the environment which WikiMedia foundation has recognized is a problem. The entire deletion program needs a thorough review, as does AfC. Both are horribly broken. When one doesn't recognize the national award for a field as sufficient notoriety or more than twenty articles on a subject which are solely about that subject as sufficient, we clearly have issues. (Both examples from a real situation experienced by a recent new editor.) But the bigger problem is that those self-same people will never vote for a change of the status quo. It is like being forced to rely on Congress to pass law limiting their own terms, not going to happen. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

SusunW, a process which depends on the agreement of whoever is interested in participating in the decision is not the methods of a police state. We could, of course, come closer to anarchy and accept any article that anyone wanted to write--and such sites do exist. Unless you are arguing that an encyclopedia such as WP ought to worrk in that fashion, what basis other than consensus do you propose? Anything else would be more authoritarian. We are in WP not even subject to hte "tyranny of the majority", because each individual decision needs to be justified independently, and we have a fundamental rule , WP:IAR, that can be used whenever there is agreement to use it.

I hope you are not saying that only decisions that you agree with are justified. That would be the opposite of rational group process, for every individual one of us could say the same, and we would all disagree with each other. Rather, in working as a voluntary community, one has to accept the fundamental basis of decision of that community. (I was a member of an enyclopedia-producing community which used quite other rules, decisions by whoever was considered by the community founder to be best qualified (Citizendium), and those decisions were so utterly unsatisfactory that I and almost everyone else ceased to participate.)

As we all have different ideas of what should be in the encyclopedia , the proper way for making decisions is to tolerate each other. And we do indeed do that: I wish to see inclusive standards in my field of interest, and I support others in theirs even where I think the material totally useless. We do not accept all the articles you might want us to accept, but we accept the great majority of them--almost nobody here will argue against the consistent rational approach of those interested in a subject.

There will always be borderline articles. When there's one in my fields of interest, I will defend it if it is at all defensible, but I will not be much concerned in the decision is otherwise. I know --and you know also, as the excellent articles you write demonstrate--that the best way of overcoming opposition is to write articles so good that no reasonable opposition can be sustained. And I know that sometimes in my own areas articles I think obviously acceptable will not be accepted--indeed, that was the case with some of the first articles I wrote. Our process, whatever its merits, is admittedly erratic, and errors are made. The only approach to this that seems reasonable to me is to take the long term view, and try again a few years later-- and to focus on owns successes, not on the failures. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

DGG I could care less if my opinions/decisions/actions are agreed with or not. My purpose is to build an encyclopedia. I am not remotely interested in creating bad content, poorly sourced articles, articles on people/things which do not contribute to the greater society. (I also am incapable of producing stubs, as I have only managed to do that a handful of times.) But, I realize that most aren't here to do that. The majority of articles are begun as stubs. The majority of people who participate do not create and a large majority of those, like to tell others what to do. "I don't like it, YOU fix it" is a predominant attitude on here. I also don't know that we actually disagree on what should be in an encyclopedia, except for your insistence that secondary notability guidelines take precedence over GNG and your slight tendency towards elitism. I tend to believe that anything which has been broadly written about or acclaimed has a place, even if my personal opinion is that it is fluff and I would not personally write about it/them.

"a process which depends on the agreement of whoever is interested in participating in the decision is not the methods of a police state" sounds logical, except that it isn't. It is mob rule and a large part of that mob, are interested in controlling others. Criteria for admin weighs participation in AfD but not creation or even real administrative ability, simply a !vote of whether the mob wants this person, regardless of their skill. I have actually analyzed the participants in a wide number of AfDs. The general profile of those voting to delete is that they have been editing 5-10+ years and have written less than 10 articles. Thus, it is clearly obvious that their purpose is not to build an encyclopedia, but to eliminate content. Then there is the whole put a tag on it for someone else to fix crew. Rather than address what concerns them, which often eludes the creator, they slap a tag on it and move on. AfC, which should be a place to help new editors, routinely sends files back with the vague notations "notability is not verified", "insufficient reliable sources". To a new editor, this means very little. What kind of venue, designed to help new editors communicates so poorly? We lack an actual training venue and the will to make it easier to edit just seems not to exist. Any proposal to change the sacred texts of rules, or even modify them, as far as I can tell, is swamped by the usual mob of naysayers. Thank goodness for havens like WiR, where we actually try to help editors learn the ropes and create content. Even here we don't always agree on the path—but we do attempt to encourage, rather than discourage participation. SusunW (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the old problem of deletionism. Nobody is safe from this as Jimmy Wales found some years ago – see "Delete generation rips encyclopedia apart". Changes of leadership since then haven't done much to change this – I recall Sue Gardner telling of her exasperation that an article about a Canadian novelist should have been deleted. More recently, I attended an editathon at the Wiener Library where there was a comedy of errors as the trainer tried to delete one of my articles and was then blocked for his trouble. Up in Scotland, an intern at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh has been driven off by aggressive biting and so I recently rescued their respectable articles like John Clerk (physician). Currently, I'm dealing with a deletion spree against topics created by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Museo Galileo. The person doing this seems to be a school child in India – a remarkable clash of cultures and generations.

