… 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
A Woman of the Century: Fourteen Hundred-seventy Biographical Sketches Accompanied by Portraits of Leading American Women in All Walks of Life
Found this source here while digging around a bit for one of my American painters. Seems to be an interesting little volume - I'm not sure if we had it available to us yet, but it's certainly something we ought to consider, I think. Maybe generate a redlist out of it? A cursory search online suggests there are other, similar books by the same writer available. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.03:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is in the public domain and the full text is available here. It's already been used as a source in a considerable number of articles. We really need to include works like this somewhere in our lists of encyclopaedias and reference works but I don't know quite where. As far as I can see, we do not yet have a section on women's biographies. Rosiestep, as you have recently been drawing on PD materials, perhaps you can suggest where to list it. Or maybe we should create a new list of dictionaries of women's biographies? It would indeed be interesting to compile a list of red links if anyone is interesting to go through it.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Like magic! It looks as if most of them are not yet covered by Wikipedia. As the text is public domain, it should be possible to create articles quite quickly, at least if the ladies are notable enough.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it looks like about 60-70% of them are not yet in Wikipedia, and many of them look solid on the notability front at a cursory glance. Care should be taken with this source, though, as I've noticed that a number of the birth years for women who are already in Wikipedia are wrong (looks like age fudging to me as the birth years are consistently later than in Wikipedia).Alafarge (talk)
I've been working on the ladies from this book, off and on, for quite some time. Maybe start a new redlist grouping on the WiR NavBox "By dictionary"? Would that word be appropriate, though, if there's a book with only 20 women's biographies? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! great find. I am glad Ian found a link I could access in Mexico as the original one I could not. Maybe we put the link to the source at the top of the relink list of "by dictionary"? I am also thinking that additional sourcing will be likely found in newspapers and don't forget to check sources in hathitrust. Would that there were such a source on women of diverse backgrounds. I just have to keep hoping for Oxford approval to gain access to that Caribbean dictionary with its 6 volumes of Caribbean women. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a "By dictionary" section on the Navbox and added the link to the Woman-of-the-Century. I suggest renaming the redlist, e.g. instead of your subpage, Alafarge, making it a WiR redlist. If we are aware of other dictionary redlists, we could do the same for them? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harej, Rosiestep: As a result of a considerable number of articles deleted over the past few months, the metrics totals displayed under "Metrics" on the main WiR page for September, October, November and December have been reduced by bot causing the graph to show a fairly sharp decline as a result of the 2,742 articles deleted for this period. For some reason, the X-project bot has not adjusted the values for previous months although deletions have been made for all months since January. For example, some 500 articles were deleted in March but this is not reflected in the statistics or in the graph. Perhaps we should simply delete the "Metrics" section as it is no longer provides an accurate picture, showing a general decline in interest in writing articles about women. The overall impact of the recent deletions will become more accurately reflected in the WHGI results at the end of the week.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Harej and The Earwig: Please keep an eye on this in the days/weeks to come, and let us know if the bot is no longer able to do its job: updating our metrics. I'm assuming there won't be a snafu, but looking to you for guidance if there is. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking last night what a good job the metrics bot was making of the SvG deletions: it's a clever bit of code. I'm happy that it's reflecting the deletions in a timely fashion. I'll be fascinated to see what WHGI makes of it all at the end of the week ... I'm still not quite sure how it time-slices its data, nor how it deals with ungendered human wikidata items, nor how much latency there is in the dataflow it receives, but I'm guessing the key percentile will drop to 16.45% from 16.83%. The overall picture is probably not helped by my recent work of adding the male gender to a couple of thousand or more previously genderless wikidata items - for which I entirely blame Ipigott, whose rhetorical ruminations about the state of human and gender properties in wikidata records set me off on a somewhat sysphian task. My current estimation is that the number of genderless, misgendered or humanless wikidata items is statistically insignificant; but without constant intervention, the number of these suboptimal wikidata records will once again rise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: Despite my "rhetorical ruminations", I must say I'm really pleased to hear you have added "male" to over a thousand genderless biographies as it was simply not reasonable to leave them empty. The Earwig: My above remarks were simply based on the histories of the month-by-month metrics at 12.37 today when I noted adjustments had been made for September, October, November and December but saw that there had been none for previous months, despite the fact that there were many red links there too. I am now happy to report that adjustments have been made for the whole of 2016, with a substantial reduction for March from 3,448 to 2,794. I also see the other months from January to August have been adjusted although some display a number of new red links which will probably be eliminated tomorrow. Maybe all this is dependent on exactly when the red links were created and when the bots actually scan the output and make deletions. If so, I have to agree with Tagishsimon that the bots are in fact providing us with good day-to-day status reports. In any case, I'm pleased to see that the graph has now restored the relatively high number of new articles created in August while the decline since then no doubt represents the considerable number of articles created by SvG. All in all, I think we need to give additional credit to all those who have been adding biographies on sportswomen, no doubt rather independently of the month-by-month priorities set by WiR. I was surprised to see that about 1,300 sports articles for February were deleted leaving only about 2,000 for the month. It takes an incident like this to highlight who our major contributors have been, at least in terms of metrics.--Ipigott (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, it looks like the SvG articles have now been moved to draftspace. So I'm guessing the metrics will update some point. Joseph2302 (talk)22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, that is the reason we have been discussing the effects here. It looks as if SvG's articles have today been deleted for the 2015 months while a few more have been also deleted for the 2017 months. It looks as if this might be the last major round of deletions. Congratulations to The Earwig and Project X for handling everything so well. When I first wrote about this, I had not realized the articles were being deleted month by month.--Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick caution for metrics watchers: the SvG moves to draft-space are not fully reflected yet by the removal of all en.wiki links in wikidata records. So, at the time of writing, Amila Hodzic still has a pointer to en.wiki in her wikidata reord, meaning that both sets of metrics will continue to count Amila Hodzic as an extant record. I don't know by what process en.wiki links get removed from wikidata, so cannot speculate on how awry metric counts will be as a result of this issue :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: As far as I can see, until now most of the Wikidata entries on SvG's deleted articles still contain a blue link to the deleted articles on the EN Wikipedia. Sooner or later though, I expect the EN links and perhaps some of the full Wikidata entries will be deleted but this may well take some time. In the past, editors seem to have been efficient in following up EN wiki deletions (see for example Kelley Weaver deleted on the EN wiki on 18 August 2016 and on Wikidata two days later). Some Wikidata editors seem to have spent considerable time and effort on deleting links to the EN wiki but I do not know of any systematic approach to the problem. With the huge number of deletions to be dealt with now, there will probably be a considerable time lag unless someone develops a bot to do the job. If the Wikidata editors do not consider this to be a priority, then the WHGI stats may continue to show improvements for some time to come. I do not think Maximilianklein or any of his associated researchers ever expected we would be confronted with massive sets of deletions such as these.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translate-a-thon
Hello ! During WikiIndaba17, we decided to organize a little translate-a-thon about African women biographies. The idea would be to get 16 biographies (of good quality) translated in at least 16 languages (more is better) in 16 days. It would end up around the 06th of March, so that outcomes are available for the International Women Day. We are currently launching a process of identification of those 16 articles (which would typically come either from English, from French or from Arabic). Is anyone interested to help ? That would be awesome to have you involved. AfroCROWD is already in. m:16_African_Women_Translate-a-thonAnthere (talk)
Anthere: This looks like an interesting initiative. Glad to see our Malouma is already on the list. What other languages are you thinking of? I may be able to help with a few. I suppose you are aiming for translations up to Start or C standard rather than full GA jobs. Perhaps it would also be interesting to translate some of the Portuguese articles on women from Angola into English and French, e.g Mel Gambôa, Helena Morena, Irina D. França (see here). Similarly, we could extend coverage of some of the German-language articles on people such as Ursula Vogel-Weidemann and Stefanie Gercke. It seems to me translations of biographies into 16 languages for each article is extremely ambitious. Would it not be more realistic and attractive to establish six priority languages and a further ten as additional options?--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We would aim as much as possible for GA or wannaby GA. Not to stub and start. Yes... it will be a challenge to find 16 articles of GA or near GA quality about african women. This is why it is a challenge ;) Currently doing some digging with petscan to at least identify those which are already tagged in English and French with african citizenship. But even all nationalities included... I doubt we will get to 16, so we need to do some manual digging about nice articles not yet taggued GA or FA.
