Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

"Komm rein, mach mit", meaning "Come, join us".

Scope

• The problems we’re trying to solve:

• Systemic bias towards women’s biographies;
• … and their works -- broadly construed -- such as books, paintings, etc.
• … across all languages

• Off-topic:

• Editor gender gap

What is it?

• WikiProject Women in Red, a community-led project, was launched this week.
• It is intended as a parent project for other projects in all languages whose scope covers women and their works, such as WikiProject Women Writers.
• WikiProject Women in Red is a collaborative space across languages to track all things related to content gender gap.

• creation of new articles, Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYK articles
• events
• news articles
• scholarly publications
• metrics
• hackathon challenges

• WikiProject Women in Red is a container project with links for blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees’ projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc.

Wikidata will be used to manage the project because of its size and scope.

• We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
• A global community-run project:
• In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
• We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by user:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) “Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities.”
• We will seek out the expertise of WikiProject X, a project dedicated to improving WikiProjects, in order to create an appealing work space.
• Work together with the Chapters
• Build on Wikimedia’s “Address the gender gap/FAQ“
• Consider the creation of a Wikimedia User Group

Assistance needed with our March Role Models meetup and online editathon

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

• Amsterdam University
• Barcelona University
• Barnard College
• Bryn Mawr
• Cardiff University
• Edinburgh University
• Kent University
• Mills College
• Mount Holyoke College
• Radcliff College
• Scripps College
• Smith College
• University of the West Indies
• Vassar College
• Wellesley College

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

		Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news
		8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions Inform your communities of the need for their support. Contribute in English or in your own language Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

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

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

Proposed design re-vamp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Hispanic American Women

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

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

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

Unjustified aggression and stalking

I am concerned that several of the keenest and most productive editors I know have recently been faced with such a level of aggression that they no longer feel happy about contributing to the English Wikipedia. There have been instances of stalking by editors and administrators who set out to find fault, especially with those who try to explain the reasons behind the work they have undertaken. In addition to having their articles deleted, editors who attempt to argue their cases with administrators can be threatened with action by ArbCom. Some are officially suspended from editing, others feel they are unable to edit further without facing continued aggression. While a number of new editors seem to face repeated discouragement, I am mainly concerned that several editors who have contributed for years are now so fed up with the hostile atmosphere here that they have decided either to abandon ship completely or to cut back on their contributions. Many have stopped contributing to DYK or to discussions on AfD.

It seems to me that there is little hope of improving participation on Women in Red unless we can put a stop to continued harassment along these lines. It would probably be counter-productive to cite specific instances of aggression on-wiki as this could well result in further oppression. As a result, I have decided after some consultation to try to draw up an account of serious instances of hostility by inviting those involved to keep me informed by email. Those who have suffered unjustified aggression should therefore let me know by email. They can first let me know in general terms how they have been treated. Later, it would be useful to have more details, including the names of the editors and administrators concerned, backed if possible by reference to specific instances of aggression and cases of continued stalking. It would also be useful for me to have the names of other editors who have been mistreated so that their cases can be investigated too. On the basis of the communications I receive, I will try to research cases in more depth although as I am not an administrator, I may have difficulty in identifying articles and talk pages which have now been deleted. Once I have sufficient evidence of aggression, I shall communicate the results to a number of progressive Wikipedians who have expressed interest in taking concerted action at appropriate levels.

As many of you will know, the Wikimedia Foundation hopes to improve the editing environment on Wikipedia, especially as a means of attracting more women editors and better coverage of women. If we can assist by identifying those behind cases of aggression, we will certainly help to bring about improvements. I look forward both to general support here and to more specific details of bullying by email.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I've not been contributing much in the last few months is the level of childishness I experienced from the infobox enforcement lot. Cassianto in particular was being targetted. The nastiness that went on and the blatant bullying has soured my attitude towards wanting to produce content. At times it seems nobody seems to care if I contribute or not. Another major concern is the level of deletionism which goes on on here, the laziness in checking for sources and helping the wikipedia cause. Just look at my talk page for what people have tried to delete in the last month. Deletionism is a major obstacle if we're to keep editors contributing women articles. We need something to protect newbies and their articles created at editathons. I hope the site will get better again later in the year with the contests I have in mind and the project will become more positive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I am really sorry to read this thread. All I can say is that on the Dutch wikipedia this as been going on for years and our little Gendergap group has a safe haven on Facebook where we can exchange tips and tricks. The odd thing is that the most determined "stalkers" as you call them are mostly just over-sensitive Wikipedians trying to defend the "rules". As everyone knows who works on articles about women and their works, it is sometimes really hard to find reliable sources. I think it is important to keep in mind that all of the work here is harder than work on items about men. I think that helps. Since my hobby is 17th-century art it is always easy for me to escape from time to time. I agree that we need to keep it fun and sometimes crabby people seem to suck all the fun out of it. It helps to remember that crabby people are just reacting to what annoys them individually, and it may have nothing to do with the female aspect, but simply fallout from the fact that there is no single source for the text you have written. But let's keep the faith! Jane (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a sorry story. Can you give some links or diffs to indicate the extent of the problem? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC).