Wikipedia continues to get a bad press about this systemic hostility – from "Decline to Wikipedia" to "Wiki Wars" to ""40% of Wikipedia is under threat from deletionists". Is there an answer to this long-standing problem? At an education conference last week, the keynote speaker, Melissa Highton suggested that "you need Wikimedians to protect you against Wikimedians". She was talking about Wikimedians in Residence but there are still some general inclusionists like myself left too. The Article Rescue Squadron was set up to help in such cases. It's rather moribund now but the framework is still there and so may be able to help. Nicholson Baker wrote a good account of its heyday in The Guardian.

Andrew D. (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson: Have you actually looked at the rubbish produced by the Wikimedian in Residence at Museo Galileo? Articles on specific objects in that museum with no regard to anything outside its walls, biographical articles saying "nothing much is known about", etc. Some are salvageable - see John Cuff (optician), on which I worked last night. See User_talk:Archeologo_(Museo_Galileo), User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#Second_eyes....I.27m_back...., and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science. PamD 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand I quite agree that the PROD on John Clerk (physician) was ridiculous - a couple of {{cn}} tags would have been a better response, and it didn't take much Googling to find http://www.electricscotland.com/history/nation/clerk.htm. Some NPP-ers are certainly getting it wrong. PamD 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I have looked at some of these articles. They are half-baked but that is to be expected for such new work. Our editing policy states clearly that "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." What we need is more collaboration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

But no "Wikipedian in Residence" ought to have been producing so many totally substandard stubs, expecting the rest of us to clean up after his (presumably paid) work. Change of topic: I thought RCPE rang a bell - I helped out on Isabella Pringle a few days ago (I always stub-sort stubs filing under "P", and do more work on them if they catch my attention: woman, UK, yes), though again there should be some training so that someone in a "Wikipedia intern" post understands how to cite references properly etc. PamD 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I came across the Museo Galileo articles also, and have been led here. It looks as if some of the stubs could be made into articles - with a lot of work, total rewording from direct-copyvio-except-that-there-are-OTRS-tickets to something like Wikipedia's style, repurposing as more general articles (e.g. one of Galileo's microscopes -> All of Galileo's microscopy, quite a jump), all the wikilinks, probably new titles, and (yes) all the citations. In short, they are dreadful stubs of the grandad's axe variety (needs a new handle, and a new axehead, but otherwise perfectly serviceable). I have no idea as to how the museum guy was or wasn't supervised, but the result is a demonstration of what not to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think it is a great pity that new biographies, often BLPs, have now become the traditional and expected product for editathons; as shown by the name of this Wikiproject. These are notoriously the most difficult way to start editing WP. Quite often the people running editathons are insufficiently experienced themselves to give realistic advice as to notability, and the level of sourcing needed. They should really be doing a basic notability and sourcing check to head off starts that are not likely to persist. Really, it is better to start people off improving existing articles that it is easier to find sourcing for. Their work is also likely to be more widely seen like that too. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod Maybe you should familiarize yourself with our project, as your comments are off the mark for WiR's editathons. In one of our most recent events for Black Women, a multitude of biographies on 19th-century women were produced. The goal of this project is to create biographies on women and their works, i.e. books, paintings, businesses, schools, whatever. We neither focus on living women (any woman or creation of women, any time period are our focus), nor existing articles (though we do routinely upgrade articles if they fall within a given month's topic), as those are not within our scope. Our redlists also typically provide links for verifying notability. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar enough, thank you, and have been in this game rather longer than you. And you have not read my comment very carefully. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Johnbod and SusunW: I'm afraid there is something of a misunderstanding here. Susun is simply pointing out that we have in fact succeeded in having many good new biographies created by new or relatively new editors during our editathons. We try to provide as much help and encouragement as possible in mentoring them. In many cases, we have been specifically invited to help with women's coverage in certain areas. It should also be noted that we do not only encourage articles on women but also on women's works, organizations, etc. I agree though with you, Johnbod, that it is not particularly easy to embark on biographies, especially BLPs. But that is the challenge we have decided to take up. I should also point out that many of our new editors start by editing existing articles rather than writing new ones. It will be interesting to see how all this comes together during Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons category for our images

