Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Rosiestep in topic Maintenance work
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Deletion of Rhonda Patrick

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

I have just learned that despite a number of strong arguments in favour of keeping this article, it is has been deleted after an inconclusive Afd discussion. Snazzywiki, a new editor who created the article, has argued the decision should be reconsidered. In my opinion, adhering to DGG's strict criteria for the inclusion of articles on academics rather than accepting the notability this person has received from the media for her contributions to cancer research is a backward step in our efforts to support the place of women in the technical field. It is also disappointing that our editathon has suffered from a dismissive approach to the efforts of a keen new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ipigott, I agree and I'm glad that Snazzywiki is passionate about their article. It's very frustrating to have your hard work taken apart. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Snazzywiki, and Megalibrarygirl: I was totally surprised at the way it was closed. To my eyes, the delete votes were not compelling. As you had pointed out on my page Sue, there is a group which is highly influenced by DGG and that his comments would be singled out, speaks volumes. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW:, yes, DGG seems very influential and I'm not sure why. He's a librarian and has a lot of experience, but that doesn't mean he can't be wrong from time to time. I suspect that they don't see sources such as podcasts or Joe Rogan to be suitably "reliable" as sources. However, the Rogan show is crazy-popular and that should mean something. If I was looking for more info about her after listening to Rogan, I'd want to find that info on Wiki where I would hope it's not biased. @Snazzywiki:, if they won't restore the article, can they userfy it for you? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like that... I have a copy of the original article created, but without the clean edits made by SusunW and others, which I would've definitely liked to have kept. I wish I'd saved the wiki markup just before the delete. Is that something that can still be done? I may ask Spartaz about this. Thanks for the suggestion. I understand why DGG is influential... DGG clearly thinks very, very critically and puts a lot of thought into trying to articulate those thoughts for others, which is appreciated. But, yes, all are human, as you point out. Also, for anyone interested, Ipigott shared an article called Mutagens and Multivitamins that I think spoke somewhat to Dr. Ames perception of Dr. Patrick's role in the papers she lead authored... which speaks to some of DGG's question of whether the work is "hers" or not, I think (as much as such a question can be said to exist in the first place). By the way... if I link someone's profile in a talk edit does that automatically notify them or do I have to use this "yo" thing? Snazzywiki (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Snazzywiki: If you are talking on someone's personal page, they will be notified. If you are on any other page, if you don't ping them (and I use yo most often because it lets you do strings of people) unless they have it watched they will not be notified. I love that DGG thinks critically, but he also imposes his own biases. He knows that GNG is the standard and because he does not like that that allows "fluff" articles which he (correctly in my opinion) believes taint the encyclopedia, he comes down on the side of using the more stringent guidelines of ARTIST, ACADEMIC, MILITARY, etc., in spite of what multiple policies state, that if the bar of GNG is met no further bar is necessary. If the standard is to be the more stringent one, then changing the guidelines should be done, but he has readily admitted that has not met with success. So, what happens in the case of those who are starting a career, or marginal is that they get tossed, even though they meet GNG. Ian is a staunch advocate, brilliant, and extremely good at both finding sources and as a language master. He speaks like 7 languages (or has a working knowledge of them) and helped write a bunch of translation software. SusunW (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: Is {{u|SusunW}\} <-- is that a "ping" ? Or is a ping something else? Snazzywiki (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Snazzywiki, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl: Hey y'all, I saw this discussion and userfied the article at User:Snazzywiki/Rhonda Patrick since you said you wanted a copy. Keilana (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keilana: Thank you! SusunW (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keilana: Much appreciated! Thank you. Snazzywiki (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I discovered my comments below had not been added owing to an edit conflict:
@SusunW: Are you sure about this. I seldom have pages such as this on my watch list but if my name is mentioned as Ipigott or even user:Ipigott I receive a message on my talk page. Can you direct us to a page where "ping", "rto", "yo", etc. are properly explained? There is a page where several of the prompts and redirects are given. I don't know if it is properly updated.
@Ipigott: I'm never sure about anything to do with wikipedia technology. I just know if I type yo|user|user|user it will ping everyone and if I don't use yo, the last name is the only one that shows (kind of like the book tool for harv ref only ever gives you the last author rather than the first.) SusunW (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Snazzywiki: (That's a great user name.) Sorry if I included a suspect url in the list above. When I first saw your article, I launched a quick search on Google and a couple of other search engines and immediately saw several articles which justified inclusion. In my snippet above, I was simply attempting to show that a considerable number of articles about Patrick which have been included in the media do not appear to have been written by Patrick herself and can therefore not be considered primary sources. It is generally accepted that if someone is covered widely in the media (and in this case a simple Google search reveals widespread coverage), notability is established. The fact that one or two of the sites may have been influenced by one or more professional colleagues is not a problem. There are many articles of living people which are based on one newspaper reference and a personal Linkedin write-up. Some, including recent biographies created by DGG himself, contain no active links and no media coverage. Although I pointed this out to him, he continues to justify their inclusion. I think that by and large I am pretty fair in all I undertake on Wikipedia. Like you, I appreciate some of the guidelines DGG has helped to develop for the coverage of biographies on academics, but the article on Patrick is certainly a case of "the exception proving the rule". The sooner it is restored the better. As for the latest version of your article before it was deleted, you can find it here. Google usually keeps a Wikipedia cache for at least a few weeks. Hope we can work together in the future under less restrictive conditions.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
and @Snazzywiki: I have not commented on the reconsideration simply because of Spartaz's comments about potential canvassing. Point in fact, I almost launched a reconsideration myself the night before you did. It was the last thing I saw before I went to bed, but I thought I was too tired to make a decent argument. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite Aymatth2's call for clarification of the procedure for appeal, no one in authority seems to be prepared to take this up. Maybe there is no procedure for justifying a deleted article. I don't know of one myself. I therefore think the best solution is to recreate the article with the additional background material which has been revealed in the interim and in the light of the various discussions. This would demonstrate that the biographies of notable women scientists cannot just be deleted on pre-established criteria without taking discussions into account. Is anyone (Megalibrarygirl, SusunW) prepared to take this on? If not, I'll have a go at it myself in a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@Aymatth2 and Ipigott: it is unclear to me whether that appeal process is open to anyone other than admins, but the insulting comments of some lead me to want to steer clear. I am unsure that given the comments, anyone who previously voted will be considered "worthy". The point is to improve the chances of restoration. Do you think that my vote would do that, or in the long run harm it? SusunW (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @SusunW: The deletion review is not a vote but a discussion that hopefully will result in a generally acceptable outcome. I encourage you to contribute. You participated in the AfD discussion, so are well-qualified to comment on whether the closure accurately reflected the consensus. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Aymatth2 Thank you for your input. Whatever they call it--vote, not vote, discussion--it still does seem to bring out the worst in some. I commented and was grateful that DGG also commented on his surprise at the outcome. SusunW (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Userbox?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone please develop a userbox out of the logo when they want a break from article creation? I think it would help spread awareness of the project if we all had something to put on our userpages. Thanks! 1bandsaw (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

