Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Women in RedAbout us


Hello! and welcome to WikiProject Women in Red (WiR), whose objective is to turn red links into blue ones. Our project's scope is women's biographies and women's works, broadly construed. Did you know that, according to WHGI, only 17.73% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women? Not impressed? Content gender gap is a form of systemic bias, and this is what WiR addresses. We invite you to participate, whenever you like, in whatever way suits you and your schedule.
Women in Red warmly welcomes you!

Women in Red logo
Wikipedia - filled with knowledge.jpg
About
Welcome to the Ideas Cafe where we serve up ideas for Women in Red's virtual editathons! The Ideas Cafe is our planning page, where your ideas become WiR events. Here, we discuss, organize, plan, and coordinate our activities. Please join the discussion here or on our project talkpage.
Use social media to promote our work!
FacebookWiki Women in Red
Twitter@wikiwomeninred
PinterestOur WikiProject's board
Hashtag#wikiwoimeninred
Common tasks for each event.
This list is incomplete. Please add to it
.
  • identify sponsors and/or WikiProject hosts
  • create list of potential participants, including active editors from the area(s) to be covered
  • create editathon banner
  • create/find editathon icon
  • develop the WiR redlist, find related redlink lists
  • create meetup page, completing sections on
  • "Add these to articles" (stub templates, applicable categories, useful lists)
  • "Add these to article talkpages" (WikiProject banners, editathon banner for the event)
  • create the invite
  • distribute the invite
  • develop social media campaign (FB, Twitter)
  • We haven't been doing this but it would be great if we had a social media volunteer
  • add Authority Control if missing to all the articles created during the event
  • double-check each article for categories
  • double-check each article for talkpage banners
  • create the thank you and/or barnstar
  • develop a list of contributors (overlaps to some degree with registered participants)
  • distribute the thank you and/or barnstar after the event to the contributors
  • create Wikidata entry if none exists

Suffrage, 2019 initiative[edit]

We talked about suffrage on our main talkpage and I wonder if there's any enthusiasm for having a "year of suffrage" just like we did a "year of science" a couple of years ago? Different organizations will be doing different events in 2019 and we could be supportive of all of that. Also, maybe we could really make an impact on all things suffrage if we have a year to do it. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Definitely interested in it! SusunW (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Changing name to reflect what was agreed upon on WiR talkpage. Note this event will last all year. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Women's suffrage in Europe: see [1]--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to make this a year-long campaign. (Kind of like 1 day 1 woman, but each month focus on the different countries and the women involved). It wasn't limited to Europe, as also changes happened in Asia and Africa. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

Black women[edit]

Considering the year long focus on Suffrage and this tweet, we could have a list of Black Suffragists? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Social Workers[edit]

From this discussion: [2] SusunW (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao, SusunW, GreenMeansGo, and Megalibrarygirl (you all contributed to the conversation SusunW links to), Will we be focusing on "social workers" in particular vs. "women + social work" in general? The category, Category:Social work includes "social workers" (Category:Social workers), and "social justice" people (Category:Social justice). Social justice could include reformers, activists, etc. Is "social work" too broad? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems likely Category:Social justice is simply misplaced within Category:Social work. Social work isn't uniquely central to issues surrounding things hunger or unemployment, any more (perhaps somewhat less) than something like economics is, even though the work of social workers may be related to these issues more-or-less depending on practice area. Besides that, the difference between social work and women+social work is likely to be minor. It is a highly gendered field, and even more so historically. GMGtalk 16:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Social workers are people we haven't specifically covered in the past, whereas clearly activists we have. But, I think it can encompass all of them. Anyone likely to have contributed to social development. SusunW (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea of doing social workers. There's quite a few we can work on. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
As this wasn't included in the November invitation, shall we move it to another month? It still seems like a good topic. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we move it to January? SusunW (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Classicists[edit]

Given the discussions on the main WiR page, can we fit this in in February, perhaps as a geofocus on the "Ancient World" targeting female figures from ancient history as well as classicists, sinologists and orientalists.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, Thumbs up. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Firming up for February[edit]

@Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Victuallers: There's quite a lot to choose from here. Any preferences? And what about the GeoFocus?--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott My 2 cents for whatever it is worth. We did back to back STEM and academics in September and October, and we already have Classicists on the board as the geofocus and academic focus. To my mind, no need to replicate STEM so soon. Folks can still write STEM topics, obviously, even if it isn't a focus. Black women is an annual event for Black History Month and I think it is important. Social workers have been booted already twice and I personally would not like that to happen again, as we have never had a focus specifically on that field which includes so many women. We have done women in film several times, most recent in July last year. I guess it depends if we want 3 or 4 events this month, but with suffrage and 1day1woman, as on-going events, that means monitoring a lot of events. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Victuallers: - I'm supportive of SusunW's thinking -- Classicists (Geofocus); Black women (annual event); Social workers (new to us); Suffrage (ongoing); 1day1woman (ongoing) -- but if the consensus is to include something else, fine by me. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'll put something together on that basis. It'll be good to have Social workers as something new - so I suggest #109 Social workers, #110 Black women and #111 Geofocus Ancient World.--Ipigott (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Good. Discussion on Twitter about hidden women Black suffrage leaders so this is timely. Victuallers (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, SusunW, and Victuallers: Thank you, Ipigott, I think those are all good for this month. Would you all like to me to put together the pages today? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, SusunW, Victuallers, and Ipigott: I made the pages and will tweak a little more later. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Great job and thanks for that, Megalibrarygirl. I'll get started on the invite. Do we want to include an image on the invite and/or one of more "news" items, e.g. a link to the "socialites" post Jimmy started? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Victuallers: Here's a link to the invite. Please doublecheck the links and image. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I LOVE the invite!!!! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Megalibrarygirl Rosiestep: I think everything is OK now. Tagishsimon: For our Ancient World priority, I was wondering whether you could create a Wikidata redlist combining Egyptologists (Q1350189), sinologists (Q15255771), indologists (Q18524037) and orientalists (Q1731155). At the moment we only have clacissists.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
ESIO; can be moved to rename as you like. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, thank you for creating the redlist. @Megalibrarygirl and Jane023:, to stay in alignment with Wikidata ontologies, one option would be to rename this ESIO list as: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Scholars of area studies (d:Q17135920 scholar of area studies). What do you think? If you agree with this idea, would we want to add others (see Category:Scholars by region of area studies) in addition to the Egyptologists/Sinologists/Indologists/Orientalists who are currently on the list? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Worth looking at the occupations listed at the top of the Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee/Wikidata redlist list for some more suggestions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Thanks for putting together a great list. Just what we need. As for the name, I'm not too keen on area studies as that also covers more recent interests. How about "Scholars of the ancient world".--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
occupation tree?

On Wikidata we can create occupations as subclasses of other occupations, but just as with writers, I think the top tracking category should also be used as occupation. I think for any push here you need to specify the occupations to be used on associated items (if they don't exist yet) and somehow fit them into the tree. I think we would see a lot more writers on Wikidata if we created such a tree and cleaned up the various women items on Wikidata now missing the writer occupation. Jane (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon and Ipigott: What about splitting them into 4 different redlists to keep things organized correctly, e.g. sot that the newly-created articles are tagged with the applicable Wikipiedia category, which will then get them into the applicable Wikidata category? @Megalibrarygirl and Jane023:, as our experts on this matter, your comments, suggestions and feedback welcomed and appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK there are two parts to a person's occupation: what they do, and what it's called by their employer. So e.g. a person might be called a scholar of area studies, but in real life, they never say that is their occupation unless they are talking to other academics. In real life they say what they do. On the list of egyptoloigists, it says "An Egyptologist is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian who specializes in Egyptology, the scientific study of Ancient Egypt and its antiquities. Demotists are Egyptologists who specialize in the study of the Demotic language and field of Demotic Studies. Although a practitioner of the disciplined study of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian antiquities is an "Egyptologist", the field of Egyptology is not exclusive to such practitioners." In the context of this discussion on Wikidata I would give them all P106=writer. Next, choose one of the 4 main occupations of archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian, and put the area of expertise into "field of work": P101. I am guessing that "egyptologist" is itself actually too specific for P106. Jane (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jane023, but waiting on recommendation from you and Megalibrarygirl regarding the naming issue of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/ESIO? If rename, what's the best new name; vs. split it up into 4 lists?. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah sorry. From experience (which is limited to the Netherlands) I know that being as specific as possible helps people stay motivated and willing to "finish" something. So yes, 4 lists for each specific target. No abbreviations, but let people navigate the lists through google or wikipedia search (so e.g. the word Egyptologist can be on all four lists, and each list links the other 3 lists, etc). Increasing findability while staying specific is key (and not easy). Jane (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll produce a set of lists. As for the discussion on occupation, I kinda agree with Jane, but P106=writer doesn't work for me. I'd be more inclined towards P106=Historian; and then yes, field of work=Egyptology. But there are other choices; P106=Academic, for instance. I'm not sure we'll ever come up with a completely satisfactory occuption ontology; it's like a balloon - squeeze it in one place and it bulges in another. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I must say I think we might well be complicating things by working on "naming conventions" and developing four separate lists. As I said above, I thought the ESIO listing was exactly what we needed for our focus on the Ancient World. To assist those interested in the four occupations covered, I listed each one separately in the Red List Index, linking to ESIO. I thought that more or less took care of the problem. I hope ESIO can be maintained as such as many of those (like me) interested in redlinked sinologists, for example, would no doubt also be interested in orientalists, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, Ipigott; I didn't mean to be persnickety. I have no issue with the list on the event page; I think it is suitable. My attention regarding the name was actually focused on placement within the Redlist Index. If we could agree that all 4 of these "occupations" are X (Historians? Area study scholars? Ancient World scholars? Something else?), then the 4 separate lists could be sub-bulleted underneath the broader title (vs. alpha within the section on occupations). I'll let it go. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep. Yesterday was crazy. Sorry I didn't get back to you. I'm in agreement with Jane023. I'm always in the findability camp. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

Art+Feminism[edit]

  • Our annual Art+Feminism event, to include:

Dug up a couple of sources, although one doesn't quite exist just yet: "A New Illustrated Database for Women Artists Spans the 15th to 19th Centuries" talks about A Space of Their Own, from Indiana University Bloomington. Don't have a link to it yet, but it's a good space to keep an eye on; hopefully there will be something available come March.

