Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 27 December 2015

September 2015

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

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

Okay, I did another 100. Only 100 more to go of the original batch and then the next ones. Uffff, never ending. SusunW (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, @SusunW: thanks; second, yes, ufffffff!! This needs to be automated, and I don't know how to make that happen, and maybe no one does. It's 2015... am I asking for too much to get this automated? --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and ask, because she is usually patient with how little technical skill I have, Redrose64 is there some way to have this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles automated? SusunW (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, the first 500 are reviewed and moved. I will make a start on the next set, but if anyone wants to jump in it'd be great ... SusunW (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of another WikiProject that already has a list like the one you want for WikiProject Women? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering Redrose64. I'll let Rosiestep correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is such a thing. The problem is that it takes significant time away from creating content to clean this up. I have spent the better part of two days on it and we're only 1/2 way through the month's articles (manually scanning 500 articles so far) and Rosie did it the previous two months. Surely there is a way to get a list without all the "(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Glany222 (talk · contribs · new pages (7)) started on 2015-09-14, score: 10" stuff you see at the bottom of the page which I haven't worked through yet. But after that is gone, I am manually checking each article to see if it really is woman related, if it has WikiProjects with women related markers, Adding those where missing, verifying that they are not already on the monthly list and then copy and pasting them in. My guess is Rosie did something similar the two months she reviewed the content. SusunW (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for answering, @Redrose64. @Susun accurately described the process. I'd been doing the same for WikiProject Women writers until I ran out of steam. I don't know how to automate the process, so I keep doing it manually, but it's a very poor use of anyone's time. Any ideas/help would be appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen Rosiestep add a bunch of lines below, and noticing that the added content begins "From: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles", I've looked at that page. The data that it shows is transcluded from User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistorySearchResult which is updated by InceptionBot (talk · contribs) based upon the rules described at User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistory. Perhaps you need to create a similar set of rules for WikiProject Women - there are instructions at User:AlexNewArtBot#Process overview. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: the problem we're trying to sort out is that the AlexNewArtBot list is temporary... 14 days. How can we automate a permanent list of newly-created articles that fall within this project's scope? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the bot operator what options are available? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling both Rosiestep and SusunW may be wasting valuable time in compiling such lengthy lists of new articles. The bot gives a pretty good record of what is being created on a day-to-day basis and although it only displays results for 14 days, the older versions of the output can be viewed through its history. As I have pointed out before, I don't think it was actually the intention of Women in Red to encourage more article creation in the area of sports which seems to be able to take care of itself without additional assistance. So maybe, like several other WikiProjects, we should just rely on the raw output from the bot, unless there are specific new priorities such as women in leadership. If anyone can come up with a reliable automated list, that would of course be great but there does not seem to have been much response on this. Our time could therefore perhaps be better spent on article creation and improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott If Rosie decides not to pursue the effort, I will follow her lead. It seems to me that there ought to be a way to do what Rosie is asking and it doesn't seem that it would be that difficult. But regardless, she asked for help in combing through the data and I could not knowingly ignore her plea, as she has helped me innumerable times in a multitude of situations. There are many tasks I cannot do, but I try to help when I can. This is a simple enough task, though admittedly mind-numbing. SusunW (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW I think you have been doing a wonderful job, not only of creating new articles but also assisting with supporting tasks like this. I am pretty sure it would not be too difficult to have the NewAlexBot (or some other programmer) process the output so that only the names of articles appeared which would facilitate copying them over. But I really think we need to eliminate all the biographies of women in sport which make it difficult to review the content. I've made a few suggestions along these lines elsewhere but have received no support. I've also been going through the bot output to pick up a number of articles on women in leadership which should have been included in the outcomes. I know how tedious a task this can be and that's why I wonder if it is really worthwhile continuing on a month-to-month basis for all new articles on women.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raw data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles

October 01-31: Done

Raw data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists

10-1 to 10-31 Done.

Raw data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers

10-1 to 10-31 Done.

Raw data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists

October 1-31 Done.