Any source language is fine. We considered that the highest chance for a good quality article about an african women would be either English or French or Arabic (user:Zeinebtakouti will look at the arabic version), but other languages are fine. What we expect is that once identified and selected, it would be best to get them translated in English anyway, so that English can be the "master" for other translations. If you know a German speaking who can have a look...
Number of language... it is actually THE challenge... the languages we were thinking of targetting are
International languages: Arabic, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, German
Anthere I agree with the priority international languages but apart from Arabic, Africans and Swahili, I think you'll have great difficulty in finding people ready to translate into the others you mention.
Let's have faith :) and if it does not work... well, we will have tried :) Anthere (talk)
I'm fluent in German too if you need any help. I see there is a pretty good German article on de:Rozena Maart which could be used to expand the English article as a basis for translating into the other languages. Other articles you might like to consider for the challenge include Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, Flora Nwapa, Cri-Zelda Brits, and Manal al-Sharif for which the existing versions in languages other than English require considerable expansion. I was surprised to see there were so few articles about African women which had reached GA or higher. Perhaps we can also try to work some of them up on the basis of articles in other languages. Good sourcing though is always a problem for the English Wikipedia, apparently less so for the other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added de:Rozena Maart to the list. I am fine with the other 4 you mention above (we need at least a picture and some polishing indeed). I go hunting the French ones... but yes... we actually discussed this a few months ago at Wikimania and a quick look made us realize how few GA we had... Anthere (talk)
Hi all,
I wanted to share with you all the final report of Inspire Campaign for Gender Diversity, organized by the Community Resources team at the Wikimedia Foundation. Beyond the quantitative outcomes of the campaign (number of articles edited, number of participants, etc.) I think this is a very interesting report because it explores different ways of working in the crossroads of technology and gender in the Wikimedia movement. The 11 Gender Gap Inspire grants complete to date have broadened our understanding of what it means to work on the gender gap. Three core themes were identified: participation, content, and developing leaders.
I would like to know what thoughts you have on this report, if you see any way you think the report could be useful in the work you do for WikiProject:Women in Red, and any other thought triggered by this report's reading. Please feel free to share these on the report's Talk Page, on my talk page, or privately via email at evalwikimedia · org
I really appreciate any time you can dedicate to this!
MCruz (WMF): I have read through the various sections of your report with great interest. Many of your findings reflect our own experience at WiR, in particular the evolving data from WHGI, the problem of systemic bias in redirects from female to male-based articles, and the need to encourage the participation of more women editors. I think it would be useful to write an abstract or summary of the overall findings as well as suggestions on how you think future work on overcoming the gender gap should be prioritized. I would have been interested in hearing how you succeeded in maintaining your new women recruits as well as whether any decided to leave and, if so, why.--Ipigott (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen from this that you have indeed summarized your findings and have made some suggestions for future work. Given your conclusions, I was surprised to see you did not address the need to attract a far greater proportion of women editors, perhaps on the basis of the reasons why they are reluctant to edit Wikipedia while being so keen to participate on the social networks, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ipigott, thank you for reading the report and offering your thoughts. The points you raise are suitable for a roundtable discussion, I think, among Wikimedians who are already working to bridge the gender gap. I will share this with the team that created the report and follow up. Thank you! María (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on women's works, e.g. 2017 Women's March
WiR has a lot of redlink lists for missing biographies, but very little regarding "women's works" and "women's issues". It's made me think about this in a different way, e.g. should the WiR project scope continue to state that "women's works" and "women's issues" fall under its purview, vs. should WiR concentrate 100% on biographies? WP:WikiProject Women's Works in Red could support articles related to women's paintings sculptures, books, operas, songs, albums, dances, music, and schools founded, conferences convened, marches marched, and so on! It could be a sister project to WiR/daughter project of WikiProject Women; or a task force of WiR; or we could leave things as they are. I bring this up as there may be other groups of editors out there who aren't interested in writing biographies, but are interested in writing about "women's works/women's issues", and we might be able to forge relationships/alliances with them by offering a WikiProject more specific to their areas of interest. Thinking multi-language opportunities; thinking collaborations with Wikidata (take a look at Wikidata WikiProject sum of all paintings) and Commons (it just got a huge grant!). Yes, 2017 Women's March has me thinking. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It never occurs to me to leave out works created by women. This month, I have written about schools created by women and girls' schools as well as biographies. I think it is a natural outflowing from the woman to her works or vice verse. If she and her creations have enough sources to make them notable, I just create both. I like having them in one umbrella, but maybe others have different focuses. I find it much easier to collect things in one spot and organize them in divisions than to scatter them all over the place and have to jump hither and yon to find them. SusunW (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I agree with SusunW that when writing or improving biographies of women, it is often logical to create separate articles about their works. This is particularly true of artists and writers but also extends to all the other occupations and areas of involvement. Unfortunately, WHGI and our own metrics fail to detect new articles on works. Quite a few, but certainly not all, are picked up by AlexBot although they have to added manually to our lists. I think it might be useful to maintain separate lists of new articles on biographies and on works and related issues, both for our specific editathons and for those included in our monthly metrics. I think this would provide additional incentives for people to address women's works. There have been a number of suggestions on creating categories for women's works and I think this should be given more careful attention.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a task force/work group? Women's writings, women's history, women's "work" (maybe more pages about women in professions or lists like List of women astronomers), women's music (compositions by women), women's visual arts (paintings, sculpture, etc.) might all be potentially related groups to this one. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have spent the past few years adding 1) women's artwork to Commons and articles about women artists where possible due to copyright restraints, and 2) women's artwork to Wikidata with links to Creator pages on Commons. That is specifically artwork, but women's works are so much more than that, such as innovations and improvements in daily life. I wrote earlier about collecting reliable sources for women and have started added biographical dictionaries of women to Wikidata. These should all have WP articles so that others can link to them. See e.g. this article about an early US inventor Mary P. Carpenter, whose patents are still cited but who sadly has so little written about her. Her drawings still need to be uploaded to Commons. Jane (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'd also be fine with including women's works as part of this project. I do a lot of work with historic sites, and one of the reasons I originally joined this project was that I kept finding historic places connected to notable women in history who didn't have articles yet, so I wrote articles on both. There are also a lot of women's works, like local women's clubs and social movements, that are notable despite not being tied to a notable individual. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation15:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially if it can encompass woman's organizations too! There are a ton of woman's organizations and women-led movements that are missing from Wiki. Not just today's movements, but from the last 2 centuries. Very awesome idea, Rosiestep! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added some stats on gender of painters per collection and thus also the gender behind the works per collection here: d:User:Jane023/Gendergap report. What you can see is that for complete sets of paintings there are still quite a few paintings by unknown painters (and thus unknown gender). Some of these will probably be attributed, but many will just remain unnamed old masters, which were probably men. That said, the percentages of women in any collection are pretty low - mostly between 1% and 10%. Jane (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, Rosiestep! I'm sure there's more out there, and if not, we'll add to it. The great part about working on orgs/marches/works is that it often uncovers otherwise hidden women in history to then write about in turn on WiR! Awesome pic from the Versailles march. Women rock. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would be terrific to see this expanded to organisations, etc: I often struggle a bit for biographies because my areas of interest are so colossally historically male-dominated, but there's a lot of organisations/events/etc I could throw articles together on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How to cross-reference WP entries from two countries?
I just created an article for WIR-ED 2017 on Ann Sutherland Harris a feminist scholar, professor emerita of art history, and curator. The French Wikipedia has a page for her HERE. How do I go about cross-referencing or linking them thus improving both articles? Netherzone (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone on the left under the globe at the very bottom of the page is a thing that says languages. Press add links. In the first box that comes up type fr (for french) and select français then type the name that appears on french WP. It will pull up a list of other links. Press the link button. If it doesn't work. Let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Great topic! The procedure for connecting articles on different language Wikipedias is explained at Help:Interlanguage links; in short, you have to add both to the appropriate Wikidata page, but you can do this without leaving Wikipedia by clicking "add link" in the "languages" section of the Wikipedia sidebar. I've added the French link for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to collapse a group within a Navbox?
If yes, it would be nice to set that up for the >300 redlists which are swelling the WiR Navbox. Or move redlists into a second Navbox? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it to a single collapsed section ... any better? The template system does not facilitate the collapse of a subsection of the navigation box, so thatever we do will be a bit of a hack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will bots automatically discover my articles? I'm working through the WiR list of Canadian women and sometimes adding my own. I put the Wiki Women Project tag on the talk pages. Are these going to be counted? Westendgirl (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I run a series of petscan reports each night, looking for biographies that are not linked to wikidata. Right now, I rely on the article being categorised by any of year of birth, year of death, or any of a large set of 'people' categories - people by occupation, people by nationality, women by occupation, etc. But my coverage is not universal and biographies will fall down the gaps if they're categorised only in categories which I've not got around to discovering yet. So Andrea Holmes, for instance, is categorised as Category:Canadian Paralympics only ... that looks like a badly linked category - it is nested under Category:National Paralympics and Category:Canada at the Paralympics, neither of which are 'people' categories. And so Andrea Holmes was undiscovered and not linked to wikidata until just now. Looking around, it seems that Category:Paralympic competitors for Canada is the de facto category for such a person, and Category:Canadian Paralympics a runt which needs to be knocked on the head & replaced by Category:Paralympic competitors for Canada. (I'll leave as is for now, but amend the cats in a day or so.) I should & now I'm reminded might get around to trying to use the Wiki Women Project tag as a marker against which to check for a link to wikidata.
Zara Taylor was also not linked - I exclude from my work articles which have various tags - deletion, merge, and, as in this case, citations for verification. Such articles get added once the tag has been removed. (I've now added Zara.)
Finally Chloe Cooley was not linked because I've not run the pertinent petscan since the article was created a few minutes ago. I'll add after I post this.
In conclusion: I think at the moment the vast majority of new biogs are caught & added to wikidata in a timely fashion, and categorisation is key to this happening. But, a minority of biogs are not found, or not found in a timely fashion. It is instructive to look at the contributions of Reports_bot around the 13:30 time each day - it is the bot which compiles our statistics. Day after day it finds & adds articles in each of the months since July 2015, meaning we're still discovering (from the perspective of wikidata and our stats) qualifying articles 18+ months after they were written.
Thanks. I was just wondering how they get picked up. I've decided to work on adding biographies of Canadian women for the moment. I'm working from the WiR page but sometimes also just adding people I think of. I have been shocked to see that some people were not already in there.Westendgirl (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feb 6: International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation
Can't we encourage some there "followers" to join us on WiR? I'm no expert on Twitter but maybe we should also be sending out tweets about our editathons and the need to add more articles about women to Wikipedia. We could also ask for suggestions on the names of notable women who deserve to be covered. Perhaps we could do the same on Facebook and Pinterest.--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, @Victuallers and Megalibrarygirl: and several others regularly recruit on our twitter page. Victuallers in particular constantly asks can you help, will you join, etc.? I usually ask that when I find a woman without any photo. Typically I can find a fair use photo, but when even that is unavailable, I take to twitter. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed some of these messages but I have not been able to identify any responses. I was wondering whether it would be possible to encourage responses on Twitter itself which we could then try to follow up. For Twitter users, it may be quite a jumb to be dragged straight into a Wikipedia page, especially our WiR pages. Perhaps there's an easier way to bring them in.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl and Ipigott: good ideas! Do you want to develop the strategy/implementation? SusunW I've never tweeted about a missing photo, but seems like a good angle. Maybe we should start a campaign focused on missing photos? Thoughts on how to phrase the tweet? Victuallers It's only been in the last week that I've tweeted a link to the WiR talkpage asking readers to "join the discussion", e.g. trying to recruit. My tweets have otherwise only been informative, e.g. a fact about a new article and a link to it. Do you have pointers/sample tweet on letting people know how they can help or join?