The same article mentions a couple of other databases, which in the interests of completeness I'll add here:

Definitely some useful material to pursue. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is also the Wikisource, Women in the Fine Arts: From the Seventh Century B.C. to the Twentieth Century A.D. - Heavy on the 19th century. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112. I used the redlists from 2018, but probably additional ones have been created since then, so please do add. I know that Comics was mentioned above, LadiesMakingComics; perhaps you can add that list? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Geofocus: Francophone[edit]

I don't think we have ever done a Francophone focus, but March is when French cultures celebrate their language/culture. Lots of countries globally to choose from, which hopefully will have broad appeal, i.e. Algeria, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte, d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Gabon, Guadeloupe, Guinea, Haiti, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Martinique, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, New Caledonia, Niger, Quebec (Canada), Republic of the Congo, Réunion, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, and Vanuatu. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@LesSansPages are one of our besties. I'll ask them to comment. Finding sources in English are tricky in Francophone countries (Obvs) so translation would be a resource. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
For I... I have agreed to host an LSP edit-a-thon in my city university library on March 8th. But we have not chosen the angle of action yet. Open to propositions. We will have the books of the library obviously. But our community is tiny in Marseille so a good part of the potential participants will be newbies. It may be that the best approach is translations of already existing articles and perhaps working on citations.
You should probably also raise the issue with WikiFranca. This is a telegram channel. I'll drop a note there. Anthere (talk)
I really like the idea of a Francophone focus! Sounds like a good choice for March. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

International Women’s Day names[edit]

I've been clearing out old bookmarks and I found two links that have a list of people related to International Women’s Day with a focus on technology (not all of these women are in STEM, but technology plays a part). I was wondering if we should make a list of names that were featured in International Women's Day news stories but don't have an article yet. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Megalibrarygirl as she's the guru about redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Because the theme is #BalanceforBetter, how about countries, occupations,… that have the worst imbalance in WP or the world. There are some stats available on WP. I know that this is the overall focus of WiR, but this would spotlight the biggest problems. StrayBolt (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and MrLinkinPark333: I like the idea of creating the list as "BalanceforBetter" and using StrayBolt's idea for organization within the list. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: That sounds interesting. Would STEM/technology be part of a imbalnace on Wikipedia? If so, the above links could be used as a launch pad of sort on the WIR page for this monthly contest. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: I would say so. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333:, I've reviewed the two links from your above post of 24 September 2018. I suggest the following: Create a redlist for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/IWD 2019. Put the women's names on that list, in subsections named after the website honoring the particular group, e.g. BBC.com and Medium.com. I assume there are other websites out there with other lists of women they are honoring for IWD 2019, e.g. maybe UNESCO, etc. Because the redlist you are creating will be a "crowd-sourced" list, others could add to it. We should start the Women in Red public-facing Twitter campaign as soon as you've completed your work on the redlist, asking our Twitter followers to provide links to other lists of women being honored during IWD 2019 (or IWHM 2019); and we could include the hashtag you mention, #BalanceforBetter, which is being used by yet another website, internationalwomensday.com. As the 2 lists you've provided are about women in tech, I'd also add the women's names to the crowd-sourced Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Technology redlist, with a link to the BBC or Medium website as a reference. Lastly, remember to add the redlist to our Redlist Index page; and to add the redlist to the redlists section of our #112 meetup page. While these are my suggestions, do you think this is the right approach, Megalibrarygirl, or would you suggest something else? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding Ipigott as you are part of the convo in the below section. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Adding John Cummings as you are the UNESCO Wikimedian in Residence. Is the UN/UNESCO doing something for IWD 2019 and/or have they created a list of women being honored for IWD 2019? Note, I spoke with some editors from India who are doing a UN-type event in March, but I'm not sure if it's India-specific, or global. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Well, my mindset is a whole lot different now than last year. I can't guarantee the people in my links above are notable. It was just an idea I had, plus I wasn't the one who suggested the #balanceforbetter hashtag. I could incorporate those links into the main page if someone were to make it as an inspiration link, but not have to be done. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all (@Rosiestep:, Ipigott sorry for the late reply. Yes UNESCO is running a small number of events and we are also sourcing lists of women from government delegations which I'm adding to Wikidata so it doesn't get lost. I know that Wikimedia Sweden is running a much larger number of events with Swedish Embassies which we are inviting UN staff to participate in. For reference Sarah who ran WikiGap at WMSE has left and Mia is now running it (mia.jacobsson@wikimedia.se). John Cummings (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, John Cummings. I'll reach out to Mia. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem (@Rosiestep:, do you know anyone in Nairobi who could run a workshop? John Cummings (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
John Cummings, Maybe check with Felix? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Firming up for March[edit]

