Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

If you've come here to complain about the contest or have something to say about how to regulate content and avoid potential problems please read the Rules and FAQ very carefully first and if it doesn't answer your concern consider commenting here.

Missing articles

I can see we can start working on missing articles by country. I'll try to make a start on this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Geographical groupings

Dr. Blofeld: I see you've made a good start on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest. I've added the Wikidata lists to the countries they cover but I see a few more could be developed for countries such as Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Georgia and Guyana. I also see that Ecuador, Paraguay and several or the important Antilles islands are missing from your list. I wonder if it's a good idea to include the United States and the United Kingdom in the contest. These two together must already account for about 80% of the pages on the EN Wiki. It might be more productive to have one contest for the USA and the UK and another for everyone else. I also wonder whether it would not be more effective to focus on regions or language areas such as (for Europe) the Nordic countries, French-speaking Europe, German-speaking Europe, the Baltic States, the Balkans, etc., with groups such as Latin America, South-East Asia, Australasia, and so on for the rest of the world. It would also be possible to divide some regions up by language such as French-speaking North Africa. I think proceeding along these lines would enhance the level of competition and achievement. Any ideas on this?--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks on both. Well, I'm intending to make some models and readymade contests which people can copy or get inspiration from and encourage them to run their own contests. I would like to see many contests running for different regions and countries and topics, but I think for women, the maximum impact one would be the World one on higher funding. At some point maybe something like the "Romanian National Women's Contest" would be viable though!

Yes, naturally we'll incorporate all of the island entities too, I would classify them under their sovereign nation though, UK with Tristan da Cunha, St Helena etc. There would also be a Miscellaneous section. In my mind we're definitely going to run this sometime in 2017, though what funding will be put up for it depends on many factors. So yes, if long term we can work on developing lists for every country this would be a great thing. I'll want a lot more input from WIR editors, particularly women editors on this contest so we can appease a lot of different interests I don't want it to be seen as "Dr. Blofeld's contest", but a WIR one, but the missing lists by country are a must I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent progress

I see from postings on Women in Red that the approach seems to be gaining momentum and could be launched in October or November 2017. I have suggested there that it might help to seek support (and participation) from chapters and wikiprojects in Asia and Africa. And why not encourage cross-translation initiatives between English and languages such as Arabic, French, Hindi, Korean, Mandarin, Swahili, Urdu and Vietnamese? How about creating leagues by continent with ratings per country, either on the actual number of new articles or on the proportional increase in coverage? While prizes are a great incentive, I think there will also be contestants who would simply like to receive recognition for participating. Perhaps there could be a separate category for these or options at the registration stage.--Ipigott (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

British nations

Just noticing that we have the UK being represented as a whole here. Could I ask if it might not be more prudent to have them separated into England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? The reason why I ask is because it is fairly likely that most of the focus would be on English women and there are a number of sportswomen from the other home nations who I could see are likely to get overlooked on this.

Likewise I also note that Guernsey (including Alderney, Sark and Herm) and Jersey don't have their own entries which I feel they should as they are not part of the UK and other dependent territories like the Cook Islands do have their own spaces. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Do you have any thoughts on this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@The C of E: WMUK grant is pending, we'll see, but the key to this contest is simplicity and practicality to make it sustainable to run so splitting by area at present seems to complicate things.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Dr. Blofeld:. One other question, If a person has dual nationality, where do we put them? Am I correct to assume by their place of birth? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the most relevant country, I've written that into the rules which are now up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Most relevant is a tricky parameter though, isn't it? I don't have a female example on hand, but in the instance of Jochen Rindt for example, his nationality was German. However, that is not relevant in his case at all, because he was at all times of his career always perceived as Austrian (I think even most Formula One enthusiasts are not aware he was actually German). How would I treat a case like this if I stubled across one in this competition? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Country of birth should have the strongest precedent. " Rindt raced with an Austrian licence, but had a German passport and never held Austrian citizenship". So he would be listed under Germany but if you personally think Austria would be more appropriate then you'd list him under Austria. Doesn't matter, just pick whatever you think is most applicable..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft article that could possibly be developed

G'day, I was looking through Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and came across Draft:Japanese-American Women During WWII. I have done a little clean up work to stave off deletion for the timebeing, but it still needs quite a bit of work. I think it is ultimately a viable topic, but it isn't really a topic I can do much with I'm afraid. As such, I wonder if someone involved with this contest might be interested in improving it further. Anyway, all the best with the contest. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Question on Fictional Female Characters

Hello everyone! I have a quick question. I apologize if this is obvious, but I was wondering would articles created on fictional female characters count towards this, or is this limited to real-life women? I am assuming that it is real-life women as the contest's focus is on "biographies of women", but I just wanted to double check. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The main Wikiproject is focused on "women's biographies and works by women". A female character would be treated as a work, from the real-world perspective, and would count if the creator is a woman. For example, Carol Danvers would not count, but Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) would. Still, that's the main project, smaller projects like this one usually have more narrow scopes, so I think it makes sense to get focused in just biographies. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response, and that makes sense. I was thinking about participating in this, but I primarily work on fictional character articles so I do not think this is a fit for me. Good luck with the project though! Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

But you could still create articles on fictional characters developed by women, or am I missing something here? Darreg (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a biographical article contest, I want the full effort to go into women's biographies as the purpose is seeing how much the percentage needle can be increased in one month. Women's works and fictional characters don't contribute to that but if people contribute articles on women's works or organizations etc then I'm not going to stop it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Expanded stubs?

Apologies if this is stated somewhere and I missed it – will this contest accept expanded stubs? Or will the focus only be on newly created articles? Ruby2010 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Only new articles Ruby2010, as the bot will be registering readable prose count on new creations. But I hope in the future we will run destubathons and core contests for women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Ruby2010 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: If you're not competing for prizes and are just treating it as an editathon and putting articles up on the main board then yes, destubs, cleanups, anything is welcome, but the primary goal of the contest is to see what can be created in one month!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Entry qualifications

Hello. I was wondering which one of these would count as an entry:

• 1) a userspace drafts created in previous months and released as an article in November
• 2) any userspace drafts that was started and finished in the month of November.

Thanks --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles may be started in draft space in October now, yes, but all articles have to be submitted in the mainsapce during the month of November.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a limit with how old the userspace draft can be to qualify? I have userspace drafts on women biographies that I've made for Women in Red monthly contests that are not fully finished. These drafts range from September to October 2017. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How many are we talking about MrLinkinPark333?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Of the ones that aren't finished, I expect 4 of them to be left over due to additional sources required. These were originally started for women in red contests in sept/oct. However, I may not release them due to my interest/not enough bytes (i'm striving for them to reach 1500 to avoid stub class) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Technicalities

Are we considering male coaches of women basketball teams in this contest, or would it only be female coaches? Kees08 (Talk) 19:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC) Only women bios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2017

Hi. The WSC 2017 will start also in November. If anyone is planning to write articles about women scientists that they know, please consider the possibility to upload the images on the specific category.

Similarly, take a look to the uploaded files of the 2015 competition on commons commons:Category:Images of people in science from European Science Photo Competition 2015 (just Europe), there are images of female scientists that are worth a stub. I am preparing also their wikidata items when I have free time.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Please feel free to be a part of this contest. Women articles submitted for Wiki Science may also be put up on the main board here. People are also welcome to do articles which comply with both contests and enter them into here as well, there's $200 in prizes for most women in science bios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

My time will be devoted to do wikidata items, I don't think there will be a lot left to write real articles. I'll work hard and get no money :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo - Thoughts?

Logo1: Remix of the Women in Red logo

@Dr. Blofeld and SusunW: Here's a logo that I remixed based on our earlier convos. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm loving that Sue, but is there a way to scrunch the world so you get all of it in? It may be that folks get the ideas that the focus is Africa/Asia, rather than a global initiative. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo2: Another version of the Women in the World logo for Women in Red.

Hi SusunW! How about this one? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Megalibrarygirl, you are amazing! I wish I had your technical skill ;) I like version 2 better for this contest, but is there a way to "flood the white areas" of the silhouette with the blue? SusunW (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on a different one, SusunW! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Logo3: A third version of the Women in Red World Contest logo.

@SusunW: here's another version. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, that one is my favorite! Sorry for making you jump through hoops :) SusunW (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: No worries! It's not hard to do the graphics once I'm set up. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The middle one definitely, as it at least covers most of the world but unfortunately not Oceania!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well there is a teeny bit of Australia in #2, though it does give the appearance that she has vitiligo ;) If it's Doc's favorite, go with it. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I really like the first version, as Africa seems to fit nicely. But, of course, Dr. Blofeld should decide! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks aesthetically better but it's a world contest, half the world is missing from it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel 3 might be more recognizable at reduced size – speaking of which, is this going to be used for an article talk page banner/template for articles created as part of this contest? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be the contest logo.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

If it's going to be used for talk pages, then Template:WIR-60 will have to be modified or recreated from scratch. Can anyone take this on now that the WiR templates have been formalized? Perhaps Dr. Blofeld can handle it and select the logo he prefers.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The middle one because it covers more of the world though I prefer the others visually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott, I added it to {{WIR-60}} on the right, but couldn't sort out how to remove the standard logo, which appears on the left. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the redirects!

Please remember to include redirects from all plausible versions of a woman's name! They can add to the value of the article you've just created or expanded.