Icon not functioning

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

October 2015

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

SusunW I appreciate it very much. I'll work on it in November if no one else jumps in. I am trying to get back in touch with the right person at WMF who said there is project management software which could assist us. Fingerscrossed! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Like SusunW (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER!!!!!! Okay, sorry for yelling. Megalibrarygirl says she'll take the next 2 months :) I am hoping your software person can automate us but at least, if we share this between 3 of us it won't feel so burdensome. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: OH MY GOSH... am I awake or is this a dream? THANK YOU! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Rosiestep I had the same reaction. Even after I explained the task, Sue was like, Okay. So I said, no you have to look at all 1500 or so articles, and she said, okay. I'm like WOW, totally WOW. I'll finish this month and gladly turn it over, but will be here as back up if Megalibrarygirl needs it. SusunW (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing things are happening within this project, including developing relationships with amazing people such as you two. Thank you for being you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the best project I've been involved with. I feel like I make difference every day here. I'm happy to help. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree Rosiestep mutual admiration society and so much respect for what you and Megalibrarygirl have added to the project. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I have just completed the info from last night. Anything forward will go to November. Glad to be done with it and even gladder that someone else is taking over next month. Rosie, who checks for duplicates? And OMG over 1400 even if without the duplicates this is huge :) Very successful month! SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: Thank you! And, yes, those 1,4000+ articles are nothing short of amazing! @Rich Farmbrough has done the duplicates double-check in past months using a special tool; Rich, can you please do so for October, too? After that's done, we should post a congratulatory note on WiR's talkpage as our articles contributed to the 5,000,000th which we're celebrating today. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed redlinks and dupes. I also replaced redirects with their targets, mostly these are page moves, but a few are just new redirects - where I have spotted these I have removed them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Susan Pamerleau is also removed - currently counting as a copyvio. It can be restored once that tissue is dealt with.

There are 100 entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#October. Have all of them been accounted for in the WiR metrics? (I just added 4 articles to WiR from the Women writers' list.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep I only included them if they appeared on the list of new articles from the link above. I did not go to each project in the umbrella and cross-check because the madness of doing in manually must stop somewhere. I wouldn't know where to begin with an automated comparison and do not have the patience to do it manually. But...could someone put October in the little green thing tucked away? It is a long list to scroll through ;) SusunW (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW I left a new note for Amanda/WMF on the WiR talkpage regarding which 2 cats plus subcats to use to develop our metrics list; let's see how she responds. And I collapsed the October metrics: 1401 new articles!!! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosiestep yes I saw! I will be so excited to see this finally happen. Then all of our time can be devoted to creating link lists and articles. I know 1401 (actually there were more, but the prods or deletions were removed. Doesn't mean they cannot be revived later). :) SusunW (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW, point well made. I'm spending so much time on "administrative" tasks, talkpage posts, etc. which leaves me little time for content creation, my passion. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Column width suggestion

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

Update: Instead of waiting for discussion, I went ahead and changed the column widths throughout the page to 30em. Anyone is welcome to revert my edit if you prefer. Just thought I would be bold. Keep up the great work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right in the middle of my complex update!

It's better I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Another Believer and Rich Farmbrough: thank you and thank you. Appreciate all the help. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: The change in col width is fine and certainly causes no problems on PCs or notebooks. I was however interested to see how your edit appeared on an iPhone or iPad. I could not see any difference but this prompted me to look at your own user page on an iPhone. I must say it just doesn't work at all! Maybe it's the frame you use but all I can see is a quote by Jimmy Wales and definitions of GA, etc. Maybe you should test your changes out in practice before you recommend them to others. I'm really pleased nevertheless to see you are interested in our project and certainly don't want to frighten you off. In any case, only about three per cent of edits seem to come from mobile devices although I have no recent figures for page views. I realize we should also be catering to the mobile world but let's do it sensibly. --Ipigott (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt my profile page is not suitable for tablets and mobile devices, but that doesn't mean having 30em widths is not considered more accessible than forced 3x or 4x columns. And don't worry about frightening me off; I've been around a long time and appreciate this project's efforts! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: The wonderful thing is that with all the enthusiasm for new women's biographies, we even need to consider the use of columns in listing new articles and DYKs. Perhaps we should also be paying more attention to how the boxes, images and leads in our articles appear on a range of mobile devices. I think most of us who do the editing are still bogged down in the PC era. Great to have someone around who is interested is serving the new generation of users. I look forward to more alerts (or changes) along the same lines.--Ipigott (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November

got it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another Believer Here's my logic on it, for whatever it's worth. The project includes women and works by women, thus at first blush the answer would be no. But, the project also covers articles on fictional women and characters. While the statue is of a real person, it is by definition as a statue a "representation of a person" which is the same as a definition of a "character". Thus, I think it counts. And so it isn't POV, I actually did look it up. [1] :D SusunW (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was on the fence. I thought I'd start a discussion here based on Alice Biddle's accomplishment as the first female Oregon State University graduate. Feel free to add this article to this list, or not. I certainly won't be offended! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a representation of a woman. That works for me. So I've added it to the metrics. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Megalibrarygirl Good! Thank you! It just seemed that 336 articles for 21 days was way too low, especially as the Women in Science editathon alone has about 250 entries. But I haven't been keeping an eye on the 3 lists (Women's history; Women writers; Women artists). Please let me know if I can help as I know it's a lot of work for just one person. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: quite truthfully, I haven't even looked at it other than to post my entries. What with having house guests, the editathon and RL stuff, I've been busy. I do know, Sue that there are entries on the other 3 lists above, Writers, Artists, Scientists that do not appear on the history list. I went through all 4 lists. Unless the women in sport has continued their massive push (and surely at some point they will get all those entries input), I would expect that there would be a slowdown, but it does seems quite a significant drop. SusunW (talk)

