Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Redlinks on Welsh women

In connection with Dr. Blofeld's proposed WikiProject Awaken the Dragon, I have put together a preliminary list of Welsh women redlinks based on some of the women included in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Maybe it would be worthwhile maintaining the list as it evolves on Welsh women on WiR? If so, perhaps someone can move it to a suitable location. In any case, Megalibrarygirl might like to include the names on the appropriate existing listings. Maybe the lists we have on writers, etc., should include a subsection for Wales to help the project along. Rosiestep and SusunW who are already members of the project might like to contribute to expanding the list.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou Ipigott. There's no rush, honestly, when you come to drawing up the women's history entries here we can copy the list to the Wales page. If editors here though could have a special focus on Welsh women for the history month during March, this would be awesome. The coverage of Welsh women is appalling. It would be good though if we could tweak "Art and Feminism" to "The Arts and Feminism". There may be a book prize in it for the editor who produces the most start class articles for Welsh women and awarded with a book about women of their choice from Amazon up to a certain price of course! That in turn can be used to benefit this project at a later date ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In this connection, new biographies of Welsh women writers could be added to the List of Welsh women writers. In connection with Women's History Month, we should compile a List of Welsh women artists, initially drawing on List of Welsh artists.--Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: great list! Do you want me to move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Please, that's obviously where it should be.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: It would be great if someone would compile a Welsh women's biographies redlist from Wikidata such as this one, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Redlinks from Wikidata, containing the list of women's biographies on the Welsh wiki, but missing on the English wiki. If such a list would be too long, maybe request 3 lists: artists, writers, scientists? (And, of course, for the Dragon project, you could also request a geography list, buildings list, and so on). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

To editor Rosiestep: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/List of Welsh people on wikidata was recently created. I can't see any red links or may women though! Perhaps I can get somebody to make a list of articles about women which have articles on Welsh wikipedia but not English?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've requested a list from WP:Wales.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Brainstorming

Let's brainstorm on how to move forward in general, but for March in particular, with hosting multiple, simultaneous focus campaigns (some don't like the word edit-a-thons). I think we can do it, but we have to sort out the logistics. For example, A+F, plus YoS, plus Dragon. We will have to develop a process which is less labor-intensive for the organizers. Automating the invites through MassMessage will help but maybe we could do away with them altogether or delegate them to sponsors? Do away with sending out thank yous? Keep the thank yous and add barnstars to them to note appreciation? Make the meetup page into a template? And the key: redlists (After all, our project is Women in Red)! Develop a "sign-up sheet" on the Ideas Cafe page for each event where other editors can sign up for some of the organizer bits? Remember, we're brainstorming, so no idea is a bad idea. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think in March we can handle several things as part of art and feminism, including additions to Dragon. I think we still need to send out invitations as at least half of our participants each time are new to the project.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it seems a lot, but if at this project you think of it as one editathon, basically Women in the Arts/Feminism/History, then you needn't see Dragon as an extra obligation, but just that Welsh women in that field might be given more attention during the drive than normal. The idea is really to unite these editathons and make work which will be beneficial for one be beneficial for another, as well as potentially increasing how many editors participate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott: I think we have got to get more volunteers for the admin bits. Especially for the Women's History Month event. Last year there were at least 3 people regularly working on the DYK chart alone. Gerda has said she will recreate the chart she made which made it easy to follow-up with, but she has also indicated she wants more help to keep up with it. I would love to have help with checking and monitoring the tagging. I currently pull up every article created and though each sign-up says add these tags, I'd estimate still at least 25% aren't tagged. I do agree with Ian on the invites and thank yous. I think they are critical, but I also think that could be doled out if someone is willing to take it on. And I agree, if we are co-sponsoring an event, we cannot take on the additional admin responsibilities. If we are sharing in the event, the duties associated must be shared, IMHO. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If most participants are aware of this project and pages though, perhaps a central "thankyou" would suffice? That said, it's not often we all get personal thankyou notices on here which some editors like, as Susun says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in Music post-event To Do List

Hello everyone. Thank you for your participation in the latest edit-a-thon. Out editor group for this event created >260 articles! Edit-a-thons require a lot of coordination so, I'm putting it out to the universe regarding what still needs to be done. Please sign up if you feel like volunteering for any of these tasks. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Deliver thank you notes to contributors (template and name list will be ready in the next couple of days):

@Rosiestep: I don't mind sending these out. I've sent you my draft list (on your talk page) and am just waiting for your approval.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Well-compiled; thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Review each article for Categories; add what's missing:
• Review each article for Authority Control; add if missing:
• Review each article for Stub template(s); add if applicable:
• Review each article's talkpage for banners; add if missing:

And some small note about adding {{WikiProject Women's History}} and birth year. It looks like person should be born before 1900. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree their definition is confusing Edgars2007 What the Women's History page says is:

• "The biography of a woman born before 1900 is generally within the scope of this project.
• The biography of a woman born between 1900 and 1950 is within the scope of this project if reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or as contributing to significant societal or cultural change."

Thus, if a woman is born before 1950 seems to me would be part of that project. It's not going to remain on WP if there aren't RS, but on the other hand, I have had people question if actresses or musicians belong, even though it indicates cultural change as a criteria. But if in doubt, {{WikiProject Women}} has no limiting conditions at all. It's an inclusive project. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Audrie & Daisy

Just published Audrie & Daisy. Please keep an eye on this while I am away from my keyboard today. It should be good to go, but I am unfamiliar with rape cases onwiki. Jane (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I only saw someone work on the info box and you come back. Kind of good to know no one vandalized it or nominated it for deletion :) SusunW (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I never know what to expect when I edit articles about American women, but this seems to be fine now. Jane (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Renamed to "WikiProject Women in Red"

I just finished carrying out the rename from WikiProject Women/Women in Red to WikiProject Women in Red, including all the associated user profiles. I checked all the links and things should be working fine, but please let me know promptly if anything broke in the process. Thank you, Harej (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much, James. I'll let you know if anything needs attention.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Harej: First problem: On the main page, if you try to edit Announcements you find a redirect on the edit page but you cannot access the text. I wanted to post an announcement on our return to a true WikiProject but was unable to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed. If you still "see" that redirect, try to perform a null edit at WP:WikiProject Women in Red. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Thanks very much. You always seem to be around to help us out. Perhaps today or tomorrow you could update the metrics on the number of new articles for January.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I just try to be helpful :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007 You are very helpful and it does not go unnoticed. :) SusunW (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New row in our Navbox