@Ipigott, Victuallers, SusunW, and Megalibrarygirl: I'd like to get the invite out as soon as we finalize March events so people know sooner rather than later what we're doing for Women's History Month. Besides the A+F one, how would like to proceed? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me the 3 proposals are sufficiently diverse, especially as we still have suffrage as an on-going focus. Of course, that will depend on if a list can be made of missing honorees of IWD. As always, I will be focusing on activists as I can, with maybe an artist or architect thrown in for good measure. SusunW (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I see from the draft Women's History Month page, "we are holding just this one virtual editathon" in March. I was a bit disappointed to see we are no longer doing a geofocus on French speakers as Susun had suggested. Maybe we could still do both? Quite by accident, for the last few days I seem to have been bogged down on French-speaking women and women's organizations from Belgium. I was amazed to see how little attention had been given to them on the English wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC) Perhaps I need to ping Rosie on this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott - Oops. I used the March 2018 meetup page as the basis for creating the March 2019 page. I overlooked that sentence and maybe I missed something else, too? Thanks in advance for fixing/improving whatever you notice. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott: The francophone countries are in the March geofocus slot still (on the ideas list and wasn't moved over), so I thought that was going to be part as well? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333, Ipigott, SusunW, Victuallers, and Megalibrarygirl: - I'd be glad to create a Francophone Geofocus meetup page. Any others? #BalanceforBetter? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I think we could add #BalanceforBetter to the March initiative if we put together a redlist. What do you think, MrLinkinPark333? The page looks good, Ipigott :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, @Megalibrarygirl and MrLinkinPark333:. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've created meetup pages #112 and #113. Please review them... fix things... add things.. make improvements: --Rosiestep (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Victuallers, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and MrLinkinPark333: I've created a draft Invite for March. Please review, fix, add, improve it. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Rosiestep: I've checked through everything and it all seems fine to me. If we use the French "Francophone" rather than "French-speaking" for our #113, then I think we need to include the main Francophonie member countries. I've added pertinent WD redlinks to the list. Maybe it would be useful to include a word on Francophonie and its members in the introduction. I see you have included some (but not all) of the French overseas territories in the WD lists, most still redlinked. I have a feeling we've tried some of them in the past and obtained zero results. Maybe Tagishsimon would like to check them out again. The problem is that most of the inhabitants list their nationality as French.
Listeria is dead until circa 26 February 2019, because the wikimedia labs toolsdb has collapsed and is being rebuilt, slowly, in a different form. So, no WD redlists can be updated right now (although I will check the code in the lists). It's a bit of a service management fail on the part of the foundation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott, I agree with both of your suggestions. (a) Someone needs to assure that the main Francophonie member countries are included; if you look at my edit summary, you'll see I only included the countries/territories which SusunW mentions in this (March 2019) section. Plus: someone needs to expand the introductory section. As for the Wikidata lists which are currently redlinks, not sure what's the best thing to do; looking to this group for consensus on that. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that'sa bummer about Lysteria being out of commission. Hope they get it up quickly and maybe there will be time to add them after February 26. For the French Caribbean, there are these, maybe we just do one list?
If we are making a redlist, others of potential interest in the FR wiki from Matinique include: Sabine Andrivon-Milton, Suzanne Dracius, Nicole Gnesotto, Perle Lama, Gaël Octavia, Manon Tardon, Joëlle Verdol.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And from Guadeloupe: Josette Fallope, Jane Fostin, Michèle Lacrosil, Michèle Montantin.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • also there are Biographies (in French) of each of the women inducted as Members of Honor into the Women's Union of Martinique in this booklet [14] SusunW (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: I'm a bit confused about what you want to do with #BalanceforBetter. It looks to me as if it is already very much in line with our A+F plans. Can't we just add names to our existing lists? On the other hand, it might be useful to tweet something about our March plans on #BalanceforBetter. Maybe Victuallers could put something together.--Ipigott (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ipigott: it's just another useful redlist. We can use it anywhere. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: I'm afraid I haven't been able to find the redlink. Can you provide a link?--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure will Ian. Maybe we need to get some of our people in Balance for Better poses. I read through the stuff and got stuck where it says "Balance is not a women's issue, it's a business issue" - Sure its not a woman's issue, but it belittles those involved to think that this is merely a business issue. I think they meant "Balance is not a women's issue, it's a business issue AS WELL as and much more importantly a moral issue" Victuallers (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll be out of town Friday-Monday and would like to MassMessage the Invite before then. Awaiting the ok to do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead Rosiestep we can add redlink lists to the existing pages anytime. I already sent out the Art+Feminism link in response to this tweet. SusunW (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have much to add. FYI French and Kreyol are spoken in Haiti. I have a page of red links for notable Haitian women. Best Regards, Barbara 22:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Pioneers of Gender Studies[edit]