1bandsaw There is one. Gerda Arendt made it. Probably faster for her to get it to you than for me to look for where it is on which of the talk pages. SusunW (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm faster than I thought. There are a couple. here and here under invitation SusunW (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks! 1bandsaw (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FT Women of 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Today's Financial Times "Women of 2015" feature covers Michelle Obama, climate change ambassador Laurence Tubiana (only a short stub), jockey Michelle Payne, Fed chair Janet Yellen, US foreign policy campaigner Anne Marie Slaughter, Taiwan presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen, Italian fiction writer Elena Ferrante (needs expanding) and South Africa's public protector Thuli Madonsela (needs photo). You can access the article on Tubiana here where you will also find links to all the others. Good opportunities for expansion if anyone is interested. Tubiana who is currently in the news thanks to her efforts at COP21 certainly deserves attention.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone scan the contributor list - Joy Harvey and Marilyn Ogilvie (1 January 2000). "WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 6". In Marilyn Ogilvie; Joy Harvey (eds.). The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science. Vol. 1. New York and London: Routledge. p. xxi-xxiii. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/Expression error: Unrecognized word "xxi".|<strong class="error">Expression error: Unrecognized word &quot;xxi&quot;.</strong>]]. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) for me?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Hi Rich, I have a copy at home and can get it to you once I return from my parents' place, if no one else has a hard copy. Best, Keilana (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks! (I only have volume 2.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: I had such a hard time finding volume 1, for some reason! I'll shoot you an email with some pictures shortly, provided my scanner is working, which is about a 50/50 proposition. :P Keilana (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Keilana: thanks received and very useful (had to get help with some of the names, but it got me started). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC).

Arabic

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Received the following on my Arabic user talk page.


  أن تشعل شمعة خير من أن تلعن الظلام، فما بالك إن تم مكافأتك على إشعالك لهذه الشمعة؟!

نحن نعاني من نقص حاد في المحتوى العربي عن المرأة على شبكة الإنترنت عمومًا وفي ويكيبيديا بشكل خاص. عالمنا ملئ بشتى الموضوعات التي تهتم بالمرأة بدءًا من السير الذاتية للنساء، وصولًا إلى مختلف الكيانات والمنظمات النسوية.
ساهم في الكتابة عنهن وشارك في مشروع ويكي المرأة والجولة الأولى من مسابقة المشروع.
لأية استفسارات، يُرجى التواصل مع فريق عمل المسابقة: Ravan (talk · contribs) ولا روسا (talk · contribs). مع خالص تمنياتنا بالتوفيق للجميع.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC).

  • Thanks, Rich, for filling us in on the Arabic interest. The message tells us that there is wide interest in writing articles about women on the Arabic wiki which is still very weak in their coverage. It also announces a competition for adding Arabic content on women with cash prizes of up to $500 (for first prize). Registrations are open until the end of December. Those able to communicate in Arabic can of course join up directly. But we can perhaps also encourage support through wp:Intertranswiki or by interfacing with Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world. The message is from user Ravan who has professional communication skills in English. Unless there are two Arab users with the same name, she is also on the English wiki as Ravan.--Ipigott (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Very cool. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey Ipigott, Thanks a lot for your support. It's only one user as Ravan. I'm so interested to see how could we improve the initiative more? The contest supposed to be a part of a complete initiative to increase the number of Arabic Women involved in Wikipedia as well as increasing the amount of content related to Women as it's so low. Any suggestions or previous experiences you had before is more than welcome.--Ravan (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me Ravan. This WikiProject (Women in Red) is specifically designed to improve the coverage of women. One of the most important ways we do this is by organizing virtual editathons which are open to everyone worldwide. Look at our project page to see what we are doing. As you will see, we are currently running one on Women in Religion. If you can provide us with the names of any important women you think we should cover in this context, just let us know. Perhaps you would like to participate yourself? Maybe you can encourage other Arabic-speaking Wikipedians to join us, particularly if they have a reasonable command of English. In any case, I think we should keep in touch. Perhaps we can arrange an editathon devoted to Arabic women sometime next year? Please let me know if I can be of any further help. And thanks for the tremendous efforts you are putting into better coverage on the Arabic site. I see you sent your invitation out to a huge number of people. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Planning ahead

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

@Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, 97198, Gobonobo, Victuallers, and Gerda Arendt: and any others who wish to comment. Time is marching on and we will soon all be tied up with Christmas and the New Year. Some time back, I suggested we should have a virtual editathon on Women in Music from 10 to 31 January. I see thanks to Sue, we already have a page of red links. Perhaps we should specifically try to focus the exercise on women in classical music with an emphasis on composers and instrumentalists in line with the red-links page. Unless we set the focus, I think there will be a real danger we will have to cope with lots of pop singers and their works which are pretty well covered anyway. So maybe we should find another heading, perhaps "Women in classical music" or "Women composers and instrumentalists". If we stick to Women in Music, we will need to define the focus. Can we set the dates and coverage?