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Curiosity, by Henriette Ronner-Knip

Would it make sense to have a Commons category for images uploaded to Commons and used for WiR events? We have event templates we add on article talkpages if the article was created during a WiR event... so something to mirror that, except we wouldn't necessarily need a unique category on Commons for each WiR event. I know I could populate it with a lot of images. Maybe others, too? Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There is this one: c:Category:ArtAndFeminism 2017 Jane (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jane023, Pagestalkers: are you ok with the idea with creating this category c:Category:Women in Red 2017 and adding it to images associated with 2017 WiR articles? Also, maybe this isn't the best category name; other options? (cc: Victuallers) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Noted - good idea Victuallers (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I created it and filed it under c:Category:Women in Red. Just like on Wikipedia, you cannot create empty categories on Commons, so I put a kitten in it for you. Please note you can navigate category trees on Commons just as with any otherr wiki project. Jane (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I think we need to give more careful attention to this. There must be thousands of images created in connection with our articles over the past two years. The category "Women in Red", first created by Rosie two years ago and then deleted, does not give any indication that it is related to a Wikipedia project. In fact it is a subcategory of "Red clothing, female". We obviously need something specifically related to Wikipedia projects. Commons cat "Category:ArtAndFeminism" is specifically related to editathons, etc. So perhaps we could have "WomeninRed" and "WomeninRed 2017"? But even then, one category for all our images seems to me to be a bit simplistic. We might like to have subcats by editathons or by areas of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The other one (c:Category:ArtAndFeminism 2017) seems to be just for special images created for invitations etc, rather than any images uploaded to use in articles etc. I presume what was intended was similar - I don't see the point of the 2nd type. So it would be quite small and manageable. Such categories should perhaps be hidden ones. I see Category:WikiProject_Women_in_Red already has two such sub-cats, so I'm not sure what the point of the new one is. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I created c:Category:WikiProject Women in Red a couple of days ago, moving our four subcats with it. c:Category:Women in Red still exists, with a link to c:Category:WikiProject Women in Red. The A+F category is for images of in-person events. If we decide to have a subcat for the images we upload in connection with our articles, the images would obviously be different. I'm not convinced we should do this, but I thought a discussion would be useful. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Aileen Hernandez

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have the sources to blue some of the redlinks in Aileen Hernandez? Things like Minority Women's Task Force, Black Women Stirring the Waters, and Black Women Organized for Political Action. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi The ed17! Here are some references:

There are more references about MWTF in Minneapolis that are behind a paywall for me. Let me know if I can help more! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Karin Hansson

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Karin Hansson is up for deletion. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Princess Olufemi-Kayode

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Princess Olufemi-Kayode is up for deletion.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Kept !!!104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WiR articles on date pages

Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

Hopefully this is a good place to post this, please redirect if not! In the last couple of days I've been trying to assist with selecting biographies for the new main page/On this day section which features a person born on the day and a person who died on the day. I've realised it's quite difficult to find good quality articles on women to put in that spot because their policy is to find the article from the appropriate date page e.g. February 26 and there are very few women's articles listed on the pages. I am going to start working through the category of B-class women's articles and make sure they are listed on the date pages for their birth and death, but I think this also needs to be added to instructions/guidelines on writing new bios for WiR - i.e. the woman's birth and death need to be added to the appropriate date pages, and also any particular events concering that women need to be added as well e.g. if someone invented something, got elected to a notable position etc that should be on the date page too as that's where OTD editors go to find content for each day's main page entry. I've been writing women's biographies for about 18 months and have never entered anything onto those date pages, so I have a bit of a backlog of my own to work through! What do you all think about adding these guidelines to the standard WiR editathon template? MurielMary (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi MurielMary, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Like you, I've written a lot of bios, and haven't add any of them to date pages, due to lack of awareness. Since WiR's founding, we've created ~30K articles and I'll assume most of haven't been added to date pages. It would be useful to get the data entry done, but manual effort seems inappropriate for so many articles. Is there a bot or maybe AWB? Also, does someone want to develop instructions for current/future meetup pages? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I asked on the OTD page about whether entries have to be added manually, and apparently yes - the pages are lists which are manually created. Aaagh!! I will draft up some instructions and post them here shortly. MurielMary (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Just had a look at the current editathon pages and I think this information should be added to the yellow boxes on the right hand side under a separate box headed "Add article to date pages" - "Add the name of the woman to the date page for her birth and death (if known) for example Susan B. Anthony appears in the February 15 births list and March 13 deaths list" ... In addition, another box headed "Add specific events to date pages" would be helpful - "Add any events which the woman was involved in to the date page for example the event of Anthony's arrest for illegal voting appears in the November 18 events list". MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MurielMary for bringing this to our attention. There's absolutely no reason why this should be done manually. I agree with Rosie that it could be handled by a bot, at least initially. Editors could then go in and improve entries for upcoming dates. But of course we should try to make sure that new articles are dated correctly as proposed.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect I can put together a petscan report which'll identify lists of candidates based on a full DoB or DoD being in Wikidata, and there being a class= attribute on the talk page; but absent someone able to code a proper bot, we'd have to add to the February 26 type pages manually. I'll try to do some work on this this week. I agree per MurielMary et al that we should advise biog writers of the utility of adding to the day pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea this wasn't just automatically done. *sigh* Having written somewhere around 800 biographies, I have never done it. I will try to remember to do it going forward. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've never done it either, largely because at some point I'm afraid of allowing one of those date pages to be overtaken with all manner of names. Also because I'm not always convinced I have the correct birthdate data for a lot of these artists I'm writing about, though Lord knows I do what I can to be accurate. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. In due course, Wikidata will have all this sown up. Pages like this will be automatically generated from the database. In the meantime, take it easy and just find really good articles for inclusion at OTD. Also, do consider the fact that the OTD template should be reflecting Wikipedia as a whole, not just prominent women who are mainly white westerners. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Strange assessment of our work The Rambling Man, especially after all our recent efforts covering Black Women, Caribbean Women, women from Africa and Asia, etc., etc. There have been many extremely good biographies of women who are not white, although I see no reason to ignore biographies of outstanding white women either. I certainly doubt whether there have recently been more biographies on men who are not white but I have not examined the statistics. In any case, I think Muriel is right in encouraging us to take this seriously.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't an assessment of the project's work at all. It was a note to remind the all Wikipedians that while the birth/death slots are now available, we should be careful not to over-compensate. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, nor did I suggest this shouldn't be taken "seriously", although I'm not certain I know what is meant by that. Of course it's serious, it's an opportunity to highlight quality biographical articles on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott you expressed my sentiments better than my frustration would allow me to respond. "Over-compensation" of adding/profiling articles on women has not been a problem in WP, probably ever. As our project is extremely inclusive of achievements, ethnic identity, sexual identity, ad infinitum, I think MurielMary's suggestion gives us a venue that might showcase some notable women. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you've also mis-read the meaning or intent of my responses here. It's not a comment on this project, it's a comment on MurielMary's sudden race to include a shedload of white western women (mainly actresses) to the b/d section of the OTD template while actually overlooking that I was doing my best to include decent articles on women from around the world and with eclectic backgrounds. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant. Please, in future, take some time to understand what the modifications to the OTD section have enabled and what those who have contributed to it have attempted to achieve. To not do so is infuriating, and frustrating, and completely unhelpful to this project's aims. We're trying to work with you not against you. Just not to the end where all births and deaths featured in OTD are white western women who act. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a way to communicate this perspective without a tone that can easily be misconstrued as mansplaining by other editors that might be more effective. Thanks for your quality work over the years. Hmlarson (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

There's also a way to explain to the project what's going on without spinning it into some kind of mysogonistic bias. Before you all bandwagon, please check how I tried to provide a balanced view of Wikipedia's quality articles in the b/d area of OTD. Then please check how MurielMary added a shedload of women's articles, many of which simply weren't up to the quality thresholds required for the main page, not to mention from a very narrow perspective. Now I'm done here. Little wonder that those of us who actually try to help don't stick around for long, too much artificial indignation and certainly too much real patronisation. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