I added a new row in our Navbox over the weekend, "2016 collaborations", and added links for Awaken the Dragon (AtD), Wiki Loves Women (WLW), and Year of Science (YoS). I'm thinking that all of our meetup page don't have to have an identical look and feel. Perhaps we can do some alpha testing with these collaborations. @Dr. Blofeld: would you be interested in creating a meetup page for the WiR/AtD collaboration, something which brands WiR and AtD together? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Overview of participation in WiR editathons

I have just updated my overview of Women in Red editathon participants which shows that 188 editors have now participated, most in only one. Please correct any errors or omissions.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

WiR member creates bio of the future President of the Marshall Islands

Marshall Islands

Congratulations to @Dr. Blofeld:! On 4 June 2015, he created an article on Hilda Heine; on 27 January 2016, she was elected President of the Marshall Islands. Not many editors can say they created a biography on a country's president. I'm glad one of our members can. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Very cool! SusunW (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Prescient even :) Alafarge (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A quilter needs help

A red link just turned blue for Molly Upton, an American quilt artist of some renown who died very young in 1977. It was created by a new editor who could use some help getting the article into shape, especially copyediting, formatting, etc. now that I've moved it from AfC to article space. See her question and our replies at the Teahouse. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tapestry1 and Voceditenore:, that's a great start for Molly Upton! I'll see if I can edit for grammar. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Megalibrarygirl. The article's grammar is OK I think. It mainly needs formatting tweaks, and some copyediting for encyclopedic style and tone in a few places. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Voceditenore. I'm working on it now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Teckyoung Kwon

Hello again! I've been trying to rescue Teckyoung Kwon from speedy/prod deletion, but the creator keeps reverting the article to a resume which does not make her notability clear. If someone could help out it would be useful, as I've reached my revert limit & need to go offline! Thanks in advance, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Espresso Addict! I added the sources I was able to find. I think we need someone fluent in Korean to help, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Megalibrarygirl! With any luck that will save it from deletion as long as the creators don't continue to revert. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red mentioned in Time magazine

Thanks to one of our own, @FloNight:, Women in Red was mentioned in Time earlier this month.[1] Kudos to every one of you who is making a difference in the area of content gender gap. We work hard, and sometimes we don't know if anyone is paying attention, but the world is noticing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Inch by inch SusunW (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Woot! Alafarge (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this was great. I saw it a few days back and sent a ping to Rosiestep on it, but apparently the ping did not work. I also included it in the "Press" section of WiR/7. I too seem to have missed several pings recently. I think it sometimes happens when we are pinged to the same page more than once. I also see that the lists of alerts disappears (and is set to 0) after it has been opened just once, no matter how many of the items were new. There is no check that each of them has been looked up. Perhaps for important matters such as this we should use the addressee's talk page. Anyway, I have now realized that Sydney Poore who contributed so much to the article is our own FloNight. Thanks, Sydney, for giving us such a high profile.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott and Rosiestep for the kind words. I love bragging about WiR. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 03:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff

Hi all, this article may not be notable, but if it does survive my deletion request, it will need some serious TLC. She unfortunately is responsible for some research that puts Monsanto's glyphosate in a bad light, and her article is little more than an attack on this work. Many thanks for being here! petrarchan47คุก 22:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Virtual editathon: Women in Music

Hello all. I did all the research for 3 articles during January, but time constraints meant that I could only create them this week. Ive added them to Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/6#Outcomes anyway. If they don't belong there because the editathon technically finished on January 31, feel free to remove them. The articles are: Anna Inglese, Francilla Pixis, and La casa disabitata. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I don't think this group is overly concerned with keeping the work inside specified timeframes. Your contributions to the event are most welcome and appreciated! 1bandsaw (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore Exactly what 1bandsaw said. Thank you for your contributions! SusunW (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Art + Feminism El Paso edit a thon

Hi all! I'm hosting a two-day live edit a thon at my library in El Paso, Texas. However, I don't know how to set up a Wiki Meetup page.... can anyone help me out? Should I just be bold? Would it be good to incorporate with Women in Red? I'm working with Art + Feminism, I guess I could ask there too. As you can see, I'm very muddled and don't know where to start! LOL. Thanks in advance, Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Montanabw: both have knowledge of how to do this. Me...no, I just know who to ask :) SusunW (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Megalibrarygirl: I am so happy to hear about your edit-a-thon in El Paso! I'm hosting an Art+Feminism node at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. If you like, you can use that page (it's a work in progress...) as a guide, Wikipedia:Meetup/Las Vegas/ArtAndFeminism 2016 (includes a link to Women in Red). Then add your node here, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism, and here Template:ArtAndFeminism. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool! I'll do that, Rosiestep. Thanks, too, SusunW. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, Rosiestep, and anyone else, it looks like Erratrix was trying to do something similar at UT Austin, see User:Erratrix/sandbox which inadvertently tried to go through AFC. Can one of you help this person out? 1bandsaw (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@1bandsaw:... Oops, my first time creating a meetup event and I goofed. I think I have it sorted out now though: Wikipedia:Meetup/Austin/ArtAndFeminism_2016... but please do let me know if I've erred in some other way! Erratrix (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Erratrix, looks great! Hope your event goes smoothly! 1bandsaw (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Candidate for further collaboration?