And while we're at it, what about our coverage of black women? SusunW has been pushing for an extended event in February in connection with something like last year's Wikipedia:Black WikiHistory Month. I would suggest 6 to 28 February. Any suggestions for a title? Maybe simply Black Women?--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Women in classical music" sounds good to me, instrumentalists is too narrow, I would think of singers first. How about "Women in Black" for the next? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I will do my best to do bios on classical musicians, but they will require someone with knowledge, hint hint Gerda Arendt to look at them like the last time. I know little of the technicalities and whether the song or the artist is more important completely eludes me. I think our list for Black History month is pretty extensive. I have been working my way through Caribbean politicians, did some Afro-latina writers, and found a book on the 100 most influential Brits, so it is far from US-centric. SusunW (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely set dates; e.g. 10-31 Jan seems fine to me. However, I disagree with the narrow coverage. I think the broader-scoped Women in Music is the way to go. Some will want to concentrate on classical music, but there will be others who aren't members yet who may dip their toe into our edit-a-thon if we promote it broadly, and if they feel welcome to work in the musical areas of their choice, be it jazz, folk, pop, indigenous, or what have you. I think if we focus on broad areas we'll grow our membership faster. This doesn't mean we can't concentrate in narrower segments. For example, we could create subsections on the events page for classical music (and have a redlist for classical music), and so on. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it's a matter of deciding whether membership of the project is more important than achieving a better balance in the coverage of men and women. Women in pop seem to be covered pretty well without much additional focus. Over the past few days we have had only one female classical musician, Ingfrid Breie Nyhus, but there have been several pop artists including Inês Brasil, Tina Bell, Joyce Aubrey, Madi Davis, Wanda de Fretes, Hollow (Tori Kelly song) and Amy Vachal. (Interestingly, I see none of them have been picked up by AlexBot for Women in Red. I found them under Music. The number of biographies per month on women would certainly increase if we included women in music.) Maybe we could compromise by simply calling the event "Women in Music" while emphasizing the need for better coverage of classical composers, instrumentalists and singers? I see, by the way, our music redlinks page is fairly broad in coverage and should be a good basis for future work (but maybe more singers should be added). What do others think about this?--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Let's keep the original "Women in Music" title, let's emphasize the need for better coverage of classical composers, instrumentalists and singers (and let's promote, promote, promote). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Ipigott: I don't mean to go off-topic, but I thought we asked for women in music to be added to the search strings? Did any of that ever get done? SusunW (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: yes, we asked for it when we asked for project management help from WMF, but it hasn't occurred yet. I guess if we want it done, we have to handle it ourselves. Pinging @Rich Farmbrough: as he's more techno. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm also a qualified PRINCE2 project manager.   I'll have a ferret around. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
Where's the WMF request? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
And thus, I'm also guessing the actresses/film personnel aren't in our strings either. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Added some stuff to the AxelNewArtBot config page. I assume that's what you are talking about? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: yes, that's the page. Link please? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've looked at Rich Farmbrough's additions to Alexbot (thanks!) and I think they should help. I don't know if "instrument" automatically covers "piano", "violin", "cello", "flute", "guitar". If not, these could be added too. As for singers, "contralto" and "soprano" may be useful.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing automatically covers anything.
    • The link.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
@Rich Farmbrough: Then perhaps you could add my suggestions too. (I don't want to risk messing up the code.) I think they'll be useful for our music editathon although the results of "Music" on AlexBot seem to be pretty good. And thanks for your two sets of additions. I see the bot has already picked up the singers Preyah Osassey, Amy Vachal, Christiana Louizu and Deise Rosa. I see there are also lots of actresses. This should help to increase our coverage of new articles in December, particularly as we are only half way through the month.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

New navbox

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I've created a new navbox {{Women in Red}} which I'm migrating to our events pages, etc. It is replacing the sidebar nav tool. The new template needs links to redlists, and we probably need to create some separate redlist pages, e.g. architects. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a redlist on Meta. It's at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/bdws . All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
(Note that is volume 1, someone else has already created a list for volume 2.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
And that someone is Dsp13, I have made a reduced copy (redlinks only) at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rich_Farmbrough/Temp126, which would be good on en:wp too. If anyone feels the desire to copy them over...
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Sorry @SusunW:. The new navbox was "collapsed" at the top of this page and not easy to see. It's now in "expanded" view and at the bottom of this talkpage. It has links to the ideas/events page, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Gracias. Rosiestep
  • I've copied all the wikiproject redlists from the project mainpage into the navbox.
I did not add the user/sandbox redlists into WiR navbox as I'm not comfortable with that. If an editor would like to have their user/sandbox redlist (a) renamed as a project redlist or (b) have a copy of it made into a project redlist, then it can be included in the WiR navbox (some are already included on the mainpage). --Rosiestep (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep: Can't we have both the sidebar tool and the nav box. It's very difficult to see the nav box as the main page is so long. Your sidebar tool had lots of useful links to things I can no longer find (participants, lists, etc.) and it was high enough up on the page to be seen. Ditto on other WiR pages. Even if I go back in the page's history, the sidebar box has disappeared. May I respectfully suggest that before going ahead with further changes like this, it might be useful to discuss them first. Maybe we should in any case have a discussion on improving the project's presentation?--Ipigott (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott: Thanks for mentioning the Participants List; I inadvertently left it off the navbox template but I've added it now, along with a link to the project talkpage (as I've found it cumbersome to reach it). We can recreate the sidebox (it's in the Template:Women in Red edit history) but I think you'll find this navbox an improvement. It is easier to expand, and easier to navigate. I believe it's easier to see for mobile users. Regarding improving the project's presentation, is one of our ongoing discussion and more ideas are welcome. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Alison Adam

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recently came across this new article at speedy deletions, and have had a go at rescuing it, as she seems clearly notable. However it is by no means my field, so if someone here were able to work on it that would be great! She is a British information systems academic known particularly for work on gender. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Espresso Addict Not my field either, but I'll take a look at it. I concur she seems notable from what is there. SusunW (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Funniest deletion notice ever?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just had this new page Mary Jane Coggeshall tagged for deletion on the grounds that (1) it is a biography of a living person (in fact, as the article clearly states, Coggeshall died in 1911); and (2) there are no references (in fact there are 7 cited sources). I'm not familiar with this "Prod blp" tag but my initial thought is wtf? Anybody got any insight on this?Alafarge (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: It's been removed. Thanks for spotting it.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks. Since I'd never seen the tag before, I wasn't completely sure whether it might not be a bot coding error or something along those lines.Alafarge (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Occupation vs. field as a naming convention in the navbox

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Architecture/architects, education/educators, music/musicians. We need to develop a naming convention. I'd opt for field vs. occupation (art rather than artists). But I'm on the fence with a few of them: activism/activists? writing/writers? Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I would have gone the other way, theologian rather than theology. Novelist says much more than writing to my mind, as does sculptress say more than artist. My reasoning being that we are writing biographies, about people, not articles about the given field. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I lean toward occupation rather than field as well, for the reason SusunW gives. But I have to say I am against using the -ess and -ix variants as they impose a gender distinction willy-nilly on the subject and run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's MOS:GNL and WP:GNL. (Though obviously there will be exceptions...) Almost the only one still used widely on Wikipedia seems to be actress.Alafarge (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There are all kinds of problems here. Music covers a much wider field than musicians, ditto dance: ballerinas, etc. For the time being, I don't see any major problem in adopting the headings we already have for the red-link pages. Changes will also impact the focus of our future editathons. Let's leave things open.--Ipigott (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

