Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Maximilianklein in topic Source Code for how metrics are generated
Learn more about this page

September 2015

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

This the raw data for 2015-09-01 through 2015-09-13 from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles, which needs cleanup before we add it to our metrics list. I did it myself for July and August but this needs to be automated. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rosiestep I've sorted them all into groups of 50. Processed 300 of them: checking to make sure they have a woman-related theme, they have a woman-related WikiProject assigned, verifying they are not already on the Metrics list, and then moving them there. This really should be automated. It is crazy. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I did another 100. Only 100 more to go of the original batch and then the next ones. Uffff, never ending. SusunW (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
First, @SusunW: thanks; second, yes, ufffffff!! This needs to be automated, and I don't know how to make that happen, and maybe no one does. It's 2015... am I asking for too much to get this automated? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to go out on a limb and ask, because she is usually patient with how little technical skill I have, Redrose64 is there some way to have this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles automated? SusunW (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Okay, well, the first 500 are reviewed and moved. I will make a start on the next set, but if anyone wants to jump in it'd be great ... SusunW (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do you know of another WikiProject that already has a list like the one you want for WikiProject Women? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for answering Redrose64. I'll let Rosiestep correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is such a thing. The problem is that it takes significant time away from creating content to clean this up. I have spent the better part of two days on it and we're only 1/2 way through the month's articles (manually scanning 500 articles so far) and Rosie did it the previous two months. Surely there is a way to get a list without all the "(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Glany222 (talk · contribs · new pages (7)) started on 2015-09-14, score: 10" stuff you see at the bottom of the page which I haven't worked through yet. But after that is gone, I am manually checking each article to see if it really is woman related, if it has WikiProjects with women related markers, Adding those where missing, verifying that they are not already on the monthly list and then copy and pasting them in. My guess is Rosie did something similar the two months she reviewed the content. SusunW (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks for answering, @Redrose64. @Susun accurately described the process. I'd been doing the same for WikiProject Women writers until I ran out of steam. I don't know how to automate the process, so I keep doing it manually, but it's a very poor use of anyone's time. Any ideas/help would be appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Having seen Rosiestep add a bunch of lines below, and noticing that the added content begins "From: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles", I've looked at that page. The data that it shows is transcluded from User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistorySearchResult which is updated by InceptionBot (talk · contribs) based upon the rules described at User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistory. Perhaps you need to create a similar set of rules for WikiProject Women - there are instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot#Process overview. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Redrose64: the problem we're trying to sort out is that the AlexNewArtBot list is temporary... 14 days. How can we automate a permanent list of newly-created articles that fall within this project's scope? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Have you asked the bot operator what options are available? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I have a feeling both Rosiestep and SusunW may be wasting valuable time in compiling such lengthy lists of new articles. The bot gives a pretty good record of what is being created on a day-to-day basis and although it only displays results for 14 days, the older versions of the output can be viewed through its history. As I have pointed out before, I don't think it was actually the intention of Women in Red to encourage more article creation in the area of sports which seems to be able to take care of itself without additional assistance. So maybe, like several other WikiProjects, we should just rely on the raw output from the bot, unless there are specific new priorities such as women in leadership. If anyone can come up with a reliable automated list, that would of course be great but there does not seem to have been much response on this. Our time could therefore perhaps be better spent on article creation and improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ipigott If Rosie decides not to pursue the effort, I will follow her lead. It seems to me that there ought to be a way to do what Rosie is asking and it doesn't seem that it would be that difficult. But regardless, she asked for help in combing through the data and I could not knowingly ignore her plea, as she has helped me innumerable times in a multitude of situations. There are many tasks I cannot do, but I try to help when I can. This is a simple enough task, though admittedly mind-numbing. SusunW (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
SusunW I think you have been doing a wonderful job, not only of creating new articles but also assisting with supporting tasks like this. I am pretty sure it would not be too difficult to have the NewAlexBot (or some other programmer) process the output so that only the names of articles appeared which would facilitate copying them over. But I really think we need to eliminate all the biographies of women in sport which make it difficult to review the content. I've made a few suggestions along these lines elsewhere but have received no support. I've also been going through the bot output to pick up a number of articles on women in leadership which should have been included in the outcomes. I know how tedious a task this can be and that's why I wonder if it is really worthwhile continuing on a month-to-month basis for all new articles on women.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think something should be doable if those nice people at Arbitration Clarification and Amendment are forthcoming. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC).Reply

October 2015

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles: Done
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists: Done
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers: Done
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists: Done

@Harej: The metrics icon at the top of the main Women in Red page is not functioning.--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rosiestep For now, I'm going to try to do this on a daily basis. We'll see how it goes, but I noticed during the editathon that a whole bunch of files were not being posted in outcomes but were done for the editathon, so I am checking both lists. I'll let you know if it gets to be too much, but for now, since no one else seems interested in jumping in and you have your hands full, I will do this. SusunW (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

SusunW I appreciate it very much. I'll work on it in November if no one else jumps in. I am trying to get back in touch with the right person at WMF who said there is project management software which could assist us. Fingerscrossed! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)   Like SusunW (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Rosiestep WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER!!!!!! Okay, sorry for yelling. Megalibrarygirl says she'll take the next 2 months :) I am hoping your software person can automate us but at least, if we share this between 3 of us it won't feel so burdensome. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
 