I know that in the past we have done edit-a-thons on academics in STEM, and academics in general, but I'd like to propose that we do one that focuses on the pioneers of Women's and Gender Studies. These were the women that brought our history forward to balance the historic record and I think they tend to be overlooked. Women like Michèle Aina Barale,[15][16][17][18] Cho Hyoung,[19] Aurora Javate de Dios,[20][21] Gunhild Kyle,[22] Elizabeth Minnich,[23] Patricia Mohammed,[24], [25] Shulamit Reinharz is a redirect to her husband :(,[26][27] Päivi Setälä,[28], Aline Wong,[29] Well you get the idea, there are lots of them that have no articles. SusunW (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

More: Akosua Adomako Ampofo/Josephine Akosua Adomako Ampofo,[30][31][32] Winifred Hoernle/Agnes Winifred Hoernlé,[33] AnnMarie Wolpe,[34][35]
Just found Australian Women's Gender Studies Association where I should be able to find some Australian names to add. Also, there's a links page with further leads in Australia and internationally. Let me know if/when you want me to add individual names as redlinks. Oronsay (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yay, Oronsay! Please feel free to add anyone. I'm hoping someone who knows how to create a list (hint, hint @Megalibrarygirl and Tagishsimon:) will come along and wave a magic wand. If we can get the list started, then we can all add to it. ;) SusunW (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Wikidata does not have an occupation of "Gender Studyist" (major omission, IMO) and so the people you seek will be lumped amongst the anthropologists, sociologists, &c. We do have a "field of work" property, but I think relatively few academics have a value for that. I've populated said property for 54 candidates found via searches, now in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Gender Studies. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Oronsay Might as well combine the by-hand list and the wikidata list on a single page. I've added all of the above-listed suggestions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Gender Studies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much Tagishsimon and yes, most of the creators of these fields of study came out of sociology and anthropology, though there were a few historians that I am aware of. It gives us a start. Now if we can combine a crowd sourced list, we can begin to add the above to it. Truly appreciate your help, as we are all aware of my technical limitations ;) SusunW (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the list, Tagishsimon! Sorry I got to the discussion late, SusunW. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
No problems, Sue. I think I can add a few of these per day to flesh out the list. Would that I had the energy to e-mail all those universities on the list and ask them to provide names, but I think that is more time than my schedule will allow at present :) SusunW (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The wikidata list is up to 234 people, having scraped the gender studies categories for various non-EN language wikipedias. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

United Nations[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if we could have a theme on the United Nations. I've made a list of women who are/were worked for the United Nations. There are over 20 names the my list who've held the role of Special Rapporteur/Independent Expert with a variety of countries. I think it'd be interesting as it's not focusing on one country. Let me know what you think :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333 I like it! SusunW (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The UN are our most impressive follower on Twitter IMO. @MrJohnCummings: may help here. Victuallers (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

May Mays?[edit]

Had a different theme idea: May Mays, or women named May, Mae, Mei, Mai, Maj, Maya, etc. We don't have anything penciled in for May 2019 yet, and I assume it would be easy to assemble a redlist of Mays from Wikidata. It's a name that cuts across a lot of times and places in its variations. Can even include Mabels and Maymes and Maisies. Penny Richards (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unique, and I like it, Penny Richards. I bet Wikidata could also give us May (+ variants: Maye, Mayes, Mays, Meir, Meier, Meyer) surnames. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Oooh- an interesting way of looking at the world!! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Certainly something to play with. Then there's April; June; July, with Julie and Julia; August, with Augusta; and, cheekily, January, with Jan, Janette, Janice and so forth! Oronsay (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed! May seems to have the most potential, but a July full of Julies, Julias, Julianas, and Juliets would be a good followup, if May Mays goes well. Penny Richards (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm..?suggestion to go with it? Margaret has 8 letters, and all the variations added on, so skipping August (for Augusta), that would go in October. Katherine has 9 letters- so, that and all the variations on that name (of which there are millions) could go in either September (9th month) or November (month name the 9th).....though both those names tend towards the western names variations do appear in almost all western languages. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Or even people born in May? That'd help open up the amount of people as it might be difficult to find redlinks with a specific name (then again dates may not help - no pun intended). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Women called May. Ping me if you want any more May name variants adding to the report. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow that's a lot of Mays! @Tagishsimon: Annie May Moore (Q24044939) redirects to May and Mina Moore. I tried to adjust her wikidata page but I can't update it as both May and Mina have separate wikidata pages plus one on both of them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup, not useful redirect; now deleted. Forgetting that, the issue here is that Listeria cannot provide a link to Annie May Moore because that is already taken as a redirect to May and Mina Moore; so it makes up a link based on name plus QId, hence Annie May Moore (Q24044939). There's nothing wrong with any of the wikidata records; it's just a trap for the unwary arising out of Listeria doing the best it can under the circumstances. The business with three wikidata items is also normal - a solution to the so-called Bonnie & Clyde problem, where a language wikipedia has an article for a duo ... wikidata has a corresponding item for the duo, and ideally discrete items for the two individuals. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Environmentalists[edit]