Ahead of the contest I browsed around for a suitable subject in the "Missing articles" lists. Scrolling through Oceania I found one solitary woman from Niue, a politician with an article in French Wikipedia, Joan Tahafa-Viliamu, who sounded interesting. So I Googled her ... and the first hit was the existing English Wikipedia article at a shorter version of her name, Joan Viliamu. (And it was a better sourced article than the French one, too). There wasn't a redirect from the 3-name version, nor from her full name Joan Sisiati Tahafa Viliamu (though there are now). And I've made the link to the French article.

Women's names in particular can be complicated by changes because of marriage, but it's worth adding redirects from any reasonable version of the name as it might pick up an incoming link which is currently a redlink, or save a future editor from creating a duplicate article, or most importantly just plain help the reader find what they're looking for. (Am I obsessed about redirects? Well, only slightly!). Happy Editing to all and enjoy the contest. PamD 10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding about this PamD, I've had similar experiences. Another situation which has cropped up a lot this month for me is variants in the names people are listed in for the National Biographies, our lists, and Wikidata. Susie Walking Bear Yellowtail was still on the missing nurse list generated by Wikidata, though I created it months ago. There were two entries with the same name. I had to have them merged. Another one was Susan Schardt on our list was in Wikidata as Susan Katherina Schardt, so I made sure that I linked my article with the shorter name to the existing Wikidata link and made a redirect. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I spent a pleasant hour of Wikignoming earlier today creating missing redirects for articles in the WiR Women and Disability list - hovered over each to see whether the lead suggested any alternative names, added 2-name redirects for 3-name titles, etc. Found a few instant incoming links for a couple of sportswomen, added a few hatnotes, created a dab page ... all very satisfying. One of them had a pen-name bolded in the lead but no redirect from it. Might have a go at some of the other 58 projects as and when I'm in the mood for something constructive but not too challenging! PamD 18:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The main problem here is Wikidata. Time and time again I come across duplicates in Wikidata but have great difficulty sorting them out as there is no easy way of signalling duplication. Perhaps Jane023, Missvain or Pigsonthewing could set up a notice board or something similar on Wikidata where we could list the problems we find. It would also be useful to have clearer instructions/prompts on Wikidata than just a refusal to handle a new edit when we are trying to link an article to other languages. I'm sure that's the main reason duplicates occur. It's bad enough for entries based on the Latin alphabet but even worse for the other languages. (cc PamD, SusunW)--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Andy, but Ipigott just ping me when you have a specific problem on Wikidata and I will take a look. Sometimes merges can be complicated when there are lots of language links involved. Jane (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicates on Wikidata should be merged - but beware of false positives! If you ping me with a specific example, I'll be happy to demonstrate. Or see d:Help:Merge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither of mine were false positives, but I have also noted there is a long lag in updating Wikidata. For example on Schardt, I linked my article and it took 3 hours for it to appear as a Wikidata link in my article so that I could correct the rest of the data. I find editing in Wikidata directly impossible, so I had to wait to fix the birth and death dates and add other info. That's a pain in the rear, especially if you have limited time. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

SusunW you seem to totally misunderstand the issue here. The point of creating redirects is to increase findability of women. Merging duplicate items on Wikidata is like merging duplicate articles on Wikipedia. Both often happen with women because of the naming problem mentioned by PamD above. I just took a look at what you did to the item for Schardt and you removed "Susan Katherina Schardt" from the label and replaced it with "Susan Schardt". I just added it back in the alias field. Just like Wikipedia, the alias section is used to increase findability. You also removed the label with the (in my opinion) significant text "hospital founder" which I have added back. Please be careful on Wikidata not to remove data added by others. In this case, the data was coming from her entry in the Australian biography, which you can click on for verification, which I just did. Jane (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Jane023 Nope, I didn't misunderstand the issue. I simply forgot to go back and put the full name in when I was playing around with it for hours trying to get it to actually show up as linked to my enWP article. If it had linked when I added my article, I would simply have made the additions. As it was, I wasted a whole bunch of time trying to figure out why it wasn't linking properly. It actually did link, but just didn't show up for several hours. This has happened numerous times in the past, so it isn't a one-off situation. In the future, I may not even mess with it, as it is not user friendly, totally frustrating, and as I said extremely time consuming. SusunW (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

SusunW I have never experienced such a long time lag for connecting a Wikipedia article to a Wikidata item - at most about 20 seconds maximum. I believe you are confusing the metadata visible in a listeria list (which will only show up on bot- or manual sync actions) vs clicking on the "Wikdata item" link on the left hand side of your Wikipedia article screen. You probably need to refresh your browser in order to see that link show up, but you can also just click the English sitelink in the Wikidata item screen to see the refreshed Wikipedia page. Jane (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Jane023 I don't even know what a listeria list is. (Is that the system generated list?) I created Schardt from a crowd sourced list. When I realized it had a national biography source and was probably already in wikidata, I went directly to wikidata from another file, searched for Schardt and input the article link at the bottom of the page. I then clicked on the link and it took me back to my file. There was no "wikidata item" in my tools list. I cleared the cache and tried again. I went back to wikidata directly and saw that my file was indeed linked, pressed on the link, repeat. Then I started changing little things in wikidata to see if it would show up. Nada. Went on to other things and periodically went back to it to check. Same problem. Three hours later there was finally a wikidata item in my tool bar. As I said, this is not the first time this has happened. If you search the WIR talk page, you will see posts about it. Glad for you it only ever takes 20 seconds. That is not my experience. SusunW (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

SusunW if you mean "Wikipedia article" when you write "file", then I think your problem is the cache. The fact you can get back there from Wikidata proves that the link has been made. Next time, try another browser or another device - the link will show up. It definitely does not have a three-hour lag, though I believe that this is your experience. I just feel that you shouldn't blame it on Wikidata. If you are the only person seeing this problem, then there is something else going on. Jane (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

British academics – some lists

Hi all. I'm pretty busy offline right now, so I've been out of the loop. This contest is a great idea, and I would have a shot at it were I not so busy. Having said this, I've already come up with several lists of academics (and others) which might be of interest to anyone taking part (but probably too late to be added to the contest?) Namely:

• Titles of Distinction awarded by the University of Oxford – the university has a competitive procedure whereby it's academics who aren't in endowed chairs but whose "research must be of outstanding quality, have led to a significant international reputation, and be comparable in distinction with that expected of a professor in other major research universities" can be recognised by being appointed to professor rank ([1]). The list is not broken down by gender nor all linked, but it is complete and I've had a go at creating articles for some recent female appointees. Of course, not everyone is guaranteed to be notable, but I imagine most will be.
• User:Noswall59/Topics#Academic historians etc. – this a partial list of all the academic historians at UK universities who have been made full professors. You can see which universities I have yet to go through; anyone is welcome to add to this, of course, but if you do so in my userspace please be systematic and include all historians of professor rank for any given university. Again, it's not gendered, but plenty of the women in the list would be notable enough or have work notable enough to warrant articles (check academic articles for reviews or commentary on their works).
• EXTRACTED: List of Fellows of the British Academy – this is the highest and most exclusive academic society for humanities and social science practitioners in the UK and dates back to 1902; I've created a full list of FBAs by decade; do check the sublists for women, many of the early decades have names in initials only, so check User:Noswall59/FBAs for the period up to 1971; I know that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa has done a lot of work to create or expand women FBA pages.
• EXTRACTED: Finally, List of Knights and Dames Commander of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by Elizabeth II (since 2003) – complete list of people who have been appointed to a particular UK rank of knighthood/damehood; not gendered, but there are several women who need articles on there I think.

Anyway, this might all be handy to some of you. Apologies for the rather selective and sometimes incomplete nature of these topics, and for being 'late to the game', so to speak. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. Yes it would be good to extract more women bios from those to add to the UK list. Any takers?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Noswall59: thanks please move the below to UK section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles/Europe, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Working on it. Noswall59 (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

FBAs elected before 2005 all done; moved.

Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

That is now all of the FBA lists gone through: as far as I can tell, all the women without articles who have been elected FBAs since the first woman in 1931 have been identified and added to this page; I'll now finish moving them across to the UK section. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC).

Moved. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, but I think you've overcooked it to the point that academics way outweigh all of the other professions. I was looking to build balanced lists. If you (or somebody else readin this) can add lots of other missing British bios from other professions though to balance it out go for it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Mainspace vs UP and Drafts

I will be making all my articles in the mainspace, so that multiple editors are not duplicating work. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Category or talk section template

Is there a category or talk section template we should add to these newly created articles ? Find bruce (talk) 07:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Wanted to ask the the same thing too. Darreg (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Find bruce, Darreg: The template is {{WIR-60}}.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Article achievements

Dr. Blofeld: Do completed articles have to be added by each competitor to this section? Or should we help out my adding them? And what about the editathon template on the talk pages?--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've put a note up on the top of the main page. Yes, ideally ALL articles are to be placed in this section by people who create them. As you're not competing for prizes Ipigott you don't need to place them on the entries page, just on this list with the flag of the country and entry, see the African destubathon for how it is done. Some people may forget to add articles to this list as well, so judges or you or anybody can help ensuring it is a comprehensive list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you've started adding a few yourself. I'll return later when things have settled down. As you go through the various continent lists, you'll see the bot has failed to react on quite a number of articles which seem fully acceptable.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC) :Dr. Blofeld Let me know if there's anything specific you would like me to look at.--Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please only report bot issues to Emijrp, they're beyond my control!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I was doing tests, now it is much better, sorry. emijrp (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WIR Talk Page Template