@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: OH MY GOSH... am I awake or is this a dream? THANK YOU! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know, Rosiestep I had the same reaction. Even after I explained the task, Sue was like, Okay. So I said, no you have to look at all 1500 or so articles, and she said, okay. I'm like WOW, totally WOW. I'll finish this month and gladly turn it over, but will be here as back up if Megalibrarygirl needs it. SusunW (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Amazing things are happening within this project, including developing relationships with amazing people such as you two. Thank you for being you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
This has been the best project I've been involved with. I feel like I make difference every day here. I'm happy to help. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Totally agree Rosiestep mutual admiration society and so much respect for what you and Megalibrarygirl have added to the project. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I have just completed the info from last night. Anything forward will go to November. Glad to be done with it and even gladder that someone else is taking over next month. Rosie, who checks for duplicates? And OMG over 1400 even if without the duplicates this is huge :) Very successful month! SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW: Thank you! And, yes, those 1,4000+ articles are nothing short of amazing! @Rich Farmbrough has done the duplicates double-check in past months using a special tool; Rich, can you please do so for October, too? After that's done, we should post a congratulatory note on WiR's talkpage as our articles contributed to the 5,000,000th which we're celebrating today. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I removed redlinks and dupes. I also replaced redirects with their targets, mostly these are page moves, but a few are just new redirects - where I have spotted these I have removed them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Note: Susan Pamerleau is also removed - currently counting as a copyvio. It can be restored once that tissue is dealt with.
There are 100 entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#October. Have all of them been accounted for in the WiR metrics? (I just added 4 articles to WiR from the Women writers' list.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Rosiestep I only included them if they appeared on the list of new articles from the link above. I did not go to each project in the umbrella and cross-check because the madness of doing in manually must stop somewhere. I wouldn't know where to begin with an automated comparison and do not have the patience to do it manually. But...could someone put October in the little green thing tucked away? It is a long list to scroll through ;) SusunW (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
SusunW I left a new note for Amanda/WMF on the WiR talkpage regarding which 2 cats plus subcats to use to develop our metrics list; let's see how she responds. And I collapsed the October metrics: 1401 new articles!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Rosiestep yes I saw! I will be so excited to see this finally happen. Then all of our time can be devoted to creating link lists and articles. I know 1401 (actually there were more, but the prods or deletions were removed. Doesn't mean they cannot be revived later). :) SusunW (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
SusunW, point well made. I'm spending so much time on "administrative" tasks, talkpage posts, etc. which leaves me little time for content creation, my passion. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Column width suggestion

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I suggest displaying the columns on this page at 30em, which is pretty standard at ENWP. This is particularly helpful for users accessing pages via mobile or tablet devices. 30em adjusts the number of columns based on the size of a user's screen, rather than forcing text into 3 columns based on the current command. Would anyone oppose if I made these changes? The result will be a longer page, likely with 2-column sections for most users, but it will be consistent, organized, and more accessible for more users. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Update: Instead of waiting for discussion, I went ahead and changed the column widths throughout the page to 30em. Anyone is welcome to revert my edit if you prefer. Just thought I would be bold. Keep up the great work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Right in the middle of my complex update!   It's better I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
@Another Believer and Rich Farmbrough: thank you and thank you. Appreciate all the help. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • @Another Believer: The change in col width is fine and certainly causes no problems on PCs or notebooks. I was however interested to see how your edit appeared on an iPhone or iPad. I could not see any difference but this prompted me to look at your own user page on an iPhone. I must say it just doesn't work at all! Maybe it's the frame you use but all I can see is a quote by Jimmy Wales and definitions of GA, etc. Maybe you should test your changes out in practice before you recommend them to others. I'm really pleased nevertheless to see you are interested in our project and certainly don't want to frighten you off. In any case, only about three per cent of edits seem to come from mobile devices although I have no recent figures for page views. I realize we should also be catering to the mobile world but let's do it sensibly. --Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have no doubt my profile page is not suitable for tablets and mobile devices, but that doesn't mean having 30em widths is not considered more accessible than forced 3x or 4x columns. And don't worry about frightening me off; I've been around a long time and appreciate this project's efforts! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Another Believer: The wonderful thing is that with all the enthusiasm for new women's biographies, we even need to consider the use of columns in listing new articles and DYKs. Perhaps we should also be paying more attention to how the boxes, images and leads in our articles appear on a range of mobile devices. I think most of us who do the editing are still bogged down in the PC era. Great to have someone around who is interested is serving the new generation of users. I look forward to more alerts (or changes) along the same lines.--Ipigott (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