How about environmentalists? Women are becoming increasingly active in this area. I think it would be useful to cover them in more detail.--Ipigott (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Geofocus: Portuguese-speaking countries[edit]

I like the idea and would support it. Does that extend to Papiamento speakers as well? SusunW (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose. Other Portuguese-based creole speakers like Cape Verdean Creole (Kabuverdianu), Macanese Patois, or Malacca Kristang could be added. Relic Keeper (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
What about broadening the focus to Iberian language countries? Larger language families = more countries on more continents, which might generate more participation (writing articles; uploading photos). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents which counts for not much, but like the Caribbean gets lost in editathons which focus on Latin America/Caribbean, Portugal gets lost in the Spanish focus if we do Iberia. Portuguese-based culture/language covers a huge swath of the globe on 4 continents. That being said, I'll go with group consensus. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree with SusunW. I'm afraid you want to make it too broad, because South America is almost entirely involved in your proposal, Rosie.
If we keep just Portuguese Timor comes to mind as well. Also people like jews with Portuguese roots. Klaas `Z4␟` V 19:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

40 years Ada[edit]

May 1979 programming language Ada named after Ada Lovelace was chosen out of like four designs. Perhaps een nice occasion to pay more attention to female geeks, mathematicians etcetera. Working title: C0d1ng Ladies  Klaas `Z4␟` V 18:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Pride[edit]

Geofocus: Mediterranean Sea[edit]

Women of the Mediterranean Sea countries. Per the wiki article, this would include, in clockwise order: --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Queens and Royals[edit]

There must be good amount of information and resources available on queens and royals. Almost all nations will have plenty of royal ladies (past and present) not having their articles.-Nizil (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We can collaborate with Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility as well.-Nizil (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
+1 Klaas `Z4␟` V 16:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

July 2019[edit]

August 2019[edit]

  • Indigenous Women
  • Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy (-Or Women in Genre fiction, Women in Comics, or other such group identifiers. Aka Women writers, women illustrators, women in STEM etc) - To tie in with the Worldcon event in August? ☕ Antiqueight chatter 12:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Women in Law[edit]

23 December 1919 is the centenary of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 in the United Kingdom, and women were first admitted to the Inns of Court in January 1920. I went to look for the first four women admitted and three of them do not have wikipedia entries. I've added them to the Women in Law redlist and noticed there are quite a few other redlinks there across other countries. Perhaps we could focus on this ahead of the centenary of the Act, so anyone researching women in law as a result of the centenary finds more entries than they would now? Hence me suggesting this for a month a few months before the actual date. Moira Paul (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I love this idea Moira Paul. Had a very productive time last time we did lawyers. One of my favorite bios required women working together in 4 countries to pull the sources to write it :) SusunW (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Thumbs up. Me, too; love this focus, @Moira Paul and SusunW. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

Scientists (to coincide with October 8th, Ada Lovelace Day)[edit]

I like the idea of making "scientists" an annual event every October. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the "May" theme. I challenged myself last year to do all the "Ada"s ... are there any left I wonder? I have been working away to myself in the last few years to do all the notable women in the ODNB whose first names begin with "A" (you have to start somewhere). Would this be ["A" good theme (pun intended)] to do irrespective of country? Wikidata could find them easily I guess. (Non Latin names would qualify if first letter in their alphabet)? (pun intended) Victuallers (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just 146 of them, Victuallers

November 2019[edit]

  • May: November: Asian Heritage Month. Mkdw talk 19:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • moved to November as in the wiki movement, WikiAsiaMonth is historically celebrated in November. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]

Parliamentarians[edit]

Tying to the year-long 'Focus on Suffrage', 1 December marks the centenary of Nancy Astor taking her seat in the UK House of Commons so perhaps we could look at female parliamentarians worldwide? Moira Paul (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've started looking into this to see if there are redlinks to find. I suspect this ties to the wider comment elsewhere about structure of pages around suffrage as there isn't an obvious single source. However, List of the first women holders of political offices in Asia illustrates that there are names to start pulling together from these partial lists alone. ETA: First female parliamentarians does not exist as a topic or a list. Moira Paul (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Moira Paul, Category:Lists of the first female holders of political offices, though not a collection of redlists, shows the scope of what's been covered and might be helpful to you, if you haven't already explored it. Oronsay (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC) In local government, there are lots of redlisted women mayors on List of first women mayors. Oronsay (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Women who died in 2019[edit]