Xxanthippe: Thanks for your interest. I'm afraid bringing up specific instances of harassment here might only create more problems for those concerned. That is why I have suggested further contacts by email. I should nevertheless point out that many of us, including Jane023 above and I myself, have never experienced any serious problems on Wikipedia. Furthermore, WiR members have generally welcomed the positive and cooperative atmosphere they have experienced in the project, not only in our discussions but perhaps more importantly in collaboration on our articles. That said, the cases of harassment which have come to my attention seem to be serious enough to call for more careful investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes but it might help to put up some examples of what happens in user talk page exchanges. I think a lot of problems occur because people "mis-read" each other and jump to conclusions. Unfortunately it seems to me that some Wikipedians love to bait new users for some reason. I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but some very experienced users do seem to be overly critical of minor details in a way that may come across as aggressive. Without naming names I think we can document a few common scenarios. What bugs me is there is no central page for this, but it comes up in almost every newbie editing session I have attended. So some general work is needed, but I am at a loss as to which form it should take. Jane (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is very sad and terrible and not acceptable. I'm circling FloNight into the conversation as she has wiki experience in this area. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott, I'm sorry to hear that this is happening and understand you frustration. If you don't want to publicly point out particular situations with editors, you can send me an email with more details so I can offer suggestions of possible methods to resolve the problem. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There are also problems with overzealous new editors sometimes, I've found. I've had a couple of people swoop in to touch up articles I've been working on even though I've had an under-construction tag up on them and was still working on them myself. Not the greatest sin in the history of things, but after a while it can become frustrating. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I split this conversation, because edit-a-thons are a whole different subject. I think it may be helpful here to mention that there is a draft code of conduct being written here: mw:Code of Conduct/Draft, which has sparked a lively thread on Wikimedia-l mailing list here. Jane (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

This a a very sad thread. WIR has remained a safe area but we have well meaning and imperfect editors being hounded by editors who claim that they are improving Wikipedia by getting rid of contributors they don't think are "up to standard". There seems to be an idea that the project is more important than one editors work. Some believe that one day Wikipedia will be free from errors - that may be possible but only by getting rid of all the editors. The editors create content AND errors AND corrections. The project is proof that this works. What is happening is that editors are being hounded off the projects and the middle-ground editors who create the majority of the content are (not surprisingly) the people who create the majority of the errors. They are also create the majority of the corrections but this is never noticed. The argument goes that we can get rid of most of the errors by getting rid of the most productive editors. This is a valid argument if you want the project to stagnate. We need new additions, we need productive editors and we need errors. WIR has remained a safish area - why does it attract so many good editors? ....Sadly this means that other areas of the project are creating stagnation. I didn't think that editors should be hounded off the project .. but .... Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Roger, and of course I agree with you, but I think we all need to step back and think about why this is happening now. For example, that CoC I linked above has been stalled for a year but has now become the lively subject of the mailing list. We are dealing with various forces in the media that have to do with fake news and suddenly people are looking at Wikipedia for answers. After years of being ridiculed and vandalized by academics and journalists (though thankfully not all of them), the irony of people looking at Wikipedia's NPOV policies as a way forward is just amazing to me. So the typical Wikipedian doing their normal duty of "cleaning up the errors" has now suddenly gone into overdrive. This project has not been targeted I don't think. It's just a simple factor of the systemic bias that means most of what we would like to create in terms of women's bios is just not going to pass muster in the current scheme of things, because we lack the reliable sources. Add to that simple fact that we have been looking at Black women in particular this month and suddenly our "normal lack of reliable sources" has been dialed back even further! All of that said, I think we need some guidelines about how to deal with this kind of talkpage conduct, even if all we have is "go vent on the Women-in-Red talkpage" which may help people, who knows? Jane (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been watching this thread with interest, trying to gather my thoughts. I am thankful that WiR remains a safe place, with the exception of a few stalkers who watch our pages and occasionally comment or push their POV. I think that overall, Wikipedia will not change unless the WikiMedia Foundation actually puts effort into creating policies that stop these behaviors. Self-policing has not worked. The groups of people who participate in these types of behaviors reinforce each other and back each other up. When one begins their Wikilawyering tactics, the rest will follow. I don't participate in many projects on here simply because of the pack mentality, whose goals appear to be to tear things down rather than build them up. The ultimate goal of WP is to create a reliable encyclopedia and yet, creation always seems to take a back seat. It is interesting that the proposed code of conduct refers very little to the actual work of the encyclopedia. "Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling)" appears to be the only reference and is totally insufficient. Is is so vague as to not address anything, in that the offenders are likely not to consider their behavior to be sustained issues, nor trolling. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• In answer to some of the above comments, I should let you know that the Wikimedia foundation is in fact taking all this extremely seriously as you can see from here. It is therefore all the more important that we monitor unacceptable behaviour on talk pages, article reviews, DYK submissions, AfDs, etc. It certainly looks to me as if we can expect positive changes over the next few months. Better reporting mechanisms are to be introduced soon but for now we have to rely on more traditional forms of communication.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well...I hope your optimism isn't misplaced. But I'm afraid that at least some of the problems have been longstanding...it's only now that they seem to be lapping at the feet of more established editors. (I have evidence from discussion with a couple of friends that we've lost some potential new editors over the past couple of years due to some nastiness.) Whether or not that will lead to a long-term change in attitudes I cannot say. Apologies for the cynicism, but...well, it's well within my nature. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps sadly, it is not safe to edit on Wikipedia under a username as the default "winning" strategy here is to be a bully. I found life is very happy as as IP editor. Since I took a cleanstart and moved to IP editing, my experience of wiki haraasement and bullying has been very minimal, as my routr resets so frequently that any problems disappear.104.163.152.194 (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Google anti-harassment tool