New members

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just seen that another eight editors have become official members of the project since the beginning of December. Not bad for a couple of weeks. If I have counted correctly, that brings us up to 43 active members. The improved interface seems to be working as it should again. Maybe some of those who regularly read this page (at least 60) and continue to participate in our editathons would like to register as members too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be just one page for women in all STEM fields. I know I could build a long list of redlinks for women in technology alone. Could we be sending an unintentional message by grouping these all together in a longish list of occupations? I think we'd be sending a much more accurate (and intentional) message by breaking each of them out in to its own bullet point. Thoughts? -wʃʃʍ- 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wllm we had a similar discussion on music earlier. Rosiestep and I tend to think we get better participation in editathons with broad categories. Too much specialization may discourage participants. My thoughts on it, and I've pinged Rosie in the event she wants to speak for herself, is that someone may not be comfortable writing about technology, but might be interested in writing about chemistry, or might not be comfortable writing about biology but be jazzed about writing about math. If you want to make specific lists about single categories, I don't see it as a problem. Obviously the lists are there for anyone to access any time and subject specific lists help people focus on their specialties. Topics can be "pooled" for editathons to give broader coverage for focused participation. SusunW (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Wllm, I see your point about each area of STEM having its own bullet point, and I've made that change. If you want to expand the technology section of the STEM redlink page, go for it! If it gets to the point where it would be best to give it its own redlink page, go for it. SusunW, I agree that keeping our editathons broad for the time being will serve us well until WiR is better known. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead and build the list Wllm. When I'm making lists, I intentionally cross post where applicable. That way if someone is more comfortable with a narrow focus, there is a list for them and for those who might be generalists, aren't intimated by terminology. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW and Rosiestep, I don't know how this plays in to editathons yet, but I may not have been clear or I'm just confused (not a rare phenomenon). I meant in this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women/Women_in_Red#Tasks. My point is simply that I've heard we, as Wikipedians who are working to close the Gender Gap, should encourage young women to pursue STEM fields if that's where their interest lies. When we put them all under one bullet point in the top-level list, it might give the impression that there are fewer women who have become notable in STEM fields than there really are. Please help me understand if I'm somehow missing the point of the project, of if there's something I don't understand about how it affects editathons. After having looked for notable women in tech without articles, I have gotten the impression that there are quite a lot of redlinks to add to technology. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 21:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Wllm I too am often confused. The list that is on the main page, was created by Megalibrarygirl with additions from whoever wanted to add to it, specifically for an editathon, so it is broad and covers many categories. If you want to do a list specific to technology, or any other subject, please do. Others will both add to it and work from it. My impression from us making the lists to begin with is there are lots of notable women in just about every field. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wllm and SusunW:, Hi! Yes, I may not have made myself clear, please either add to the existing list or create a new one. It's all good. I think the more lists, the better the project is. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wllm: Thanks for pointing this out. I'm agreeing with you, @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: let's split them up, and let's expand them. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, Wllm, and SusunW: Sure, split them up, feel free to do whatever. I think we should all be bold on Wiki. If you've got names, add 'em. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(EC)Thanks for the quick replies and the go-ahead Megalibrarygirl. I'm happy to do it, but I'll have to take a look at what needs to be done tomorrow. I also want to start working through those lists by adding articles, if that's OK outside an editathon. -wʃʃʍ- 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I so love working with this group. Nobody ever seems to be anything but supportive :D SusunW (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To move this along, I created the 4 separate redlink pages. I moved the math, science, and technology sections to their respective stand-alone redlink pages. I did this using WP:CORRECTSPLIT so the attribution goes with the cut/paste. I have not moved the engineers, and there are some other occupation types in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women science and technology]] redlist which I'm not sure where to put. I'll stop now as I'm getting tired, and wait for feedback before proceeding. Splitting from this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women science and technology, to these: --Rosiestep (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from a newbie

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Greetings, folks. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I'm new to this project, and I had a quick question; how do I make sure I'm not treading on somebody's toes by creating an article that they are already working on? Conversely, if I start working on something in my userspace, how do I let other folks know? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 If it is on a list just put, I am working on this and sign it with four tildes. If it is not on a list, Google should show you if someone is working on an article as it shows stuff in sandboxes. I always google in a variety of name same ways before I start and article, but that still won't keep dups from happening periodically ;) SusunW (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Will do! Thank you. I had thought to check for userspace pages, but not to simply post there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW Re sandboxes, my experience has been that my sandbox pages don't show up in Google searches unless I forget to add the 'User sandbox' tag when I start a new sandbox. I'm actually grateful for this, as I don't want my half-baked pages turning up in searches. But it sounds like this is not the case for you—or is there some search term you use to make relevant Wikipedia sandboxes show in a Google search?Alafarge (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Alafarge I don't know. I always use the red link option to create "Special:Mypage/articlename" and it shows in a google search. Mayhaps that is not the same as a sandbox creation to Google? I am not very technical, so I honestly don't know the difference of why Google would pick up one and not the other. SusunW (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a "noindex" command on all my sandboxes because I DON'T want them to show up in Google. (See my subpages for examples). Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup Box

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

I added {{Wikipedia:Meetup Box}} at the bottom of the "Ideas" page figuring we could look at the editathons in other parts of the world from time to time, and maybe reach out to some of them for possible collaboration. And as I added WiR to that navbox, maybe other editathon organizers will want to reach out to us. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Evolving participation

Latest comment: 8 years ago41 comments7 people in discussion

I have just been updating my records of participation in our editathons. A total of at least 139 editors have added new articles or improved existing ones in the five virtual editathons we have arranged up to now. As far as I can see, only 21 of them have officially registered as members. That might not be as surprising as it sounds as only 22 editors have been identified as taking part in more than one editathon. (Our seven most active members have participated in all five.) This indicates that by far the majority of participants come in because they are mainly interested in one particular field of interest.

