Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/4

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4

The item below has been copied from the main Women in Red talk page:

November's Women in Science event, sponsored by the NY Academy of Science

@Rosiestep: I have also been searching (unsuccessfully) for details of the NY Academy of Science event but could not find anything. If this is a firm date, then I think we should support it.--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Pharos and I are working on this with the NYAS folks and once we have details sorted out, we'll get a NYC meetup page created, and a WiR meetup/virtual edit-a-thon page created. We have a planning meeting with NYAS next week so Wikipedia event pages will be created after that, on or before November 1st. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I've started Women in Science virtual edit-a-thon. Pharos will be able to flesh out some of the details from today's NYAS phone call, but the WiR meetup page is up so that anyone who is so inclined can work on it, plus the invitation, thank you note, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• The in person event is here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS.
• The sponsor is: New York Academy of Sciences.
• Dates: do these dates look ok? The NYAS folks liked the idea of our virtual event preceding their ground event as they believe some of the NYAS edit-a-thon attendees may like to improve an article vs. creating one from scratch, but we have some latitude with dates.

@Rosiestep: This looks like another opportunity to forge ahead on biographies. I think the event should also be closely coordinated with WP Women scientists and their members and participants. I've also suggested the Women scientists template should be included on the talk pages for new articles (maybe together with Women's history if appropriate). The Women scientists talk page also has some interesting new red links which could usefully be added to our own list. As for the dates, maybe we should start on Saturday, the 14th and end on Tuesday, the 24th. That will give us a couple of days to work on some of the new articles from the NYC event (while also avoiding a start on Friday, the 13th!). Fortunately, I won't have to spend so much time on preparing lists of red links although I would have liked to see wider coverage of women from the non-English speaking world. SusunW might be able to help. Maybe we should wait a few days before we send out invitations although I think it would be useful to inform other relevant WikiProjects at the very beginning of November. Could we not include a full introduction in running text on Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4? I'm not too good at finding information in boxes. It took me quite a while before I found your proposed dates. And should we not include the New York Academy of Sciences logo in our communications?--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: agree; I emailed Keilana about it yesterday. :) Yes, Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4 needs the running text we normally include; I didn't have time to deal with it because of RL (work, family, etc.). As for redlist(s) we should add all the names we want to add. The NYAS event will focus on women scientists in general. I've asked NYAS for a redlist of their members who might meet notability standards, and I believe they've started working on that list. As for changing the dates to 14-24, yes, that works. Let's send out invitations on November 1st-ish. Suggest we use 3 logos: WiR, NYAS, WikiProject Women Scientists. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: yes, I'll help in whatever way I can. This one I can write articles for, the next one I'm not sure about. And to give credit where credit is due Megalibrarygirl has spent hours and hours on these lists. I have no doubt she will be helping too. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott, Rosiestep, and SusunW:, I redid the Women in science list and categorized it by type of science. I hope that works better. I could also split it by nationality, but most of the scientists are UK/US right now anyway. I also redid the women artists list, since the way the WikiProject Women artists has their lists set up confused the heck out of me. I tried to find at least one source for everyone on both lists, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, I'm going to add the women from the talk page on Women scientists to our list and try to get links. I think it helps people in the editathon to have some links to start with. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: Hey y'all, Women Scientists and User:Gobonobo and I all maintain lists of redlinks. I'm happy to throw some up with some sources if you think that'd help. I'm super looking forward to participating! Hell yeah women scientists! Keilana (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Keilana:, I pulled many of the names from the scientist list on Women Scientists, but I categorized them by field and tried to add references. If you want to add a link, please do. If you have a reference, add it, and if you don't, I'll try to source one if I see any without reference. Thanks so much for helping me to add to the list. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Awesome!! I'll go through and add some in the next few days when I have a spare moment. User:Gamaliel may also be useful, I know he's collecting some resources as well. Keilana (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, we've made two editathons on women architects, one in Argentina and the other one in Spain at the same time. You can visit Wikiproyecto:Mujeres. I dont know why it is linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History since it should be linked to WikiProject Women and Women in Red. --Jalu (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Rosiestep: I've expanded Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4 but have again changed the dates after realizing that the Academy of Sciences event is to last a whole week from November 22. I also think that with the huge number of red links we have, we can easily work on new biographies of Women in Science for a full two weeks rather than just ten days. There is already a list of prominent women from the Academy of Sciences on the NYAS page. @Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for all your work and updates on our "Women science and technology" list. The breakdown by areas of interest is very useful. Maybe we can just include women from other countries in each section, perhaps specifying dates and country. I think the international coverage has helped a lot with our other editathons and would like to offer the same opportunities this time too. Another concern is that the full list as it stands at the moment is rather daunting. Can you think of any way in which we could highlight the really notable women, or possibly create a subset for the editathon?--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, if you want, I can break down most of the areas by nationality, too, since I tried to figure that out also. If I knew, I added it next to the redlink. As for breaking out the really notable ones, that might be a good idea. We could pull the ones I found with 3 links or more to start with and highlight them on the edit-a-thon page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think breaking it down by subfield is also a good idea. If we broke it down by subfield and by nationality we could get a way more manageable chunk. From my experience getting people to write about women in science, they look for people from a specific field and then pick kind of at random (or whoever has an amusing name... Icie Hoobler comes to mind...). I also find that too many sources is also overwhelming, and people are more likely to pick an article with one big source they can kind of follow, and maybe one or two smaller sources they can use to fill in the gaps. Keilana (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Yes, the ones with three links seems to be a good starting point. Perhaps we could create a list on the editathon page as you suggest. For the non-English-speaking women, I think a photo or other images in the bios in other languages is often an attraction. Perhaps we should start by creating a separate list of notables for the editathon and incorporate later on the editathon page - just as Pharos did with the architects?--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Keilana: is this the Women scientists logo? Should we include it in all our communications about the event?--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes it is! If y'all want to use it that'd be great. Keilana (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I just say I LOVE working with this group! So dynamic and so positive. Would that all of WikiPedia would take a pause and see how much better it is to be proactive and help each other. I like the idea of by specialty *AND* by country. Really helps for resources. I know that in Mexico, I don't have availability to some market areas and others I have lots of sources for. Weirdly, I can hardly find hits at all in search engines for Chile, but I get lots for Romania. Besides which, country designations allow others to pull out just their countries for on-site editathons during ours if they are so inclined. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We love working with you too! <3 I'm working to find more sources and such (I think Gamaliel is busy right now but he's willing to help) and will try to find non-Anglophone scientists. Keilana (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, most of the list is now by speciality and country. :) And ditto on how awesome this group is. I'm really glad to say that I'm a lucky woman to have had an awesome experience on Wikipedia. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And I second that, @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW! @Pharos, Keilana, and Ipigott: Can we revisit dates? I'm hearing through the grapevine that some editors would like to work on women scientists before the official start date or after the official end date (because of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US). What do you think about making this a 3 week virtual event, 8-29 Nov? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Dates