November

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

got it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have all probably noticed that the DYK address has been changed after Harej added the "Showcase" icon. I'm not sure this is the best solution. Any ideas?--Ipigott (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re: November. Does The Quest (Corvallis, Oregon) count? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another Believer Here's my logic on it, for whatever it's worth. The project includes women and works by women, thus at first blush the answer would be no. But, the project also covers articles on fictional women and characters. While the statue is of a real person, it is by definition as a statue a "representation of a person" which is the same as a definition of a "character". Thus, I think it counts. And so it isn't POV, I actually did look it up. [1] :D SusunW (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I was on the fence. I thought I'd start a discussion here based on Alice Biddle's accomplishment as the first female Oregon State University graduate. Feel free to add this article to this list, or not. I certainly won't be offended! :) ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's a representation of a woman. That works for me. So I've added it to the metrics. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: Belatedly, I just looked closely at the November metrics list and it doesn't seem to be up-to-date. I'm wondering if the entries are being tracked elsewhere? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Rosiestep, I've been going through the list from Women's history generated list and the other lists a few times a week and adding items from there. However, I also thought there weren't quite as many as last time. Do you think I'm missing something, too? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Rosiestep and SusunW: I found my mistake: I didn't enter an entire page. I'll get it up to speed. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Megalibrarygirl Good! Thank you! It just seemed that 336 articles for 21 days was way too low, especially as the Women in Science editathon alone has about 250 entries. But I haven't been keeping an eye on the 3 lists (Women's history; Women writers; Women artists). Please let me know if I can help as I know it's a lot of work for just one person. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: quite truthfully, I haven't even looked at it other than to post my entries. What with having house guests, the editathon and RL stuff, I've been busy. I do know, Sue that there are entries on the other 3 lists above, Writers, Artists, Scientists that do not appear on the history list. I went through all 4 lists. Unless the women in sport has continued their massive push (and surely at some point they will get all those entries input), I would expect that there would be a slowdown, but it does seems quite a significant drop. SusunW (talk)
Nah, it was just me missing a list--and the sports hasn't let up, let me tell you. I'm a little tired of adding WikiProject Women's sport... I wish they would do it themselves. :P I'll get the list up to date, maybe by the end of the day. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl: I just updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#2015 with 6-20 November entries (I didn't remember to deal with it earlier so the 1-5 entries have disappeared from AlexNewBot); these November entries can be copied over to WiR metrics, if that hasn't happened already. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Megalibrarygirl look straight above this post, there are 3 in a row that says something like Raw data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists SusunW (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

SusunW, I must have missed something because when I looked at the artist and writers ones before, I didn't see anything. But now I think I wasn't clicking on the rectangle, like in the women in science. I just thought it was empty. >.< But now I've got it! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Megalibrarygirl I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists#2015 with its AlexNewBot list and the Nov entries can be copied over to WiR metrics. Note, I didn't do it earlier in the month, and AlexNewBot only holds 14 days of activity, so for both WikiProject Women Writers and WikiProject Women Artists, the 1-5 November entries are missing. Not the end of the world, but a reminder to all of us that unless Abittaker (WMF) or someone else can come up with a better method, the only way we can keep track of our work is by these painstaking manual methods. It is hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that 2015 is almost over, and yet there is no auto-generated list of new articles within our scope. Copying Masssly because of WIGI so he, too, understands our pain points. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Completely agree Rosie, it is a PITA to have to do this manually and not remotely blaming you Sue. You didn't create the problem and are trying to help with the work. Sorry I left you out on a limb. My houseguests who we thought would be here for a few days were here almost 2 weeks. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Megalibrarygirl, thank you for working on the list. Appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Rich Farmbrough when you do that thing that you do at the end of the month to get rid of duplicates, etc. can you make sure that all the new files from the list on the Women in Science editathon made it into the matrix too? There's too many to manually check them, but we want to make sure they are all in the matrix. Gracias. SusunW (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't be a problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC).Reply
Thanks Rich Farmbrough I just knew if I didn't ask when I was thinking about it, I'd forget. SusunW (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think I got them all. Thank you, Rich Farmbrough for showing me how to find the dupes. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl: thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Most welcome. Once those nice people at ArbCom take my shackles off, or at least lengthen them, we will be able to keep this more up to date throughout the month without expending a lot of effort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC).Reply
@Rich Farmbrough: any new news on the shackle situation? We will have some new ArbCom members in the next few days, so perhaps that will be helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
A motion has been passed that allows me the tiniest bit of freedom - here. I am still more limited in what I am allowed to do in those respects than a new account, or even an IP. Oh well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC).Reply

December

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Did I screw something up when I copied the header for December? It says 44 articles, 1 per day. I'm pretty sure 44/4=10 per day. I am sorry if I make more work for others when trying to be helpful *sigh* SusunW (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, now I'm pinging people because it's worse. It says 141 articles (5 per day). 141 articles/7=20 and change. What did I do? @Redrose64, Rich Farmbrough, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep:, anyone? SusunW (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's over the whole month. I guess I can make it smarter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC).Reply
(edit conflict) 141/31 rounded to nearest whole number is 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought about this at the time I wrote the template. It seems to me that what we have is good, because, even if we were to stop now, the rate for December would average 7 per day. The rate per day can only go up until the end of the month (apart from dupe and redlink removal of course).
On the other hand the alternative approach also has its charms. Maybe I should implement both.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC).Reply
Also, I don't know how to collapse November. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Redrose64, Rich Farmbrough, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep: Okay, I see now that it is an average for the whole month. That had honestly not occurred to me. Just glad I didn't screw something up, which was what I feared. Thanks for the fast responses. I love that about this group. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Redrose64, and Rich Farmbrough: I've been keeping up the entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#December 2015 and will add them to the WiR metrics on January 1st or 2nd. Will also add the artists if that hasn't been done already. There will probably be duplicates, but I know someone has the magic wand that can be waved to remove them so I won't fret about dups. Also, I think it's my turn in the rotation to track of WiR metrics so count on me to do so in January. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Rosiestep: This edit didn't notify me, so I doubt that it would have notified Megalibrarygirl, SusunW or Rich Farmbrough either. The primary reason is that you didn't add a new signature: you overtyped an existing one, and that counts as a modification, not a new post, so won't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Redrose64, and Rich Farmbrough: sorry about that; I'll be more mindful next time.
@Rosiestep: I'm just very selfishly glad it isn't my turn and that you are handling things. My mom is coming and I doubt I'll have a lot of time in January ;) SusunW (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Redrose64, and Rich Farmbrough: As I haven't kept up the metrics for 3 months, are there any additional AlexNewBot lists I should be scouring besides Women's History, Women scientists, women artists, Women writers, Opera, and Novels? Also, if we've developed some "instructions" on this process (e.g. how to get rid of the dups), and I missed it, sorry about that, too, and can you please point me to it? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@SusunW, Redrose64, Rich Farmbrough, and Rosiestep:, I'm only looking at those... but not the novels... which I will from now on. I'll keep helping add names if you like. I don't mind. My process is to transcribe directly from the original file. I open each page, make sure it's tagged correctly, then copy and paste the article title into our metrics page. In order to check for dupes, I copy and paste the whole list into MS Excel, run the sort feature and look for dupes that way. I have added the artists, opera singers and scientists to our list. I'm working on Women's history right now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just addedd 200 articles collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#December 2015. This list is complete through 30 December; I'll add 31 Dec entries to the Women writer's new articles list and to WiR's metrics over the weekend. I expect there are duplicates. I'll work on artists next. Added 81 from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists; I'll finish the artists over the weekend as there will be 31 December stragglers. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Rich Farmbrough: do you have time to do your sorting wizardry on December's metrics? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Never mind. I figured out how to do it! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great stuff! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