Maybe we could improve membership and increase participation in our activities if we set up special interest groups (arts, sciences, activists, women's history), possibly coordinating with other WikiProjects? This might also guide us in future invitations for participation. Any ideas or is all this premature?--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I kind of thought that's what the lists were for, to allow people to work on what their specific interest areas are. My own opinion, it's easier to monitor, improve, etc. if it remains centralized at least for now. I know we have notified other WikiProjects on each editathon. I don't know if we have any measures of how much increased participation that led to. It seems to me that we are growing at a pretty natural pace as people learn about the project. Just my random thoughts. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As a relatively new member, I would suggest that it is not clear how one 'participates' outside of the editathons. So if the field you are working in is not your current or upcoming editathon, you may still be doing project relevant work, but how does it get captured as participation? Does one add to the Metrics on the project page, tag the new page's talk with a WIR banner along with WP:Women's History or...? It seems the project is too small and too new yet to start splintering into interest groups. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As a followup, while I was looking at the metrics, I noticed several were redlinks. Does the project have a rescue/retention spot or alerts where articles that are getting PROD or AfD can be listed so that members can try and rescue them before deletion? I'm thinking something like what many other projects have such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Article alerts. That might be a good way to increase and retain participation. 1bandsaw (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • 1bandsaw 2 important parts, are 1 make sure every article that you write which is about a woman or a work produced by a woman is tagged with a WikiProject banner that is part of the project (Women, Women's History, Women in Sports, Women Scientists, etc). If you do that, it hopefully, will show up on our lists that we are manually having to input into the metrics at this point. We have been working several avenues to have this process automated, but so far it is not. Absolutely add files to the metrics, that way if they do not show up on the daily lists of articles created, we are sure they are there. Dups are weeded out at the end of the month, so don't worry that that might be an issue. And yes, we do get article alerts on the main page of WikiProject Women Wikipedia:WikiProject Women#Alerts SusunW (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't read so much those discussions here, so sorry for stupid question, but what do you want to automate? You want to automatically get list of articles, that were created in last X days/weeks etc., that are tagged with Women/Women's History/Women in Sports/Women Scientists/etc. project banner? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 most of that conversation is on the Metrics talk page, I think. One of the technical frustrations of this format is that things end up all over the place. Look here Edgars2007, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Metrics and if you need more explanation, I'll try, but I am not very technical. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
To check, if articles, that are listed here, have some women-related Wikiproject banner and if article is listed in metrics page should be quite easy to get. That is all what you want? You don't have give technical explanation, it can be in normal English :) Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
And of course it is possible to get "Margaret Towner" from "Margaret Towner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Alafarge (talk · contribs · new pages (20)) started on 2015-12-16, score: 84" And the list isn't temporar. Everything is in history. There you can get other 14 days, by clicking on the date "00:30, 3 December 2015‎". --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 It's more complicated than that. We asked that they flow into a list (front page metrics) monthly so that one can easily access without having to go to the history each time. Apparently no can do at this point, but then you have only pulled one list. We are finding that we get different results from the Science, Artist and writer lists, which apparently don't feed into that Women's History list, nor do actresses or musicians, unless Rich was able to make those changes. What we want is a single list with all of the new articles created on women monthly, that is a permanent list for referral and does not disappear after 14 days, which seems impossible to attain. SusunW (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, understood. Unfortunately that is far out of my skills. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
One question. Does the order in those montly lists have to be very precise (by creation date), or just putting in right month will be fine? I just have some 670 women related articles (there most probably will be more, I did just a partial search), that are not in metrics list. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Footnote: AlexBot Women in Red now includes entertainers and music but does not pick everything up. When I am monitoring progress, I constantly find articles about women in other AlexBot searches which are not picked up by the Women in Red search. A good example is the recent Women in Religion editathon. Many of those I found under the Religion searches were not listed under Women in Red. I found even more simply by looking for articles created by identified participants or by those who had registered for the editathon. I think the AlexBot approach is probably the best basis for picking up new articles about women but it needs to be refined. There should also be an option for listing just the titles of articles (without all the other data). If Edgars2007 can make any progress along these lines, it would be greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Tremendous progress Edgars2007! Thanks a million for your efforts. It all represents a great improvement in our success. How much of this did you do manually and how much was automated? If you could tell us how you went about it, perhaps we could use the same tools in future.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually I'm not finished yet, there should be some addition. I just need some rest. Almost everything is automatic work, but it is really quite niggling (I hope, that is the right expression - as you may notice my English isn't very good), it involves many list checking. I don't mind to repeat that after some months, or when you finally decide to request a bot to tag articles. You can keep doing good job on articles themselves. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Edgars2007 You don't need to make excuses about your English. It is well above the standard displayed in the box on your user page. You should upgrade it to at least 3 if not 4. When you have completed the lists, you should let us know what parts were automatic (and how you handled them) and what was manual. Generally speaking, we like to have results as each new month is completed. If you can give us the instructions, we can probably do what you have been doing without bothering you every month for updates. As you say, the best approach would be to have a bot but maybe it's best to make sure we have all the components first.--Ipigott (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Edgars2007 I can only say how very much your efforts are appreciated. Wow, just wow. As you see, it is a tedious project, apparently even if one has automation, which none of the rest of us who have been working on it have had. I know I speak for @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: and I who have transferred most of the files by hand and manually applied banners, when I offer our sincere thanks. Every month over 1,000 articles is huge. Did you make sure they all have banners or should I check on that? And please, as Ian says, don't apologize for your English. Your communication skills are very good. SusunW (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW We did have "dance" but I have also added "dancer" and "ballet" to AlexBot's rules for Women in Red. Don't know if this will help. I think we now need to see how Edgars has been working on the whole thing. We're very fortunate to have finally found someone who is taking things seriously.--Ipigott (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott Couldn't agree more. We do need to have back up in place too. Rich Farmbrough and Sue both know how to check for dups and I think it serves us to have at the very least 2 people who know how to squeeze these out until we can get automation created, as I am convinced it is something we will have to create. SusunW (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW you wanted to know, how many articles at metrics page don't have Wikiproject banners? Well, the total number is 1400 :D The list is here. If you need wiki-list, then say. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 Thank you. We have our work cut out for us :) Will get to work on them after I finish my woman of the day. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
But in the meantime, I added 2203 articles to list. Articles were get from Women by nationality and occupation (deapth 4). Very much not very notable ones (sports, music, actresses etc.), but the statistics looks better :) October now has almost 2000 articles (only 125 articles till that milestone). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Did I say 1400? Now it's 3287. The onwiki list is availabe here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And now instructions how to get page titles from User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistorySearchResult (and other such pages).

  1. Open the page in editing mode and copy ALL page content.
  2. Go to regexr.com and copy the page content in the text field
  3. Replace the code in the expresion field ([A-Z])\w+ to such code:
    \<li\>\{\{User:AlexNewArtBot\/La\|([^}]+)[^\n]+\n
  4. Click on "Substition" at the bottom of page
  5. See that \n# $&:\n\t? Replace it with # [[$1]]\n
  6. Then copy the updated page content from substition field to Text field (just replace the whole text)
  7. In the expression field replace the code with such:
    \<li\>\[\[([^\]]+)[^\n]+\n
  8. Copy the page content from Substitution field (don't touch the # [[$1]]\n expression) into Text field
  9. (Assuming, that you aren't interested in drafts, categories, templates etc.) replace expression field with such code:
    \<li\sclass([^}]+)[^\n]+\n
  10. Replace # [[$1]]\n with \n in substitution field
  11. Copy page content from substitution field.