One generally catches flies with honey. The assumption that having brought it to our attention that only white westerners would be included is frustrating at best, as is the assumption that members of the project shouldn't "waste their time". The indignant response you think you received, may well have been more a reflection of the way in which the presentation occurred rather than a point to any "mysogonistic biases". I repeat what I have said many times before, coaching is far more likely to produce results than policing. SusunW (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man for your initial comment here. I appreciate that wikidata will one day take over the date pages but I'm a bit concerned that until that (unknown) date editors and readers have access to rather unrepresentative "on this day" date pages. WP has 16.85% women bios but those pages show about 0.5% women bios each (one or two women on a page of a couple of hundred entries). I'm happy to plod along adding women and women's achievements as I can, it's nice low-brain-demand work to do now and again! It also seems sensible to advise other editors to do the same as and when they can. As for my editing on ODT b/d, it's surprising that you seem unhappy with me adding lots of bios to those templates. Someone having a spurt of enthusiasm and time to spend on editing on WP seems something to be acknowledged and valued rather than criticized for "suddenly" adding "shedloads"! As for the quality, we discussed that at OTD - I was following the guidelines of "B class or higher" but this was later adapted to "B class or higher plus fully cited" - which is absolutely fine, but it's rather unfair to criticize an editor for following the guidelines! I completely take on board the comment about wide range of articles and the next time I did some adding I found some great non-white women to add. As an alternative, how about framing the conversation as "hey, thanks for all that editing work but in future can you add some non-white women as well to expand the range" ..... which is a supportive and acknowledging and encouraging and educational framework to use. Thanks again for engaging in the discussion. MurielMary (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You missed the bit where you forgot to note that an eclectic range of individuals was already being selected (by me, mainly) before your slough of white western women, some of whose articles were simply inadequate. As for the daily pages, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the OTD page on the main page. Individuals can be added to the OTD template for the main page by anyone from any source. But by all means spend hundreds of hours adding those entries to those pages, but it's ultimately a complete and utter waste of your and others time; that's good advice and I strongly advise you to follow it. But that's your call. Sadly, I'm done here now, I was dead keen to help this project, adding individuals like Mary Whiton Calkins, Æthelberht of Kent, Chelsea Clinton etc, which aren't mainstream (as far as I'm concerned) yet are important in their individual ways. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Take a closer look and read what was written. MurielMary was guilty of promoting the white westerners, not me. It's a problem of your own making. Stop making problems where they don't exist outside your own project members' poor communication skills. I'm not here to catch flies, or use honey, or coach, or anything like that, but I am also not here to suffer the indignation of a group of individuals who seem actively intent on ignoring the fact that some of us have been working on ensuring an eclectic and rounded group of individuals (men, women, old, young, famous, not famous, white western, not white western etc etc etc) are featuring in the OTD template. The overwhelming message here from this project is that I shouldn't have bothered. Well played. I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I find these comments upsetting. I would have liked to see more on The Rambling Man's background and ambitions but unfortunately his user page has been deleted. From what he says, he has been devoting time and effort to creating more balance on these matters, which is entirely in line with our own goals. But that certainly does not justify statements such as "MurielMary was guilty of promoting white westerners". I'm sure MurielMary was simply doing her best to provide for the inclusion of more women on date pages. At least this discussion has served to emphasize the sorry state of current date postings in regard to women. It seems rather surprising that TRM tells us that his comments on this page were being directed to "all Wikipedians" rather than to the members of WiR. If there was an issue with MurielMary's contributions, then it might have been more appropriate for TRM to discuss it with her on her talk page, perhaps politely encouraging her to widen her scope. Instead, the above exchanges have resulted in upsets all round. Just telling us that we are wasting our time is not very helpful. May I suggest that a more supportive and less critical approach by TRM could form the basis of effective collaboration.--Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, and to verify The Rambling Man's claim that "an eclectic range of individuals was already being selected" for the ODT birth/death section on the main page, I have just done a quick survey of the first 13 days of this slot (Feb. 16 to 28). Of the 26 biographies profiled, 19 were of white men, 3 of white women, 3 of non-white men and 1 of a non-white woman. This doesn't feel very eclectic or ranging at all to me. Thus my efforts to add some diversity in at least the gender field if not the ethnicity. MurielMary (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Following my post above regarding the stats of biographies featured, TRM left me a note on my talk page requesting me not to ping him any further in this conversation. So I won't. But for the record, I feel compelled to state that TRM's statement that the daily pages have nothing whatsoever to do with the OTD page is curious because TRM actually told me over at OTD that the way he (I'm assuming TRM = he) finds articles for the ODT page is by using the daily pages. Which is why I made the original post here about the importance of adding our bios to those pages. Anyway, very curious, like I say.MurielMary(talk) 08:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Q.E.D.. Keep up the good work MurielMary. You're doing a great job.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Last minute preparations for A+F editathon