Hey everyone,

Just finished up my first article, and copied over the template for the contest onto the talk page. It seems to be throwing up a category error at the moment. I've had a look myself and can't work out it out, could someone more familiar with it take a gander? Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ipigott reported it, somebody please fix it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed [[File:Women in Red world logo 2.png|frameless|50px|right]] from the date field & it now seems to work, albeit without the pretty logo. Find bruce (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Invitation template

Hi! I'd like to invite fellow editors to participate in the contest, is there any sort of template I could use as an invitation in their talk pages? Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jamez42 - here is the invitation to the contest. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Jamez42: Here's the one I've been sending out on the contest:

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--

Ipigott (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyeditor's Prize

I was wondering if anybody here would be willing to put up another prize for the editors who do the most work cleaning up problematic/poorly written entries and improving articles which are created. Sometimes the language barrier will mean copyediting/cleanup/checking for neutrality etc is needed. I don't think the judges can be expected to do all that, it needs it's own prize. I think that might result in higher quality overall. Anybody?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Date format errors

FYI: The bot that checks entries appears to be generating a false positive for dates in yyyy-mm-dd format, although this is an acceptable MOS:DATEFORMAT for Gregorian dates after 1583. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks, sorry abut that, @Emirjp: Can you tweak?♦ Dr. Blofeld

Contributions in other languages

I've been asked on FB why an editor can't contribute articles written in other languages, but I didn't know the answer. Help? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Editors can of course contribute in other languages but their articles will not be taken into account in the contest. For this first initiative, the contest is only for articles in English. Next time we can perhaps expand to other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

She is asking for something more precise: how/why was the decision made that editors can't participate in the contest in a language other than English. Is it because of the grant limitations, or the bot, or... ? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Because of the bot, yes, and I'm trying to perfect a model for upping percentage on English wiki, which can be used for other wikis later. But people can contribute in other languages and add to the main list as an editathon just like you're doing, but just not be eligible for prizes. Of course ideally it would be a truly global contest in dozens of languages, but who is going to patrol them and check for quality, I need to be efficient at running this. Having dozens of submission pages spanning dozens of wikis sounds like an administrative nightmare, but if you think we could do it I'm all ears.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Article progression

Just something I wanted to test out to make each day of the contest count. Nobody feel obligated to have to update it after every entry added, as long as it's roughly updated every now and then and we can see how things go. It can always be removed if it gets on people's nerves but worth seeing if the daily progress bar helps or hinders people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to say good job on the coding for the percentage bars, those are far easier to update now. :) Miyagawa (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, will save time, still trying to refine certain things, the key is making this as easy to run as possible so we can hopefully run them more regularly without getting exhausted as we did with the Destubathon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reset the bar for the start of day 4. I have set the tracker at the default of 66 articles. Well done all for meeting yesterday's target of 89 articles. Feel free to increase the target for today if desired - Dumelow (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Could this chart be useful? It may be too much however it shows daily progress against a 66 articles a day projection. Tsange (Talk) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the chart Tsange and it could be a useful motivation tool to keep above the grey line. I think it would probably sit best on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Article progression page - Dumelow (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, useful thanks, only I'm still hoping if things go well to up the target to 2500 or even 3000 . We'll see on one week what to do and graph can go up then, OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the chart's dynamic anyway so it's easily modified if so needed. Tsange (Talk) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Funny histories of pages

Hi, I had recently come across two missing pages for French internationals Valérie Gauvin and Onema Geyoro and was looking into it. They were deleted due to the creator having a history of creating badly-sourced and sometimes even fake pages. An admin userfied what was deleted for me (User:SuperJew/Valérie Gauvin & User:SuperJew/Onema Geyoro). Would fixing the pages up to a proper article and moving them to the main space be eligible for the contest? --SuperJew (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as the entries are notable and meet GNG and are reliably sourced (and meet the strange WP:FOOTY bio guidelines) fine. They'll need to be at least 1000 bytes of readable prose though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For sure, will make sure they do. They meet WP:NFOOTY as they have represented France internationally. --SuperJew (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

New African bonus prize

Putting up a $150 prize for whoever can produce an article on a woman from every country in Africa during the contest with at least five occupations covered. If only one person manages it they will get the full amount, if two manage it it'll be $75 each. Of course the more articles which are done the more likelihood you'll also win the $100 top prize for most entries for Africa as well, plus there's $200 of prizes going into African feminist entries from Wiki Loves Women. If nobody wins this prize and reaches the 54 or 55 articles needed it will go towards a fun bonus prize at the end contest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a tempting but extremely tasking proposition. It will be an uphill task to get enough sources for African countries that don't speak English. I'll give it a trial but I doubt I'll even cover 30 countries. This will mean I'll have to suspend the articles on Nigerian women I wanted to create during the contest. Darreg (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a challenge. You don't gave to stop Nigerian women bios, and if you think it's out of your reach don't go for it. I had noticed that not many were doing African bios and we're now seeing more. There's also the feminist prize, why not go for that instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing me back to reality. I was probably carried away with the possibility of $$$-worth of prizes (or should I say books), hahaha. I will stick to articles I am really interested in. I will also create some blue links in the Nigeria feminism missing articles page soon. Darreg (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Doubts related to my contributions to this world contest

I am not pity sure that I am a part of this exciting World Contest, which I admire a lot because this is a World Contest. How can I get a clarification about my contributions? I don't know the way to find the way. Doris Dana, Tharjini Sivalingam, Liezel Gouws, Vineetha Wijesuriya etc - I don't know whether these articles taken into consideration in the article progression day by day. I agree that one of the article Vineetha Wijesuriya didn't meet the requirement for readable prose in this World Contest. Abishe (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The bot has now updated the reviewing I think. Your articles are on the list aren't they? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot rechecking articles

Apologies if this was covered somewhere else, but if I have fixed an issue the bot identified, how do I have the article re-checked? Do I just remove the bot's first check? Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And a note underneath on a new line with ** . I'd the bot doesn't rereview in 24 hrs ping one of the judges.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When the bot gets it wrong

What happens with a situation where the bot checking articles gets it wrong? It has declined one of my entries (Supreme Court of New South Wales judge Natalie Adams) as "entry wasn't created in November". It was created in November - but I had to write it over the top of a redirect to a Scott Pilgrim character, because writing an article on a woman Supreme Court judge as if the redirect to the Scott Pilgrim character was the primary topic was absurd. Another editor has thankfully flagged this on the page, but it means one of mine is still showing up with a big red cross. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am having this dilemma on another situation. An editor created an article on the woman's sister and did a redirect to the other sister. Both sisters have separate biographies in the Oxford Press Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro–Latin American Biography. I had dug up a whole bunch of sources showing each was independently notable and lived a life separate from her sister, so I am not sure why the creator wrote a brief stub on one and redirected the other. I am reluctant to change the redirected one to an article during the contest for the exact reason you are having an issue. SusunW (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Drover I do say at top of the page the bot is still being perfected and to remain patient where is crosses, I asked Emir to accept redirect articles even before I read this as I spotted it earlier. It'll be resolved soon and your articles approved. It's good that you reported it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Thanks for all your hard work on this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and to everybody who is producing great work for this, I showed it to a friend of mine and they were blown away by how diverse the material coming in is, and said that it really shows the global power of the web!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New Prize: The Asian Month Writer's Book Prize

In celebration of Asian Month, a prize is being put up by Ser Amantio di Nicalao for the editors who manage to create articles on women from as many Asian countries as possible and as many women's occupations as well, though with an obvious emphasis on writers, but articles on any Asian women may count towards it and simultaneously count towards the others prizes for Asian articles and different occupations. Two prizes will be awarded for prolific, diverse and quality editing, the top prize is Japanese Women Writers: A Bio-Critical Sourcebook and the second prize is Arab Women Writers: A Critical Reference Guide, 1873-1999. Each book is 500 and something pages long and I believe crammed full of women's biographies which would both have a big impact on improving Wikipedia if used. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on producing 500 articles!

Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

3000 articles

You are all absolutely smoking the 66 daily article challenge, yesterday 111 articles were produced, beating Sunday's 107. Would anybody object if I set the bar to 3000 articles for the contest? Can we manage 100 articles a day on average or is that too much to expect? It's achievable if more of the people signed up join in. If not we can set it at 83 a day and go for 2500. Please give feedback on upping the target and if you're OK with it, I did say at the beginning I would go one week and see what is produced on average and possibly up it but I don't want to over exert anybody!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm keen! The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to set it at 83 and 2500 for now and see how it goes, that's fair overall from the first week I think on average, but still welcome comments on what we should do! I would guess that most people probably don't want the target changed too often and for it to be stable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with upping the goal to 2500 (we keep smashing through daily targets!), but I don't think we should move it too much. We should definitely keep it stable for the final week of the contest. Part of the reason we're doing so well, in my opinion, is because everyone is so keen to achieve that 2000 (or 2500) article goal -- and if we keep upping it, we'll never actually reach it. Which would be frustrating. :P Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, agreed. I think on average so far 2500 is reasonable and doable I'll leave it at that now and if we exceed it then that'll be a bonus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• For those who like statistics, over the first seven days, we've produced 639 articles or roughly 91 a day. If we continue at the same rate until the end of the month we should reach about 2,740. So we should certainly make the new 2,500 target, even if some of them are deleted. Overall, i.e. including articles on women not specifically written for the contest, we can expect to clock up over 3,500 articles in November. That would be substantially higher than WiR's previous monthly record in March 2016 (Women's History Month) when we reached 3,076. I wouldn't mind betting that the contest itself will produce close to 3,000 articles as the most productive competitors are likely to step up their additions as the deadline approaches.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It would be a stunning achievement to reach 3000 but then half way through some people may burn out. It'll be interesting to see how it goes anyway, I hope to see more people arrive and contribute, it's not too late!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll see at the end of the week how we're doing but I'm currently thinking that maybe 83 a day is too much to ask for the whole contest. Perhaps 66 after all was best. If you think 83 is too much let me know!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think your choice of 2,000 was pitched exactly right. If it is increased then it makes the percentage of little value as it may be changed again. I can't see whats wrong of achieving the target 5 days early and then blowing the target away by 5%, 50% or 500%. If you change the target then it loses its value.... it could also mean that the target keeps increasing making it unachievable or worse just a late agreement with reality. Just a view - but I think a target is a target.Victuallers (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if the daily goal is more relaxed at 66 then it won't seem so daunting each day. Maybe it is motivating actually seeing the target easily reached somedays and blowing it away. I do think yesterday it seemed tough to just reach the target, and we can't keep that up, there's still 20 days to go. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reset it back to 2000 and readjusted the last few days to 66, so all back as it was. Promise we'll keep it at that now. :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld

1000! :) L3X1 (distænt write) 05:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Article length

So I was going through the missing articles in [[2]], so that I can select the ones I want to work on, but from the sources online, I noticed that many of the articles wouldn't be able to meet the prescribed article length to compete. What I want to know is if the judges are mandated to be very strict concerning the article length. Darreg (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll let Anthere answer that one as the African Feminists prize is being put up with Wiki Loves Africa. I do have to keep it strict at 1000 bytes for the overall contest, though we still accept shorter entries for the main list which won't count for the contest. If Anthere was willing to lower the requirement to say 750 bytes for feminists unfortunately they wouldn't be able to count towards the main prizes for Africa and occupations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all saying I disagree with this, but I'm also having the same problem as Darreg in the more remote parts of Oceania: places like Kiribati and Niue are impossible because of a lack of biographical anything (books, media coverage, whatever) on those countries, and I've had to not nominate a couple that I started on indisputably notable people (Mona Ainuu, Tessie Lambourne) because I just couldn't get them over the 1kb bar. The 1kb bar makes obvious sense, but I've had give up on at least those countries until after this is over as a result. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and this was why I set it at 750 bytes originally remember, those stubs you identified were exactly the type of ones in which you can't find any more I said I wanted to see started and people not put off because they couldn't find 1.5 kb. I know the problem as I encountered it myself during the Destubathon. Countries like Kiribati, Niue, Tuvalu, Central African Republic, Oman etc it's difficult to often find even 1kb. I set it at 1kb alargely in response to the moral panic created by Gnangarra on the contest only producing 100,000 short crappy stubs and 750 bytes not being enough to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• the 3 I did I had a really hard time finding material to write about to get over 1kb, but since I'm not looking for any prizes and wrote to the best of my ability, I figured it was ok. I can get the articles themselves to 4 o5 kb, but a lot of that is references. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I would not be very strict on that. I prefer a short but accurate and clear article with the best sources possible (I know it is a challenge...) to a diluted one (to reach the 1k). But whenever information can be found, please make use of it ! and thanks a lot ! Anthere (talk)

DYKs

I see that one of the contest articles, Lindsay Peat, has today been included as a DYK. Traditionally WiR editathon pages have had a slot for listing DYKs but I don't see anything on the main contest page. By the end of the month we are likely to have quite a few more. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't place any emphasis on DYK myself, but I have no objections if you want to keep a List of contest DYKs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of DYKs, I made a nomination for Dominique Blake before you mentioned it here ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, as the writer of the above article, I've found that DYK is a slight distraction when you're competing in this. I found it does take up a bit of time so I think unless there is incentive to add DYKs to the contest, I'm not too sure I will keep nominating each of my eligible entries on WIR for DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they make little difference for the contest. There's no prizes for doing it so entirely your choice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• For now, I'm adding "World Contest" to the DYKs listed here.--Ipigott (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

American Women in Hall of Fames

Hi all. I was wondering if anyone was interested in making articles on American women that have been inducted into a hall of fame. I've been finding many American women when focusing on women who were inducted in hall of fames, but I want to focus on non-American women first for The World Contest. I'm not sure if providing a list of American women would skew the North American prize though so I thought I ask here first. If anyone is interested, let me know. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects included?

Can/Should any credit be given for replacing redirects with articles? (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teresa_Mannion&type=revision&diff=809637470&oldid=754431717) Bogger (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Expansions from redirects are legal yup.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Wales

To editor Dr. Blofeld: Is it worth adding a see also Dictionary of Welsh biography (free to search, unlike ODNB) to the top of the UK missing articles list? I wonder whether there are Scottish and Irish equivalents, too. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I wanted a list of missing Welsh biography entries but nobody would create one!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment query

Just a thought, would chefs count under the Entertainment category? Or would it just be television chefs? Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment, yup if TV chef but normal chef I think "Women in Art" covers food and drink Miyagawa♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK prize

Don't forget that WMUK are putting c. $335 up for most new articles on British women minimum 1.5 kb length. The idea is people create a lot of articles from the Oxford Dictionary and Welsh Dictionary, there's also a Scottish one I believe. The WMUK prize in total exceeds even the highest prize for the whole contest of $300.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Trans women

Studying the WiR talk archives, trans women fit within the scope of WiR. Presumably a trans woman would also fall within the scope of this contest? Also, as there are aspects of her life that might potentially be problematic for her if she were to become more prominent due to a Wikipedia article, I might start it as a draft. Would someone be happy to have a look at that draft before we go live with it - any takers? Edwardx (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edwardx: Yes, trans women should be within the scope of this project. I would happily review your draft. = paul2520 (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, paul2520. I'm working on Solange Lwashiga Furaha from DR Congo right now, but she will be next. Will reply here again when the draft is ready. Edwardx (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is here, Draft:Ayanda Denge. Edwardx (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What were you concerned about being problematic? SWEAT and Sisonke are very notable as well - I'm really surprised at least SWEAT doesn't have an article already. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks really good, thanks in part to The Drover's Wife, too. Biggest concern was using the term "transgender" not "transgendered" (see transgender#Evolution of transgender terminology). Would be great to find additional details, like birthdate, etc. I'd say it looks good to go; I see you have quite a bit of experience creating articles, but I'd be happy to move/review the article, too. = paul2520 (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, The Drover's Wife and Paul2520, especially tweaking my clumsy language - nuance is important. Notability is not the concern here. Perhaps, I am over-cautious, yet there is rarely any great hurry to go live with an article. I think what may have made me hesitate was that in Transgendered sex workers face a triple threat of stigma, she is referred to as "Ayanda D", and identifies as HIV+. I admire her, and am not judging her. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd take that out on BLP grounds: I don't think it's necessary. Otherwise it should go live. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Take out what, exactly? If you search for her by her full name, that is the fourth result, and clicking on it takes you to this page, which is a picture of her with her full name, and with her full name in the URL. It all appears to be very much in the public domain already. In that article, she talks about being "an advocate and having a big mouth" and "quite explicit about my life", so one might reasonably suppose that she'd be happy to have a Wikipedia article. I'm simply concerned about the possibility of unintended consequences. I've done plenty of BLPs, but mostly billionaires and others from a background of relative privilege, so am less familiar with the sort of issues that might arise here. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Then keep it in? You asked for a second opinion, and I gave it (being a HIV+ sex worker is a criminal offence even in many places where sex work is legal) on the basis that there seemed to be some doubt about how open she was about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your second opinion is very much appreciated, and has helped to focus on what the real issues are. Perhaps the answer might be to trim back the last long quote to something similar to that used in the lead, and drop the fact that it was at an AIDS conference. Will think overnight or so on this. There's no rush! Edwardx (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with mentioning that the interview was at a HIV conference - HIV activism is absolutely part and parcel of most of the organisations she's been involved in: it's just a question about drawing attention to her personal status if it's something she has only spoken about a bit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, The Drover's Wife. Agreed. Have trimmed the final quote in the article accordingly. Ayanda Denge is now live, which means I've done an article for every country in Africa. Edwardx (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1000 articles!