Another feed

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just found this feed for opera singers: Opera search result. The opera project doesn't tag their projects (and a number of articles are about singers) with any of the women's banners. I'm going to start watching them, too, and tagging. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

January 2016

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists § New articles created
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers § Articles recently created
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists § Articles recently created
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/6

February 2016

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists § New articles created
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers § Articles recently created
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists § Articles recently created
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/7
  • All done

March 2016

edit

All done.

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenartistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenWritersSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8

April 2016

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenartistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenWritersSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/Womeninred
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/9
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/10

May 2016

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenartistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenWritersSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/Womeninred
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/12
Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/13

June 2016

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why so few articles? I have sorted and de-duped, and de-redlinked them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

@Rich Farmbrough: We did not do a manual compilation of June articles -scouring the many AlexNewBot pages, formating in Excel and Word, and etc.- in June as Harej has developed an alternate method of compiling our metrics but we are still waiting to see the results. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

July 2016

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
  • July 12-23:
  1. Heba Ahmed



  • July 7- 11:
  1. Andi Tostanoski Blcrosby 7-1140
  2. Mary Taylor (women's rights advocate) J3Mrs 7-1125
  3. Heike Matthiesen Pljakobs 7-1117
  4. Equal Suffrage League (St. Louis)
  5. Irmgard Enderle Charles01 7-1021
  6. Marta Pen AlvesRF 7-1016
  7. Gator Guard Drill Team Tseung Kwan O 7-1132
  8. Women's Antifascist Front of Yugoslavia The Emperor of Byzantium 7-11117
  9. Alyxandria Treasure Sportsfan 1234 7-1124
  10. Kartikeya Smartshiva1988 7-1123
  11. Alessandro Pepe (director)
  12. Fatimata M'Baye Victuallers 7-1179
  13. Bangla Tribune Banakusum 7-1117
  14. Dave's Sweetheart Perry Middlemiss 7-1115
  15. Phanthog Astaire 7-1126
  16. Johanna Peiponen Lugnuts 7-1112
  17. Carla Salomé Rocha Lugnuts 7-1112
  18. Veronica Inglese Lugnuts 7-1112
  19. Ciara Mageean Lugnuts 7-1114
  20. Maren Kock Lugnuts 7-1116
  21. Justine Fedronic
  22. Bianka Kéri Lugnuts 7-1112
  23. Alexandra Štuková Lugnuts 7-1112
  24. Renée Eykens Lugnuts 7-1112
  25. Olivia Fox Cabane Cornflakecraze 7-1112
  26. Christine Churcher Rberchie 7-1146
  27. Irini Vasiliou Lugnuts 7-1112
  28. Benedicte Hauge Lugnuts 7-1112
  29. Diana Khubeseryan Lugnuts 7-1112
  30. Martina Amidei Lugnuts 7-1112
  31. Laura de Witte Lugnuts 7-1110
  32. Nadine Gonska Lugnuts 7-1112
  33. Alexandra Bezeková Lugnuts 7-1112
  34. Estela García
  35. 2016–17 UCF Knights women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-1140
  36. 2016–17 Tulsa Golden Hurricane women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-1182
  37. Katra Sambili Africanprecedent2016 7-1145
  38. 2016–17 Tulane Green Wave women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-1160
  39. Aishwarya Rutuparna Pradhan Anasuyas 7-1122
  40. Aurora Jiménez de Palacios
  41. Heather Miller GoOKC 7-1112
  42. Rosa María Cid López Rosiestep 7-1155
  43. Janet Zaph Briggs
  44. Megan Lukan Sportsfan 1234 7-1040
  45. Eleni Kapogianni Gtrbolivar 7-1071