I have moved this discussion to Talk:Fatima_Massaquoi.--Ipigott (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Thanks for sorting this out and for your other additions. I think I've more or less finished work on the text. Let me know if you intend to work on it further. Maybe we should include more illustrations before going for GA?--Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia"

I thought this might interest you: "Women Through the Glass-Ceiling: Gender Asymmetries in Wikipedia" by Claudia Wagner, Eduardo Graells-Garrido, David Garciam; submitted on 19 Jan 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the more interesting tidbits in that article is the topical bias (Fig 4) which shows that articles about men before 1900 frequently use words about politics, articles about men after 1900 frequently use words about sports, and articles about women in both eras frequently use words about relationships. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and 1bandsaw: Except that I think that "topical bias" thing is distorted, IMO. The reasons articles about women use relationships are not so much a language issue. Relationships are discussed because those effect women's lives in ways that they do not effect men's. Gaps in employment occur because women are still primary caregivers of children in most cultures and the fact that either by law or custom women's names change with marriage and divorce in many societies, makes it more necessary to discuss relationships. Since one cannot change centuries of custom and tradition and it would be confusing to omit that explanatory information in many cases, the counter-balance is to write their families back into men's biographies. Men had families, they were simply deemed for the most part unimportant or not parts of their notability. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your last bit is the point I was getting at. It's not that we put too much in on the relationships of women, it's that we don't have enough on the relationships of the men here. 1bandsaw (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I add women back in to men's biographies all the time. SusunW (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Often that is the only place you can add them because you do't have enough sources to make a page about her! I am often annoyed by such statistics, because this is the result of systemic bias in the sources, and not the fault of Wikipedia. If you compare Wikipedia to the Oxford Dictionary of Biography, more often than not Wikipedia has given "the wife", "the sister" or "the daughter" a well-deserved page of her own. Another source of annoyance to me is women in art. If you look at the sorry state of affairs on Wikipedia, for each article about a person there is way fewer paintings about women than about men. Of the paintings with a woman as subject, she is more often an unnamed object of desire (generally nude). We should gather some stats about that and work on it. There are plenty notable 19th-century portraits of women still to be added, and many female art collectors deserve their own page, iluustrated with lovely portraits by John Singer Sargent and others. Jane (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jane023: March will be here before we know it, and we'll be focusing on artists, works of art (plus activists, social reformers, feminists), and art collectors, too! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes you're right and I should probably be working on setting up another writing challenge, but I am not sure I will have the time this year. Jane (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that there are many male "objects of desire" such as David and The Dying Slave by Michaelangelo. Many of them are not well covered. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC).

WikiProject Red Link Recovery

I was going to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery to Template:Women in Red but couldn't decide where it would belong, if at all. One of the tools offered there is Red Link Recovery Live, which some people on this project might find useful. — Maile (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maile66: Can you help to sort out the link I have just added above? This is a very informative article which should be accessible to those interested in further researching the history.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to check out the redlink tool. Thanks, Maile66. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We could add a row in our template called "Affiliated projects" and add WikiProject Red Link Recovery, but I temper that by considering how many other WikiProjects would be included in such a row (probably a lot). --Rosiestep (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

CSD tagged Sisterhood Is Global Institute

Not really a redlink issue, but I also posted at WP Women. We need to help to keep a new article from being deleted. This seems like an important organization. Sisterhood Is Global Institute was on NewPages. I added some quickly found links so it would not be up for deletion. Then it got tagged for CSD anyway. I removed the CSD tag, and posted why on the talk page. Who knows by tomorrow morning. Please help out with this article, to keep it from being deleted. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Book fund

Something occurred to me. There may be editors here who really want certain books but are unwilling to pay for them or can't access them. What I think might be a good idea if we really drew up a comprehensive list of books about women by topic. Bibliography of women would be an acceptable list, though I think some lists might have already begun at the Bibliography of encyclopedias which I started. Sub lists can be created in the same way as the encyclopedias like Bibliography of women: Architecture and Bibliography of women: Science and everything. If you highlight then the books each of you may think will really benefit the project and you will really use and read, we can find a way to get them sent out to people. Yes, I think we could start a series of lists of books about women by subject, rather like the encyclopedia lists. We could then draw up a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Book hotlist of books editors really want and try to get them through a grant or whatever. I believe Wikimedia US is starting to help, and of course the UK has helped me, but there's no reason why other active editors here shouldn't request books and be granted them. Or for editors to be given books and to then pass them onto other project members.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There are already several extensive external bibliographies such as Women's Resources in ALIC and ViVa Women's History. We also have Wikipedia:List_of_bibliographies which certainly contains books which also cover women. And there are indeed several biographies of women in the lists at Bibliography of encyclopedias. But it may indeed be a good idea to compile a list along the lines you suggest. --Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps User:John Carter might help out with that? Anyway, if there's any editor here who really wants a book to use say so!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We also have List of biographical dictionaries of women writers in English. Maybe we could compile similar lists for other areas of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's something to think about long term, but thepriority I think is starting biographies and increasing the 16% of course. this looks a great book BTW, I wonder if we could access an index and find who is in it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not get a copy through your local public library? You can then tell us who is in it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother. There's a complete list of the names here.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: really like this idea. I have 3 books through a grant which I haven't had a chance to develop redlists from, but ultimately will (I've done so for the 4th book on women travelers). The fact is that there are these bibliographies, they commonly have a TOC or an index, and it would be helpful if there were an automated way to develop a list from it. I think in the years to come, redlists will become a bigger focus as we try to account for what's missing. As for a book fund, sign me up; I'm a bibliophile, otherwise known as a book hoarder. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of books you won't get in a normal town library. I think if Wp:Women in Red could request a grant for a book fund to sort of have its own mini library of books, then books could potentially be shared between members and such books can be made available to participants in the physical editathons too. For instance Rosie says she got a few books through a grant which is terrific. But if it's a lot to handle, books could be send out to different project members upon demand and share them on a book fund which is common to all project members. It may be that one editor may begin ploughing through an encyclopedia, get tired of it and want to move on and pass it on to another member to continue with. Obviously there's a few editors here with excellent library resources at their fingertips, but there will be others I'm sure who wouldn't mind sharing books and getting books through a grant. I think a Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Book hotlist of books editors really want would be a great idea, you can state the cost on Amazon or whatever and it can be looked at how realistic it would be in getting them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Then you misunderstand the public library service. Thanks to Inter-Library Loan (ILL), you can ask your local library to order virtually any published book for you, even those from other countries. I believe it works very efficiently everywhere in the UK. Try it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of that! I prefer to keep books for however long I like though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott for the record, it works in the US as you have described, but there no such thing that I have found in Mexico. Most libraries don't even lend to other libraries here. You have to be a member of each library to use their services. Ordering a book in from somewhere else is not something they even understand. (I took a translator with me to ask at numerous libraries, to make sure I wasn't miscommunicating.) SusunW (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Too bad for you. I'm pleased to say it works pretty well throughout Europe wherever there are public libraries. Unfortunately, here in Luxembourg there are very few of them. For our area, we only have library buses!--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, I wanted to drop in and let you know that Wikimedia DC is doing another round of book grants this year! We've got a couple thousand dollars in funding and I'll post a notice here when we open up for applications. Keilana (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. WMUK might also be interested in showing support for that, but by the looks of it we already seem to have the necessary funding. If somebody could create the hotlist of wanted books about women, what each editors wants, or ones which might be of relevant interest then they could be bought and handed out before editathons.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dr. Blofeld, its a great idea to create a pool of resources that can be shared. In addition to books that can be purchased or lent out, there are books in special collections departments that could have pages scanned by Wikipedia Visiting Scholars who are already at a research library, or we could encourage someone to apply for one of the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar positions that is related to the decreasing the gender gap. For now we could keep a list of people who are in gender gap related positions in Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Program. Additionally, members of WiR could visit special collections departments and scan pages on request. Or order them to scan if they have Inter-library loan access. This is a long term project and it will take great community collaboration to keep the momentum going. :-) Thank you to continuing to think of ways to improve this WikiProject. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have someone at the Smithsonian these days? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