Congrats, in 11 days, most impressive! If only more of the people signed up were participating, there's still 19 days left to at least do one article!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember during the last Africa destubathon, I actually signed up to participate but didn't know when the contest started or ended, so I couldn't contribute nothing to it. Darreg (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Publisher errors

Hello. I've been having my articles tagged twice for missing publishers. I was wondering when publishers should/if they should be added for magazines, news or websites. Thanks --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm totally anal, so I always include the publisher, city of publication and any other identifying information I can find, i.e. issn, oclc, etc. Since I am not physically residing in the English-speaking world, having the complete information helps me locate sourcing, especially if I need someone to help me find something. What you "should" do, I don't know, it's what I do. SusunW (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Doreen Paul

For some reason the bot has skipped over this article several times. Is there some reason it isn't picking it up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Entries/Latin America and the Caribbean page under Dominica? NOT Dominican Republic, Dominica. (I know it has been skipped because articles written after it have been scored). SusunW (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wild guess, your Dominica ones says SusanW while Dominican Republic says User:SusanW. Maybe the bot didn't pick it up cause it didn't say User? I don't know --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding the User: part somehow triggered it, so that's resolved. Wizardman 03:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @MrLinkinPark333 and Wizardman: I am so "not technical". Would never have occurred to me. Thanks for fixing it. SusunW (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not either. I just noticed the difference. Glad it worked --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration

@Dr. Blofeld: The project page lists collaborations as being permitted. I wasn't sure how to do the entry, so I have listed it under User:Knope7. Find bruce (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Contest leaders

Tomorrow, half point through the contest I'm going to create a scoreboard of the top 10 contributors so far so we can see who is leading the contest and what people need to do to catch up!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Should we still be expecting this? It might motivate editors to do more. Darreg (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked Emirjp if a bot could do it and he's not responded. It'll take time to do manually and I will need people to help maintain it once articles are approved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, the scoreboard is up but I'll need everybody's help to work out their article figures of approved articles to date and enter themselves into the table. I've done Miyagawa's as I believe he is the winner so far but I might be wrong!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird lede of project page

Dr, someone has changed the first sentence of the project page to say "Four mroe articles needed" and it has been that way for over 36 hours. The page history is way to long for me to try and find out who inserted that information when, but as it is incorrect I thought I should let you know. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I added it the other night and forgot to remove it yesterday. Perhaps we should cut the target today to 33 and half amount for a mid contest holiday, at present I doubt we'll reach even 1250 today! People have certainly earned a breather! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I've had to drop right off in my contributions - having a hell of a week personally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

For me, its my computer, it hibernates every 15 minutes when I connect to the internet (HP 630). Its out of sheer determination that I could still contribute so much. And I am not comfortable creating articles from a mobile device. Very very soon, I'll get a brand new one and be more consistent here. Darreg (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's very difficult writing on small devices. And even more difficult within Africa. Thank you for the effort you've put into this.Sometimes a few days break is a healthy thing to replenish the batteries. Contests like this are demanding but I hope each day people will continue to be inspired by how productive this has been.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm having to take a break too. My "real" work has been piling up here. Hope to be creating more articles any day now... Edwardx (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Scoreboard

Do we want this? I had hoped that Emirjp could have programmed the bot to maintain it but he's not responding. People will have to maintain it. It could work both ways, motivate some people to try to win the continent ones, but intimidate others with number of articles needed to win it. Thoughts? At present I'm thinking it best to not keep a count and just expect contestants to see what competition they have themselves. Time spent maintaining it could go into article work I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it could intimidate new participants being on the main contest page. At least there is a prize claim page to keep count for existing contestants. I am fine with a removal. Darreg (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at some of the big claim walls of some participants is enough to put anyone new off without having a scoreboard showing it off. I think its probably best to leave it alone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree too. I find even the prize claim page intimidating. I am not competing with anyone else. My goal is to produce one quality article for each country on the Latin America/Caribbean list. If I do that, I will have achieved what I set out to do. If I could win resources for WiR, that would top the cake, but I am not willing to produce content just to win a prize. IF I win anything, the resources will be used for WiR, not for my personal benefit. SusunW (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, we'll leave it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been feeling well since yesterday, a bit of food poisoning I think from prawns. Thanks for resetting today's goal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC) You're healed completely Doctor. Please stay healthy. Drink a lot of water and take some rest away from electronic devices for a while. I just saw your reply now. Darreg (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou.. Feeling a bit better at the moment but still not right but I'll try to contribute something!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

As Emirjp has programmed the bot to produce and maintain a scoreboard I have introduced one. Sorry, but given that there's every opportunity still to at least be crowned regional winner, I think this might actually be a healthy thing for production now that output has dropped last few days, it was in the Africa Destubathon, particularly as in some continents there's some close competition. If you're not that motivated by the prize, it doesn't matter, just ignore the table.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm not sure it is programmed correctly because it says that I have 0 North American entries when I have 1 and as for Latin America (which I assume is South America) says 0 when I have 1 for the Falklands. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Check your name is consistently formatted on the lists. It's approved entries, your US one still has a cross on formatting, the other one probably too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot says I've 11 articles when I have created 26 articles. Well, I am more concerned about making relevant contributions in the contest to meet my target than satisfying the bot. Prize is just an icing on the cake for me really. Darreg (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the bot isn't updating everyone. I'm short a good few on the scoreboard. @Dr. Blofeld:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the scoreboard is only reflecting the entries that do not have any errors (such as publisher/dates etc.}} --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Groups of Women

Maybe this has already been addressed, but if we create articles on groups of women, like Con-Con Eleven, does that only count for one bio, or multiple? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not one of the judges but I believe it will count for just one since they are collectively notable as a single entity.Darreg (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one article only.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Question re: 17% women biographies

Is there a link or reference for the "17% women biographies" we can take a look at? Does this mean they are 17% of all biographies on Wikipedia or 17% of all articles on Wikipedia? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hmlarson. They are 17% of all biographies on ENWP. You can follow progress here, and the manual updates here. So, currently, ENWP women's biographies total 17.18% of all ENWP biogs. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosiestep. Much appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

1500 articles

Congrats on reaching this milestone! I always knew 1000 to 1500 and day 15 to 20 would be the toughest but we got there and still on track overall to reach the target. The scoreboard has been introduced now, hopefully we'll see a good 10 days to close this out. The article list and even global coverage is a beautiful thing, it's raining women! Keep up the great work folks! Hope to see more people signed up on the list creating in the final days now and seeing what we can get.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• A little bit of statistics, we got to 1500 on day 19, which means we reached 75% completion with 63% time expended. Darreg (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hatting the first thousand was a really good idea. The list was getting pretty long.(duh :-) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Staggering that we've gained 400 articles in 4 days, only 100 off the overall contest target now and still one week to go!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please split the list

Please I beg of you split the list into thousands. Some of you may noticed that I have been building or otherwise helping with the talk pages of entries and it is a nightmare to scroll through hundreds of articles to create, assess, or construct talk pages. Other complaints are: it takes a healthy chunk of time to scroll to the bottom of source code list of articles to tack another one on and it takes forever to scroll through the page to access the navbox templates below. I am prepared to learn that splitting the list in some fashion melts one or more bot's brain, but 'please do something to reduce scroll-time.

Alternatively, I could just suck it up. –Vami_IV✠ 09:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

If you copy the layout from Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge then we can hat as long as we keep the article count as 1500 odd. Otherwise it kills the momentum of the contest not having the full amount contributed together on one list. 519 articles just isn't the same as 1519 articles. We kept it in one 2000 list for the destubathon and that had some people with African web connections. What device are you using which makes it difficult to scroll?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's get an article for every country

Hey everyone,

I think it'd be a big claim if we managed to create an article for every country on the planet as part of this work. There's not many left, so I thought I'd create a quite list of the current vacant ones to see if we can work together to achieve this:

• Malta
• Monaco
• North Korea
• San Marino
• Saudi Arabia
• Cyprus

There's a couple of big ones in there that should be easy to tick off, but then I appreciate there's a couple of really challenging ones. But I think together we can get this done in the last ten days of the contest. Miyagawa (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I am surprised nobody has created anything on a Portuguese. A whole Portugal! Darreg (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, I was surprised as well. I've managed to create one for Saudi Arabia, and TheCofE has done North Korea so far. Miyagawa (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• I can easily cover Malta, Portugal and Slovenia in the next day or two, unless someone gets there before me.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I see we already have quite a few on Portugal and one on Slovenia. One on both Cambodia and Laos too.--Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I went by the claims page. I forgot to check if people who aren't claiming had worked on any. I've removed Portugal, Cambodia, Laos and Slovenia as these had had articles submitted which aren't claims. Miyagawa (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There's now one on Malta.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There's one for San Marino now. Darreg (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Also one for Monaco, though I might add another yet. Nothing for Kosovo, though. What about country-equivalents? Didn't see anything for Gibraltar... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Just realized - there's one for Northern Cyprus, but not one for Cyprus. I found a possible one, which I may write in a day or two if I have time, but feel free to pick up the torch and run with it, anyone else. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh darn, I counted that for Cyprus didn't I? I'll go correct the various pages. Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I knocked one together: Stella Soulioti. Not perfect - there's a bare link I'll fix later, and probably some bad prose, but I'm in a rush and have to leave now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, good job to you and everyone else that jumped in and sorted this out. Miyagawa (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Still haven't seen one for Kosovo. I can try and sort it out tomorrow. Not sure when I'll have time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If we expand into states with limited recognition we are missing:

• Kosovo
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• South Ossetia
• Abkhazia

All of which are recognised by at least one UN member state. Admittedly sourcing articles could be difficult for some of these, but if you like a challenge.... PS. If you really want to prove yourself we have no claims yet for Republic of Artsakh or Transnistria! - Dumelow (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

One down, three to go! :) Miyagawa (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If anyone does want to do Transnistria, this is the government page which lists Deputies of the Supreme Council (i.e. MPs) – there appear to be two women (Ilona Tyuryaeva and Galina Antyufeeva, who is vice-speaker), neither of whom have articles. Clicking on the women's names leads to biographies. Cheers, –Noswall59 (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

I've just added one for Gibraltar too. Cheers, –Noswall59 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

User:Masssly just added one for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, well done! - Dumelow (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just added one from Transnistria, Ilona Tyuryaeva, a member of its Supreme Council. Earlier this afternoon, I added ones for the Isle of Man and Alderney too. I'd love to get one for each of Jersey and Guernsey. Once we've got South Osseta, Abkhazia and Artsakh out of the way, perhaps we ought to think about Special member state territories and the European Union like the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Åland Islands? —Noswall59 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

Also Macau. I just realized we have several for Hong Kong, but not a single one for Macau. (Incidentally, I did see one for Greenland.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: working on one for Macau now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Macau done. There are options for more, of course. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant, well done. I've added one each for Jersey and Guernsey – both UK Crown Dependencies which are self-governed and have their own UN country codes. Sark also has its own UN code and parliament but is tiny and I'm really struggling to find any potential articles. Cheers, –Noswall59 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

I'm sure it can be done - we got one for Pitcairn Island, after all. Hell, we got one for Ascension Island. (Nothing for St. Helena, though...or Tristan da Cunha, to my knowledge.)