  46. Karen Mixon Cook
  47. Vicky Ntetema Victuallers 7-1010
  48. Ruth Spelmeyer Lugnuts 7-1016
  49. Friederike Möhlenkamp Lugnuts 7-1012
  50. Laura Muller Lugnuts 7-1012
  51. Tamara Salaški Lugnuts 7-1012
  52. Lisa Mayer Lugnuts 7-1012
  53. Floriane Gnafoua Lugnuts 7-1012
  54. Alice E. Brown SusunW 7-1074
  55. Sydney McLaughlin Rpgczar 7-1012
  56. Natalia Kocherova FruitMonkey 7-1016
  57. Aramide (musician) Obari2Kay 7-0841
  58. Katrina Young (athlete) Knope7 7-0442
  59. Isabelle Gautheron Lugnuts 7-1040
  60. Julie Speight Lugnuts 7-1042
  61. Zhou Suying Lugnuts 7-1042
  62. Ethel Thomas Worm That Turned 7-1064
  63. Nagham Nawzat Victuallers 7-1012
  64. Patricia Happ Buffler Penny Richards 7-1044
  65. Beth Tabor Lugnuts 7-1042
  66. Elisabetta Fanton Lugnuts 7-1042
  67. Kim Jin-yeong Lugnuts 7-1042
  68. Valentina Yevpak Lugnuts 7-1042
  69. 2016 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship for Women Maiō T. 7-1010
  70. Elizabeth Hepple Lugnuts 7-1042
  71. Angela Ranft Lugnuts 7-1042
  72. Donna Gould Lugnuts 7-1042
  73. Terumi Ogura Lugnuts 7-1042
  74. Kim Gyeong-suk Lugnuts 7-1042
  75. Yan Yinhua Lugnuts 7-1042
  76. Nida Eliz Üstündağ CeeGee 7-1042
  77. No Yeom-ju Lugnuts 7-1042
  78. Nataliya Pryshchepa Edgars2007 7-1012
  79. Brigitte Gyr-Gschwend Lugnuts 7-1042
  80. Chen Weixiu Lugnuts 7-1040
  81. Emily Stipes Watts Pdebee 7-1066
  82. Stephanie McKnight Lugnuts 7-1042
  83. Hong Yeong-mi Lugnuts 7-1042
  84. Judy Shaw T. Anthony 7-1048
  85. Justine Shaw SwisterTwister 7-1028
  86. List of colleges in Amritsar JVRKPRASAD 7-1024
  87. Nadezhda Stasova Aciram 7-1014
  88. Maria Trubnikova Aciram 7-1014
  89. Boshra Salem
  90. Chen Xiefen Aciram 7-0958
  91. Qiu Yufang Aciram 7-09156
  92. Mary Pannbacker TallCorgi 7-09102
  93. El Paso Women's Hall of Fame Megalibrarygirl 7-0914
  94. Inés Enríquez Frödden
  95. Elvira García y García Aciram 7-0924
  96. Gladys Gunzer Uncommon fritillary 7-0964
  97. 2016–17 North Carolina Tar Heels women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-0960
  98. Maternal Transfer in Aquatic Mammals LaMona 7-0916
  99. CEO Dancers Oluwa2Chainz 7-0940
  100. Mercedes Marín del Solar
  101. 2017 Big Ten Conference Women's Basketball Tournament Lewisthejayhawk 7-0911
  102. Marion Weyant Ruth Penny Richards 7-0990
  103. Keitha Adams
  104. 2016–17 Florida Gators women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-0972
  105. Estela Casas Megalibrarygirl 7-0921
  106. Kielce Ghetto Poeticbent 7-0928
  107. Farzane Zamen Daguerre 7-0942
  108. Suzie Azar Megalibrarygirl 7-0929
  109. Dorothy F. Bailey
  110. Fok Hing Tong Aciram 7-09114
  111. Agnes Headlam-Morley Gaia Octavia Agrippa 7-0922
  112. Adavalle Aligithe B.Bhargava Teja 7-0924
  113. Lin Hei'er Aciram 7-0922
  114. Rhizlane Siba Sillyfolkboy 7-0910
  115. Dance on My Own Noboyo 7-0941
  116. Rikenette Steenkamp Sillyfolkboy 7-0912
  117. List of current Women's National Basketball Association broadcasters Bigddan11 7-0911
  118. Jenni Kangas Edgars2007 7-0930
  119. Liveta Jasiūnaitė Edgars2007 7-0930
  120. Eda Tuğsuz Edgars2007 7-0930
  121. Katsiaryna Netsviatayeva Edgars2007 7-0930
  122. Verena Preiner Edgars2007 7-0930
  123. Anna Maiwald Edgars2007 7-0930
  124. Michelle Zeltner Edgars2007 7-0930
  125. Om Prakash Dhurve Jaywardhan009 7-0922
  126. Mari Klaup Edgars2007 7-0920
  127. 2016–17 Saint Louis Billikens women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-09100
  128. Spain at the 1971 European Athletics Championships Itxia 7-0923
  129. 2016–17 Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team Lewisthejayhawk 7-0960
  130. Women's rugby league in Australia Pidzz 7-0940
  131. Fletcher Watson Snowfalcon cu 7-0947
  132. Qiu Ersao Aciram 7-0923
  133. Hong Xuanjiao Aciram 7-0923
  134. Huang Lü Aciram 7-0922
  135. 2014 IIHF Women's Challenge Cup of Asia Salavat 7-0424

Alex new bot

edit
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenartistsSearchResult
  • Artists: 12-29 July: done
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenWritersSearchResult
  • Writers: 12-29 July: done
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult
Main page: User:AlexNewArtBot/Womeninred

New metrics section

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

(copied from the main WiR talk page)