Winner of Wiki loves Women

On 16 February, it was announced that with the article Malouma a team from Women in Red has won the English-language strand of the Wiki Loves Women competition for biographies of African women. The article on this African singer and politician was written in connection with the focus in January on Women in Music.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations! Was playing along (on my own team), enjoyed watching all the new entries accumulate and improve. What a successful virtual event!Penny Richards (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrific!Alafarge (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There should also be some mention of how rapidly this article went through the system, a record holder in its own right.

• Created January 16, 2016
• DYK, submitted on January 24, passed on January 30, appeared on WP Main page February 8 as the lead hook
• GA, nominated on January 22, passed on January 24

A testament to teamwork. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It was an awesome experience. I still hope for the day that we can come up with a system to promote articles created at editathons to both DYK and GA. Right now it seems that the process falls squarely on the shoulders of the creating editors, but it would be so much more effective to have a regular article review process in place. *Dreaming* SusunW (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well one way to get things started would be to put something like "DYK candidate?" and/or "GA candidate?" next to deserving articles on the Outcomes list for each editathon. Other editors would then have a chance to see which articles are in the running for promotion or improvement. For DYKs, it might be important to state the date of article creation. How about trying this out on Art and Feminism in March?--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on the accomplishment!--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

New women's biographies: 98% on sports

In researching recent additions to our project, I have noticed that an extremely high proportion of all the new biographies on women come from the Dutch user:Sander.v.Ginkel who contributes hundreds, if not thousands of stubs on sportswomen each month. See the recent contributions here. While I think it is fantastic that we have someone so interested in this area, I wonder whether his/her work should feature in the monthly statistics for Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :). Yes, last months I created loads of articles. Mainly on volleyball and recent sport competition squads. And after volleyball I'm planning to continue with other sports (handball, water polo, cycling, gymnastics, wrestling, football...).

If you want to do the same.... On the Project page I see there are great lists/pages with missing articles, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Spain. I reckon the data on this pages are exported from WikiData? Maybe with exporting a bit more data per item, an article could be created. If someone is interesed, I can explain how you can create articles with this data when you have it in Excel. Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that we have a diverse group of contributors with varied interests. One month (or 1 quarter, or 1 year) we'll have a plethora of sports articles, the next it will be artists, and after that, perhaps writers. It's all good, and all are welcome, and we'll account for all of them as best as we can.

Sander.v.Ginkel I'd be interested in knowing how you do it with Excel, though I warn you in advance that I might not understand the explanation as I'm not a techie. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel Yes, I too would be interested to hear how you do it, especially as I see you are able to create up to three new articles per minute. It would certainly help us to retrieve basic info from Wikidata although I think most of the contributors to Women in Red would be aiming for at least Start quality for new articles. I also think other people working with Wikidata such as Pigsonthewing, Jane023 and Missvain would be interested.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott and Rosiestep. Thank you for your kind replies. I started wrting how I do it, see User:Sander.v.Ginkel/Creating Wikipedia pages with Excel. It's a first draft, so not everything might be clear yet or I might have forgot something to write dowbn. But you don't have to study rocket science to understand it. If you understand the principal, even my mum can do it :). Please respond as things are not clear. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel, for writing up the procedure so quickly. I can see that for sportswomen the approach is really ideal as you can introduce key data into a ready-prepared frame. Unfortunately, for most of the areas we cover the biographies tend to be far more complex but some of those working with Wikidata may be able to automate your procedure so that even non-techies can obtain useful results incorporating the basic data. I think this is the kind of approach Harej was contemplating when Women in Red started last summer.--Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Some notes from me.

• Sander.v.Ginkel, how do you get those data from FIVB website? Simple copy-pasting or something clever?
• Have you saved the data somewhere in Excel? I would be interested in (precise) artitle title, birth date information and probably nationality (everything in separate tabs). Then I could automate import process to Wikidata.
• About ease of work... Yes, you (WiR people) could use some template to create the skelet of article. Something like this. The current formula would be:
  • Open a redlink
  • Press save (yes, to blank page)
  • Connect to Wikidata
  • Open article in edit mode
  • Paste one template
  • Save page
  • Then write something more to article :)
• Maybe this tool will be interesting to you. It can give you some basic information about person, based on what is said in Wikidata.
• P.S. Yes, I know, that I haven't updated metrics page. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Edgars2007, great you're willing to instert it on Wikidata!! I've never worked with Wikidata, only that I looked on Wikidata to see if the article exists in other languages, and adding the English page. I will take a look at it!! Most of the data I got from the FIVB archive website. I copied all the team information to excel myself... I have loads of Excel tabs with info. Most of the time I have 1 tourament on 1 Excel tab. I think I didn't delete any of it. It's for all years for both Men and Women the World Championships, World League, World Grand Slams etc... I also have some files for some other sports, like water polo, futsal and gymnastics :). So I have over 100 Excel tabs. I only don't know if I have it in the good way for you. So I just uploaded for now 1 so you can see if you like it this way. These are all players at the 2015 FIVB Volleyball World League (2015 FIVB Volleyball World League squads): here. If you like it I can send you loads of more :).

