Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Inappropriate tagging

The talk page of Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert has been tagged as being created or expanded as part of one of this Projects editathons. This is wholly inaccurate and not the first time articles I have created have been falsely included. I have nothing to do with this Project or it's editathons so please remove it. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: I think anyone can remove a name that was added mistakenly, but this may be relevant to your concern: #Banners - have we got the wording right?. Based on that thread, the wording was changed from stating the article was created/improved "as part of" [the WiR editathon] to "during". Of course, it could still just be removed if that doesn't change how you feel about it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil feel free to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/8#Outcomes - articles and removed any that shouldn't be there. This is what tagging is based on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, no, apparently I am not allowed to remove it per WP:PROJSCOPE: "Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people." I have no dealings whatsoever with the WiR Project and that article was no part of it or any editathon. Please remove it. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It's an event/program banner rather than a WikiProject tag based just on the subject (maybe it should be, though?). Unlike a subject-based criteria set by the WikiProject, it's based on an event, erring on the side of overinclusion rather than underinclusion. If something is identified as incorrectly included, it should be removed. It just so happens that in this case it's easier for a single editor to determine whether it was added mistakenly. I don't think anybody's going to edit war if you revert. I do agree there's got to be a better way, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
And if I remove it, no doubt it will just be added again the next time an AWB run is done, making it pointless for me to try to deal with it. I had absolutely nothing to do with any "event" and have no intention of ever being involved in any of them (or the WiR Project). I feel *very* strongly about it but didn't push it when Jennifer Westwood was incorrectly included as well. Perhaps the best thing would be if I just stop creating/expanding any articles on women? SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
AWB is based on the list Headbomb linked above. If you remove it from the list, it won't be tagged unless someone manually restores it. Since the bot report that resulted it in being added in the first place does not have any reason to be run again, I don't know why that would happen. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Will you please just remove it as I initially requested? As I said I will no longer expand or create articles on women if this is going to be the result. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The simplest thing is simply to remove it yourself, if you think your contributions shouldn't be mentioned here and tagged with {{WIR-8}} (or other {{WIR}} templates). You know which articles you created/expanded and which of those shouldn't be part of the WIR project. We don't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
And it is exactly comments like that which drive editors away - Congratulations, you have proved my point about how the WiR Project is a sham. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
How about a little WP:AGF here? We've told you the simplest thing to do. If you refuse to do it, there's very little we can do about that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the lack of AGF is solely on the part of the WiR Project. I have asked for the inappropriate tag to be removed but "editors" here have refused to do so. I can only reiterate the article was not created or expanded with anything connected to this Project or editathon and should never have been included in its metrics. Apparently this Project is supposed to encourage female editors writing articles on women? How is that being achieved here? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This project tries to encourage the creation of more articles about women. There is no requirement that participating editors be female. I personally have no problem with the WIR tag being removed from an article if it was not created or expanded as part of this project. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
And the above comment is appropriate/relevant is what way? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify men are welcome here as well as women. Have a lovely day. Knope7 (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
So do you think I'm male? Really? What an absolute joke this Project is. Please check before adding inaccurate or speculative comments ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not assume anything about your gender, I was clarifying something about this project. Knope7 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott: It was added to the list of "articles created" for the editathon in this edit, if that's any help in working out what happened. It does seem a mistake if we've just added all items on women created during the month to that list, whether or not anyone creating or expanding the article had any interest in WiR. PamD 16:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to look into this but have found the edit histories very confusing. As far as I can see, I did not add the tag.--Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the tag as it appears to have been added by someone who was not involved in its creation or improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"the edit histories are confusing"? How so? I can only reiterate: this article was nothing to do with the editathon nor the WiR Project; it should never have been tagged as such. Why does this Project drive away editors from working on biographies for women when it is supposedly here to encourage articles on that topic? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
If the article has nothing to do with WIR, then just remove it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/8#Outcomes - articles and remove the {{WIR}} tag from the article's talk page. I fail to see how anyone is "driving editors away".Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
"fail to see how it is driving editor's away"? Well I have created/expanded a handful of biographies/articles for women, none of which have been connected to this Project but are obviously just considered as shit articles by the experts here - no worries, I will leave this Project to continue to harass/hound some of the best editor's away from WP. Congratulations! SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest closing this thread. OP had a valid grievance, the bases for which are under discussion above. OP is invited to join that discussion if she wishes to talk about big picture processes and has been told multiple times how to fix the problem. The heat to light ratio has been on an upward trend for a while and continuing down the same road doesn't seem beneficial to anyone. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The tag was added to the article talkpage in this edit by @Rich Farmbrough:. I assume he was working from the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/8#New_or_upgraded_articles, to which @Ipigott: added it (no. 302) in this edit on 16 March 2016. PamD 20:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It does seem that some of the items on the lists are incorrect. I see two options:
  1. stop the process
  2. add a "per list at <foo> please remove if incorrect" to the edit summary.