I'm happy to see we now have a new metrics section, thanks to the work undertaken by The Earwig. While it represents a huge improvement and largely relieves us from manual updating, there is still room for improvement. During our editathons, a considerable number of articles are written on women's works, associations, historical incidents, etc. Until now, these have formed part of our monthly lists too. As far as I can see, the bot no longer includes them and even deletes those added manually. I realize Harej has plans for covering at least the works but in the meantime, should we not try to maintain some kind of list under metrics? The graph (now the right way up) is also useful for indicating month by month progress but I think the data for the current month (i.e. August for now) give a misleading picture as it looks as if interest in WiR has dropped almost to zero. I suggest we either decide to include only completed months on the graph or somehow indicate "month in progress" with a dotted line or similar. I do nevertheless think it is very useful to have the actual list of new articles for the current month.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ipigott: The bot should never remove articles other people add to the metrics pages unless they're redlinks. I hope this is clear from the language I used ("Reports bot updates these lists automatically, but you can manually add and annotate entries."). If it's happening, that's a bug, and I'll fix it. — Earwig talk 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and for your second point, I agree. Currently trying to massage the graph software into producing something clearer. — Earwig talk 06:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I tried making the last leg of the graph transparent. The software doesn't give me too many options here. Let me know if you prefer this or just leaving the last month completely off. — Earwig talk 07:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@The Earwig: Thanks very much for your quick response. The graph looks better now. Before you take any further action, let's see if there are any comments from other WiR editors. I seem to have misunderstood how the bot updates. It's great if we can add items to the list manually. I think we should also have explanations at the beginning of the section, including a specific invitation to editors, asking them add articles other than biographies to the main list. The alternative would be to compile a separate list of non-biographical articles or any the bot has not picked up. I'll wait another 24 hours for further comment, in particular from Rosiestep and SusunW, then I'll add explanations.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A thought: the graph currently shows the derivative, the rate of increase, rather than the total amount of increase itself. What if instead it showed aggregate change over time, such that the slope is always positive, though by different amounts each month? (Unless a ton of articles were deleted or something.) Harej (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Harej:I think the graph is useful as it is, showing the rate of increase for the month. It already shows that some months have been far more productive than others. As I have suggested before, I think it would be useful to follow Max Klein's approach by showing the proportion/percentage of EN Wikipedia's new biographies each month as compared to the total number of new biographies. (Currenly he only displays the results of the last completed week and the overall totals.) The aim of WiR after all is to increase the proportional coverage of women on Wikipedia. In the meantime, it might simply be useful to provide a link to Klein's Gender by language page which is useful in its own right in that it shows the comparative progress on women's biographies in Wikipedia's different language versions. Personally, I think simply illustrating the actual number of new biographies per month in a steadily rising trace might give a falsely positive view of progress. It would however be useful if it also showed a trace of the total number of new biographies each month.--Ipigott (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Harej: Would it be possible to show all 3 of the graphs (derivative; total amount of increase; Max's) so that people could see the measurements displayed in various ways? All of them interest me, and so, as I'm not unique, I believe all of them would interest others, especially the academics who are using this information for research. In the meantime, a huge thank you to you and @The Earwig: for giving me back 10 hours/month of my time (and I'm not alone in this as @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: have also done the metrics work) from metrics compilation. And a friendly FYI, I'm expecting to see a sharp rise in Olympian women articles in August so do please check to make sure they're accounted for, e.g. if the article creator forgets to put them in a cat which denotes they're a woman, hopefully, they'll get the female property in Wikidata... somehow{{how?}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, The Earwig, and Harej: I am thrilled with whatever we have that moves the process to automated rather than manual input. I have tested the gizmo Ian posted to input Wikidata entries and confirmed that indeed creating the entries puts them on the list without having to manually type them into the list. Like Rosie, I'd be interested in the various graphs, as long as it doesn't get too cluttered. Thank you Harej and Earwig for this. Truly gives us back our time, so we can create more. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

September 2016 metrics already an archive

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Harej and The Earwig: While the automated monthy metrics are saving us a huge amount of time and effort, I am rather surprised at the message on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/September 2016 stating that this page is an archive. What about all the articles written on 29 and 30 September which are not included? There are at least 40 of them on AlexBot today and there will be more tomorrow. Will these be listed for October? I also wonder why the bot has not alphabetized the 60 or so most recent additions I added manually (although the others are now correctly listed). Rosiestep might also be interested to know that the figure for September would have been around 1700 if I had not been making manual additions of non-biographical articles on women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Harej and The Earwig: - Women in Red creates lots of articles regarding women's works and women's issues. Can your algorithm include these articles so we don't have to add them by hand? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
The archive banner just lets you know the month has ended. You can still add stuff, and the bot still alphabetizes things (as it did). You'll see from the page history that the bot updates things daily around 13:30 UTC. — Earwig talk 21:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@The Earwig: Thanks. Then perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the archive notice at the top of the page. I see the bot also added new names yesterday, even though we are now in October. Will articles created in September be added once they have "feminine" in Wikidata? I see many of the more recent women are just listed as human. I think Edgars2007 has a bot which periodically adds feminine.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

