Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Talk Departments Members Notice board Vital articles Recognized
New articles To do Popular pages Assessment
and FAQs

WikiProject Sri Lanka (Rated Project-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Any question regarding Sri Lanka? Ask here, members of the WikiProject Sri Lanka are happy to help you.

Assessment Excellence[edit]

The WikiProject Sri Lanka/Assessment is excellently done. Only one unrated article when I looked, and now none at all. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it justifiable to name the Northern Province as Tamil Country?[edit]

I need some help here guys. [Province Debate. ] 4keven4 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Its hard to say without sources but the debate continues.If they prove there are enough sources then it will called as the Tamil country UMDP (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes (2nd nomination)[edit]

The Sri Lankan state sponsored colonisation schemes is nominated for deletion. Please say what do you think about it here. UMDP (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@UMDP: Do not bring these kind of issue here as WikiProject Sri Lanka has deletion and other alerts on its main page. We all watch those alerts. --AntonTalk 08:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The world’s tallest walking statue of the Buddha[edit]

World's highest statue of walking Buddha

80 feet tall, world’s tallest walking statue of the Buddha is located at Ranawana Temple in Pilimatalawa. If anyone like to write article about this temple, I can contribute by uploading more images. Official site of the temple, Ranawana Purana Rajamaha Viharaya --AntonTalk 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents ?[edit]

Most of articles about Attacks on civilians attributed to the Sri Lanka Army are categorized as Terrorist incidents in 0000 (year). ex Mannar, Valvettiturai. Is it right? Have any country or organisation designate Sri Lankan forces as Terrorists? (May be by LTTE) So how these articles are categorized with them. -- L Manju (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those articles. But a quick guess would be that the person categorizing it misunderstood the category itself. Rehman 23:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
According to [this edit] the Sri Lanka has been accused of state terrorism. So incidents those were done or not done (only accusations without proofs) by state forces are categorized as Terrorist incidents. Is this reason valid for every countries (Those who has same accusation of state terrorism) or only for Sri Lanka related articles. Can only accusations designate a state forces as terrorists ? (according to above reason) -- L Manju (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Shraddha TV for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shraddha TV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraddha TV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Census Data being Manipulated to Misrepresent Ethnic Group Numbers in the Tamil page[edit]

The Tamils page needs to be looked at, in particular, the information regarding the number of Tamils in Sri Lanka which has been falsely represented as 24% when the census clearly shows the number as 15%. A user is manipulating and grossly skewing the genealogical information in the Sri Lankan Moors article though original opinion and research to misrepresent the number of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Moors have always been a separate cultural and ethnic group in the country but the article page is being falsely manipulated. Toolbelts (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As my knowledge this a matter comes with a long time. Few users deliberately change the Sri Lanka related articles to make false opinions and to promote their political propaganda. In their articles there are given lot of references, but can not reach properly. (Some references are books those can be written in unilateral opinions. Some references those depends on wrong information can also add as reliable references) It should to say Wikipedia is not reliable source and also it is not a publisher of original thoughts. But it is good thing to do changes in the pages where the wrong information are provided.--L Manju (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of Elara is under discussion, see Talk:Ellalan (monarch) -- (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Seya Sadewmi[edit]

I've created a new article on Murder of Seya Sadewmi as the event was widely covered by the mainstream media of Sri Lanka. It'd be great if I can get a helping hand. -- Chamith (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sinhala reader needed for Dravidian peoples[edit]

Article Dravidian peoples needs the assistance of someone fluent in Sinhala. One reference for the sentences:

In Sri Lanka, this early steel-making method employed a unique wind furnace, driven by the monsoon winds, capable of producing high-carbon steel and production sites from antiquity have emerged, in places such as Anuradhapura, Tissamaharama and Samanalawewa, as well as imported artifacts of ancient iron and steel from Kodumanal. A 200 BC Tamil trade guild in Tissamaharama, in the South East of Sri Lanka, brought with them some of the oldest iron and steel artifacts and production processes to the island from the classical period.

is in Sinhala, and the citation is incomplete. The citation needs the script-title and trans-title of the article within [1] that supports this text. The page number within the 20 page document would also be helpful, as would a brief quote showing the text-source integrity. Thank you! Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Politics Conventions[edit]

With the arrival of new users it appears conventions within Wikipedia's Sri Lankan politics related articles, that although unwritten and generally followed, are now being completely disregarded. Therefore I have started a discussion on various issues that relate to editing standards of Sri Lankan politics related articles.

This is an open discussion. Feel free to discuss the issues below:

Political Dates[edit]

Issue: 17 August 2015 or 2015 - Political dates refer to appointments, elections, dissolutions, event etc.