This is now a long way up the talk page but in connection with all this, I happened to come across news of Google's recently launched Perspective technology as part of its Jigsaw safety project. In particular, I was interested to see that Google had analyzed a million annotations from the Wikipedia EN talk pages in order to study how harassment had been followed up. Apparently "only 18 percent of attackers received a warning or a block from moderators, so most harassment on the platform went unchecked." Has there been any collaboration with Google on this? It seems to me that it would be useful to draw on their analysis, possibly adapting the approach to identifying aggressors and preventing unwarranted abuse. It seems to me that the Wikimedia Foundation should be able to draw on these results to obtain the same overview that Google now has of behaviour on our talk pages. Furthermore, if the Perspective approach were to be user here, it would facilitate on-going monitoring of abuse, providing a basis for concerted action against harassment. So finally there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. (cc: FloNight Jane023 Rosiestep Ser Amantio di Nicolao SusunW Victuallers).--Ipigott (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott I remain hopeful that at some point things will change. Very glad to know that there is broad evidence of what we have been repeatedly saying over time. Existing protocols and policing are not working. Our structure does not require admins/moderators to have the skills necessary to stop these behaviors, nor provide training to improve the lack of skill. This technology could clearly shine a light on the issues and perhaps form the basis of *real* change. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott More info about it on Wikimedia-l mailing list, the WMF blog, and various wiki Facebook channels. (These sources of information, in general, are apropos for those who want to stay informed about the wiki movement.) Also, I'm proud to say, I've been participating in the Jigsaw research. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. Glad to see you've been following this up and playing an active part. Well done! I know you are extremely busy with all kinds of things but I think some of us would be interested in hearing about developments such as this, especially anything specifically designed to diminish harassment. If you come across further developments of interest, you could drop us a line here, on Announcements, Press, Research or whatever. I see that some of the sources date from 7 February. Perhaps by now Perspective is now being used more systematically on a day-to-day basis. From the various descriptions I have seen, it is capable of far more than making general analyses. Is there any indication the WMF intends to use it to prevent serious cases of harassment? If so, this could act as a warning to those who continue to cast abuse, particularly those whose activities have discouraged members of this project over a lengthy period.--Ipigott (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, I'm glad that you highlighted Perspective here. Perspective and other tools are going to be an important part of the solution. I hope that you and others at Women in Red will get more engaged with helping to give feedback as they are rolled out. The best way for them to be fine tuned for Wikipedia is for Wikipedians to offer constructive criticism and other feedback as opportunities arise. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's great that others want to get involved in this important work! The best way to stay informed is to subscribe to Wikimedia-l, to read the WMF blogpost, and to subscribe to the The Signpost. That is to say, as I'm stretched thin with wiki responsibilities, let's spread the workload and have someone else take lead in this regard. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at Wikimedia-l and the WMF blog and am afraid to say it would take a considerable amount of time to follow them on a day-to-day basis. Maybe the best solution is to wait to see what is picked up by the world press. (Unless of course anyone is ready to look out for items of special interest.) In regard to Perspective, I for one would be happy to participate in the development and application process. We obviously have a number of problems here which could be priorities for the evolving system. It would be interesting to know whether it could be made available for those wanting to investigate cases of harassment associated with identifiable users who are either causing harassment or being subjected to it.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Problems with edit-a-thons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three things going on this thread