Besides the four of us who are already tweeting from @wikiwomeninred, do any other WiR members want to be added to the account and join in the tweeting? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep, Ipigott, and SusunW: The picture would be mostly text based as I see it. It would include instructions about how to find Wikipedia, how to find WiR and how to sign up. It could be done as an infographic maybe. We could have a few different ones, longer infographics and shorter quick how tos. People could also share these pics on Facebook and Instagram. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl: Those seem like great ideas. Could you create one or two infographics along these lines and see how they work? Would it be possible to adopt a similar approach for the other social networks? @SusunW: As for pictures, I was wondering whether there is any straightforward mechanism available on Twitter, Facebook, etc., for allowing the creators of photographs to make them public domain or give them a suitable Creative Commons label. When Flikr first came along, a fair proportion of those who posted images gave them suitable licences for use on Wikimedia Commons but now the vast majority of new images are posted on the social networks and sites such as Instagram, nearly always without any licence which means they are copyright.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do get replies via DMs on Twitter. We have discussed how to release images with groups. I have a campaign running with the British Women's Equality Party to try and get their leader to supply a picture (and 1000s more!). They don't get it! We also use the stream to tweet our new articles. The image sounds like a good idea although converting newbies is a big ask..... you could use the header? Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote Violet King Henry. It's been tagged as reading like a personal opinion piece and including too much personal detail. I'm baffled. I saw Wayde Compton on Twitter mention the upcoming documentary. So I wrote up an article. I admit I didn't put as much effort into it as I do with professional work, but I don't see what makes it sound like personal opinion. Also, unless it's that I need to go into significant detail about the role of porters in the African American community (Compton has been heavily involved in this), the work of the porter union in US Civil Rights, second wave feminism in high school, the rarity of a black Canadian woman in Calgary making a living at playing piano, or the Great Migration and the 1907 racist laws in Oklahoma, I don't see how this is overly detailed. It seems to me more like there isn't enough understanding of black Canadian history or feminism. Maybe I need to spell that out more?
Westendgirl: Glad you brought this up as the tags certainly seem inappropriate. Mifter added them while you were still in full swing with the article. You've created a very informative biography, completely in line with our call for better coverage of black women. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tagging was excessive and anyway unnecessary, especially for an article that had only been live for ten minutes and was being actively worked on. It looks as if the person who added the tags later started to regret it.[1] I would have removed the "stub" class from the talk page because this also seems inappropriate but I see you put it there! Thincat (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good. I think this article is one of the most thorough out there at this point, so I'm glad you all had a look and that some of you stepped in to help. The more I read about this woman, the more fascinated I became. The work she must have been doing at Immigration Canada would have been tied to implementing the Bill of Rights (now the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and thus very significant in human rights work. Because the department was so tied to employment at the time, I imagine that's how she got recruited to the YMCA in the US -- I read that she was instrumental in helping black people find employment. It looks like her family had strong ties to the US Civil Rights movement. Even their presence in Alberta was huge and the government of the time tried to get the black settlers sent back to the US -- it led to a racist Canadian policy that lived on till 1962, when King Henry would have still been in a senior post at Immigration. It's too bad more wasn't written about the work she did...or that I imagine her parents did.Westendgirl (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SusunW. It's a nice article, and it seems like you're a perfectly competent article creator, so I'd recommend asking for autopatrolled right. It stops your pages appearing in the New Pages Feed, where they often get tagged before we finish writing them. Joseph2302 (talk)17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record as I was pinged in this discussion, when I first saw the article it looked something like this. At the time I was concerned as the article appeared to be essay-like in its inclusion of seemingly arbitrary trivia and its general organizational structure. Looking at it now, most of the concerns I raised have been addressed to make what appears to be a very nice new article. If you haven't already considered, I would recommend putting it in for a did you know mention on the front page as it looks to me like their are plenty of interesting "hooks" (term for a did you know except) you could use for it. In general, when doing new page patrol we do tend to tag aggressively and clean up where we can as for every 1 article like this (where the author has taken a great deal of time and effort to refine the article) their are 100 where the author has not (and unfortunately likely will not) spend the time improving the article. Personally, I watch some of the new articles I tag to see if the creator is making an effort with them and to lend a hand. If you'd prefer to avoid tagging of a new draft in the article mainspace you can use a personal sandbox to tinker with a draft article before moving it to the article space, otherwise just remove the tags yourself once you've handled the issues raised. Finally, I took some time to review your article creation history and have given you the autopatrolled userright as a number of other commenters suggested above. This will mark your new articles as automatically patrolled which should help reduce tagging of early drafts by new page patrollers. If for some reason you do not want this userright let me know and I would be happy to remove it. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I always start new articles as subpages in my userspace. I used to just keep them around indefinitely, but I started blanking them soon after copying into main article space when I noted new page patrollers were reviewing them. I just got autopatrol rights myself after creating a flurry of articles over the last few weeks (many for WiR), so that should stop the unnecessary reviews anyway. Funcrunch (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since we had posted about autopatrolling and I think it is important that we remind our members about it. We all know that finding sourcing on women is harder and developing an article often requires help from the community, but we can't do that if they are deleted before we even know they are there. I still create every article in a user page. When you click on a red link, a thing comes up with instructions. The last bullet point will let you create your article at Special:Mypage/article_name, which can be moved to an article once you are done. SusunW (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for everyone who helped me on this. I went on a binge and I have added a ton of articles now! And I'm relieved that they aren't being nominated for deletion right away.-Westendgirl (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ClemRutter Thanks! Nice link. We recently watched the film made about some of these women and I thought there must surely be more information about them. Already found a subject among them! SusunW (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meetup page revamp
Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/35, the Women Anthropologists Meetup Page. I've made several changes to the meetup page, mostly moving informational info into "infoboxes". This was the approach we used for Wikipedia:Meetup/San Jose/Cisco/January 2017, e.g. informational info in infoboxes. The thought process behind this is that event should have it's own infobox with specifics relevant just to it. The Events Box replaces all the "clickable buttons" which were at the top of the page. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like the info on the side, but miss the buttons on the top to switch between events. I get that they are still there on the bottom, but I find it harder to navigate for each event of the month. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, Makes sense. I returned the Clickable Buttons across the top, and removed the right-sided "Events infobox". I made the Clickable Buttons smaller and all in a row so they have a smaller footprint on the page; how does it look? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I see you have been reworking the editathon page. I was surprised to find the red links had completely disappeared from the body of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/35 and only appeared in the introduction. I frequently go back to the red link section for inspiration. As an old hand, I know where to look for the links in the nav box but I'm not sure those less familiar with our work will think of going there. I suggest they should be restored.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: Overall I like the new page layout and see you have been continuing to work on it. Thanks for specifically mentioning the infobox and the redlinks at the foot of the introduction. When I first wrote on this, I had not realized so much had been moved into an infobox. I would nevertheless have preferred to see the redlinks mentioned in the body of the article in a section which would also appear in the TOC as Redlists which is where I was looking for it. I had added a couple of names to participants without noticing there was a new box. I note you have "Special requests" in the box but I can't see where redlinks should be placed. I see you've also been working on Black Women which has much clearer access to the redlists. Thanks for making all these improvements and making our editathon pages more attractive. Perhaps it is also time to update our main WiR page along similar lines. IMO, the only feature from Project X which seems important to keep is the member registration.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: On the red links, let's see what the others think before moving things around. (I don't think the opinions of an unobservant septuagenarian should be taken too seriously.) But how about our main page? Is there anything we can do about it? Perhaps it can also be improved by moving more things into boxes. Whenever I've tried to work on the general display, I have found that whole sections somehow disappear. If we really decide to reformat the whole page using a more traditional approach, it would be good if we could somehow maintain the membership registration module and perhaps also the "metrics" (unless we simply make our month-to-month metrics a separate page). I was wondering whether Tagishsimon with all his skills could help us out along these lines. Both Rosie and I have included Harej in several earlier messages on the same topic but as far as I am aware there's never been any response.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosiestep and Harej: One of the most serious problems with the main page at the moment is that the icons identifying the various modules do not appear until you start scrolling down. They should of course be visible from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J. Morgan Puett is a notable woman artist, fashion designer, and arts organizer. I've tagged the talk page of her article with WIR 2017 to draw more attention to the article. Thank you for your work on it. Netherzone (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it! She was a Guggenheim fellow too. What does it take? Entering the page of a Guggenheim fellow and noted art is into the deletion queue is... well, it's bad. Article kept.104.163.150.250 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
My article, Annita_McPhee, was tagged for not being about someone who is notable. This person was a three-term leader of an Aboriginal community and negotiated enormous ($2B) resource rights contracts that are known throughout the province. She's also won awards. Is this still not notable? Westendgirl (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: The Annita McPhee article was tagged in May 2016 by SwisterTwister in this edit. Nine months later, since the tag was still on the article, I expanded the tag in this edit so the link in the tag pointed to the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (people). The goal of doing so (for thousands of articles) was to generate conversations like this where knowledgeable people would either decide that the person was notable and remove the tag, or decide the person was not notable and send the article to AfD. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep In the event that there was not one already, I just made one and uploaded it to commons. Women in Red Barnstorm 2017 Feedback or suggestions are welcome if there are other ideas - I'm not a designer, but can work on it to the best of my abilities. Netherzone (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep I figured it out! See image below. can you send me or post a swatch of the actual blue? - I'm working in photoshop and can change the color manually (don't think the program accepts code). Or point me in the direction of a sample of what #ABCDEF looks like.
@Rosiestep: There seem to be very strict rules on creating barnstars. You will see from Wikipedia:Barnstars that there first has to be a discussion on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page. Otherwise "Barnstars without consensus will be removed." I would have liked to add this one to the Wikipedia:Barnstars#Topical_barnstars section along with those for other WikiProjects such as Women's history but was frightened it would be deleted. As it was your idea, perhaps you can undertake the necessary steps to make sure we are not breaking any rules.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good policy. The mainpage admits the project is moribund, and so the risk of no response is high. If so, it is up to us to do our own discussion, not least so as to have something to point back to should anyone ever have the temerity, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this image (red heart logo in light blue box) as a visual aid, as I thought of some questions. Are we cool with the "shading" of the heart in the barnstar, e.g. the logo doesn't use shading? Also, Netherzone, is the red hue in the barnstar the same as the red hue in the logo (#FF0000; see Red); if not, can you make it the same? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep the heart was shaded so that it did not sit as a flat item on top of the dimensional shaded star. An aesthetic decision which can be changed (it looked better to my eyes shaded, but we chould get the consensus of the creator of the logo, since it was an alteration of their original.) Also, when I uploaded the barnstar, I did not have the name of the logo creator's name to add to the image credit - who is it? Lastly, I will try to change the color of the star. I was working with a barnstar downloaded from Commons that was brown. Added red-fade shaded corners. I'll see if I can change it to #FF0000 without losing the detail. I'm not a designer, but will give it my best shot. The next couple days are heavy teaching for me, so don't hesitate to nudge me if you don't hear back soon! Netherzone (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, with or without the shading is fine with me; just wanted to make sure that people commented in case there was a design reason to go with one version vs. another. The original artwork is this Love Heart Kamma Rahbek. Just noticed this "WiR laurel" in our Commons logo subcat, and it's lovely! Wasn't aware it existed! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sitting in a meeting fiddling with the logo. The laurel has been added and looks awesome. I am unable to figure out how to get the star in exactly #FF0000 red, but was able to shift the color toward the red end of the spectrum. Sorry for the smaller size, will work on upsizing next. Feedback welcome. Women in Red Barnstar 3 - red with laurel.Netherzone (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Larger size added. See image below. I've tweaked the laurel and centered it, so version 5 will be more symmetrical (small star is centered under large star. Will upload. Once we finalize a decision, I will deleted the older versions.