December would be a good month to create articles for women who passed away that year. It would help the media create year-end lists of notable women as well as using media's lists to create articles. A Wikidata search could be created for either the year or the past 12 months. Some tools have been made for indexing obits.[36] This topic reduces WP:BLP issues. It could be an annual editathon. It could also be extended into January or just the usual extension of most events. StrayBolt (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea for December. Penny Richards (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss other ideas here[edit]

A is for "A start"[edit]

Just before we started Women in Red I completed (after work of lots of others) in writing a biography of every woman in the Dictionary of National Biography. This meant that any (UK related) women who was recognised as notable before about 1900 was in Wikipedia. Obviously the DNB did not stop there and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography took over. That has LOTS more women - so what to do? I set out to do every women in the ODNB whose first name began with an A. I think I have made quite a dent in it. Look here or here. My suggestion is that we have a go at picking off all the women whose name begins with A (or alpha if she is ancient Greek) in any country. Our progress will demonstrate the size of the problem of doing all 26 letters- Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Women in science[edit]

International Day of Women and Girls in Science is 11 February 2019, with a focus on "Investment in Women in Science for Inclusive Green Growth". There is always a long list of crowdsourced and wikidata scientists. Emphasis could be on Green-related fields, like Environmentalists, which was already suggested for May 2019. Emphasis could also include women involved in Green Technology. We can use links from October 2018 Women in STEM as a starting point. StrayBolt (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Our ODNB list is inaccurate ging false negatives - can anyone improve?)

Female Pioneers of Early Cinema[edit]

1 Feb 2019 is the centenary of Mary Pickford co-founding United Artists so perhaps we could look for for women working in cinema pre-1919? Moira Paul (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If needed, you could expand it with "Women behind the camera" or at least have a link to the July 2018 Women in Film and Stage. Another alternative is "Silent women" for women working in the Silent film era, extending it to pre-1929. StrayBolt (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter mates[edit]

We have monthly editathons now running in Edinburgh which are mainly in person. Ewan is one of the Wikimedians in Residence and they are very successful - They are badges as WiR - great!. A similar series is starting in Swansea. Last month they did nurses and this month business people. They want to be a "women in red" event. I will see if we can harmonise subjects. This is for info only I guess but is there a good place to log in-house events ? Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. I see WiR is getting mentioned by name in French! Femmes Rouge Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Victuallers - I think it would be great to include in-person Women in Red events in our list here: [[Template:Women in Red]]. To that end, I just added a line for in-person events in the 2018 section. Please add whatever events you're aware of... and 2017 events, too. After you get the ball rolling, we should mention it on the main WiR talkpage so that others know to do so, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Update - still running. The next one is on August 16th at Edinburgh Uni Library. Victuallers (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Femicon Museum[edit]

See this tweet conversation Victuallers (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems cool, Victuallers, and we haven't touched this focus area before; did you reply to her? Maybe we could start an email convo with a few of us? Hey, Megalibrarygirl, I looked over the website, and wondered how easy it might be to create a redlist for this focus area, "femininity, girlhood, and the aesthetics of cute within twentieth-century video games, computing, and electronic toys"? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I could try to create a redlist based on the Femicom collection. Will start. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Victuallers and Rosiestep: Here's a start-up redlist: Femicom Museum Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl; mega cool... mega thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I invited her to post here. I'm not sure how big the museum is and we would need her or one of us to take the lead. Its not a subject I know anything about - but I can see that its an important area. Big thanks to MLG - do feel free to tweet her. Victuallers (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Trading article ideas[edit]

I was wondering if anyone would be interested in trading names of women with others who are interested in creating articles on specific topics. For example, I have many names of American women who have won prizes or been inducted into hall of fames. That way, our lists on Wikipedia and our personal lists could hopefully be reduced and we get to work on articles that are in our interests that we might not have come across already. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be interested in adding lists that others have created (such as yours) into the Women in Red redlist collection. Let me know if this interests you? This is because it is my hope that Women in Red is as well known for its redlists as for its created articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: That would be perfect. It'd help reduce the amount of people on my to-do lists and give them out to others who want to work on them. I already moved my first one here but I'm thinking on making another one on women who were/are United Nations Special Rapporteurs as that list is huge. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That's awesome, MrLinkinPark333. Also pinging Megalibrarygirl who is really good with to-do list ideas! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just finished Rosiestep Megalibrarygirl. See here for the United Nations redlist. There are also women in United Nations working groups but I haven't included them in this list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks for taking the iniative, MrLinkinPark333! I hope everyone feels comfortable adding to our lists, but if you don't, ping me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Geofocus[edit]

Seems to me that we tend to focus on the same areas over and over and I am wondering if we just did a straight alphabetical list of countries each month, if that would get more coverage of women worldwide. So for example "A" would have lists from: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, and Azerbaijan; "B" would have Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso and Burundi; and so forth. SusunW (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: That would be interesting. The geofocus would be filled for almost 2 years before the list would be repeated :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Filling out lists[edit]