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

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

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

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

should become:

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

Speedy deletion can only occur when the administrator has checked that the author is not a new editor struggling to make their first edits. Speedy deletion cannot happen if a registered-editor has created less than 5 articles or has an edit count of less than a 50, In those cases an encouraging advice template devoid of threats should be left on their talk page, and the full deletion process used instead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evita Robinson deletion- Black history month

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

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

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

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

Lisa Unger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured list candidate: Feedback requested

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

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

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

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

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

WiR articles on date pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leigh Markopoulos

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

Estelle Lazer

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

A new dictionary

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

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

Last minute preparations for A+F editathon

More lists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A+F dashboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invitations to in-person participants

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

Princess Olufemi-Kayode

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

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

Swiss women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons category for our images

Curiosity, by Henriette Ronner-Knip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aileen Hernandez

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

Hi The ed17! Here are some references:

• Stirrin' Waters n Buildin' Bridges
• Brief mention of BWSW
• BWSW book (no online access)
• BWSW founding
• 1974 Newspaper article about Black women organized for political action
• Mention of BWOPA in this News article 1974
• Mention of headquarters for BWOPA
• Mention of Minority women's task force
• Mention of MWTF
• founder of MWTF

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

Day Without a Woman

Project members and page watchers are welcome to help expand Draft:Day Without a Woman. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer This is a protest in the US, right? The first couple of sentences should probably specify where the strike is taking place, as not everyone is American. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Well, actually, I think the strike is global. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Karin Hansson

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

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

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

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Laura Larson

Laura Larson is up for deletion.104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard

Is there a secret WIR noticeboard somewhere? Seems like the project needs one.104.163.140.193 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Our "noticeboard" is pretty much this talkpage, plus we have an Announcements section on the mainpage, a Twitter page, and a Facebook page. There aren't any secret pages... at least that I'm aware of. ;) Or maybe I'm just not groking what you mean by "secret WiR noticeboard"? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks!I did not phrase that question very well. What I meant is that several projects have noticeboards, and I think WIR could use one for items like the one I posted directly preceeeding this.104.163.140.193 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This page works perfectly well for that. Why would we want to have to watchlist yet another page? What, exactly, is the fault you find with this page? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Just an idea. Surely more infrastructure (to enable expansion) for a worthy project is not a bad idea?104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 104.163.140.193 for bringing this up. We have recently undertaken some redesign work on our pages and I'm afraid our announcements were not appearing for a few days. I for one appreciate the trouble you have been taking to keep us posted here of valid women's biographies which are threatened with deletion. As you can see, it has been working very well. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not today, but in the future, when hundreds of people are coming to the project each week or day week to find out how to contribute and how to do different things, the infrastructure will need to expland beyond a single talk page wihtout any explanation as to its purpose. A little infrastructure (for example a page called "noticeboard") can be very helpful to the uninitiated, for the same reason that they put signs in airports: to help peple to get to where they are going.104.163.140.193 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think we do, possibly, lack a noticeboard, but I'd be inclined to place such a thing on our main page and point related discussion to this page. Meanwhile I, too, thank you for posting AfDs here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm supportive of creating another high-level subpage -noticeboard or named something else- where we address "... how to contribute and how to do different things..." We recently made "Tasks" a redirect to "Worklists". So we could repurpose Tasks, 104.163.140.193, and use it in the way you just described, e.g. a stable, high-level page which outlines different things a participant can do, and gives instructions re each. The first few ideas which come to mind would be: AfD, suggesting/planning an event, liaising with an outside partner for a future WiR event, creating Learning Patterns to document our processes, create a slidedeck re our branding, and so forth. We could start such a page in a WiR Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Sandbox and sort out its name -Noticeboard, Tasks, etc.- later. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