While the barnstar+laural is pretty, can we also keep the laurel and the barnstar as separate things? For example, I can envision using the laurel on invitations and/or etc. I can envision two levels of barnstar, one with and one without the laurel. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think the barnstar itself is likely to be far more frequently used than the one with laurels. So let's keep them both. I can see that Netherzone's interest in art is serving the project increasingly well.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WiR Barnstar
I will save two versions on Commons, and delete the others so that they are not used by mistake. Is there a formal process for deletions from Commons? The two versions kept will be named Women in Red Barnstar and Women in Red Barnstar with laurels. If there are other versions for special events, I will keep my original Photoshop files so they can be modified as needed. Glad you like it! Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, Netherzone; were you able to delete the ones which aren't going to be used? If not, do you want to list them at WikiProject Council and ask them to delete, e.g. they might know a Commons admin? I'd recommend un-categorizing the ones which we want deleted so that they don't accidentally get used. I can do the un-categorizing, but I'm not sure which ones we want deleted. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this info Rosiestep - I've deleted the categories on the older versions, and posted a request on the WikiProject Council talk page, asking if they know of a Commons admin or could explain the deletion process for me to do it myself. In the meantime, I was able to update some of the older versions with our final image. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion is veering towards delete which I find rather surprising given the extensive number of exhibitions, publications, interviews, etc., posted here. I think someone needs to go through these more carefully as quite a number appear to me to be valid secondary sources. It would also be useful to know whether any of the artworks are on permanent display. There must also be Polish news sources, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Artists such as Karina Smigla-Bobinski create works that are often not perceived as "collectible" by museums & institutions because of their ephemeral, dematerialized or performative nature. These practices, like Conceptual art of past decades, may disqualify (or ghettoize?) certain artists from traditional encyclopedic standards of notability. One hopes in the near future that the criteria for artists' notability are revised in relation to 21st century practices. There are many art worlds; not solely the institutional art world of museum collections and commercial galleries, which are biased towards promoting and collecting male artists due to the subjective economics of collectability based on "market value," and political bodies such as boards of trustees private interests. Just my two cents. If I find time, will work on her entry. Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is always finding RS according to Wikipedia's definition. Secondary sourcing on artists and academics is hard. Journalists write about their works, not them, or you get one liners that say they had a show. Exhibit catalogs for artists are deemed as promotional. How do we become advocates for women having their stories told? How do we change the media so that they actually record the accomplishments of women? It's a quandary. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WiR members - Some more of you may want to weigh in on Karina Smigla-Bobinski at Articles for Deletion. She is a well known New Media artist of note, shown in museums and galleries around the world. My arguments do not seem to be taken into consideration. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone: Seems to be OK now. Thanks for undertaking such an extensive analysis. We really should not have to go to such lengths to keep articles about such notable women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott Yes, I see that the nominator retracted, and withdrew his nomination for deletion, but the deletion template is still on the artist's page. Will an admin do a sweep at some point and remove this? These lengthy discussions are an absurd waste of time, when a few editors want to nit-pick and hold women to an unrealistic degree of scrutiny. It is as though they are interpreting WP:Artist to suit their own criteria and pre-conceptions, while not making any effort themselves to look things up and improve the article. Well, ever onward...! Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone: Yes, the banner will be removed by an administrator soon. The only consolation is that the page reviewers are equally keen to see biographies of men deleted too. Many seem to think it is an achievement to have articles deleted and simply do not take sufficient time to look into the background of each article. I'm glad to see you have joined the team of those who are prepared to see that justice is done.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translate-a-thon
Hello,
I would love to get your feedback on our current short list of (african biographies) candidates for the translate-a-thon to be held from around the 20th of Feb. I would like to close the list very soon. It was extremely difficult to actually come with 16 decent biographies... any feedback welcome. Thanks in advance
Anthere: It's not too clear to me which articles have been short-listed, which have been deemed unsuitable, and which still require discussion. May I suggest you prepare a list en clair of those which have been selected, and a separate list of those still under examination. It would also be useful to know which of the articles selected need further work in English. If you need any specific help from me, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the final shortlist is not set yet. I'll do the final cut tomorrow. This is now the last moment to suggest articles if any of you is aware of one that could be added there. Anthere (talk)
Our final list !
w:en:Malouma, Mauritanian singer, songwriter and politician
Your help is welcome in reviewing and polishing them. In most case, the best version is the English, but there are a couple of exceptions (Nozizwe is better in French, Asmaa in Arabic etc. if someone could help make sure that the English version is fixed so that it can be used as template for translations later on, it would be awesome) Anthere (talk)
Anthere: I've expanded Asmaa Mahfouz a bit on the basis of the sources I could find. The article in Arabic is about five times longer and contains lots of additional detail. It would be good if someone who can read Arabic could draw on it for further expansion of the English article as the English version will probably serve as a basis for translation into the other languages. I'll now try to work on the other four your have mentioned.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I already called for help several arabic speakers, but it seems to go nowhere :( I'll try some more in other channels ... thanks for your help Ipigott Anthere (talk)
Anyone have any ideas how to identify Black women like Sylvana Simons? I am asking because I could generate some data from Wikidata based on "ethnic group=African American", but the world is so much bigger than that. Thx Jane (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jane023 I am not particularly good with WP technical stuff, but there are categories, Afro Caribbean, Black British, Maybe this helps? Category:People of African descentSusunW (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep This one is up your alley, writers. Just found it while trying to figure out the identity of Mrs. C. C. Stumm and I did! I'm writing on her next.
Does anyone know how to put all these sources into one master list on black women, but keeping the individual pages intact? I don't know if that request is clear, but like a page of Black women in dictionaries that then has links to each individual dictionary. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might mean one of at least two things: single list, each entry pointing back to the dictionary source(s); or, single page on which there are a number of discrete lists, each list pertaining to a discrete dictionary. Which did you have in mind, SusunW --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon I think that I mean the second one. I don't want all the names on one page, only all the dictionaries with links to the pages with lists of names. Each list of names belongs to the page for that dictionary. Is that clear as mud? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yippee kayayyyy! That is exactly what I wanted! I started to add the links to the pages in the template, but then it seemed strange to name them all the same with different lists, i.e. how do you have 5 template links with the same name and know which link you are getting? That's what prompted me to ask for one list of dictionaries which then breaks out to separate lists. If we could then remove the two that are in the template and replace it with this lovely, lovely page you have made Tagishsimon, I think it would simplify matters. SusunW (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, Tagishsimon: This all seems to be coming along extremely well. The only problem is that as far as I can see, the majority of those listed are in fact black women living in America. With all your international experience, Susun, have you come across any dictionaries or encyclopaedic works dealing with black women in Africa, Britain and the rest of the world? If so, it would be good to have them on the list. (Hope I'm not being too demanding.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any of these old dictionaries on international women. As I am researching one woman, I seem to find another source. When I finally get my OUP access (I've been waiting for 6 weeks, its approved, just awaiting the password), I will have access to one from the Caribbean: Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American biography and possibly others which reach farther. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per the language links on our mainpage, effective today, there are 11 other language versions of Women in Red, Galician language being the newest! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that - there are many blue links which need to be checked & removed, and which I may or may not get around to doing (I'm a bit behind on my Petscanning right now...). This list would also presumably qualify as another dictionary for the purposes of the WiR template, should anyone wish to take it forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: Amazingly fast work as usual. I've looked at a few in more detail. Although the database includes several references on each, it is not easy to find background on many of them on the internet. But some of them are well documented.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in this contentious AfD of a recently created biography of a woman scientist. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe I looked at the article and as it stands, it does not meet WP criteria. All the citations are BY the subject. You found a ton of sources, which do meet our guidelines. I would recommend that the article be userfied and totally reworked, because at this point, the cabal of naysayers on women scientists have already pounced and pretty much made a case that canvassing has occurred. Just my two cents. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