A suggestion of something a little different, maybe? We have a whole lot of lists that are partially filled out with articles - various women's halls of fame, for instance, or the list of National Heritage Fellowship recipients. Many of the by-year lists of Guggenheim Fellows as well. What about a month where we pick one or two of these lists and look at filling in all the redlinks? That would give us a nice filled-out list at the end of the month. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Funnily, I was thinking of creating a list of Guggenheim Fellows names as the recipents are automatically notable as per WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #2. That'd help boost up the percentage without worrying about notability :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: As would the National Heritage Fellows...and those have the advantage of being sourceable to the NEA's website. Which means that their biographies there are in the public domain...if we wanted to we could crank out the articles pretty quickly thanks to that. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: In that case, I think the National Heritage Fellows would be easier to complete as the Guggenheim Fellows does not have a lot of info on each recipient, just the notability. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: No reason we couldn't suggest both for different months. :-) I'm not sure this would be a monthly challenge, necessarily...but bimonthly or trimonthly, perhaps. Besides, getting all of the Guggenheim Fellows in one go would be a bit of a tall order. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yep, that's why I didn't press on having them done first, because there is so many of them :/ However, I'm making a different list of names that are presumed notable based on individual criterias instead. ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: What about other fellowships/awards? How about the Rome Prize, for instance - does that convey automatic notability? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: That specific prize I do not know if it passes WP:ARTIST or WP:ANYBIO. As for other fellowships, Criteria 1-3 and their respective notes of WP:NACADEMIC are the ones I see for fellowhips. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Variations on Monthly Achievement Initiative[edit]

Given the current interest in this initiative (around 575 articles added by 29 August), it might be interesting to change the targets for the coming months. For October, we might for example call for articles on women from 31 predefined countries, one for each day of the month. We could list the countries beforehand, drawing on our redlists (but perhaps leaving out those without at least 20 redlinks). We could allow a maximum of three days for each country, e.g. 1 to 3 October: Albania, 2 to 4 October: Algeria, 3 to 5 October: Angola, 4 to 6 October: Argentina, etc. Participants could list their articles both under the countries and under their own user names, giving a clearer view of achievements. Then in November, we could do something similar with occupations. Would this be worthwhile or should we just continue using the August/September model? Personally, I think variations might attract additional interest. Other suggestions for variations would of course be welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Antiqueight, Abishe, Nick Number, cbratbyrudd, Stuartyeates, Alanna the Brave for reactions or other suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Glad to hear there's been lots of interest, Ipigott. My thoughts: I like the idea of variations on topics each month (either nationality or occupation), but I'd be wary of making it too complicated for participants. I usually have to do some preparatory research before creating an article (which may take several days depending on how busy I am), and I don't want to have to try to remember whether I can submit an article about an Algerian woman on October 4th or an Argentinian woman on October 6th. On the other hand, I might be open to having broader weekly themes: during week 1, we write about women from western European countries, then for week 2 we write about women from Middle Eastern countries (or it could be women scientists or artists, etc.). Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I kind of feel I should recuse myself from giving suggestions, as both this month and next my real world life is impacting my editing time. That being said, I like the idea of variations, but agree with Alanna the Brave that it needs to be simple to follow or we will end up discouraging editing. Congrats on the success. 575 articles is awesome! SusunW (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I think having a broad area of occupations/countries would work better (in my personal case). Maybe have special awards that says, for example Wikipedian who created the most (specific occupation) this month, or the most articles from (specific country, area). That way if people want the special awards, they can go for it while keeping the broad range of coverage for others who just want the 5, 10, 15 articles etc. barnstars. This monthly imitative helped me clear through some articles that I wanted to do, but didn't get around to start/finish them :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer to WiR I feel that the new monthly initiative is a great place to record and celebrate all the WiR articles written in a given month, i.e. from the monthly meetups and the #1day1woman ongoing. I find that most of my articles end up in #1day1woman as I don't want to hold them up waiting for a specific meetup to come along. My preference is that the whole recording system not become over-complicated. Oronsay (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
My thirty-ish contributions only accidentally in the list, it was work I was doing anyway, but this stretch got done quicker with this extra motivation. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments so far. I can see the simplicity of the current approach is appealing. It therefore looks as if any variations should be "additional extras" rather than a complete revamp. Let's see how we do in September.--Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I echo those who suggest we keep it simple. There are many contributions to the #1day1woman page which are currently also eligible for the Monthly Achievement Initiative, meaning articles from any country and any occupation. Requiring articles fit a certain geographical or occupational category during a short window of time will limit participation in the initiative, and might be discouraging to our membership base who will see it as more of a competition. If the initiative is all about increasing participation and increasing metrics, I'd vote to not change the current model. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott I'm not very creative in brainstorming ways to get people to participate, but I do want to help you keep the work load at something you can handle. If that means wikignoming a lot, that's fine. Just keep me posted. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you review my submission, I was getting negative feedback about submitting Jenny L. Davis, a linguist and social activist because she is 'merely' an assistant professor who speaks a indigenous tongue and is attempting to revive it. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)