March DYKs

Decreasing interest in DYKs

I try to keep an eye on DYKs within the scope of this project. I'm afraid to say that there has been a drastic fall in interest since this time last year. Between 1 and 5 March 2016, we had 17 DYKs. This year there have only been four. I realize many have been dissuaded from participating in DYK nominations as a result of the negative and sometimes insulting reactions they have received. It would nevertheless be good to see more women included during Women's History Month. Many different editors contributed to last year's DYKs including Yoninah, SusunW and Rosiestep.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I thought of nominating new articles from this project for DYK. I clicked on the first 5 new pages under March 2017, and all were stubs. That was discouraging. Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah: Thanks for your quick response. Maybe you've been looking at the list under Metrics which picks up all the articles on women. If you look at those listed for our editathons on A+F or Role Models, I think you will find that most are at least "Start". You might be interested in my recent Amelia Sarah Levetus, an early Jewish art historian active in Austria.--Ipigott (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, okay, I'll do that. I looked at your article to nominate it. Find a Grave is not a reliable source. Can you replace it with one that is? Yoninah (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah: Find a Grave was one of the very few sources I could find in English. I don't think I can replace it but I can delete the information I found there. Some of the details are covered in the German sources but not all.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott Find a Grave is written by volunteers who copy the material from other sources. You might try searching on some phrases mentioned in the Find a Grave writeup to find their original sources. If you'd like, I could try to find more sources, but I'm pressed for time this week. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yoninah: Thanks but don't bother. There's nothing of very much importance and I have already spent enough time on searching for good sources. Anyway, you've now added Find a Grave to EL if anyone is interested. I think it is more important for me to create new biographies. I appreciate your efforts on DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott I stopped participating in DYK after last March with the only exception being our GAs and one file I reviewed for Gerda because she asked. As I have been concentrating on writing C class or better articles, it is too time consuming to monitor DYK nominations and the QPQs required on the scale I previously was submitting to that project. I only have so much time. It can either be devoted to writing the best articles that I can, or quibbling over what someone thinks is an interesting topic for the front page. Frankly, I'd rather just write the articles and avoid all the conflict. SusunW (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

SusunW - I stopped participating in DYK for similar reasons some years ago. I don't have the time, nor the ability, to properly review a nomination the way it has been requested I do. I'd rather spend that time creating content. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I, too, avoid DYK as Byzantine & capricious. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I avoid DYK for the same reasons mentioned here. These days, a hook is rarely approved "as is". Editors feel as if they have to find something wrong that must be changed before they will approve the hook. If an article meets the minimum requirements, it's not my style to nitpick, nor do I like to have a nominated article be nitpicked. I want to create content! Others who were major contributors to March DYKs include @Gerda Arendt, Dr. Blofeld, Nvvchar, and Victuallers. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I've not bothered much with DYKs for a few years now. Too much nitpicking and too slow to go through, often a month or more. Most of the top DYK contributors no longer contribute to it. I don't mind doing the occasional one but I think the feature is past it's sell by date and the main page needs a revamp.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

International Women's Day at DYK

In case people are interested, Yoninah set up a holding area for International Women's Day on 8 March. Probably too late to write new articles to get on there, but will be great to see lots of women on the DYK front page. 18:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Dorothy Tarrant is almost there. There was also a Royal Academy editathon yesterday which got some new articles started and it may be fairly easy to get them up to DYK level. I'll have at go at some of these myself but am quite busy currently, trying to clear the decks for Wednesday. Andrew D. (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Here's the list of this month's A+F events; so far, 202 articles have been created at the in-person events. In March, WiR's virtually-created articles are tracked here and here --Rosiestep (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Gurmehar Kaur

Gurmehar Kaur is up for deletion. A heated AfD is in progress. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Joan Braderman

Joan Braderman is up for deletion.104.163.140.193 (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A note on metrics

Our metrics and the Wikidata Human Gender Indicators metrics both rely on the creation of wikidata records pointing to our articles and having two properties, human, and female. Absent the wikidata record, the pointer, or either of the two properties, the article is not counted.

There is no effective means of ensuring that we have the requisite wikidata records, beyond a ridiculous amount of fairly dull work which I've been doing for the past few months, and from which I anticipate a need to withdraw (in favour of writing articles). I fear the consequence is that metrics will progressively & cumulatively undercount both male and female biographies. I don't have a solution to offer, other than that others might involve themselves in Petscan activities; but as the opportunity cost is that we cannot at the same time create or improve articles, it's not a task I would urge on anyone.

For the spods amongst us, the tasks & issues associated with metrics maintenance are:

• finding en.wiki female biogs with no wikidata record, and creating a record
• finding en.wiki female biogs with a wikidata record lacking human or female, and adding the missing property
• Petscan provides a means of finding qualifying articles, but:
• Multiple searches are required across a number of sets of categories (e.g. by occupation, year of birth) to find candidate records. (I have a stable of 12 petscan reports which I've been running daily.)
• Lists of candidate articles returned by Petscan need varying levels of weeding & scrutiny before they're useful; such as:
  • distinguishing biographies from not-biographies - involving fishing out by eye the titles of likely female biogs, or the titles of non-biogs, from lists of article titles running (depending on the petscan report) from tens to hundreds to a thousand or more in length, and inspecting the article
  • distinguishing between male and female biographies - involving checking the article, for hundreds of articles per week
  • matching new articles with existing wikidata records - necessitating inspection of a set of search results for every article for which there is a correspondingly named wikidata record, many hundreds per week

Petscan does all it can to help, but none of the above is automatable with our current resources and technology. It is a problem which will not go away in the foreseeable future. Equally, eventually, well-formed wikidata records will be created by the normal wikimedia process of gradual accretion.