OK, you still have to clean-up a little bit it, but the main job will be done. If something isn't clear, then say. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Whoa... so now we have another list to pull from for metrics? Nice! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I am boggled by the number of additional articles you are able to capture with these additional parameters, Edgars2007, ; and I am grateful. I'm trying to sort out what additional cats we should draw from. Reviewing Women, let's start with these... are they accounted for in the updated AlexNewBot search? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 I do not understand one bit of that technical explanation and hope that there are those who do. All I can do it give you my heartfelt appreciation. Rosiestep can we yet state that we have consensus on manually doing banner tagging or is that still flying in the wind? SusunW (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
SusunW we should tag the talkpages manually till we got a bot to do it automatically. I wish I could move that along faster, but I don't remember how to place the order on a bot page. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I managed to get through the first 100 entries of the list. There are like 4 that are men so I didn't add banners. Will add more banners tomorrow. Anyone who wants is welcome to jump in and add banners -- Maybe start on page 10 or 20 or something ;) SusunW (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: which point you don't understand? If you spot some men, then say, so that I could research, how they get there. But yes - although I try to do my best, there will be men in those lists. @Rosiestep: yes, I also included in the list some of categories you mentioned (included some more). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edgars2007 I do not understand any of the technical instructions. But it is unimportant. You do and with your list, I can tag the files missing banners. And yes, I get that there will be a few men, surprisingly few, but there will be the occasional male fashion model that the system picks up as a woman or a man with a gender neutral name. Not to worry. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Devil's advocate

  • Can I play the part of the devil's advocate for a moment? With the amazing work Edgars2007 has been doing on identifying a wide range of articles about women which never came into our field of vision, maybe our own work on creating new articles has not been such a proportionally great success as we previously thought. Would anyone like to calculate, for example, what proportion of new articles in November 2015 were actually a result of WiR's influence? Or indeed, how many more new articles on women were there in November 2015 as compared to November 2014? I think it would be interesting to look for statistics like these as, in addition to what Wikidata is able to produce, it would perhaps provide a better overview of WiR's contribution to the cause. Does anyone else think this kind of approach would be worthwhile?
  • And one other point. Now that we are discussing enhancing the status of Women in Red as a project in its own right (rather than a task force or whatever under WikiProject Women), wouldn't it be sensible to add Women in Red banners to all the talk pages of articles specifically created under the project? That would also make it easier to monitor what we have been doing and would provide a basis for improving our articles up to GA and FA so they can be listed in our own table of featured content? But if we decide to go ahead along these lines, then I think to banner should only be used for articles created by our own members or under the new articles created in the specific fields covered during our editathons. I would be interested in hearing reactions on all this from as many project members as possible, especially @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, 97198, Gobonobo, Alafarge, and Victuallers:--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't think you'll like the numbers about the first :) Here is a quick list of users, who created (that is, made the first revision of article) articles in November 2015 (included in metrics page). Maybe that helps. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm always in favor of attention to reality. If WiR is making only X fraction of new pages on women, we should want to know whatever that fact is. On the other hand, I'm unconvinced that the raw number and proportion of pages is the only important metric of WiR's work here and one we should necessarily focus on. As the key contributors to WiR know, it takes much more time and effort to create a substantive page (even one tagged as 'start' class) than to create a simple stub, and I've been impressed with WiR's results along those lines. In terms of women's visibility on Wikipedia, I've lately been leaning towards the idea that attention to cross-linking is possibly as valuable as just making more pages—but how would you find a metric for something like that? I'm not advocating for a switch to quality-based metrics, however, as they're subjective and open to being gamed; not to mention the ridiculous variance in how Wikipedia's own quality metrics are applied across different fields and projects. So I guess what I'm saying is that even if WiR's pages amount to only some minuscule fraction of a total, it's still a worthwhile project, not least for the communitarian spirit that has been generated in the process. In terms of visibility, I'm certainly in favor of putting the WiR banner on Talk pages, for the reasons Ipigott lists.Alafarge (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I can say, Ipigott is that after an editathon, when I clean up bluelinks, I remove a significant portion of the original list. I think that anecdotally speaks directly to WiR influence. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My 2 cents for whatever it's worth. I absolutely think that numbers don't tell the whole story. The supportive atmosphere is found no place else on WP that I have been. But pushing that aside, we have tagged a ton of articles, saved a bunch, added sources to a bunch and rewritten a bunch. It's clean up that has been long overdue. No idea how many, but I have looked at well over 5,000 articles in the tagging process, I can also say unequivocally that the articles produced in our editathons are of better quality than the majority of articles written on WP. Certainly, as Alafarge points out, quality is subjective, but when one sees articles like I did last night as I was tagging that consist of "She is a nine year old singer", I do not remotely doubt that our contributions are improvements. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red editathon templates/banners

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I see that Thor Dockweiler has helped us along by creating two banners for use on the talk pages of articles created during our editathons. We have {{WIR-R 2015}} for Women in Religion (maybe this should be added to relevant new articles) and {{WIR-M 2016}} for Women in Music. These are particularly useful as both fields are so extensive that there are no other specific banners for identifying our work. This is a great initiative which in my opinion should be continued for our future editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I love the banners, Thor Dockweiler! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Thor Dockweiler: I do, too! I changed the logo's px size from 75 to 50; hope that's ok for everyone. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do not post below this template post above it

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Is there some way that the template can be anchored to the bottom of the page so that it doesn't end up in the middle of talk? I've moved it now about 4 times. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: not that I'm aware of, but I think if added to the top, it will stay put. It would be unusual to have it there, but I'll place it there and let's see if it works. In the meantime, I'll hope that technogods magically anchor it to the bottom of this page. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Would that the technogods would do that. I shall leave them pie and coffee if they can figure out how. Thanks Rosie :) SusunW (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The only easy solution would be remove that "new section" button at the top. The system doesn't know, that {{Women in Red}} should be left at the bottom, it thinks it is part of section. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Edgars2007 But why is that? {{authority control}} inputs the information at the bottom of the page. {{Texas Women's Hall of Fame}} puts the information at the bottom of the page, regardless of where on the page the template occurs. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
That is a different story. And if you would put {{authority control}} lets say at the top of article, then it would appear at the top, not bottom of page. You can try it on some article in preview. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: Because you've put it on a Talk page where navboxes aren't supposed to be. Or, at least, nobody else puts a navbox on a talk page. The examples you cite are not used on talk pages. That's the problem, I believe. You could probably get a detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — Maile (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Edgars2007 and Maile66: Thanks! That actually does help. Rosiestep, apparently we are being rebels again. ;) It isn't "supposed to be" on a talk page. But why?? Is there a rule and what earthly harm would come from it being anchored at the bottom on a talk page as opposed to an article page? SusunW (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: This is the wrong place to ask technical questions. Please post your inquiry at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) where techies hang out at the water cooler. Somebody there will have an answer for you. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile66 I don't know that Rosie didn't already ask someone, given her earlier statement, hence my ping to her. SusunW (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: I don't read that she had any intent of asking anyone. And there's nothing over at the Pump on this. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Maile66 Okay, I'm asking Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#template location SusunW (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@SusunW: The navbox uses the same code as article navboxes and they all display the box where the code is placed in the source. The only reason navboxes stay at the bottom of articles is that users don't add anything below them. Talk pages are designed to add new sections at the bottom, and the "New section" tab automatically starts the new section below everything else in the wikitext. There is no good solution to keep a navbox at the bottom of an active talk page where new sections are created. There are some bad solutions which can attempt it but not any I will recommend. They have serious drawbacks like removing the "New section" tab or displaying poorly for many users. I recommend only placing it in the lead section. The talk pages archives don't get new sections so it could be placed at the bottom there. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PrimeHunter Appreciate your looking at it. Seems odd that it cannot be pinned to the bottom somehow, but I guess we'll just have to get used to looking for it at the top. Appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
#womeninredwearerebels --Rosiestep (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  Like I truly just laughed out loud @Rosiestep:. SusunW (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The nearest I can get to it a solution is to pit it in a bottom-aligned div:
<div style="position:absolute; bottom:0">{{Women in Red}}</div>
but it overlaps the bottom content! Perhaps someone will see a way to fix that. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Women travelers and explorers