A few things: I didn't create all the articles, as many were already created. I don't have the precise names how they are on Wikipedia. For these players I used the link as on 2015 FIVB Volleyball World League squads. But besides of that I created tons of redirects. So also the full name (given + family name) will be a right link (if you don't hit a disamb page..). And of course watch out with the South Korean, Chinese and Taiwanese names, that have the family name first. (I also use the PROPER function in Excel as many time the family names are in Capital letters). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Looks interesting, but unfortunantely won't work for Wikidata :D Will then do that in old way. Anyway, thanks for articles and getting me and other Wikidata people some more work at Wikidata :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a Tools & Tips section in the WiR template?

@Sander.v.Ginkel: I think this User:Sander.v.Ginkel/Creating Wikipedia pages with Excel is valuable and we should consider incorporating the material, with attribution to you, in our WiR Navbox {{Women in Red}} in a Tools & Tips section. Would you be ok with renaming it something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Creating Wikipedia pages with Excel?

@Edgars2007: is this something you could tweak for Women in Red to include your instructions (Open a redlink; Press save (yes, to blank page); Connect to Wikidata; Open article in edit mode; Paste one template; Save page; Then write something more to article)? If yes, would you consider including it in the WiR Navbox's Tools & Tips section as another way to create articles? I'm not sure what's the best name for it by maybe something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Open a redlink & press save? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, will try to adapt it. When it'll be ready, will post here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Using #gendergap hashtag in edit summaries and collecting metrics

Hi all I just tried this on a new page for Petronella van Woensel and these edits will appear here Hashtags tool. The hashtags can be seen on the history page of the article. Jane (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jane023: this is great! We should include it at least once in the edit summary of a new article. Is there a way to automate it, e.g. incorporate it into a talkpage banner, so that if I were to add the Women writers banner on a new article's talkpage, the edit summary would automatically include the hashtag? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it is possible to search edit summaries, but I am not sure. It would be nice if each editathon had its own hashtag and you could combine them, so edit summaries like "#Gendergap ; #Art&Feminism2016" Jane (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Khanna Omarkhali

Hello again. Can anyone help out with Kurdish scholar, Khanna Omarkhali? I saved the article from speedy but it has immediately been brought to AfD, and it's completely out of my comfort zone. Thanks in advance, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's official!

I'll be speaking at Wikimania Esino Lario on 25 June about the amazing Women in Red,[2] founded 11 months earlier at Wikimania Mexico City. It is time to take stock of our accomplishments, our lessons learned, and plans or aspirations for the future. I welcome your ideas here or via email. Anyone adept at developing metrics, statistics, graphical displays of data, etc. regarding WiR, I need your help: # page views (of project pages), # of talkpage posts, stats regarding redlinks on redlink lists, # of event "participants", # of event "contributors", # of articles created, and so on. Also, what kind of expertise do we need and what would be on the agenda at an international conference which would center around our scope: increasing the presence of women's biographies and their works across all language Wikipedias? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Woot! Congratulations! We need technically inclined people. I would still like to have the matrix automated and talk page banners. I would dearly love for the Citation templates drop-downs to incorporate harv-ref styles. I am in awe of what @Edgars2007 and Emijrp: are able to do with their skills. I also think it is important to highlight our cross-project collaborations with folks like the Antarctic project and the African Wiki Loves Women, etc. I think it gives a boost to both. And of course, my repeated saga, documentation standards need to be reviewed for biographies to help with citations on women. Primary sources are not the same thing as self-generated information. SusunW (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You want pageview stats for WiR project pages or for articles, which are under WP:WOMEN scope? If the first, I can give you some nice graphs :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

• A concerted drive to cross-translate pages on women (instead of ad hoc as now). We might be able to round up some translators who don't want to be frontline editors.
• A campaign to get noneditors to contact us about any notable relatives for whom they have some useful/usable information like old CVs, obscure publications, government photos. IF there is enough material plus outside sources, an entry could then be generated or improved. This more personal 'Is your grandmother on Wikipedia?' approach shouldn't run afoul of the Wikipedia COI rules because this way it can be done at arms' length— but at the same time it may actually interest and attract more people than trying to turn everyone into an editor. Maybe this is a stretch, but I regularly come across this kind of info on people's blogs and do sometimes get usable information after making contact.
• I would like to see members of WiR given access to JSTOR on request (no waitlisting). Researching any notable woman who is deceased nearly always requires plowing through multiple sources for fragmentary info, and in my experience often at least one critical source (with footnotes leading to other valuable sources) is behind the JSTOR wall. I have acccess through my work, but I can readily imagine how frustrating this must be for others. (Google's painful "snippet view" for many books is also an issue for people who don't live inside a library; maybe someone else has thoughts about that.)

I love this idea. I only have free access and since I can only add 3 sources but then have to keep the source for 2 weeks, it's very slow going. I have zero access to book as no libraries in my part of Mexico lend books outside of their libraries. The books must be used on site. SusunW (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• A drive to find people who work in government archives who can upload into Commons photographs of notable women— specifically those pics that are already in the public domain because they were taken by government photographers but are not yet online. There should be quite a few of these from both World Wars, for example. Alafarge (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW and Alafarge:, noted, noted, noted; don't stop. @Edgars2007: yes, the former, specific to WiR and to all of WiR's events; sliced and diced all the different ways that can be done and graphically displayed. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Major problem with Members listing