So. There you go. Stats, eh? They're a bother. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Are there ways the rest of us can help in this? Thinking of adding "woman" categories and/or WikiProject Women talk page banners -presumably they help? Anything else? Should we create a Wikidata record whenever we create a biog - and, if so, how do we do so? PamD 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes to add "women" categories - especially those under Category:Women by occupation. Articles in this category tree are low-hanging fruit for semi-automated additions since their gender is more-or-lesss assured.

As to adding a wikidata record, absolutely. That is the very best thing to do once you've written an article, if you wish it to contribute to either of the metrics. Two methods:

• In wikidata, from the New Item page ... fill that in, and in the succeeding page, add the wikipedia article (you need to specify it is for the EN wikipedia) and add two properties, instance of = human and sex or gender = female. The user interface takes a little getting used to. This is what your record should look like, at minimum, when you've finished.
• using the WE-Framework gadget, which provides a very much easier to use user interface, once you've installed it. It provides a list of links on the right side of all article pages; clicking on the WEF: Person link gives you a pop-up form into which you can add 'female' and any other data you wish. (It deals with the article link and the 'human' bit). To start using it, place at Special:mypage/common.js the following string, and follow the instructions at the top the .js page about reloading page; then go to some biography:

mediaWiki.loader.load( '//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:WEF_AllEditors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

Note, however, that you are well advised to search for your person in wikidata before creating a new record, least there is an existing record. (Duplicates get merged, so no long term harm is done, just best to avoid dupes). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I am a fan of the gadget. Loaded it and it is really simple to fill out. I've been completing the info on every bio for several months. NOTE: to input a birth name, in the first block, you have to choose a language *before* you fill out the name. If you do not, it will not save any of your additions. Learned this the hard way. SusunW (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon:@SusunW: OK, I've had a go at both the routes recommended above and:

1. Going to the Wikidata page... I think I have created an entry there for Jean La Fontaine (though the page offers no help or clues (eg on what to put as "description", perhaps there's an "Introduction to Wikidata" I should have read first?), Tagishsimon, could you perhaps have a look at it and check that it looks OK? Thanks. It's at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q28910631
2. Went to the page to download the gadget: first instruction is " Copy the following code into your meta:Special:MyPage/global.js:". Aaargh. Where do I find that? I have a vague recollection of having edited my .js a couple of times in my 10 years of editing, but no idea where I find it to edit it.

Perhaps this illustrates a common problem in Wikipedia: to do fancy stuff you suddenly get faced with terribly un-user-friendly instructions. Could someone give me a clue? Thanks.

If it's so useful that this Wikidata is added, perhaps we should include it, at least as a "And if you'd like to go one step further" optional extra, in the standard WiR instructions on how to create a page? The WikiData data entry page didn't seem too difficult to use, with advance instructions like (an expanded version of) Tagishsimon's brief notes above. I'll certainly now go back through the female biographies in my list of page creations, and create the Wikidata for them, using the Wikidata entry form unless or until someone helps me to find how to use the Gadget! PamD 09:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PamD: I certainly sympathize with you in regard to Wikidata. Like you, I also found it extremely difficult to edit until I installed the gadget about a year ago. It's much easier to use and you don't need to leave Wikipedia. I'll look back for the installation instructions and post them on your talk page. In the meantime I've updated the Jean La Fontaine entry on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I've looked here where I'd expect to see your update, and can't see anything. What did you need to change? Meanwhile I've been going through the earlier articles I've created - apart from Jean La Fontaine, they're all already in Wikidata, though I've been able to add extra fields to some. They all had the all-important "female" tag already. PamD 10:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC

PamD: I'm afraid you've added a duplicate. The original entry was J. S. La Fontaine (Q20897552). You actually linked your article to it on 5 February. Still trying to find the gadget installation.--Ipigott (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Oops - I did search before but didn't notice the very different form of name. I've now put in a "Request for deletion" for the newly-created duplicate. Sorry about that. Perhaps this Wikidata lark is just a step too far ... though I've enjoyed a little gentle button-clicking on the "Wikidata games" or "Is this a person or not: yes, don't know, no", and "Male, don't know, Female". Might try some of the others as a gently constructive pastime. The introduction to Wikidata at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:About_data is a good read, which I'd recommend to others. PamD 11:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PamD: I've finally found the instructions for installing the gadget. You'll find them here. I'll also save the link on my user page for future reference.--13:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Ipigott (talk)