I leave Macau to anyone else who'd like to tackle it. Most of the sources are in Portuguese, and I'm at sea enough in the language that I can't figure out which way is up. There are at least two more women who served on the Legislative Assembly that are redlinked. Meanwhile, I added another for Monaco and another for Cyprus.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for Sark women. In the meantime, I've taken the list from the EU special territories page cited above and cross-checked this against the article entries, see my sandbox. We're nearly there and I was surprised at the coverage. –Noswall59 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC).

I believe I saw one for Montserrat as well, actually: Ellen Dolly Peters. Just added five teeny little stubs for Togo; I don't intend to claim them for the scoreboard, but they're up if anyone would like to expand them. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, as for special cases, I've gone over the article submissions once more and added a few for British overseas territories (which are internally self-governing). Excluding territories without permanent/civilian inhabitants, and also excluding Mount Athos, which does not permit entry to women, we still need the following:

• Réunion
• Canary Islands
• Madeira
• The Azores
• Ceuta
• Åland Islands
• Faroe Islands
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia
• UN Buffer Zone in Cyprus (I doubt we'll find one for this, but who knows)
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Catalonia
• Crimea
• Galicia
• South Tyrol

Additionally, for semi-recognised states with their own legislatures, we need:

• South Ossetia
• Abkhazia
• Republic of Artsakh
• Donetsk People's Republic
• Lugansk People's Republic
• Tibet

There may be a few others, if so, feel free to add them. But, I reckon that'll satisfy most criteria. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

Excellent work. I'm going to be out for the afternoon, and may return to work on Tajik topics tonight, but I can try and tear into some of these tomorrow. Incidentally, we do have a couple of Puerto Ricans in the contest list, I've noticed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}

Fantastic, any help is appreciated: we're very close. If I can produce an article for an island of 600 people, I reckon we can find one for most of these too! I'll be away over the weekend, but I intend to contribute a few more before the competition closes. (Also, I gathered there would probably be a Puerto Rican or two out there; I'll remove it from the list above). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

I struck Tibet as I wrote Dolma Yangchen. She's in the Tibetan diaspora in India but I think she should probably still count - she is president of the Tibetan Women's Association - Dumelow (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Iuliia Batenkova is a contest article and was born in Simferopol, Crimea, so you can strike that one (or are you looking for someone who identifies as part of the Republic of Crimea?) - Dumelow (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for Tibet. As for Crimea, I guess that's a difficult one. It'd be helpful if a woman who clearly identifies with the Republic of Crimea could be included, say someone who has sat on the State Council of Crimea. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

Found one for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands: Seri Wati Iku. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am working on one for Christmas Island that I will move to mainspace this evening - Dumelow (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh, looking forward to seeing that one. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Got one for the Azores: Berta Cabral. I'll see what I can do with Madeira after lunch. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if Antarctica qualifies as a "country" as technically it is a continent, but I have just done one for an Antarctic scientist, Wanda Quilhot. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Lillian Oh for Christmas Island - Dumelow (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

And Liliana Rodrigues for Madeira. My Portuguese forbears would be proud. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to reduce length of edit box

Well done everyone for this weekend's new articles. I've just added ones for Catalonia and the Aland Islands. I'm struggling with Ceuta – any suggestions? Cheers, –Noswall59 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

I've managed to created one for Ceuta, Fatima Mohamed Dos Santos, although if anyone who can read Spanish wants a challenge, it could do with expanding and additional sources. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

I had the following written but forgot to click post:

There's Fatima Hamed Hossain who was born there and is on the Assembly of Ceuta. There's twenty or so articles on Google News that might be useful (most are in Spanish). Let me know if you want to try this one, or else I can take a look at it this evening. I think it shouldn't be too hard to knock off Crimea, Galicia and South Tyrol also but haven't had a look yet.

Might be a nice little article if anyone wants to take a look - Dumelow (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That does sound like a potential article; it'd be great to see additions for Crimea, Galicia and South Tyrol. As for the other countries, the Deputy PM of South Ossetia until 2009 (I think) was a woman and there are several women in its cabinet. I haven't looked much into it, but Artsakh appears to have a few women on its National Assembly. I'll see what I can do over the next few days, but feel free to take on any of them too. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Just went live with Emma Gamisonia for Abkhazia. Categorizing now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice one. I just added Stavroula Constantinou who was born in Dhekelia - Dumelow (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that is impressive, well done! —Noswall59 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

And I've just gotten Aza Habalova for South Ossetia. Several other women have served in their government, too, if anyone else fancies a go at it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Might be a bit of a stretch but Melinda Tan is rector of the University of Central Lancashire campus in Pyla, in the UN Buffer Zone in Cyprus [3] [4], seeing as we already have articles for Anna Vissi and Lia Vissi who are the only notable people I can find who were born there. Let me know what you think - Dumelow (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO, if she is rector of a campus, I'd suggest that's a pretty good indicator of notability; it is, after all, a senior administrative post (though not Vice-Chancellor level which confers notability). If there are other sources then obviously that'll help. I'm signing off for tonight now, but others might be able to offer better advice. Another great find though, well done! —Noswall59 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC).

Just created Arzik Mkhitaryan, which should take care of the Republic of Artsakh. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I wrote an article on Tan for the UN Buffer Zone. So that leaves us with:

• Crimea
• Galicia
• South Tyrol
• Donetsk People's Republic
• Lugansk People's Republic

Not long to go now! - Dumelow (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Any takers? I'll be out this morning but I can I'll do what I can this afternoon. We're so close! —Noswall59 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC).

Another good week

Thanks mainly to the contest, for the week ending 20 November 45% of the new English biographies were about women, i.e. 832 out of 1,844. The overall percentage jumped from 17.18% to 17.22%. This is the highest increase we have seen in one week. We now have a total of 258,220 women's biographies, well above the next best (German) with 102,197. Well done, everyone.--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We rock ! Anthere (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthere: It's wonderful to see a French woman commenting in English slang that even I as an English-speaker would hesitate to use. One of these days I am going to put together a glossary of Wikispeak for those of us who were born in the 40s and 50s. (For more backbround, see here).--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ;) Anthere (talk)

Three cheers for WiR! Alafarge (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I wish WMF were showing more of an active interest though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: WMF should notice when we reach the end of the month. I'll drop a line to one or two I've been in contact with - so that they can spread the news of our success. I hope you'll also be able to put a short piece together for Signpost, perhaps with the assistance of Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl. Wikidata is still lagging behind quite a bit. I've been trying to tidy up what I can but lots of the new articles are entered solely on the basis of the birth date in the box, without any mention of the all important "female". With so many new articles, I can understand their problem. I certainly think you've demonstrated the prize-winning contest approach is a good basis for increasing the proportion of women's bios in the future. Have you noticed that this month we already have 15 new WiR members, most of them attracted by the contest. And 13 contest articles have already appeared on DYK. Quite an achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott that's a good idea. I'm happy to work on a piece for the Signpost if they'd be interested. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: That sounds good. Perhaps Dr. Blofeld could map out a sketch and you could work it up to Signpost standard. I could also help out if either of you think I could contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'm not experienced with that sort of thing though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• 101 left. Sorry I'm not participating more but I'm under the weather a bit. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the weather. You've tried. You are deserve to take a rest. You've done so much. Darreg (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Anne Green (Chief Islander)

Wow, even Tristan da Cunha covered!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I found that Sark was even harder – it has it's own legislature(!) but there is so little online about the women who sit on it other than their names. Found one eventually though. It's great to see so many nationalities included! Cheers, –Noswall59 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC).

The Women in Red World Contest barnstar

Care to create one anybody? So many people deserve one for their amazing work on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this? We haven't used it yet.

Can somebody create one from that with the contest logo File:Women in Red world logo 2.png on it and that will be perfect, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

But first, can someone change the heart image in the center... e.g. the contest heart image. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Dr. Blofeld: Like this? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Remix of the Women in Red Barnstar.

Perfect!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, like it, Megalibrarygirl! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That may be the prettiest barnstar I've ever seen. Festive colours, too! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Usage of missing articles list

Hello. I was wondering if the list of missing articles list could be saved after the contest is finished to be worked on by others in future monthly contests and #1women1day. There are a ton of articles that haven't been made. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The missing article bank is here to stay and will hopefully be developed further and used for future contests.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Will it stay at it's present URL? L3X1 (distænt write) 14:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I found those lists very useful. I'd mention that, on the Canadian list, François-Guy Thivierge and Gaby Roch are men. Easy enough mistakes for a bot. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot broken?