@Rosiestep: @Harej: Something has gone seriously wrong with the list of WiR members. If you go into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red and press "View Full List" under "Meet our members!", you only get the first four names with a lot of strange details below. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members. This needs to be corrected urgently as we are trying to attract new members. And it is impossible to see who has registered (or tried to register).--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(watching:) The list was long until 30 January, then some (in)activity bot moved names. I don't know if that is a good idea, anyway. If deemed a good idea, the (inactivity) criteria should be sharper. Easy help for now would be to restore the 30 January version and add those who entered afterwards, and watch what the bot does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Weird, b/c I am not on that list, but have certainly not been inactive either. I wonder what the measurement is? Jane (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and restore the 30 January list, but have no time to add later additions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The persistent bot reverted that, - no idea what to do next? Perhaps run a less sophisticated list without bot? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not advise edit warring with a bot that edits every five minutes. I viewed the supposedly wrong list and see far more than just four names. Or are there names that are missing? Harej (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw only four names after Ipigott pointed that out, but have no explanation. Looks fine now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, do you still see only four names on the list? Harej (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Via email, I've received several Phabricator notifications about this issue and that there are people working on it. The issue appears to be resolved, though I'm unclear what caused the problem in the first place; if it is resolved, who fixed what; and what's the chance that it could occur again. (P.S. thanks @Ipigott: for the raising the red flag) --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Harej and Rosiestep: I'm glad to see that things seem to have returned to normal but we really need to be protected against these upsets. I frequently check the list for new members and it had been functioning correctly until a few days ago. I was intrigued by all the strange additional information displayed on the page when there were only four names: checks seemed to be going on concerning the names of newly registered members. The info ran to several pages of details. I'm not sure the newly registered members would be happy to know that details of searches on their user names were being displayed. It is unfortunate that the system broke down at a time when we had sent out dozens of editathon announcements inviting people to join. There had also been a change to the Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8 page inviting people to "join up here" with a link to the list. I have a feeling the problem was caused by Antiqueight's registration as that was the fifth name on the list and I also noticed lots of details of information regarding that name had been displayed. Unlike other pages on Wikipedia, it does not seem possible to retrieve earlier versions of the page. Perhaps the people at Project X could conduct a careful review of what happened and update the routines behind the bots to guard against similar problems in the future.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Harej and Rosiestep: I think I've discovered the problem. I've been looking at the history of Antiqueight's entry. It looks as it if was Antiqueight who added all the content. I don't know if there's anything we can do about this in the future.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Harej, Rosiestep, and Ipigott: Well, first off, sorry for causing a problem. No intention to do that (obviously, I hope). So I was thinking - to prevent it again - if the project page had a line saying "nothing to be added after this line"? And also I was thinking - I have never joined a project before and have no idea what to do with the back office side of things - I can create articles (seems to be going ok) and I can bop vandals. But I don't know what I can or should be doing as a project member (except that one or two have given me some pointers since I joined-thank you <3). Could that project card page have more information on it - you know, don't put stuff here - go here for help, things you need to do as a member etc? 🍺 Antiqueight ^chat 12:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(general reply:) you happened to have joined first a project with a complex, bot-driven membership maintenance. Others are simpler, compare WP:QAI. For most projects I know, the link to your user page is sufficient as it explains who you are, and you don't have to do anything,- you pick from the project goals what you want to pursue, saying so or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Antiqueight, welcome aboard! Creating articles is what you should be doing as a member of this project. Don't worry about the glitch. If you have any questions, need any help, this is the place to ask. 1bandsaw (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have done work for a couple of editathons here but didn't join using this mechanism. I don't like project bureaucracy in general and I especially don't like pressing buttons when it's not clear what they do and they turn out to be buggy. Please keep it simple. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Andrew D., if there are parts of the interface that are not clear, I am interested in hearing what those parts are. Harej (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't know much about WikiProjectX. There's a huge amount of project clutter on Wikipedia and most of it's useless because the projects have burnt out. Some projects have built complicated webs of templates and pages to run their operations. For example, DYK is like that and it needs several volunteers with admin permissions and an even larger number of editors to supply the raw material to process. That project has good momentum but it's so complex that it could easily founder if it lost a few key people. Now if WikiProjectX can standardise and streamline project operations that's a good thing. If it adds to the variety and complication, it's a bad thing. In this specific case, I see a blue button named Join WikiProject. It doesn't explain what it will do and if I hover over it, there's no tooltip to explain either. For example, if I join, can easily I unjoin? On Facebook recently, I asked to join a closed group but then changed my mind and found I could cancel the request, which was good. Joining something online is often a big deal and one should be quite clear about what sort of commitment this is. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, Gerda Arendt: I am glad we got to the bottom of what was causing the problem. It is a quirk of how template transclusion works on Wikipedia and there isn't an easy answer to it. We are working on the long term fix to this. First: the reason why we approached the membership list like this was because we wanted to list project participants in a way that is more useful than a bare list of usernames, and also something that is auto-updated over time. We found with many WikiProjects that membership lists included people who hadn't edited in several years. So we came up with a different approach. We now see it needs more work. What we are going to do is separate the sign-up process from the more elaborate "profile" part, which will be optional. Signing up will simply be a matter of adding your username to a list and that's it. We are doing this as part of a general overhaul on how things work behind the scenes, so it will take time. In the meantime, I am available to fix problems as they arise and consider short-term solutions to problems while we work on the longer-term problem. Harej (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree to most of what you explain. Only, in the project to compare, the founding members editors are still considered inspirational even if they haven't edited since 2012. There has been an edit war to eliminate one of them, but the name is there to stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

May

The Guggenheim has invited WMNYC and WiR to collaborate in early May (7-10 days) focusing on MENA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/MENA). They are working on redlist(s). WMNYC will focus on a group of artists. If WiR is agreeable with working on MENA, we can focus on MENA women's biographies in general. (cc: @Pharos:). I know WiR has tentatively committed to focusing on photographers in May. The Guggenheim's curator may be able to sponsor a photography event later in 2016, but not in May. Do you want to keep photographers on the May calendar, or postpone till Guggenheim confirms; and if keep in May, thoughts on which days? May is a long way away and we do have our hands full right now, so no worries if you need to think on this a bit. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We're also going to try to coordinate this campaign with other language Wikipedias (Arabic, Farsi, etc) on Meta, see meta:MENA Artists Month, similar to the recent Wikipedia Asian Month. The photography curator at the Guggenheim is quite interested in the Wikipedia outreach in general, and if not in May, will be glad to work with WiR and the community more in-depth in the future.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Wikipedia is very weak on Africa. So I would welcome the opportunity to help out with the biographies of women from the Middle East and North Africa, both those involved in contemporary art and others from the cultural scene. As we have two intensive months on artists and writers coming up, we could perhaps devote just the first two weeks of May to this. I suggest you post these suggestions on the Events page where we can also discuss how to reschedule Women in Photography.--Ipigott (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Photography has been on the schedule for many months. "[T]wo intensive months on artists and writers" says to me that we need to diversify our topics. Why can't we kill two birds with one stone and do photography and include MENA photographers? If the photography curator can provide images for a later editathon, it might be a reason to postpone, but I see no reason to keep toppling subjects that have been planned in advance. JMO. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you think we can cope with two in one month, I can go along with that too.--Ipigott (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I love having the edit-a-thons. They keep me focused. We have a good list of photographers, like SusunW mentioned. Also, the Art+Feminism is also focused on activism, too right? The list I put together for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/LBT Women has a lot of African activists. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata lists