Rosiestep I think Ian was trying to move the conversations here for this one, so I'm answering here. I have no problem with it being a 3 week event. May have to be in and out, may end up having people up from Belize for medical work and host them, but, I'll be around. Just not constantly. SusunW (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SusunW Sounds good! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Great to hear people want to cover Women in Science instead of eating turkey for Thanksgiving. Three weeks, from Sunday the 8th to Sunday the 29th is fine for me too but I will also need to spend some time on Sibelius whose 150th anniversary is coming up on 8 December. I did nevertheless notice that for Women in Architecture, we started off with a wide variety of enthusiastic contributors but towards the end only five or six were continuing to create new articles. For those interested, I've put together a list of participants for that event. I was able to identify 66 who contributed in some way, several in the physical editathons. Some of those who edited existing articles may not be on the list. If anyone is aware of additional contributors, please add them. As for starting on Sunday, 8 November, the only suggestion we should slow down a bit has come from Dr. Blofeld but I am not quite sure why.--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless there are objections from @Pharos, Keilana, and Megalibrarygirl:, I'll change the dates later today. If we are starting so soon, we'll need to send out the invitations at the very beginning of November.--Ipigott (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the extra time - more time to write about scientists! :) Keilana (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the extra time, too. Plus there is a greater range of topics: science covers so many different areas so there should be less subject fatigue (if that's a thing.) I know that I get bored of writing about the same thing and architects is too similar for me as a topic. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, so as far as I can see, we all agree on the new dates, 8 to 29 November. So that's what we'll send out to everyone. Thanks for the quick responses.--Ipigott (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great to me.--Pharos (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP Women scientists

The main page for this event has been updated to include Women scientists. @Keilana: Does this look OK?--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Looks great! Thank you for doing that! Keilana (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Redlists

@Nvvchar: If you have some additional resources, can you please add women scientists from India to the redlist? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Invitation distribution

Invitations placed on these user talkpages:

• Women in Architecture editathon participants --Rosiestep (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• The invitation to participate in Women in Science has been distributed to those on this list (unless they had already registered as participants).--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Women in Red's members. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Should we be encouraging article expansion as well as creation?