Far be it from me to understand technology, but none of my articles today have been checked by the bot. Is it broken? SusunW (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:emijrp, the bot hasn't edited since 15:25 yesterday - Dumelow (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. emijrp (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Emijrp! SusunW (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Already over 2,000

Dr. Blofeld: Shouldn't we be setting a new goal for 30 November? If we can average 83 a day for the last six days, we can make 2,500.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just making the new target 2500 and there was an edit conflict. :-) Sure, set it at 83 now! Well done everybody on easily reaching 2000!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Great minds think alike!--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Second time in WiR's history that our metrics have exceeded 3,000

Our article count is at 3,014 right now. Our record was 3,071 in March 2016. I think we're on target to have a new record set today (or within 24 hours... dependent on how often the bot updates the metrics page)! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Very cool, and with a push a chance of near 3500 but by end of the month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Just checked and Reportsbot runs once a day. As it's already done so for November 25th, we won't see the surpassing article count till tomorrow (Nov 26th). --Rosiestep (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Victuallers, do you have time to review the data for the period of July 2015 to October 2016, and sort out what the projected total for November 2017 would have been if there hadn't been the Women World Contest? If you're busy with other things, no worries. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Last November it was 2255, but that was a high result. On average over the last year the average has been 1856. So at least 1,200 more than usual and we have a few days ago. Fair play 100 of those are down to one person! So yes I do have a few minutes to spare ...... but I have to get back to winning that competition :-) Victuallers (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

3312 now, on course for clearing 3500.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So impressive. Now wishing we had started a prize to see who could come closest to guessing our final tally :) Alafarge (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The Five Day Feast

Just to announce that due to relatively low participation in going for the Asian Book Prize it has been scrapped, sorry. Instead for the last five days there is the "Five Day Feast" bonus prize of $200 worth of books of the person's choice to whoever creates the most articles between 0:00 on 26th and 23:59 on 30th UTC 0. This final bonus prize will kick off in less than three hours!! Take extra care to maintain reading quality, avoid plagiarism, and avoiding "script" type semi-automated entries- the contest rules still apply. The $200 is intended for the one person who creates the most articles, but if the final result is close then it may be shared depending on how much effort people put in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You will make a fantastic project manager. You know how to press the right buttons to make things happen. Unfortunately for me though, I've lost steam. Darreg (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Darreg. I certainly try to do things to keep the contest fresh and interesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Charrusco, anyone? ;) –Vami_IV✠ 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Day 25

119 articles yesterday, almost twice the original daily target of 66. The most productive day yet with the exception of the Day when many entries done on other days were added. Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Archived

I trimmed the page and archived the first 1999. I didn't realize the page took so long to load on a laptop I'm editing from now, should be better now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The flags roughly double the html size of the page, as well, but I feel they suit this contest. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Scoreboard bot

The scoreboard bot does not appear to be updating the number of my articles. I should be at 88, or I'm hallucinating. Any idea what's going on here? –Vami_IV✠ 04:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It was doing Europe earlier, but hasn't touched Asia at all today. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So I guess it's not touching Latin America, either. That's kinda annoying. –Vami_IV✠ 06:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and the last update was yesterday. Miyagawa (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said on the main page, keep a manual count as the board may not be accurate anyway. @Emirjp: will look into it when he logs in next I'm sure. Regardless of what the scoreboard says it will all be checked manually at the end of the contest anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

While we're listing the problems, Oceania entries haven't been checked by the bot lately either --SuperJew (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The scoreboard bot also appears to be complaining about accessdates (not publication dates) in the format YYYY-MM-DD. Using this format for accessdates together with spelled-out publication dates is explicitly allowed by Help:Citation style 1, and should be allowed by the bot. Currently it is very difficult for me to find any actual problems with the articles I have listed because of all of the false-positive date noise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it's not permitted for the contest. Dates should be formatted one way, everybody else is managing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's not permitted then I will pull all my entries. I don't need to deal with tendentious formatting requirements that are not part of any actual Wikipedia guidelines. I am being consistent with the most standard citation style used across Wikipedia; that should be good enough. If it isn't good enough, I'm out. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Very extreme David. The bot was programmed to pick up on inconsistencies in formatting. The rules were drawn up at the beginning which stated that dates should be formatted in one style or the other. I don't agree that it's most common to see refs with both written and digits in the citation. Everybody I know picks a style and formats it all that way. It's not something I care that much about, but I can't change the rules now or can I? Your loss as you were on to win several hundred dollars there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your loss as your tendentious styling preferences have cost the contest a hundred or so entries in its statistics and a fair amount of credibility. I don't care about the money. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing your articles doesn't change WIRs monthly metric which will record your articles regardless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So you plan to take credit for them in publicizing the contest results despite my withdrawal? What great intellectual honesty. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Not me personally, I don't deal with that. The project bot records all women bios created in one month, even those created by people throwing tantrums.♦ Dr. Blofeld

I see. You wrote the bot, but it does what it does, so your hands are clean. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't code the bot, emirjp did. It's very tough programming a bot like this. Personally I wouldn't let something trivial like date format be a major issue and would have accepted your articles on grounds that that guideline states that it is acceptable. Emirjp had made some tweaks along the way and could accommodate for your style. I appreciate the work you did and your expertise on a subject most people don't do. What would you like me to do here given that it is a contest?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What I would like is: for whoever is in charge of the bot to adjust it so that it allows this standard style instead of enforcing a consistency that goes beyond existing Wikipedia standards, as a hard rule, based only on a single vague line in the rules about consistency being preferred. And for you to agree that these dates are permitted in the contest, rather than flatly saying "it is not permitted in the contest", apparently because the bot doesn't like it rather than because of anything the rules actually say, and then waffling that if it were up to you you might have done something different but it isn't so you won't change anything. But it's not my contest, so I don't get to dictate what happens — only that, as it is now, the rules seem to be enforced capriciously and in a way that unfairly disadvantages my entries, and I don't care to participate in a contest that does that, I don't want my efforts being used as evidence of success of a contest I see as badly flawed, nor do I see any value in spending the time to change the articles I have written from their already-consistent format in order to please a bot. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I said "Emirjp had made some tweaks along the way and could accommodate for your style. "..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein: It's your choice, but I hope you realize that what you've just done has affected everyone in this endeavour. We have a collective goal of 2500 articles to reach in the next 48 hours, and your removal of article entries from the list has just put us all back. It's going to be harder for us to finish now. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

They apparently weren't going to be counted anyway: see Blofeld's flat insistence above that "it's not permitted for the contest". So it's not me that has set you back. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Your articles counted towards the 2500 "Article Achievements" collective goal on the main page regardless of any possible formatting/stylistic issues or conflicts. The collective goal is separate from the cash prizes, and the bots (whether they're working properly or not) have no impact on it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I put a lot of hours of effort into those articles (and the similar set of articles I was contributing through most of October) and am happy to have contributed them to the Wikipedia project. But not to a contest that rejects my efforts over a style preference that is not merely unforbidden, but is explicitly listed as one of the preferred styles for Wikipedia (see WP:DATEUNIFY). If you want those added numbers, there's still time for Blofeld to admit being wrong on this issue, fix the bot, and apologize. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not Dr. Blofield's bot, so I don't understand why you're waiting for him to fix it. I suspect this argument between you only arose because it's Day 28 of a 30-day contest, and everyone is exhausted and irritated -- particularly Dr. Blofield, who has been organizing, monitoring, and putting hours of effort into making sure this contest happened in the first place. I suggest taking a step back from this, getting some sleep, and taking a second look at things in the morning. Good night. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

From my perspective I wasn't arguing. :-). I do have to try to be consistent with the ruling that's all. If I had known what the response would have been I'd have silently asked emir to update it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone else takes responsibility for the bad bot and fixes it, that could work too. But I have very little patience when I think my time is being wasted, and that's what it feels like for the time it took to sort my entries into countries and put them all in the proper places, only to see big red X's across all of them for no good reason, and Blofeld tenaciously defending the bot's misbehavior instead of admitting that it was buggy and demanding that I put more time into fixing style errors that are not errors at all. (The time spent making articles was, of course, not wasted aadt all; that's not the issue.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Blofeld tenaciously defending the bot's misbehavior instead of admitting that it was buggy and demanding..." I just said, and without emotion, that the bot is programmed to detect inconsistencies in formatting. If you write the dates in text then I think it looks neater when the access dates are also written out. But it's not a big deal is it and given that MOS surprisingly accepts it the bot could be modified as soon as emirjp comes back to accept your entries. As long as you are consistent with written publication date and digit access that will be OK. I'll need to do something to note what happened as its really affected the whole contest article progression graph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, David Eppstein: As a footnote, I should explain that I have been monitoring David's excellent work for some time but especially since the beginning of the contest. I certainly sympathize with his objections as he has apparently been following Wikipedia rules with full consistency, adjusting dates according to nationality, etc., but maintaining one standard for access. I simply don't understand why this caused problems with the bot. I also think it is a great pity he has now deleted all the entries I took time and trouble to add to the main contest list. But when all's said and done, it's not the contest figures which count but the improvement of the encyclopaedia and here David has made a lasting contribution, including well over a hundred women mathematicians, statisticians and scientists. Finally, I must say mea culpa as David never intended to list his articles on the contest page and was not interested in competing. I was the one who tried to persuade him his efforts would contribute to the statistics. He said he would prefer to concentrate on the articles themselves but suggested I could look after the stats. I am sorry now to see that I have been responsible for this upsetting disagreement. I apologize to both of you.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott. The bot was programmed to detect inconsistencies in date formatting, text and digits. People were advised to pick one style of date formatting and make it consistent. Apparently MOS permits both styles in the same ref which surprises me. I have asked Emirjp to update the bot to approve David's entries. It is a contest, as Alanna said though the articles would be welcome on the main list regardless of this issue which seems to be a non issue anyway. It is up to David if he wants to be a part of this or not. I can't really do anything else on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with David Eppstein position, I have created 6 articles using Wikipedia's "Proveit" referencing system and I seem to have spent more time editing refs to please the bot than I have in editing the articles in the first place! Theroadislong (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it took a while to iron out some of the formatting issues it was picking up originally. Sometimes it still may pick up on things annoyingly so always report them to the bot operator. Most of the prolific editors for the contest know exactly what is required to stop the bot sniffing though, there is an art to stopping him barking ;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I share the same feeling as David concerning the bot and it contributed to my loss of momentum. I just didn't want to sound too forward that was why I didn't comment on it, even if I am not going to create the most articles, my articles should still count. It strongly discourages me to know that more than 70% of my entries does not count just because of some formating style. Incase of next contest, lets fix this. It can be annoying. Darreg (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