I am neutral, for the value of "event" banners seems debatable.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
  • Until very recently, the WiR banners were added only by those who created or improved articles or when there was strong evidence that an article had been worked on as part of a current editathon. In the light of the above discussion, I think it would be sensible to continue along these lines. This is the first instance I can remember of anyone reacting strongly against the use of project banners. By contrast, I have frequently received thanks from editors who have created articles in conjunction with our editathons for the banners, WikiProjects, etc., I added to the corresponding article talk pages. In regard to this particular article, I no doubt added it to the editathon list as it was one of the many articles on a woman feminist created during the A+F month which WiR was supporting. I did not add a banner to the talk page as I did not work on the article myself or identify the creator as one of the project participants. I agree that if project banners begin to upset people, we should simply stop using them. We should perhaps also discontinue listing articles created in connection with out editathons unless it is 100% certain that the article was specifically created or improved for the event. It would be useful to see what Rosiestep and Victuallers think about this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The project was actually created to produce articles about women and their works to fix the #gendergap. If someone wants to start a project where we discuss the (mis)placement of a single tag then I would be surprised if it would raise much debate. OK I am amazed by this debate. Anyone interested in demonstrating writing/improving women's articles and/or encouraging this? I'm busy with that - I think its quite important. My grand daughter will see 5 out of every sixth notable person as a bloke on the leading fact based web site. If we misplace the tagging of 50,000 articles then it will create a small change in our statistics? Problem? No, A great volunteer uses wikidata to do this. Should we pad our project pages with the occasional article about a railway station? It makes no difference - we use wikidata. Debating whether we have a rule to have a few users topic banned from Wikiproject tags relating to gender (broadly construed) should be saved for 1st April. Sorry if I'm being grumpy. Do feel free to do as you want guys on this one. Victuallers (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott I wouldn't generalize based on the above. Plus, this should take care of mistaggings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Victuallers; my focus is moving forward on the global project scope. There will always be one-off issues such as this and everyone here is empowered to politely, collaboratively discuss/resolve it. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Natalia Aszkenazy

Would love some help with this one, maybe from someone who can read Polish? Someone tagged it as possibly not meeting notability. I think the subject is notable: a Polish diplomat during WWII, a busy diplomat's wife afterwards, corresponded with Gabriela Mistral, etc., and the article already has refs to articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, but I never did find a birth or death date for her, and I'm sure there must be more about her in Polish-language sources (or even possibly Spanish, because she spent time in Latin America). Grateful for any assistance. Penny Richards (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Penny Richards, I may have found something but I don't speak Polish either. THIS page 207-208 seems to indicate that her mission in Moscow was to evacuate Polish Jews from the USSR. It also says "Natalia is a stepchild Karol Sachs, former vice-president of the Warsaw Jewish Community and Honorary Consul of the Republic of Poland in Cuba", which could help in identifying her parentage. And "HER impressive connections with the American Jewish diaspora open prospects for her husband's promotions. Clearly she was notable. Maybe Piotrus can help with the Polish? Also noted here her name is spelled "Askenazy", which may yield more sources. Will work on it some more tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything particularly helpful in my search; some mentions (in passing? hard to say, no preview/snippets) in Polish Google Books. [2] is a private genealogy site, says she was born circa 1920. Her husband has a pl wiki article at pl:Jan Drohojowski (dyplomata), it is short and does not mention her. She is mentioned in, among others, his memoirs (ana Drohojewskiego wspomnienia dyplomatyczne). She does not seem to be buried together with him (File:Jan Drohojowski Grave.JPG). Can't find DOB/DOD, or any biographical info, all I see are some mentions in passing. Borderline notability IMHO. If no-one else has written as much as a biographical paragraph about her, I kind of think (ducks) this kind of entry would be better suited as a section in her notable's husband bio... Seriously, while 'She was described in 1941 as "the only woman in the diplomatic corps in Moscow"[4] and in 1943 as the "only Polish woman diplomat"' sounds cool, it's pretty much trivia that does not make her notable, and everything else in her bio reads like a routine minor diplomatic/government career with nothing (no post, no awards, no