At some point, someone requested auto-updated Wikidata worklists sub-divided by area. Here it is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Tasks/Wikidata Missing Article Report. I have linked to it from the Tasks module. Right now those six subject areas are featured but more can be added later. Thoughts? Harej (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Harej: Thanks for all your efforts. This is really great! I think I must have been the one who kept referring to this as I thought it was part of the original proposal at the meeting in Mexico. Anyway, the lists are really interesting and will help us identify interesting candidates for articles in different areas of interest. I'm sure Megalibrarygirl will welcome the development too. I see we already have a number of artists lined up for WHM.--Ipigott (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Totally, I love it, Harej! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto Sue's comment, Harej! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

April

We have a sponsor for our April editathon on writers: the New York Public Library! Thank you, @Pharos:. I'm guessing we will accomplish a lot!

Would someone please clarify for me what it means to be a "sponsor" of one of our events?Alafarge (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also in April, WikiWomen's User Group (WWUG) will be sponsoring a 1 week editathon at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin in collaboration with Year of Science and WikiProject Women scientists (cc: @Keilana and FloNight:); the focus will be women scientists. I'm mentioning it here as many WiR-created bios have multiple categories, e.g. a scientist can also have written profusely. So some of WiR's articles may cross-populate (in the name of WiR) for the WWUG's sponsored event. Once I have a meetup page created, I'll link to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pharos: Good to hear the NY Public Library is on board for April. @Rosiestep: I prepared a basic draft for April at Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/10. Perhaps you can firm it up with any additional icons, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

NYPL is not quite finalized yet, but you have support the support Wikimedia NYC, and we will hopefully have a place and time for NYPL soon.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Murray/archive1

Hello everyone; I'm not certain if this message is within the scope of this project; if not, I apologise. There's an article languishing at FAC about Margaret Murray, a pioneering early archaeologist and folklorist. It doesn't seem to be capturing the attention of FAC reviewers (other than me)- if anyone has a few hours free, your comments would surely be welcomed by the article's author. Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point, thank you, will propagate also on WP:QAIPOST, where everybody can list articles to be reviewed for FA and GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Redlists by nationality

A huge thank you to Emijrp for your work in creating the redlists by nationality via Wikidata. I've added them to {{tl|Women in Red}}. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emijrp: will you be creating any other national lists, e.g. for smaller countries? Also, with the tool you use, are you able to create a redlist for an entity other than a country, e.g. like Sicily or Yucatan? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Other entities than countries are a little bit tricky and more difficult. You see, Emijrp is using "country of citizenship". One way to include Sicily or Yucatan would be querying for place of birth, but those data is pretty incomplete. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I just did some tests and there are no results for women red links in Yucatan and only two for Sicily (using birthplace and deathplace). As Edgars said, Wikidata is still incomplete, so better we keep doing the "by country" approach. Anyway, we can add a "birthplace" and "deathplace" column in the country lists, so you can sort by that property when data is available. --emijrp (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emijrp: thanks for that. Will you be able to create lists for other countries soon -perhaps all of the countries in Central America next- and so on? I would really appreciate it and I'm assuming others would, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

March

Copy convo from my talkpage to here.--Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! You are the primary co-ordinator of Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/8? At WT:INB (see discussion here) there is a proposal to start an edit-a-thon. Of course March is the women's month. So, IMO, it should be aligned accordingly.
Could we take 7 days time for Indian subcontinent women? I was talking to Sarah, could you also lead this sub-edit-a-thon as well with Sarah? Of course the project will support and promote the initiatives. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Titodutta and thanks for reaching out to me. I'm going to copy this conversation over to the Women in Red talkpage for member feedback as we make these decisions collaboratively. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Titodutta If you provide sourced redlinks on the lists for the event, they can be worked over the full 30 days. IMO, providing the links is invaluable as they will let those who may be unfamiliar know who your project feels is notable. SusunW (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I fully agree with SusunW. But I would also like some clarification. First of all, do you really intend to concentrate on covering women and their works? Your discussions seem to be much more general. If you want to concentrate on women, then you will need to inform your contributors. In any case, given the level of interest, I will invite some of them to participate in our Art+Feminism online edithon which is for the whole of March. Please feel free to copy the invitation to any others you think would be keen to contribute. When you refer to the subcontinent, do you mean India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (or do you wish to include other countries)? As far as I can see, your main interest is India -- so perhaps we should concentrate on that. I see that our lists of red links on artists, feminists and activists are extremely weak on India (although I have just added a few names to artists and feminists myself). If you want us to help you out, you should add names to these lists, preferably with at least one source. I have not been able to find any lists of red links on your project pages but perhaps you know where to find them. Please ping me if you answer here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: For your information, I have sent invitations on Art+Feminism to the following users: Dharmadhyaksha, Mr RD, Ms Sarah Welsh, Sanskari, Shrikanthv, Titodutta, Vensatry and Vin09, who have contributed to your notice board. Maybe you could encourage them to cover Indian (Indic?) women during Women's History Month. If this works out, some of them might also like to help out with Indian women writers in April. Thanks for taking the initiative on this and good luck with further progress on India.--Ipigott (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Nvvchar: As you are already a keen WiR participant, you might be able to help Titodutta in coordinating the efforts we have been discussing above. Perhaps you can also help with adding red links on Indian women to our lists for artists, feminists and activists. And feel free to send invitations to any others you think could contribute.--Ipigott (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Titodutta and Nvvchar: please add those redlinks soon, preferably with at least one reference next to each. Note, there are over 100 nodes around the world who will be participating in all the March (Women's History Month) events. As @Ipigott: pointed out, please feel free to invite others to the Women in Red virtual edit-a-thon celebrating Women's History Month by using this invitation. (cc: @Netha Hussain) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Civil War