While it isn't a bot fix, you might want to have a look at User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. It'll fix every date format in a single article to the same format with a single click. Miyagawa (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As you were honest, I'll be. There was more than very minor formatting issues with a few of your articles though Darreg to be truthful. The effort was appreciated though ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

When I ran the Africa contest some editors such as Fsmatovu were grateful for the ruling on source formatting and no unsourced paragraphs and said that it has got them into better editorial habits long term. That was manually run though. I do agree that the bot has been too picky and we don't want the most trivial of formatting issues to deter people from producing reasonable content. Perhaps for a future contest we'll relax that aspect and if some editors are not making an effort to do basic formatting then they can be warned manually. I think some control is good though as I say.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Adjustment

Dr. Blofeld: No adjustment necessary. We'll easily reach 2,500. --Ipigott (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I can see! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims deadline

Hi, I just noticed that the top of the prize claims page says: " As long as claims have been entered here by 23:59 UTC 0 on November 31". I am guessing that should read 30 November? - Dumelow (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Right. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Occupation prizes

Take note of some of the occupation prize claims. Some such as Entertainment and Exploration are extremely close still and a big final effort on the last day could be the difference between $100 and $25. Some of them are still winnable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd to 5th place is also still very close, remember that there's $200 for finishing 2nd. Things can change in the next 15 hrs with a final push!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

3500 +

We've done it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics, 3567 articles currently this month for WIR.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Yay! L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we break 3700 by the end of the day?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we already did. See here, which I think covers metrics to this morning. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

3777. Wow! Near 3800 now, is 4000 doable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Doable but difficult. Depends on how many stubs we pour into it...cranking out nothing but stubs this afternoon, it might be managed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is just a figure I guess but would be good all the same...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And if two or three of us were able to generate a list of stubs and then quick-create a handful, that would work. But I won't have time to do much until later today; if we're lucky I'll be good for maybe one or two...maybe three...before the end of the contest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Juuuuust missed it, by 21. Something to shoot for next year, certainly? Meantime let's see what momentum we can keep going into December. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh man!!! So close LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

2 hrs left

Just over 2 hrs left! One last combined effort! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld Do we have to enter claims for continents in the prize claims section? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Done

Congrats all for a very successful month! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

2832!! L3X1 (distænt write) 00:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are 2849. I have added a few articles created during the last few hours of the Contest period. --Skr15081997 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, well done everyone! Miyagawa (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

An outstanding effort by everyone concerned, with extra special thanks due to Dr. Blofeld for keeping the whole show on the road. Edwardx (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone who participated. Fantastic group effort! And a big thank you to Dr. Blofeld! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, Great team effort. We crossed the 2800 mark. Cheers, --Skr15081997 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks to the coordinators! I'd particularly like to thank Dr. Blofeld, Cwmhiraeth and all the other reviewers who checked articles and provided feedback. I feel that did a lot to improve my habits with citations. Reidgreg (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Yay. Can I breathe now? :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Amazing effort people, not that far short of 3000, in fact one more day and we might have reached it! Miyagawa I have to say was outstanding from the start and consistent too. Sturmvogel and the other top finishers also very impressive. Special thanks to Cwmhiraeth for the effort which went into helping judge it. Thanks the everybody who contributed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats people! Cheers! ^_^ ヘ( ^o^)ノ＼(^_^ ) --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 10:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from the articles posted on the contest page, I have noticed a far higher proportion than usual of biographies of sports women. Most of these were too short in running prose length to qualify for inclusion in the contest but seem nevertheless to have resulted from the general interest in writing women's biographies triggered by the contest. I think it is therefore fair to say that the contest has resulted in well over 3,000 new biographies. Quite an achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! It's great to see that we got articles for every country, territory and autonomous area, plus most of the partially-recognised states in the world. Thanks especially to Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Dumelow for the final push in getting coverage of those more obscure places! Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC).

It was an honor keeping Sturmvogel on his toes for the the last day of the competition. Good show, all involved! –Vami_IV✠ 18:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Signpost coverage

As many of you (hopefully) know, The Signpost is the Wikipedia newspaper. There is a piece that I am drafting about the competition. Anyone who would like to add something, PLEASE DO! It doesn't matter what, just anything would make a huge difference. It is located at User:Eddie891/sandbox/WomenInRedContest. Thanks! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I added some. Hope others will add details about their process, a favorite article they wrote for the contest, something amazing they learned, etc. There are so many interesting stories suggested by the long list of entries! Penny Richards (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)s

Megalibrarygirl might like to contribute as I believe she was also intending to cover the contest on Signpost.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll help out, Eddie891! Thanks for the ping. Ipigott! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Added my bit, too, Eddie891. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added a quote too. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC).

I added my 2 cents and you are welcome to change it, delete it or whatever. ;) SusunW (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The graph isn't accurate, we had over 2800 articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've chipped in as well. Thanks for writing this; it was fun to read a synopsis of what everyone else was up to. Alafarge (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

*It might be worth mentioning that 29 of the DYKs in November were on articles submitted to the contest. As of 7 December, a further 10 have been posted and 30 more have been approved.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Eddie891: It looks to me as if the article has developed very well. If it could be published fairly soon, it could help to pave the way for further contests based on the same approach. Any idea when we can expect to see it published? (cc Megalibrarygirl, Dr. Blofeld) --Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If all goes well, we are hoping to publish by December 15. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

...or not Evad37, the editor-in-chief, has been silent lately. Knowing how they work (i.e. slowly) I'll consider it lucky now if we publish before Dec. 23.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Published Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The article looks great! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Prize claims

I need everybody who entered the contest formally to gather their approved articles together on the Most articles created for the overall contest section of the prize claims page so I can do a final count before announcing the winners.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Mine are here on the overall @Dr. Blofeld:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When it says "enter all entries which were approved" - what does approved mean or where is that process listed? Hmlarson (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles which were given two ticks by the bot or approved manually with two ticks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Too late to add another?

Hey everyone: I meant to add a new article that one of my students completed. Is it too late to add it to the list? If not, just let me know and I will add it at the bottom. We don't need to be a part of the contest per se, but I was hoping her article would be counted toward the overall goal of new women's biographies in November. Thanks in advance! Girona7 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If it was created in November feel free to add it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Girona7 (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Winners

I'll be announcing the prize winners and top finishers later today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you for all your hard work on this. I note that I've been demoted in Europe for not doing articles on 5 countries. I realise now that I must have misread "5 different countries and at least three fields of occupation" as being 3 countries and 5 occupations. You gave User:Vami IV the opportunity to create articles for three continents that they had overlooked doing for the main prize - could you perhaps extend me the same courtesy to allow me to do two more countries, as I could easily have done that instead of creating so many for the UK? Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure OK, that's fair. Do two more for two different European countries and I'll give you second. It's just Miyagawa only did a few less and a ton of different countries. You got £200 for the UK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind understanding, Dr. Blofeld. Several of the contests were quite close. Very pleased with the UK prize. I will do articles for two more European countries today. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well you're getting around £395 for the contest so not bad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! Ida Praetorius, a ballerina from Denmark done. One more to go. Edwardx (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

And Nadia Krasteva, a mezzo-soprano from Bulgaria. Edwardx (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Further entries

I've added further entries which were done as part of the African feminists segment for the contest, can somebody try to add the flags before them, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I have added the flag for all these entries. –Vami_IV✠ 13:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Prize winners

1. Miyagawa - $725
2. Sturmvogel 66 - $652.50
3. Edward X - $535 (includes £200 (c. $270))
4. Vami IV - $337.50
5. SusunW - $275
6. Masssly - $257.50
7. Cwmhiraeth - $200
8. Dumelow - $140
9. Skr15081997 - $125
10. Fsmatovu - $115
11. Eddie891 - $110
12. Vinegarymass911 - $110
13. Slafayette - $160
14. 97198 - $60 (+ £25)
15. Victuallers - $40 (+ £25)
16. Ivar the Boneful - $60
17. The Drovers Wife - $50
18. Aymatth2 - $50
19. Reidgreg - $45
20. The C of E - $35
21. Darreg - $35
22. SuperJew - $31.50
23. Ser Amantio di Nicolao - $25
24. Jamez42 - $25
25. Jaguar - $25
26. Vanamonde93 - $25
27. WomenArtistUpdates - $25
28. Penny Richards - $20
29. Knope7 - $16.50
30. Find Bruce - $16.50
31. War of Dreams - $12.50
32. Alanna the Brave - $10
33. Wizardman - $10
34. Tsange - $10
35. TeriEmbrey - $10
36. KAVEBEAR - $10

OK, the above should be roughly right, you might want to all double check. If anybody would like to donate any of their winnings into a book fund for Women in Red to enable the project to buy books upon demand for editors writing on women topics in the future please state so on the main page in the section for the book fund and the money will be put to good use at a later date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)