November 2017 WiR metrics

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

The Earwig: There seems to be a problem with the WiR metrics. There has been no update for November although additions were made on October until the end of the month. As we are running our World Contest, it would be good to see how the total number of articles on women is progressing. Could you look into it?--Ipigott (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just ran the bot manually and it seems to be fine. There's nothing in the logs to indicate a problem over the last two days, though there have been some recent hiccups on Labs, so maybe that is a contributing factor. Well, we'll see if it runs correctly tomorrow. — Earwig talk 21:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Earwig: Thanks for your quick response. If you ran it manually, it should have created a new list for November but the listing in the RH margin still stops at October. Even the margin total for October is wrong, as is the value behind the graph. It is given as 1,666 but it should be 1,817 as given at the top of the page for October.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the problem. The chart and sidebar links on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics look correct to me. Also, the bot successfully ran by itself this morning, so hopefully whatever was breaking it the previous two days was intermittent. — Earwig talk 17:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Earwig: Then why are there no results for November? If you have output you can copy the results to me, I can try to insert them on the metrics page but up to now there is nothing. Perhaps someone else is maintaining the bot?. It may be useful to alert him to the problem. I know it was Harej who embarked on this but he no longer appears to be active. (cc Rosiestep, Victuallers).--Ipigott (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I am very confused now. Here is my view of the metrics page: File:Women in Red metrics page, Nov 3 2017.png. You can see November is listed in the sidebar and in the chart, which also shows a total for October around 1800, as you expected. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/November 2017 was created a day and a half ago. — Earwig talk 03:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
I too am confused. My view of the page still ends on Oct with 1,666 although from your screenshot I can see it should be Oct 1,817 and that there should also be an entry for November. I have emptied my cache, restarted my computer but it makes no difference. I can of course access Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/November 2017 which displays 310 articles. Anyway, thank you for your help. It just looks as if I shall have to open that page rather than view the metrics page. All very strange. I've never had problems like this before. The metrics page has always displayed as it should. I'll see if the problem occurs on other computers.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Won't November go up at the end of the month rather than constantly updating throughout the month? It's always confused me the monthly figures anyway because surely a lot of women articles created aren't done under Women in Red and would have been created anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dr. Blofeld: You are absolutely right about the ones which would have been created anyway but Rosiestep insisted from the start that we should keep tabs on all additions of articles about women, even all those on sports. We used to gnome them all in from the relevant sections on AlexBot but now the metrics bot is doing a great job of picking them up, at least the biographies. We still have to add the others manually.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Earwig: I've discovered it's not my computer. I have tried it out on other machines, even on an iPad, and I get the same result ending in October with nothing for November.--Ipigott (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
There is a bot which constantly updates the Metrics page with articles which fall within the scope of Women in Red. We gave the bot creator the categories which apply and that's how the bot was created. Regarding occupations... yes, of course, all occupations are included, e.g. sports, artists, scientists, activist, etc.; none are excluded. Also, yes, we still have to add some articles to the Metrics by hand, but using the bot saves one person 20 hours/month of "paperwork". Regarding November, I can see 476 articles created to date. (yay!) --Rosiestep (talk)

Scope question

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Do you track all new female biographies, or only those started by project members?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru and Czar: thanks for the questions. The bot tracks language-specific (in this case, EN-WP) articles, which have an item on Wikidata with P31=Q5 (human) and P21=Q6581072 (female). This provides a nice visual across multiple languages. All articles created for specific Women in Red events are tracked in the Outcomes section of the specific event page, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/104#Outcomes. All articles within the scope of Women in Red (women's biographies; women's works; women's issues), including those created by editors who are not "members" of the wikiproject, are tracked by the bot. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Months

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Came here via looking at "What links here" for an article I created yesterday and then clicking on the main page for an explanation of how the list is generated. The horizontal axis legend on the graph—the months—puzzles me. It appears to mark off months in groups, ok, but it goes through October 2019? which apart from being bizarre, makes it impossible for me to see what month the spike represents, which is what attracted my attention. Does someone's change need to be reversed? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yngvadottir, sorry for the delay. As I'm not sure I understand the question, I'm pinging @Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers:, who may be more helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Yngvadottir: what page were you checking out via What links here? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Looking at it again to refresh my memory, I see there are raw numbers for each month in the sidebar to the right of the graph (I'm assuming the layout is the same for those of you not using Monobook), so that tells me the spike I noticed was November 2017, and the years must mean "new year starts". I rarely look at graphs so am unfamiliar with the conventions. Carry on :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

List of articles count

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I was wondering why the articles in the monthly contests are not included in the Metrics section despite being tagged in the talk pages. Thanks --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Source Code for how metrics are generated

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi @The Earwig and Harej:, I am attempting to understand how reports and metrics work for WiR on a technical level, I was wondering if you could point me to the source code and entry points? I understand that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics is generated by Module:WikiProject_metrics however, the actual monthly report pages themselves seem to be update by User:Reports bot. When I try to search the approved code for Reports bot, I am pointed to [2], but it's not obvious to me which part of that code, is generating the wikitext reports. I'd be greatful if you could link me. I'm keen to understand the tech stack, as I have received a WMF-grant to improve WHGI's article counting. Thanks in advance for your help Maximilianklein (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Maximilianklein. The current code for Reports bot is at https://github.com/harej/reports_bot. Specifically, the code for the metrics task is here: https://github.com/harej/reports_bot/blob/master/tasks/metrics.py. — Earwig talk 21:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Earwig. Thanks for pointing me to that repo, I reviewed it an understand how it works now. BTW, the code looks really well polished, and seems to have been running well for some time! I was wondering about Reports Bot's future plans. 1) Do you have a roadmap or any features planned? I'm asking because I'm re-architecting WHGI and trying to make it more useful for editors, and harmonize it with other tools. I was thinking that as well as Reports Bot stating the new biographies created in that month, I could provide more data which I'm calculating from the dumps (perhaps via a json API). For instance, what change those new monthly biographies made in the Wikipedia's biography gender ratio. Or we could show what occupations seemed to have been targetted in the month, etc. If you had upcoming designs for more Reports Bot features, I wanted to make sure to align the work. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Maximilianklein: Thank you! I did the initial work as part of a contract for Harej, so there isn't further development planned aside from maintenance to keep it working. That said, I'm willing to help with integrating any features you'd like to add. I'm sorry that I don't have any particular things in mind, but what you've suggested seems worth exploring. — Earwig talk 23:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@The Earwig: Were you ever at a loose end, I have three suggestions for change to the metrics:
  • Remove redirects from the listings pages. For whatever reason, as time goes on, articles are moved, but the stats retain a link to their original title - now a redirect - and discover and add the new article; so it's overcounting
  • Ditto disambiguation pages; again, over time, these accrete in the metric pages, presumably much the same mechanism as the above.
  • The third I've not given enough thought to, but in essence to include article pages where there is a WiR template on the article talk page.
It may be that the first two can be dealt with easily if there's a means of excluding them - redirects by reference to their namespace, DABs by their P31 value on WD. The third I could give more thought to, were you inclined. Obvs, and equally, you may have no interest, which is also very fine & understandable. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
And examples, both from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/August 2015:
Hi Tagishsimon - these are all reasonable asks, and none seems especially difficult. I will try to make time for them but I can't promise when/if that will happen. — The Earwig (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Great to see you all taking an active interest here (including Tagishsimon). I was wondering, Maximilianklein, if it would be possible to pay more attention specifically to the EN wiki, perhaps developing results not only on biographies but on women's works, organizations, etc. There have been discussions on this here on Metrics. As you probably remember, Max, Women in Red aimed from the start not only to cover biographies but everything else to do with women. This could no doubt be a major new research project - unless The Earwig and others can come up with simpler solutions without further research.--Ipigott (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I think it would be cool to monitor more than biographies. But whatever that new-thing is, figuring out how to define would be a key pre-requisite. I.e. all the pages that are known as organizations in Wikidata. Maximilianklein (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Women in Red Continental Challenge - Oct 2020 - Dec 2021 - Statistics