While the goal of Women in Red is to create new (i.e. red-linked) articles, I think an equally worthy endeavor is the expansion of content on existing articles, for instance the stubs in Category:Stub-Class Women scientists articles, which, if expanded 5x in prose can also be nominated for DYK to increase visibility. There may be some editors more comfortable adding to existing articles than creating new ones. Perhaps under the "Articles to be created" header there could be a section "Articles to be expanded", which could state something to the effect of "There are are hundreds of stub articles on women scientists that can be expanded. See the list at Stub-Class Women scientists articles." What do others think? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm whatsoever coming from encouraging stub expansion. But others might disagree. @Rosiestep, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and Keilana:? SusunW (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, destubbing and upgrading in general should of course be supported too. I've emphasised new or upgraded in the "Outcomes".--Ipigott (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think adding to stubs is very important. Stubs are super vulnerable for the AfD process. Is there any way to automatically detect stubs? I've started a list of stubs I've stumbled upon, but it's not too big yet. Stubs. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I think the category above is populated only by the addition of a WikiProject template. The external Article list tool can be used, with the added convenience of linking directly to each article, rather the article talk page as in Category:Stub-Class Women scientists articles. Playing around with sorting by importance and "score" is interesting. Another tool that searches by Category rather than by assessment or Project is Wikipedia:CatScan, but it often has reliability issues (I've never used it for Wikipedia and it currently is not loading for me). --Animalparty! (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I just found the tool CatNap which apparently searches shared categories: e.g. Women scientists categories with 5 or more articles brings up a few stub categories. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

New or upgraded in the "Outcomes" section is great. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We need a weekly page for improvement. It'll keep the project active in between drives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.46.106 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Woot!

73 before we even began! That's 11 more than the last editathon. SusunW (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Are these being submitted to DYK? The more eyes, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.49.182 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of them are being submitted. There is a list of mine on Women in Red's talk page that I'd love help with. But feel free to nominate any of them. I'm sure people will be glad of the help. SusunW (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography!

Hi! I'm so impressed with all we've managed to accomplish thus far. We are awesome. Gamaliel and I have been working on a bibliography of women scientists, which may be useful to you in helping to find sources and article subjects! Hope you enjoy. Keilana (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keilana. Women in Red seems to have so many talk pages that it is difficult to follow them all. I've only just found your message here today! I too am pleased to see the progress we are making with women in science. In fact we already seem to be running short of red links. Maybe, with Megalibrarygirl we should should try to add some new names to the page of red links.

Chapeau on your work on the biographies. May I suggest moving the page to the main space asap and somehow linking it up to Bibliography of encyclopedias and the List of online encyclopedias (while also including references from these sources, particularly those in languages other than English). I think you should also clearly indicate as far as possible which of the books/resources are accessible online. There are also a number of other lists containing pertinent resources, e.g List of Danish online encyclopedic resources, List of academic databases and search engines and List of biographical dictionaries. As you must know, some of the best resources about the lives of women can be found in more general biographical works. Where appropriate, these could also be listed. I constantly come across biographical dictionaries in other languages, some of them specifically devoted to women. Unfortunately, I usually fail to include them in other lists, often because it is nearly always necessary to write an article on any work to be included in a list. But they could be included in your list without such constraints.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I'm not sure where exactly to put it in mainspace, perhaps bibliography of women scientists? Somewhere else? I want this to be as accessible as possible for people. And yeah, you make a good point about the difficulty in finding sources sometimes. I have several hundred articles to write but the names are all offline - I'll start trying to add them once I'm through with the Biochem Test From Hell (ask me about pyruvate dehydrogenase, I dare you :P). User:Keilana/Female scientist list is a good start tho. User:Gobonobo has a good list too iirc. Keilana (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

As always, I'm happy to help with any lists. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Keilana: Personally I would prefer Bibliography of women in science (cf. Bibliography on Women in Science) as that would also include philanthropists, business executives, politicians, amateurs and spouses who have made a significant contribution to the field without necessarily having science qualifications themselves. But it would certainly also be useful to have a redirect from Bibliography of women scientists and possibly from Women scientists bibliography. Once it's in the main space, it will no doubt attract additions by other editors. It may well also encourage the creation of bibliographies of women in other fields: literature, art, politics, religion, etc., etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Saskatoon/ArtAndFeminism December 5th 2015

A New editor requested me for help on a Meetup event in my talkpage regarding this event Wikipedia:Meetup/Saskatoon/ArtAndFeminism December 5th 2015,Would be obliged if anyone with knowledge on Meetup on help.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC) @Rosiestep and Montanabw: might be able to help. Pinging. SusunW (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards and SusunW: I've responded on the editor's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards Rosie's a gem. Me, I don't know much, but I often know people who know. ;) Glad to help. SusunW (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page template

There's now a talk page template {{WIR-SCI 2015}} which can be added to the talk pages of articles created for this editathon. PamD 16:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hanna von Hoerner

number 116 on the list is Hanna von Hoerner. I am working on adding references to the article, but only in English. The German seems to need work, who might help with that? Can I join the Women in red? I am a retired nurse. Toandael49 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)