All dates, regardless for what that date is referring to should be written in full and in the format 17 August 2015. This is to add specificity and academic value to each article. Dates that can not be verified should not be there at all. However if the month and year or just the year is verified but there is no exact date I think that is acceptable too.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Appointment to parliament
What is the regulation regarding the dates a member of parliament is elected and if a member leaves the office (in this case parliament) at the end of the term (when it is dissolve). Do we put the date parliament was dissolved? or the date of the next election like they do in all other countries?? --LionsRule125 (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, a parliamentarian's term begins as he/she is elected, therefore "the day of the election" is the date at which one enters parliament. Should the parliamentarian not decide to retire on his/her own terms the "dissolution of Parliament" will be the end date to their term. If that parliamentarian is elected for consecutive elections then his/her term continues as if he/she never left office between elections.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is the same understanding that I have but is it specified somewhere? --LionsRule125 (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have a RS showing that the date of election is the date an MP's term starts, you are just making assumptions. If you make assumptions you are bound to make mistakes. Adhisha4/LionsRule125 made the assumption that MPs term ends at the next election until I pointed to the article in the constitution that states that the term ends on dissolution. They had also made assumptions about when ministers' terms ended which has resulted in Kumaratunga cabinet showing two ministers of defence between 11 December 2001 and 8 April 2004 - Chandrika Kumaratunga and Tilak Marapana. Blackknight12 has assumed that R. Sampanthan's second stint in Parliament started on 5 July 1997, the day his predecessor A. Thangathurai was assassinated. In fact as these two sources show - 1 2 - even as late as August 1997 the TULF hadn't decided who was going to replace Thangathurai. I had tried to make this article comply with Wikipedia policies but this introduction of wrong information has comprised the integrity of the entire article. Never, ever make assumptions. It is better to have no information than to have wrong information.
You have to get away from the obsession with infoboxes. As H:IB states, infoboxes should be concise and only contain information cited elsewhere in the article. Sadly, most Sri Lankan politician articles are the opposite. They contain bloated, unreferenced infoboxes and very little narrative. They are therefore violating WP:V and ignoring H:IB.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
User:LionsRule125, conditions towards vacating an office are clearly marked out in the constitution, under Chapter 10, article 66.
User:Obi2canibe, a simple comment would have sufficed, you didn't have to be passive aggressive about it. I had read it wrong, as "Sampathan re-entered Parliament on 5 July 1997" instead of "A. Thangathurai was assassinated on 5 July 1997" that was my mistake. This is why we are having these discussions so we can spend less time on infoboxes and more on expanding the article.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I understand the conditions of vacating, but i'm not sure of the dates that they take office( or start as a MP) - LionsRule125 (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I see that even though no evidence has been provided to prove that the date of election is the date an MP's term starts, a moronic editor has started re-inserting the the date of election in numerous articles. Worse, this ignoramus doesn't even know the dates of elections. The 2010 parliamentary elections in parts of Kandy and Trincomalee District were re-held on 20 April 2010. Somehow Dilum Amunugama, Susantha Punchinilame and Lohan Ratwatte have managed to get elected on 8 April 2010, twelve days before all the people have voted. Unbeliveable.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
OK OK... I AM FULLY Aware of the fact that the 2010 elections were held on two different dates. BUT I decided to keep the dates of the elections to the date elections were initially held on that day and if it needs to be changed i shall do that when I get time and if anyone else is interested in fixing it they are more than welcome to fix it so the correct information is given. User:Obi2canibe you seem to have a lot of time that you spend arguing with other editors and editing articles on a specific racial line here instead of discussing issues in a civilized manner and and insulting other editors and not using an important thing all other editors use that's called "COMMON SENSE". The only thing you have been doing is criticizing others in a very Aggressive manner like User:Blackknight12 mentioned - LionsRule125 (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
When people ignore rules (WP:V), one needs to shout in order to stop such behaviour.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Obi2canibe please no personal attacks and keep it civil. This is not the first time anyone of us has had to deal with uncooperative editors. Your time would be better spent if you helped in being constructive towards ending these disputes in editing details and style. This is why I have started this dialogue. Yet all you have done so far is complain and throw around abuses. Instead put your hate or annoyance or whatever it is behind you and please come to the table to collaborate in making a decision that will lead to these disputes ending.
LionsRule125 you seem to not get the point about wikipedia policies, you can't go about changes everything just on the basis that you think it should be "consistent with the rest". Both I myself and Obi2canibe have pointed out to you what you are doing wrong yet you disregard everything and continue. I think you should stop editing politics related articles until we can figure all this out.
Now, as for dates concerned with MPs vacating an office is clear, can we find some sources for when MPs take office?--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
My annoyance is caused by frustration of dealing with editors who ignore rules. Over the last seven years I have spent a lot of time editing hundreds of Sri Lankan articles to get them into a state worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Then new editors (I'm not singling out LionsRule125, there have been many) join and start editing without any credence to Wikipedia policies. All I ask is that editors follow rules.
We have a source for end dates so there is no issue there. But there are no sources for start dates - I have searched and not found any. There are several possibilities - it could be the date of election, it could be the date the results are announced (usually, but not always, the following day), it could be the date the names of elected MPs are published in the Gazette or it could be the date they take their oath in Parliament. Until we have a source we should not jump the gun and add start dates.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok I will accept that criticism regarding not following the rules correctly. All I want to do is to present information in a manner the reader can understand. But both Blackknight12 and obi2canibe have been very aggressive in your style of criticism, especially when it comes to small errors. instead of fixing it and letting me know the error you two have made a massive deal out of nothing at times. If you two can act in a civilized manner and try to cooperate all of us can get along well and focus on the task that we need to do witch is improve and create articles - LionsRule125 (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not up to other editors to correct your mistake. You have been told several times about your errors and why you're making them - by ignoring rules, not providing sources and making assumptions. Please go and correct ALL of your mistakes.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You simply have not understood WP:V if you believe you can make "educated guesses".--obi2canibetalk contr 11:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
LionsRule125 it is your responsibility to correct all of those articles you so hastily changed before and during this discussion. We did warn you about your mistakes. You are the one who added incorrect and/or incomplete information therefore please do not leave it to others to clean up your mess. As we have come to a consensus on the dates Members of parliament leave office please insert the full correct date on the articles in which you have changed. I am asking you as a fellow editor.
So far we have only tackled half the issue as we still don't have an exact start date, this is a big issue as we can't leave dates unresolved. I think we should look to similar parliamentary systems, such as the UK and India, to see if we can find an answer. --Blackknight12 (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Blackknight12 I will change any article that I feel that is incorrect regardless of mine or not. And I did not change any dates at my pleasure I removed all the dates because obi2canibe kept removing the dates on some articles, so in order to keep things consistent I removed all the starting dates. I will enter the finishing and starting date once this whole issue is sorted until then ill leave things as it is instead of changing things many times and wasting time. REGARDING THE MATTER OF CORRECTING THING, ILL DO THEM WHEN I HAVE TIME TO DO IT I DON'T HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD TO SIT ON FRONT OF WIKIPEDIA LIKE CERTAIN USERS AND EDIT EVERYTHING AS EVERYONE ELSE DEMANDS, PLUS NONE OF YOU CAN DEMAND ME TO FIX IT WHEN YOU WANT IT TO THE WAY YOU LIKE IT. obi2canibe ARE YOU A ROBOT!!! BECAUSE THESE ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN BY HUMANS WHO NEED USE THEM REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE RULES SAY, AND THERE IS NOTHING MENTIONED IN EITHER OF THEM YOU CANT!! IT ONLY SAYS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REFERENCED AND NOTHING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT MENTIONED LIKE THE STARTING DATE. Finally regarding looking at other countries, good suggestion Blackknight12. I did look into few countries like Australia, UK and India, what their constitutions say is that parliamentary membership is always active and that it goes from the day of election until another person is elected or the current person leaves office. what we can do is ask an editor from those countries whether the starting date of the term is actually mentioned in their constitutions and go about it from there - LionsRule125 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not demanding you edit the way I like - I am asking that you follow the rules. Rules aren't optional - everyone must follow them, humans and robots. You don't have time to correct your mistake, but you have time to moan that you don't have time to correct your mistake?--obi2canibetalk contr 17:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