Need for reassessment

• First of all Tagishsimon, thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this. It's been a tedious job but at least it has resulted in many more of our articles being included as women's biographies in Wikidata. I've also been going through all the new articles on the AlexBot output on Women in Red once or twice a month, manually adding to the Metrics lists all the articles other than biographies which qualify for inclusion. These include sports clubs and events, organizations, fictitious women, womens works (paintings, books, music, films) and other articles reporting on women. As a result, up to 15% of the articles listed in metrics have been found manually. No doubt many more could be found if we were to go through the lists on Women Writers and Women Artists. The manual finds are of course not included in the WHGI statistics which only pick up biographies from Wikidata.

My other concern about our statistics is that while our month-by-month "Metrics" have taken account of the 9,000 odd women's biographies by Sander.van.Ginkel which have been moved out of the mainspace and are now drafts, for some reason the WHGI stats have not made any noticeable adjustment. As far as I can see, this is because almost all his articles still have some kind of link to the EN wiki in Wikidata. One of these days, perhaps when the majority of his articles have been deleted from draft space in a month or two, the WHGI stats will be adjusted downwards. When that happens, I expect the proportion of EN biographies on women will decrease from today's 16.86% to just over 16%. This would of course mean that there had been little or no progress over the past year. As we have been widely publicizing this figure as an indication of our progress, I am beginning to wonder whether it is not time to abandon global statistics and concentrate more on our coverage of women in different occupations where I believe we have made substantial progress. In any case, even our figure of 16.86% is well behind the achievements on other versions of Wikipedia: Korean 23.64%, Japanese 22.25%, Norwegian 22.0%, Persian 20.65%, Swedish 20.30%, not to mention Wikidata-driven Welsh at 52.25%. I have mentioned the reduction in DYKs as compared to last year but our overall monthly output as recorded in "Metrics" has also decreased. This year we had 1,755 in January and 1,590 in February compared to last year's 1,908 and 2,089. There might well be a case for reconsidering how we handle our stats and how we present progress. But let's first see how we come out of Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am personally not a fan of the Korean/Japanese Wikipedia model. The statistics might look good on the surface but the Korean wikipedia essentially functions like Wikia (at least in terms of Kpop coverage). For a comparison, the group Mamamoo has a single article here, but on the Korean wikipedia, every band member has their own article. Articles such as these also contain a lot of trivial details. I have seen articles which contain details of 5 minute appearances on television shows. Others contain details of insignificant controversies or details which (although sourced) are likely to cause harm. I don't think this is a good inspirational model. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me echo the sentiments of Ipigott when I say thank you to you, Tagishsimon, for the Wikidata work you've done on behalf of our WikiProject. I don't know whom else to ask, so I'm turning to you, Harej, for ideas of how Tagishsimon's work could be continued without interruption, but in automated fashion so that our metrics don't falter. If this is outside the scope of WikiProject X, could you guide us with where to put in a request for automation? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. Sadly, I don't think it can be automated, at least not without an unhealthy number of false-positives and duplicated wikidata records. I've not abandoned wikidata-ing entirely, but equally it's occupying a much smaller amount of my week :( (although :) for me.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red in the media

• "Women’s History Month on Wikipedia", March 6, by Aubrie Johnson. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice post! SusunW (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "How a feminist stood up to trolls and measurably changed Wikipedia’s coverage of women scientists", March 7, by Ed Erhart and Jeff Elder

• Australian architects are back: Architecture AU.--Ipigott (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Events in Cambridge to mark International Women's Day include our Role Models editathon at Newnham College.--Ipigott (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Annoucement by Carol Black of Newnham College, Cambridge News, 8 March.--Ipigott (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Observer article on International Women's Day]--Ipigott (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nela Arias-Misson

Nela Arias-Misson is up for deletion.104.163.140.193 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kept. --Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Vaj (street artist)

Vaj (street artist) is up for deletion.104.163.152.90 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

update: User:LauraHale went to work on the article, doing what can only be described as a spectacular job. Stellar would be another word for it. 104.163.152.90 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see that Laura is back with us and look forward to her future contributions. She has indeed done a very thorough job on Vaj.--Ipigott (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Bhimaraju

AfD concerns an 11-12 yr old young lady who created a software program to help the blind. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

At a glance the deletionists' arguments seem positively vindictive, they are certainly exposing themselves to sever criticism. Their focus on the minutiae of wording rather than the pillars of Wikipedia, and the goal of providing content to the encyclopedia is tedious.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The lede of the BLP sets the pace. In one of the relists at the AfD, an editor drew attention to another editor's criticism of cited sources, which I'm not sure bodes well for maintaining a neutral position. In the discussion that follows, there's another list of sources that may help participants properly weigh the arguments for or against. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Iris Fontbona