German-language participation in the Anthropology editathon
Rosiestep: This is a truly amazing development. I see that on behalf of the Germans, Emeritus has put it forward as a contest. As a result, they've already produced 39 new articles compared to only 15 in English. You'll see from here that their page de:Benutzer:Emeritus/BRA/WikiProject Women in Red/Anthropologists/DE has been posted on eight other German pages. For those who read German (Gerda Arendt, Jane023), there is an interesting discussion on some of the names inappropriately included on the German Wikidata list of red links although some editors seem to have found the approach very helpful]. Emeritus is to be congratulated on taking this initiative. I certainly agree it would be a good idea to extend our invitations for March to other languages. I think we also need to develop a WiR page listing other languages showing an interest in WiR as well as a mailing list of users wishing to receive information about our activities. (In this case though, it looks as if Emeritus just picked up the invitation from his/her EN talk page.) Up to you to decide which other languages we should cover and how we should keep them informed. It would also be good to have a point of contact such as Emeritus for each of the languages we cover. Any idea how we could achieve this? If you make a start on all if this, I'll try to help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you found this amazing, Ipigott; me, too. I think the new MassMessage list should at least contain links to the 11 other language WiR versions, and we can add points of contact as we discover them. Also, we should add pages such the one for the French-speaking Swiss women who are working "Women in Red in Switzerland". Do you agree with this approach? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: Yes, I certainly agree we should notify all these of our editathons. Unfortunately we cannot use mass-messaging as it only works on the EN wiki. Nevertheless I'll make an "international list" which we can draw on manually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a new mailing list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/International_list of wikiprojects and individuals participating in other languages who have shown interest in Women in Red. Some of the individuals are listed because of their editing histories, others because I have had contacts with them. Unfortunately I cannot remember the names of those who have been trying to encourage better coverage of women in Arabic and in the various Indian languages. I'm sure they would be interested in our efforts too. If you Rosiestep or anyone else has had contacts with other potentially interested international contacts, please add their names to the list. I'm not too sure how we should proceed with notifying those on the list that we intend to keep them informed. Should we send out a first message advising them that we have included them on the list to keep them informed of WiR activities or should will simply go ahead with an invitation in connection with our the next editathons, encouraging them to contribute in their own language? (I would be happy to send messages out manually as mass-messaging is not available for other wikis.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In connection with "The women you have never met", I already included the organizer Anna Torres on the list. I did not receive any suggestions on how we should launch our first messages. Perhaps we should prepare a special invitation, encouraging the international Wikipedia community to follow our lead in March on Women in Red. As you have put together an attractive editathon page, Rosie, perhaps you would also like to prepare the invitations, one for our EN participants and one for the other language interests. If other wikis can develop Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages along the same lines as the Germans, this would help them along. As we're already half way through February, it might be a good idea to start moving soon. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could lend assistance to other language WiR projects by putting their wikidata redlists toghether for them, if we have an idea of their preferred location. I'd be up for doing this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon: That's a really great offer and would certainly help them along. For March, the most suitable would probably be those on artists, painters and feminists. (I've just created feminists for EN.) Up to you which languages you would like to handle but we could start with German, French and Spanish, then Italian and Dutch. Other candidates appear to be Catalan, Galician and Albanian. There's also Chinese, Hebrew and Farsi if you want to get into the chicken scratches. I suggest we create them on our own WiR site which we can then link to invitations. If you, Rosiestep, have other priorities, please list them here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Being as inclusive as possible would be good, so in addition to the artist subcat of painters, I'd include sculptors, printmakers, carvers, art patrons, see also Category:Artists by medium; plus Category:Works of art would be nice, too. Last year, there was a lot of interest in adding Activists and Social Reformers, so I'd suggest we continue we them this year as well. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: While I agree that all these might be useful for our English-speaking editors, I think it might be more sensible to start with just a few redlists for all the other languages. I know the Germans and the Dutch know how to create Wikidata lists themselves. I expect others do too. Once they get the hang of things, they can expand their own Women in Red or Art and Feminism sites to cover their preferred areas of interest. I don't think it's really necessary to spoon-feed them with lots of different options at this stage. BTW, you never got back to me on how we handle the invitations. Any suggestions or should I prepare something myself?--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Apologies; I misunderstood. I was referring to English language redlists. Regarding invitations, just haven't gotten to them, though I understand the importance of getting them out soon. I'll create them today or tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According "Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages"
Maybe a subject for its own. Checking and adding to that German redlinks, I came to the result: it's hell. We have been generously in updating missing German descriptions to Wikidata in using the term anthropologist, even it's not really similar. I have been wondering why there so many non-anthropologists got listed? Proofing version histories I found out, that ca 2013 in Wikidata a bot named Legobot was active. He seems to have been working like this:
a "she-linguist" does work in human languages. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just linguist.
a "she-archeologist" does digging human remains. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just archeologist.
a Lady, collecting folk-tales in neighborhood collected human tales. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just folklorist. And so on.
The list of results using P106 ist partly correct, but not in any case scientifically. This time we got the occasion to change and add German descriptions to Wikidata. Every other wiki like to develop Wikidata redlinks must do the same. English Wikipedia will, in my opinion, not be able to correct and be precisely, except: a complete stuff check and change them, if necessary. In our case I have to figure out new search strategies to list proper ethnographers, ethnologists and in wider range anthropologists. Regards, --Emeritus (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Emeritus: Thanks for pointing all this out. Unfortunately I don't think any of us will really be able to spare the time to edit out all these additional categories, especially if a bot is going to add them all again. Nevertheless, from the work you and your colleagues have been doing on the German wiki, the Wikidata list of red links seems to have turned up some interesting women requiring coverage. We hope you will be able to continue your efforts in March (Women's History Month) when we will be inviting editors from other language versions of Wikipedia to contribute to articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Tania Antoshina (artist) is up for deletion. Probably will survive, but it still needs work. I've added a number of citations, etc. If anyone has a moment to look at it, or vote, please do, as she is an important, well-known Russian artist. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I think the intention was to include Featured pictures which made the grade as a result of all Adam Cuerden's successes but there is no reason we should not also have a section on "New or improved pictures" under Outcomes. The only problem is that all those added as fair use by editors such as Victuallers will not be allowed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
US State encyclopedias
Another potential source for some redlink lists - the various U.S. state encyclopedias that are available online. Not every state has one, but most of those that do have a separate, browseable category for women.