OK obi2canibe and Blackknight12, this might not be the best resource, but according to the 1946 constitution its the first day the parliament assembles and goes till the day that they are dissolved 1946 Ceylon constitution, would this be good enough to go with? - LionsRule125 (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything like that. I note that you have jumped the gun again and started changing infoboxes.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Section 11 subsection 5 "Unless Parliament is sooner dissolved, every House of Representatives shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer, and the expiry of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of Parliament", This basically says it starts at the first meeting of the Parliament and goes till Parliament is dissolved, didn't realise you could not understand that. The only changes i've made was has been for the time this applied, between 1947 and 1972 - LionsRule125 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Parliament is not the same as MP. You are making assumptions again.--obi2canibetalk contr 11:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is not my problem that you cant understand English, but House of Representatives means members of Parliament! - LionsRule125 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't. At the beginning of this discussion you were so sure that a MP's term begins as he/she is elected - the day of the election. No you are so sure it begins on the first meeting. Could an English language expert be wrong twice?--obi2canibetalk contr 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does, READ AGAIN!!!! Yes, I was pretty sure of that and im still pretty sure it should stand as that. I never claimed that my English was perfect nor did I not admit I was wrong. Im pretty sure may countries have their different rules, but in a place they can't find anything solid they agree with each other on the choices they make instead of being an ABSOLUTE NASI LIKE YOU, PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES!!!! EVEN YOU HAVE MADE MANY, YOU NEED TO LEARN TO ACCEPT OTHER PEOPLE'S MISTAKES AND DEAL WITH IT PROPERLY INSTEAD OF GOING COMPLETELY CRAZY - LionsRule125 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't admit that your original suggestion is wrong why did you bring this new suggestion? Which is it to be? We can't have two "right" answers. We can't fudge the answer just to fill up infoboxes.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
My stance is it starts on the day of elections, but since people like you need this thing called evidence, I give you this! the day of the first Parliamentary meeting, which is clearly mentioned in the 1946 constitution - LionsRule125 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
LionsRule125, calm down, the article you are referring to in the 1946 constitution is slightly misleading in its wording, but is referring to the lower house of parliament, not the members themselves. Also we cannot use the 1946 constitution to define this issue in the present day as it is no longer law. However article 53 of Chapter 8 of the 19th amendment clearly states "Every person appointed to any office referred to in this Chapter shall not enter upon the duties of his or her office until he or she takes and subscribes the oath, or makes and subscribes the affirmation, set out in the Fourth Schedule.” Therfore we have clearly found the proper confirmation we need as to when the term of a member of the government actually starts (this article applies to all members of government described under Chapter 8, not just MPs). To be clear that is when he/she takes an oath, or makes and subscribes an affirmation to the office. Hopefully this satisfies both of you and we can start fixing all the articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, good i'm more than happy with that. So we are going to go with the day they took oath? would that apply to all the parliaments in this constitution? and would we consider that day to be the first day the parliament meets Blackknight12? - LionsRule125 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Chapter 8 is about the Executive, not MPs. Chapter 10 deals with the Parliament. Article 63 is similar to article 53 but it only states that MPs can't sit or vote until they take the oath.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ganga vs Oya[edit]