Iris Fontbona has been nominated for deletion, after an attempt to redirect her article to that of her late husband was unsuccessful. Edwardx (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It has been withdrawn. 96.127.243.41 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Day Without a Woman organizer discussion

There is a current discussion on the Day Without a Woman talk page on whether, and how, to include the information that one of the main organizers was convicted of terrorism. Funcrunch (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Movement strategy update #10

For those who are interested in such things: --Rosiestep (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Today's update: m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/10 March 2017 - Update 10 on Wikimedia movement strategy process
• Previous updates: m:SStrategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates

Marilyn B. Young

For those so inclined, the article on Marilyn B. Young, recently deceased, could use some copyediting and reference improvement.96.127.243.41 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is one article that won't have any trouble passing AfD, if it ever gets taken there. The sources and notability are excellent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

Patricia Beck

Patricia Beck: 20th-century American writer with disabilities who committed suicide. I've improved and expanded the article, plus added two university references, but additional support is welcome if you are so inclined. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Beck. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Red links at 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Surely there's a more appropriate place to mention the red links appearing in the article 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, but for now I'll just make a note of them here in case any project members care to create new articles about some of the women attorneys who were asked to resign. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Another Believer: I think the appropriate place to include them would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Law. Are they all "notable" enough to be included? How about U.S. attorneys dismissed after former changes of president? Have they all been covered? If not, perhaps we should add some of them as red links too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ysabel Birkbeck

Ysabel Birkbeck is up for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bulked up sourcing for notability proving. --LauraHale (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Help with Carol T. Christ article?

Could use some help cleaning up and updating the Carol T. Christ article. She was just named the first female chancellor of UC Berkeley which is huge, but when I looked at the article it was a mess, with no lead or discrete sections and few citations. I did some work on it but don't have the energy for much more editing today, and I'm sure lots of people will be looking at the article so it would be great to get it in better shape ASAP. Funcrunch (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Fluent in Italian? See if you can help this article at AfD

I'm fairly sure this person is notable, so I'm looking to see if anyone on here is fluent in Italian. Francesca Genna is an Italian printmaker who seems to have originated a new concept in the field. Ipigott, since you are our polyglot, do you know any Italian or know anyone who does? Thanks in advance to all! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Yes, Italian is no problem. I'll get back to it later today.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a few bits and pieces. Genna appears to be one of Italy's most prominent modern etchers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott! I had the hunch that she was notable! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jacqueline Hoang Nguyen

I just came across Draft:Jacqueline_Hoang_Nguyen, which in my eyes seems like a well-sourced article. It has been rejected at AFC four times for notability/sources. Could someone have a look and push it through? There are several decent quality reviews as well as sources in Swedish.198.58.158.1 (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the article. It easily passes WP:GNG. I'm not sure what the issue is, unless work has been done since the last decline. freshacconci talk to me 15:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

What's messed up about this situation is that there was a new editor who created the article in 2014 only to have it rejected 4 times at AfC. They don't seem to have gone on to create anything else. It does seem like it passes GNG, Freshacconci. If there is consensus here, I can move it out of AfC. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do -- I didn't go through the draft history so I don't know what, if any, changes were made with each declined draft. But as of Nov. 2016 it looks totally fine and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding, there are plenty of articles out there that have fewer sources and less claim to notability. I've been on here over 10 years and it's basically holding back the tide with a broom. freshacconci talk to me 16:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've moved it into article space. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I've done a little category tweaking. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the original creator 13ab37 is closely involved in the A+F project and is still productive. She has recently created Elise Gravel and Julie Tremble which is up for deletion. I do not agree with 198.58.158.1's assessment in this case.--Ipigott (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Did some quick work on the Julie Tremble article. It could use with some one doing SPAG and other cleanup as it was an edit mostly to improve content. --LauraHale (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that most if not all 13ab37's article creations were tagged for deletion in some way. It's too bad and I hope this doesn't discourage her from continuing with Wikipedia. Had my first few articles been targeted in such a way I may not have kept going. Jacqueline Hoang Nguyen is clearly notable and it looks like Julie Tremble is shaping up as well. freshacconci talk to me 17:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Just another example of the very many available to show that the AFC process has gone to dogs. 103.6.159.85 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nahid Afrin

Hello, I saw that this page is edit protected. There's quite enough material available to source this article. Would you like to help in its creation? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been deleted already. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I can unprotect it if you'd like to recreate. I can't speak to her notability, though. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy to recreate, if it can be unprotected. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)