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
editor Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Total
Roundtheworld 40 52 33 1 8 12 39 38 39 262
Fixer88 8 20 53 40 37 20 178
Ipigott 11 4 4 18 50 13 5 9 114
Lajmmoore 3 3 11 23 8 15 8 1 3 18 11 4 108
Penny Richards 29 24 2 6 1 1 21 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 100
Dsp13 25 23 13 3 12 12 2 90
SWP13 13 21 8 26 14 82
Nick Number 27 38 7 72
Bookworm-ce 13 13 11 26 63
Riley1012 3 42 4 1 2 2 3 57
Rosiestep 5 40 11 56
Less Unless 7 13 13 4 2 1 4 2 5 51
Victuallers 10 2 1 12 7 11 1 1 45
Naushervan 13 25 5 43
Tamingimpala 23 19 42
Ashleyyoursmile! 36 1 37
Oronsay 11 13 13 37
Tayi Arajakate 26 8 34
Joseph2302 3 1 5 1 11 3 8 32
DanCherek 27 27
Shari Garland 7 3 12 1 23
Willthacheerleader18 6 7 4 2 1 1 21
Abishe 1 3 1 7 3 1 3 19
PamD 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 18
MurielMary 17 17
MerielGJones 4 5 6 15
TJMSmith 7 3 2 3 15
Scanlan 6 6 1 1 14
NoonIcarus 6 1 6 13
Neutral Fan 8 4 12
Khilari&historian 11 11
Gamaliel 10 10
Joofjoof 2 4 2 1 1 10
WomenArtistUpdates 4 2 4 10
Innisfree987 4 2 1 1 1 9
PMCH2 1 5 1 2 9
Rhodonaus 5 1 3 9
Warofdreams 1 3 3 2 9
Goldsztajn 5 3 8
Mcampany 8 8
Alanna the Brave 4 2 1 7
Boud* 2 3 2 7
Bring back Daz Sampson 3 4 7
Thellomerca 1 2 3 1 7
Imfarhad7 2 3 5
Jon698 5 5
Kingsif 1 2 1 1 5
ThurstonMitchell 1 3 1 5
Whalesworld 5 5
Chocmilk03 4 4
Gaia Octavia Agrippa 2 1 1 4
IllQuill 4 4
Mehmuffin 4 4
Ndahiro derrick 4 4
SL93 4 4
BostonMensa 1 1 1 3
Darwin Naz 3 3
Eddie891 2 1 3
Elinor.Dashwood 3 3
Kerrieburn 3 3
Ktin 2 1 3
KyloRen3 1 2 3
Modussiccandi 1 2 3
MSG17 2 1 3
Sammielh 3 3
SusunW 3 3
Unexpectedlydian 3 3
Alsoriano97 2 2
Aranya 2 2
Arcahaeoindris 2 2
CommonSentiments 2 2
Crystalontheweb 1 1 2
Egsan Bacon 2 2
Feel-flourish 2 2
Franko2nd 2 2
Maile66 2 2
Missvain 1 1 2
PurpleTheory 2 2
Randolph.hollingsworth 2 2
RomanDeckert 1 1 2
Amkgp 1 1
BigMusicBaby 1 1
Bilorv 1 1
Dblu9494 1 1
FlyingAce 1 1
gobonobo 1 1
Helloimahumanbeing 1 1
Hsomak 1 1
Kazamzam 1 1
Mary Mark Ockerbloom 1 1
Piotrus 1 1
Prosperosity 1 1
Samsmachado 1 1
Shuri42 1 1
Spleodrach 1 1
TanookiKoopa 1 1
Trillfendi 1 1
Voltmetro 1 1
Whisperjanes 1 1
Wizardman 1 1
Total 111 165 75 111 60 78 264 208 212 122 174 74 139 89 67 1949

Manually generated stats. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Metrics&oldid=1241382935"