Hey. Could someone tell me what is the difference between Ganga and Oya (in terms of rivers), please? Thanks in advance! Rehman 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,Ganga (ගඟ) in Sinhalese means a River,Oya (ඔය) in Sinhalese means a Narrow River (comparatively smaller water stream when compared with the major rivers) I hope I answered your question,Thanks--MediaJet talk 07:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Rehman 08:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera[edit]

Hi, I'm looking for help from an editor who speaks Sinhalese to help out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) if that's possible? Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia 15 - Colombo Meetup[edit]

Does everybody know about the Colombo meetup this Saturday? Dan arndt (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka[edit]

Hello! It is with great pleasure that I announce the creation of Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka, a Wikimedia-recognized (pending) user group to collaborate on Sri Lanka related topics across Wikimedia projects, both off-wiki and on-wiki. You are welcomed to join! To start, please add your name to the table here. Thank you, and kind regards, Rehman 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rehman, thanks for that, I shall sign up.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Blackknight12, great! Please also feel free to pass on the message to fellow Wikimedians who are not on this WikiProject, as we have a minimum threshold for number of active members, in order to be successfully established. Regards, Rehman 06:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. We are now officially recognized! Rehman 14:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff Rehman, I shall join - LionsRule125 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Great! :) Rehman 13:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible duplicate[edit]

Hi, do Irakkamam and Eragama Divisional Secretariat treat the same subject and should they thus be merged? "Irakkamam" and "Eragama" look like different transliterations of the same native name, but I hope someone fluent in Sinhalese can clarify this. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, they are two different entities, one of which is located within the other. They are supposed to be two separate articles.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda You were spot-on when you said "look like different transliterations of the same native name". Tamil name Irakkamam is transliterated into Sinhalese as Eragama. But as BlackKnight suggested they are two different entities. Irakkamam is a village, while Eragama DS is the regional division it located.--Chanaka L (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rehman's Campaign for a camera and workstation for free quality content[edit]

See commons:User_talk:Rehman/Campaign#Help_host_the_campaign and this link. --Alexmar983 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible translation candidate[edit]

Someone has flagged a page for blanking on the grounds that it's in Sinhalese but appears on a user page in English language wikipedia. It's here. And no one has touched it for several years....

I have no idea what it is about. This is not my language. But if someone has the time to take a quick look and see if there's anything there that might be worth (1) translating into English and (2) setting up as a new page in wikipedia, please do it. Especially if you will also have the time and interest to do the work. It feels like a more constructive reaction than simply blanking the thing. But only, of course, if (1) you have the time and (2) there's something wiki-worthwhile there! Thanks for thinking about it. Success Charles01 (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of power stations in Sri Lanka/archive3[edit]

Hi folks. Your input in the above nomination is much welcomed. Thank you, Rehman 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's special November activities[edit]

'Woman Writing' by August Macke, 1910.jpg
Hindustaanse vrouw die thuis kookt.jpg

November 2016

Announcing two exiting online editathons
Women in Food and Drink and Women Writers
as well as our strong support for articles on women in connection with
Wikipedia Asian Month
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

--Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)