Hi everyone, WiR has been invited by m:WMDC to participate in this editathon in March: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/NARA/Civil War. If there's interest, please create a meetup page and add the link here so editors know how to sign up. FYI, in another post on this page, we're talking about having one meetup page for an entire month, with multiple focuses, but that's still in discussion stage so keeping them separate is probably the way to go for now. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red in the New York Times

Read it here, everyone. And thank you, @Pharos!! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Great coverage. Thank you for posting the link. — Maile (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Woot! SusunW (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article on Art+Feminism editathons

I've just discovered "Third Annual Edit-a-thon to Bring More Women Artists, and Editors, to Wikipedia" by Jade Angeles Fitton, published on Artsland, February 26, 2016. It makes interesting reading with emphasis on the need for more work on women artists. I'm mentioning it here as what I post in the press sections of our pages is often overlooked.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice article. Thanks for sharing it Ian. SusunW (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wales editathon

Hi, there was a Women in Art/History/Feminism editathon at the National Library of Wales today. I've listed the entries and expansions, both in Welsh and English at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon if you want to add them to the main list here. Any help checking and improving the articles which have been worked on today will be much appreciated. Entries for Welsh women between now and end of April are warmly welcome and will all count. Please add them to the list at the bottom of the Dragon page as well as here of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Odd request - video expert?

Does anyone know how to move a freely licensed Youtube to commons? Even better if we could create a short animated GIF to go with this DYK nomination? The video is at the bottom of the article which is about Bilikiss Adebiyi Abiola. Thx anyway?

I uploaded it I think with the correct info. You may want to check. I'll add it to the article. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thank-you

about the edit-a-thon yesterday. I was involved with the Wikipedia:Meetup/Santa Fe/ArtAndFeminism 2016 edition and published 8 or so new articles yesterday, as well as, I hope, saving one, Pansy Stockton, from speedy deletion. Which it deserved at that time, but I think is okay now. I especially appreciate your thanks since I have heard nothing from anyone in Santa Fe. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Automatic categorization?

Does anyone figure out why all of the missing articles by nationality pages are automatically categorized in Category:Women in Red? I think it would be better to remove the automatic categorization and manually add them to a new subcategory Category:Women in Red, missing articles by nationality (or similar). Then, all of the missing articles pages could be grouped together and sorted appropriately, and there would be less clutter in the parent "Women in Red" category. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Another Believer: I wondered about that, too, but didn't know how to sort out the issue. Hoping a techno person can respond? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't even realized this category existed. I'm impressed that we can automatically develop lists of red links by country along these lines. I think we should leave them as they are for now -- or until someone could come up with a better automated approach.--Ipigott (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You can change the category here. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 19:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I will move them to Category:Women in Red redlink lists. emijrp (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Requests

Hello Women in Red! I am happy to announce that I have launched a new central system, Wikipedia Requests, for keeping track of the various request and to-do lists throughout Wikipedia. In honor of Art+Feminism I have begun migrating their task list to this new system. One of my goals is to make task lists easily shareable between projects. As such, any of the red links I saw I tagged as being in scope for WikiProject Women in Red. Here is a list of missing articles in scope for Women in Red. Right now it's all artists but the list should become more diverse as more lists are migrated to it. Another thing I will be working on is making these lists embeddable on Wikipedia pages, with more sophisticated options for generating the lists (like different lists based on subject area, like with the Wikidata lists). I hope this helps with your article writing and to-do list curation, and if not, I look forward to hearing how it can be improved. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Harej this seems like a good idea, but I can't figure out how it works. Maybe it's just because I had a long work day. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Impact

Impact

fill red links on women
Thank you for your impact, raising awareness for missing articles on women's achievements, and collaborating in filling them successfully!

This prize is for the project. Every member can put it in a display of awards. Perhaps more productive: find one user whom you want to tell today that she or he made an impact ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. You are kind and generous. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt You've come up with a wonderful idea, Gerda, but with literally hundreds of contributors at the moment, it's very difficult to pick out winners every day. But if you come across any you find particularly deserving, why not present the award yourself?--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I did it my way, not singling out anybody, but stressing the collaboration and team-spirit! I found Susun's SIX DYK credits yesterday quite an achievement and mentioned it her talk. Needless to say that Rosiestep and Victuallers also deserve extra praise for getting it all started. The sheer number of new articles is truely amazing, and what I got to see on DYK level is also of high quality! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I too was impressed with all SusunW's DYK's and indeed with all the other articles she has been contributing on activists. I have looked at virtually all the new articles listed on the Art+Feminism outcomes (most of them are biographies of women artists) and I must say that the general level of quality has been far higher than normal. The additions I have made to them are mainly related to lack of defaultsort and categories, and to the fact that many are orphans, but the articles themselves are generally well written. Many seem to have escaped AfD as a result of the sheer number of new additions. It's going to be very difficult to follow up and encourage all those new users but thanks to Rosie's mailing, many of them should at least know we are ready to help.--Ipigott (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words. It isn't me that deserves the recognition, it is these amazing women I am learning about. I am thrilled with how many we have already had on DYK. Just wish there were more nominations. SusunW (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep an eye...

A couple of hours ago, I invited 155 additional participants to our current edit-a-thon, using MassMessage. These are editors who participated earlier this month in various in-person Art+Feminism meetups, and had (more or less) >100 edits. Here's hoping they want to continue their participation by joining us the rest of March. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of them have already contributed.--Ipigott (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And I see several have also signed up as participants to Art+Feminism. Well done, Rosie!--Ipigott (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've invited an additional 48 from the latest events. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive

This page could do with a trim and partly archiving ;--). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld I think it's supposed to auto-archive but I don't know what the parameters are. Someone more techno will need to respond. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If the automatic archiving doesn't work, why don't we just do it manually?--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on harej's talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)