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Through some grant money, I received a great book, "Encyclopedia of women's travel and exploration", and I'll be creating redlist(s) from it between Christmas and New years, perhaps: Women travelers and explorers. Another book I received, "Encyclopedia of women in the American west", might feed into this same redlist, or just add them in the US section of the women by nationality redlist. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a treasure trove. Very cool! If any of them fit with the Antarctic or Indigenous women that would be really cool.  :) SusunW (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
So far at least, most of the women in the travelers book already have a Wikipedia entry, which is good, so I won't be creating a redlist using that book. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rosiestep (talk · contribs) for identifying these sources. I have added them both to the "Women's studies" section of our Bibliography of encyclopedias. The bibliography is a useful source for virtually all areas although until now there does not appear to be a specific section on explorers.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The existing Wikipedia summary article is List of female explorers and travelers, started in 2012. An abortive effort I started just before then is at User:Pharos/WE, feel free to use anything you can salvage from that.--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Stanka Kovačić

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hello again. I declined a speedy on architect/artist Stanka Kovačić as possibly notable (not sure), but the article has no references and I can find none in English in a quick look in Google (there is a musician of the same name). Can anyone assist in determining whether this lady is notable, and if so finding a reference to satisfy the BLP requirements? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried in English, Bosnian (Stanka Kovačić, arhitekta, dizajner interijera) and Serbian (Станка Ковачић, архитекта, дизајнер ентеријера) and find no references, other than to the musician. But I am in Mexico, so may not have the same search capacity as others. SusunW (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps the creator will be able to provide one; but when one's first experience of the encyclopedia is a speedy tag on one's good-faith article, contributors not unnaturally tend to feel rather discouraged. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Antidiskriminator. Can you see any reliable sources on your end for this one? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to help Rosiestep, but this article is within the topic area I am banned from, so I am unable to assist. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator. Sorry about that; I didn't realize any of that was still in force. Wishing you happy holidays and happy 2016; and hoping all that topic ban stuff will go away soon! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Rosiestep. I wish you good health, love and happiness in 2016!--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I tossed the prod tag and replaced it with unreferenced-blp. If no sources are found, then an AfD would be appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 08:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance work