Nah, it was just me missing a list--and the sports hasn't let up, let me tell you. I'm a little tired of adding WikiProject Women's sport... I wish they would do it themselves. :P I'll get the list up to date, maybe by the end of the day. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I just updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#2015 with 6-20 November entries (I didn't remember to deal with it earlier so the 1-5 entries have disappeared from AlexNewBot); these November entries can be copied over to WiR metrics, if that hasn't happened already. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: you rule! I'm copying away.... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, where did you get the info for that list? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

SusunW, I must have missed something because when I looked at the artist and writers ones before, I didn't see anything. But now I think I wasn't clicking on the rectangle, like in the women in science. I just thought it was empty. >.< But now I've got it! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists#2015 with its AlexNewBot list and the Nov entries can be copied over to WiR metrics. Note, I didn't do it earlier in the month, and AlexNewBot only holds 14 days of activity, so for both WikiProject Women Writers and WikiProject Women Artists, the 1-5 November entries are missing. Not the end of the world, but a reminder to all of us that unless Abittaker (WMF) or someone else can come up with a better method, the only way we can keep track of our work is by these painstaking manual methods. It is hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that 2015 is almost over, and yet there is no auto-generated list of new articles within our scope. Copying Masssly because of WIGI so he, too, understands our pain points. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree Rosie, it is a PITA to have to do this manually and not remotely blaming you Sue. You didn't create the problem and are trying to help with the work. Sorry I left you out on a limb. My houseguests who we thought would be here for a few days were here almost 2 weeks. SusunW (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, thank you for working on the list. Appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Farmbrough when you do that thing that you do at the end of the month to get rid of duplicates, etc. can you make sure that all the new files from the list on the Women in Science editathon made it into the matrix too? There's too many to manually check them, but we want to make sure they are all in the matrix. Gracias. SusunW (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be a problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Rich Farmbrough I just knew if I didn't ask when I was thinking about it, I'd forget. SusunW (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up November. @Rich Farmbrough, Rosiestep, and SusunW:, I'm going to be adding the last of the names by the end of the day (hopefully) so we can have the full stats right away. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. Thank you, Rich Farmbrough for showing me how to find the dupes. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. Once those nice people at ArbCom take my shackles off, or at least lengthen them, we will be able to keep this more up to date throughout the month without expending a lot of effort. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

December

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

Okay, now I'm pinging people because it's worse. It says 141 articles (5 per day). 141 articles/7=20 and change. What did I do? @Redrose64, Rich Farmbrough, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep:, anyone? SusunW (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's over the whole month. I guess I can make it smarter. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict) 141/31 rounded to nearest whole number is 5. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this at the time I wrote the template. It seems to me that what we have is good, because, even if we were to stop now, the rate for December would average 7 per day. The rate per day can only go up until the end of the month (apart from dupe and redlink removal of course).

On the other hand the alternative approach also has its charms. Maybe I should implement both.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also, I don't know how to collapse November. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64, Rich Farmbrough, Megalibrarygirl, and Rosiestep: Okay, I see now that it is an average for the whole month. That had honestly not occurred to me. Just glad I didn't screw something up, which was what I feared. Thanks for the fast responses. I love that about this group. SusunW (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Redrose64, and Rich Farmbrough: I've been keeping up the entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#December 2015 and will add them to the WiR metrics on January 1st or 2nd. Will also add the artists if that hasn't been done already. There will probably be duplicates, but I know someone has the magic wand that can be waved to remove them so I won't fret about dups. Also, I think it's my turn in the rotation to track of WiR metrics so count on me to do so in January. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another feed

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

@@ Line 121: / Line 121: @@
 :::Also, I don't know how to collapse November. :( [[User:Megalibrarygirl|Megalibrarygirl]] ([[User talk:Megalibrarygirl|talk]]) 17:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 ::::{{yo|Redrose64|Rich Farmbrough|Megalibrarygirl|Rosiestep}} Okay, I see now that it is an average for the whole month. That had honestly not occurred to me. Just glad I didn't screw something up, which was what I feared. Thanks for the fast responses. I love that about this group. [[User:SusunW|SusunW]] ([[User talk:SusunW|talk]]) 21:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
-:::::I got here late, but, yes, the gross number is divided by 30. And I see that November's been collapsed, so all appears to be well.  --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 04:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
+:::::{{rto|Megalibrarygirl|SusunW|Redrose64|Rich Farmbrough}} I've been keeping up the entries at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created#December 2015]] and will add them to the WiR metrics on January 1st or 2nd. Will also add the artists if that hasn't been done already. There will probably be duplicates, but I know someone has the magic wand that can be waved to remove them so I won't fret about dups. Also, I think it's my turn in the rotation to track of WiR metrics so count on me to do so in January. --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 01:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 == Another feed ==