For a start, would you consider creating a US women online dictionaries by state page which contains bullets for the state dictionaries? Someone may then want to build on that work by creating redlist pages for the biographies themselves? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested should feel free to add files of those in the PD to commons or wikisource, where they could be used in proofreading the text and making separate, stand-alone articles there which could be used as the basis for articles here. It would also, in general, raise the visibility of wikisource, which can also host a lot of similar biographical dictionaries, like the Marquis Who's Who series, which may contain bios which don't meet our standards of notability here. On that basis, increasing the SEO of that site could also be seen as being in the interests of this group, particularly for individuals whose notability might be disputed. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for doing redlists, but short on time. Might take a week or more before I can get around to it. Keep adding to the list of sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me there are far more glaring gaps in WP's coverage of women art historians than women artists. Academic art history is an area where women have had a very strong presence for almost a century now, and in museum curation for perhaps 50 years or so. I don't think our coverage is worse for women than men, as both are poorly covered compared to some other fields. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, although I think our coverage of notable nuns is probably pretty poor too. Are you aware of any particular reference-type works, maybe of a broadly encyclopedia-dictionary type, which might be available to help somewhat quickly fill some of these gaps, @Johnbod:? John Carter (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an entry there is pretty conclusive for notability. They are better on dead people than live ones though. It has to be admitted that most art historians lead rather quiet lives though (if not as quiet as nuns). The complete list can be trawled fairly quickly. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do have many more than that; the great majority are in the 47 subcats of Category:Art historians by nationality, eg. 466 Americans. I'd guess we have something like 1700 altogether. The head cat is treated as "diffusing" for nationality. Entries should be in the nationality tree & women in Category:Women art historians. I'll mention the lists at the project & try to add. The Germans and Austrians more or less invented art history & have always been strong in it. But the list has hardly any of the American & British figures missing. I'd think a lot of the list would have notability issues on English WP. I also suspect that there are many like Christiana Payne, who are not yet caught in Category:Women art historians. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sausalitoarchitect who joined Wikipedia and WiR in January has been experiencing difficulties with his or her first attempts at biographies. There were several attempts at Draft:Violeta Autumn (now Draft:Violeta Eidelman Autumn) which was twice turned down, followed by Draft:John Marsh Davis, also declined more than once. The main reviewer appears to have been SwisterTwister. I have looked at both these articles and am surprised that they were not found acceptable for Wikipedia. The architects seem notable and both the articles include secondary sources. Can we help to sort this out? We don't want to lose another competent new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tip three: Structure- all WP articles have sections. there are at least three. The Lead, the body, and the references. The lead is a précis of the whole article usually 1 to 3 paragraphs. It is the bit that broadcasters cut and paste into their scripts when a new item breaks. The body has several subsection == Birth and parentage==, ==Early life==, ==Education==, ==Career==, ==Lasting influence== In references there are the the usual bits ==See also==,==References==, ==Further reading==, ==External links==
ClemRutter: I appreciate your dropping in here and leaving your comments, especially "Wikipedia is about sharing so we can all join in and help." As we are dealing with a completely new editor here, I think it's a great pity that despite several calls for assistance, no one was ready to offer any real help or advice. S/he asked Swister for help more than once but received no reaction. On 26 January, s/he posted a query on Teahouse, but no one bothered to reply. On 6 February there was another request for help on the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk but this only led to a vague reply from NewYorkActuary who failed to explain how to resubmit the article on Violeta Autumn and gave no encouragement on the improvements made. And now your own demanding reactions on structure. I simply do not understand why articles which have been well researched and are well presented with lots of pertinent sources, illustrations, etc., are considered to be substandard. In my opinion, for someone who was new to the complex requirements of Wikipedia editing, the result was pretty good. I would be interested to hear whether others think these articles are not yet suitable. Maybe some are even ready to help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do a great deal of hard editing these days but given a cursory look at the two draft articles, it would be easy for any experienced editor to just make a few changes and the articles would be fine. The Violeta Eidelman Autumn article is fine, just needs a bit of formatting. But there is no issue with notability or citations, as far as I can tell. ClemRutter offers good advice: I copied existing articles when I first started 10+ years ago as this made the most sense. I finished them in the sandbox and just plunked thew whole thing into mainspace (I was worried about being speedy deleted before I had a chance to finish). There's a learning curve on Wikipedia but it's pretty easy to create a stable article if you've done the initial research, as Sausalitoarchitect clearly has. freshacconci talk to me15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. When I started here eleven-plus years ago, I did the same thing - found an article that looked likely and copied bits and pieces of it until I got what I wanted. A lot of those editing habits stay with me - I don't worry about sections, for instance, unless the article is beyond sub-stub length. (If it's three paragraphs I won't bother.) I'm most concerned with creating a readable article about something, or someone, notable. Which these seem to do just fine. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.15:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is submitting any file to AfC. The notes from SwisterTwister claimed there was insufficient coverage of the subject, and yet, not one source cited was given on on-line link. The bias against off-line sourcing is really, really clear. Rather than talk, I did something about it. Worked the sourcing and moved one to main space. Will work on the other one and post a note to Sausalitoarchitect on her/his own page. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Ian thank you so much for bringing these to light. I am not quite sure how you found them, but I appreciate that you posted about them. SusunW (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's thanks to Sausalitoarchitect. I mostly just added sourcing, formatted the page and added a few sentences here and there. But thanks ClemRutter. I was happy to have found the fair use photo. By the by, I like your manuals. Nice that you included the screenshots. SusunW (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and your work on the articles. I thought it would be useful to draw the attention of WiR participants to the problems faced by new editors who are keen to join our project and help us with our work. @SusunW: You were interested to hear how I picked this up. Every couple of weeks, I look at our new members to see what they have been doing. Unfortunately, many give up editing within a day or two but here we had someone who was keen to edit, had an excellent background as an architect and an author and had sought to put people on the map from the San Francisco bay area. I was amazed to see how badly she was treated and how her calls for help received so little attention. Some of our members have been encouraging new editors to join the Teahouse where apparently they can receive guidance and assistance but this is obviously not working. I could of course have just moved the articles into the mainspace myself but I preferred to allow others to see what was going on. May I suggest we all keep our eyes open for problems faced by new editors, particularly those keen to participate in WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a missing article, but one which needs thoughtful experienced attention
I was directed to the page of Virginia Zeani today, by someone noting that the bulk of the BLP article was plagiarised/wholly unattributed. Indeed, I found a half dozen sections or so, all with material that had been section tagged since 2015 as unsourced. I pasted the mess into Talk, and began searching for sources, and moving sourced, verifiable content back into the article. Problem is, (a) I am now in business, and not academia, and so academic references in the humanities and arts are unavailable to me, (b) I am not an expert, or even a devotee, and so even the non-professionals access to these sources. So, for instance, I can only access a snippet version of the Grove Book of Opera Singers, etc., etc.
Hence, I would call this to your attention, for a careful return of the article to a more complete version, after the few days work that would be required to make it encyclopedic, rather than sixth form plagiarised in quality and honesty. Cheers, hope someone with biography and music background can turn their attention, or at least properly post this. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
wikimedia · org
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