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

More lists

Ipigott, this is the link to the publicly-accessible A+F dashboard. I'm going to keep a close eye on it and after an editathon takes place, I'll invite attendees to participate in #37 (same as I did last year). I've cleared this with Theredproject and Pharos; we're all supportive of keeping in-person attendees involved in March events after they walk out the door! I'll create a new list to keep track of who receives the invite during the month; will add link to #37 meetup page. Let me know if I've forgotten a detail which needs consideration. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone also please create these additional Wikidata redlists before March 1st? (I don't know how.) Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Animators (Q6499559) - animator (Q266569)
Art collectors (Q7043327) - private collection (Q768717)
Art critics (Q8265157) - art critic Q4164507
Art conservators-restorers (Q8415323) - conservator (Q446966)
Installation artists (Q7154335) - installation artist (Q18074503)
Cartoonists (Q6443661) - cartoonist (Q1114448)
Printmakers (Q7032102) - printmaker (Q11569986)

I've tried in vain to create lists of redlinks for these. There may be a problem of the interface with Wikidata or there may be no women with these occupations who have articles in other languages but none in English. But we already have a wide variety of red link lists on all kinds of artists. Maybe Tagishsimon could doube-check.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Tagishsimon: Mea culpa; I provided the category codes instead of the occupation codes. Now fixed; see above. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: So Ipigott gets all the grief and I get all the glory? That's too bad! ;) I'm on it ... we have Animators and cartoonists and we have Installation artists & printmakers. Oh. And Art critics and Art collectors. But nothing for conservators. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Team effort; thank you both, @Ipigott and Tagishsimon. And I see they are already added to the #37 meetup page. Perfect! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A+F dashboard

Rosiestep: I've looked at the A+F dashboard and note that although we have already three new articles on our editathon page, they are not listed on the dashboard. Can you have this fixed?--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep:, I think I have the wrong dates on the Dashboard. Weren't we only going to add articles created on the official A+F day? I'll fix if so. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can add those 3 articles by hand, Ipigott; and I don't think any of the WiR articles will show up in the Dashboard unless someone can do datadump at the end. At least that was my understanding during the Dashboard training with Abittaker (WMF). Megalibrarygirl, do you want to check with Mckensiemack in the Slack channel? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep! I'll check with Mckensiemack Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. A couple of notes/observations. 1. Just extended the AF Campaign to start Feb 25 and end April 15 (as we have events running into April) so if you extend the WIR program, the articles may show up. The duration of the dashboard program is dependent on the campaign itself. 2. You don't have any of your editors enrolled in the Program (See the Goose Eggs across the board) so even if you extend your dates, it won't make a difference until people enroll 3. Rosiestep asked about transparency and access to data: All the data we have access to, anyone can have access to. It all lives in the campaigns list. There are four CSVs: students , students by course , instructors by course , course data. Those should be updated live, but don't quote me on it.Theredproject (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi All, back again. We had some discussion about Dashboard vs Meetup on the Slack Channel (Which anyone is welcome to join!) and I wanted to share that clarification here: Reps from AF, AfroCrowd and WIR received Dashboard training about a month ago. During the training we discussed the pros/cons of Dashboard for WIR. Rosiestep requested and we agreed that we weren't going to require WIR to only do Dashboard b/c of the specifics of the way you all track your edits, and the **reliability** of your crew to actually track their edits and sign in etc. We typically don't run the WIR users through Wikimetrics in the same way we run the others (they are a separate batch of data): we know that WIR users are editing lots of other stuff, and don't want to dragnet it. But we do want to note the overall retention, blah blah. Re: Dash, if no one signs in, then it won't display any data. I think you should probably pick one or the other. If you pick Meetup, you should scrub your Dash Program and add language that explains this and very very actively move editors to the meetup page. Otherwise, get everyone to sign in on Dash.Theredproject (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitations to in-person participants

So far, five English language events have occurred. I sent this invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/2017#For A+F in-person attendees to the March 3rd group on this list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List/A+F2017. Let's see if it boosts participation for the WiR events. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)