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

To let everyone know, I will be making a change to the {{Load WikiProject Modules}} Lua module, used on this project to render the different sections. This change involves, among other things, moving the different section headers out of the subpages and onto the main WikiProject page. This change will make the WikiProject easier to use and maintain. During this change, there may be a brief time window where the WikiProject page looks broken. Once the changes are finished, everything should be restored to normal. If not, purge your cache and it will work. If there are any bugs, please let me know promptly on my talk page. Thank you, Harej (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This work is now done. Please let me know if there are any bugs. Incidentally, would it be helpful for people if the "metrics" section was renamed "new articles"? Harej (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Almost all the sections include "view module", but Announcements does not; is it supposed to be like that? I think renaming Metrics to New articles is a good idea but what does everyone else think? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I like renaming it to new articles.SusunW (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The announcements section uses a level-three header (think three equal signs), where "view module" appears for level-two headers on account of using {{WPX header}}. But in updating each the WikiProjects I noticed some inconsistencies in how the "Announcements" header appeared, because I think it's up to each individual announcements page to include that header. The next step will be to centralize that as I have for the headers in the main body. Harej (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with "Metrics" either. As Women in Red is mainly concerned with new articles anyway, maybe we should just have an icon pointing to "Results". I would also like to see this section extended to include the results of our editathons which often cover enhancements to existing articles as well as additions. At the moment, the site is divided into various areas: overall new articles, additions and improvements from editathons, overall DYKs (now under "Showcase") and DYKs for each of the editathons (on the individual editathon pages). It's all becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Every day I have to navigate in and out of one page after another. It would be much easier if we had a centralized results section with various subsections. It would not be difficult to set this up if we did not have to cope with the constraints of Project X. Fortunately we now have a navbox which makes it a bit easier to find the various resources.--Ipigott (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Harej: I'm glad you were able to fix the two problems I posted on your talk page but I am not at all happy with our full dependence on you and your colleagues. Everywhere else on Wikipedia, we are either able to fix things ourselves or bring in other editors to help us. Can Project X not be made more transparent for everyone? Even when you "fix" something, I have no idea what you have done or how you have done it. I have looked at all the other WikiProjects supported by Project X and this is the only one with high activity. It's therefore an excellent test-bed. If it is not a help for us, I don't think it will be much use to anyone else. I suggest you set up a help page which allows anyone to maintain the displays independently.--Ipigott (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And JMO, but this entire conversation is gibberish; I have no idea what is going on or why anyone should care. I'm not saying this to be snotty, I'm saying this as an over-50 editor who is not a computer programmer. Totally confused why any of this is done and how it helps actual content editors? Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw: As an over-70 content editor, I fully sympathize with you. I have been pushing for some time for the project page to be made more accessible to non-techies. In my opinion, it's an important part of the project as it allows outsiders and potential new members to see what we are doing and helps encourage members of this and similar projects to participate in our activities. But maybe the two of us are no longer part of the mainstream. I sometimes wonder whether my suggestions are considered counter-productive.--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Montanabw and Ipigott: I find it somewhat ironic that there is so much technobabble that goes on at WP. It is content editors who create articles that readers read but technocrats who create the how to pages which are usually unfathomable to content editors. The whole issue of the lack of automation is truly baffling to me, but like you Montanabw, I do not really care to know how the technology works, only that it does what technology is supposed to do, which is make things easier for humans. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The techno workings of Wikipedia are a mystery to me, too. As for WikiProject X, well, 50 years from now, when my great-granddauther is a Ph.D. candidate writing her dissertation on Women in Red, I'll want her to know that we at WiR were not only torch bearers within our scope, but in our collaboration with other innovate project(s) who wanted to improve Wikipedia as much as we did, starting on the EN lang version and wanting to take the model across other languages as soon as the EN lang version worked out its kinks. And Ipigott, to answer your question, I think we should never stop coming up with suggestions for improvement! Counter-productive? Nay, exactly the opposite. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Rosiestep: Thanks for reminding me of the background. I must say I was initially attracted by the innovative interfacing Project X proposed with Wikidata, making it easier for us to identify women from around the world who deserved to be included in the English version of Wikipedia. At one point, Harej even seemed to be giving serious consideration to the development of topics and categories in connection with women's biographies as a basis for compiling priority lists of the women we should be covering. (I realize that in the meantime Jane023 has revealed other ways in which we can draw on Wikidata while Megalibrarygirl in particular has been compiling lists of red links in a wide variety of fields of interest.) There was also once a suggestion that Women in Red could be extended through Project X to cover other languages. (Given Ravan's interest in Arabic above, maybe we should be following it up?) I must say that despite repeated enquiries, I have not been able to detect any progress on this front. It seems to me that for the time being virtually all the progress on WiR has been a result of the enormous enthusiasm of our content editors who have been responsible not only for a huge number of new articles but have contributed to the main page of the WikiProject and to dozens of subpages. Project X has two main goals: "to improve discovery of content improvement opportunities, and to improve discovery of collaborators". Perhaps you (or other members of the project) could explain more clearly our future plans for incorporating innovations from Project X and how these will assist us in our work. (It might also be interesting to hear from Project X why WiR is relevant to its own improvement.) On this basis, we should be able to improve our presentations with a view to extending our membership and impact. (As WiR is technically part of WP:Women, Dr. Blofeld may also like to comment.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ipigott I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'd like to replicate WiR into other languages. That takes connections and I'm working on building them. Perhaps others (you?) have connections with editors in other language Wikipedias who are interested in replicating the WiR model? My plan is to talk about it at length at WikiCon in Berlin in April with attending Affiliates and UGs, and hopefully come back with an agreement that some other language group(s) will develop their own WiR (or other name) program. This will also be on the agenda at the Diversity Conference (2016 date/location not set yet). In the meantime, if you or others have ideas on how to replicate WiR, please share!! As for WikiProject Women, I think we can be a part of it without having it in our name, as it is overly redundent to say "Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red". I'm leaning towards having us move to [[Wikipedia:Women in Red]] (something I've discussed with Harej). It would follow a naming convention pattern established by Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I frequently come across editors from other languages who are interested in supporting coverage of women. RAVAN is however the only one up to now who seems to have made a concerted effort to get people to join her in improving coverage in Arabic. I'm not too sure what you mean by the WiR model. It started out as an idea from Victuallers on "how to pick up more women" which was later edited to "how to improve the coverage of women in Wikipedia". We eventually settled on "Women in Red" and the project developed on the basis of your tie-up with Harej at the conference. Since then, we have moved towards increasing interest, participation and progress through our virtual editathons. If our approach consists essentially of rallying support for the creation of new articles, then it should not be difficult to encourage other language wikis to join it. Why not pitch your Berlin presentation along these lines? As there is still some time to go, you might consider attracting contacts and interest from other languages communities (maybe German and Spanish for starters). Berlin has been involved in our architecture editathon and there was previously interest from Mexico for collaboration on Spanish. The collaboration could work in two directions: new biographies in English could be replicated in German and Spanish and vice versa. (I'm sure the Wikidata enthusiasts would welcome links along these lines too.)
You also mention moving Women in Red back into its own space and breaking page links with WikiProject Women. I think this would be a good move as it is confusing to be brought back accidentally to WP Women when navigating through the pages of Women in Red. WiR is also far more active than WP Women. I would even suggest there might be a good case for extending WiR into other areas such as the enhancement of our articles all the way up to GA and FA. At the moment, once an article has been created, it immediately evolves into another WikiProject or area of interest. I think the project would benefit from more consistent work on all our articles, as is the case with most other projects. This would also allow Project X to help us to enhance our articles (or articles about women in specific areas) in the same was as it helps all the other WikiProjects it covers by providing lists of articles requiring further work based on an analysis of various criteria. See, for example, the Tasks section of Women in Technology. We could also use WikiProject Women in Red in its own right for inclusions together with other WikiProjects on the talk pages of the articles we create or improve. (Hope I'm not coming up with too many suggestions all at once!)--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, harej asked me to come look at the concerns raised here and help respond to/address/whatever them, but this was when the thread started and now there are a lot of topics in this thread... I'll just ask a couple of things.

  1. What are the issues that need addressing? Are the announcements and metrics still giving you problems? We definitely agree that there needs to be some sort of control panel, which we intend to work on.
  2. Please bear with us as the past few months have actually been downtime, technically, between grant and renewal. Our work, as you probably know, is part of an IEG, and there is a lot of bureaucratic overhead involved in these things, which isn't really fair to you guys as testers and pilots who have been working with largely frozen products in the meantime (harej has done a lot to keep things from exploding outright, but this has all been on personal time since August or so). Fortunately we should be on track again soon, but if you don't want to deal with this, we totally understand if you want to just pull out now and wait until there's something more solid to adopt in full. There are other projects that could potentially take your place, and you've already done so much to help us with WikiProject X, so it might make sense to spread the burden of all this around a bit when you all have your own projects to worry about as well. Either way, thank you for everything so far.

Thanks! -— Isarra ༆ 17:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Isarra: you are right; we have a lot going on, we have a lot of comments from a lot of members, and we need to prioritize. So I'm being bold and producing our Maintenance Priority List. Going forward, I suggest that the Maintenance Priority List has a unique section -- a simple list -- on our main page. We will include link(s) to talkpage conversation(s). --Rosiestep (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 

;Maintenance Priority List
#Move WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red back to WP:WikiProject Women in Red.
#Redirect WP:Women in Red to WP:WikiProject Women in Red.
#Redirect all Women in Red subtalkpages (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Metrics) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red.
#Create Maintenance Priority List section on WiR mainpage above External links.
#All of the parameters for these 3, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists#New articles created, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created, to be added to User:AlexNewArtBot/WomeninredSearchResult so that we don't have to check the first 3 lists in addition to the 4th one.
#Incorporate control panel/tabs in mainpage layout (but no separate talkpages for subpages).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_6&oldid=1076158658"