analysis of her significance) to make her notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Piotrus, we'll have to disagree on her notability. Few women at this time were representing governments. Fewer still were written about in the press and certainly not in the international press. I cannot tell you how many notable women fall into the "no one else has written about her" category. That is not a valid argument, IMO. But, if you could review the document I linked above and tell us what it says, that would be helpful. When I search her name in it, I get several hits, but the document is too large to fit into a web translator. SusunW (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Penny Richards Passenger list from 1943 shows she was possibly Jewish (Hebrew ethnicity) [3] and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives has some kind of information about her. p 102 What, I have no idea, nor do I know what the significance of 1962 is. SusunW (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting! I kind of assumed she was Jewish by ancestry because of her surname (Aszkenazy, not Drohojowska), but couldn't say without a source. The article is bulking up some, from a few helpers, so thank you. I think there's probably more to find, especially in Mexico, but I think it's a good start now. (I can't remove the notability tag, though, right? Someone else has to?)Penny Richards (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
(That passenger list also puts her birth in about 1914, which fits with the educational dates now given in the article.) - Penny Richards (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Penny Richards, 1914-1916 so 1915 is clearly indicated in a variety of sources. That one article giving the specifics of her education was the key. And yes, I thought surely she was Jewish as well because of her surname, and specifically searched for that after finding the paper above mentioning that she was involved in rescuing Jews. I also clipped that photo I found and if we could just find a death date, I could upload it as fair use. Cannot imagine she is still living would be around 102, but ... SusunW (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
SusunW I did review the document and you pretty much got 90% of the coverage of her in it, the few other references are sources in passing (like "person X and Y and her went to a meeting at Z") or such. I am sorry, but reviewing the existing (lack of) sources on her made me convinced she does not pass WP:BIO. In the end, if there are no sources discussing her significance, few passing mentions in newspapers - even if it is much more than most other women of that era would get - still means she is not notable. It is a sad truth based on millennia-long discrimination that there were less notable woman than man, and I do believe our rules hold no exception: women have to pass BIO just like men do. I very much appreciate the spirit of this project, and the end results, but notability has to be respected. PS. I will ping User:Wtshymanski who is the editor mentioned by the OP in "Someone tagged it as possibly not meeting notability", since he may have his own view to add here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Piotrus Trust me, I get it. I have written in this talk page many, many times that one can choose any two people in the same field, one male and one female and it will take a minimum of 6 sources to create her bio to 1 source for him. Sourcing for women is poor. WP favors and continues systemic biases because it doesn't address, nor even acknowledge that this is true. If one looks at their careers one can see:
  • She was a diplomat
    He was a diplomat
    She had fewer posts, but her service was unique and garnered substanitial press. She was the only woman diplomat for Poland and in the USSR. She established the first Polish embassy in the USSR. She rescued Jews from USSR.
    He had posts in The Hague, Rome, Washington DC, London, Havana, China, Jerusalem, Mexico and Egypt. Nothing indicates the importance of any of the posts, only routine service.
    She requested and received asylum in Mexico.
    He requested and was refused in numerous places.
    She became a writer in Mexico.
    He became a writer in Poland.
Parallel lives. He is notable and his biography can be substantiated with 1 or two sources. [4] [5] Her biography took at this point 27 references to document. It isn't that all the sources deal with her trivially, multiple sources cover an aspect of her career in depth; rather, it is that multiple sources are required to find the facts of her biography because source articles on women tend to discuss trivial things. We must rely on GNG and the fact that evidence from variable reliable sources may be combined to confirm substantial coverage. Simply because women's stories aren't already compiled does not mean that original research has occurred. It isn't original research to report what those sources say, it is original research to draw conclusions from the sources. And then we wait and see if the woman's article is taken to AfD, because it may well be. Women's articles are harder to write. It is a reality. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW: I do understand the issue - there are simply fewer sources about women. This is, unfortunately, a problem for us, as WP:V/N etc don't allow give us any discounts due to this bias. But I am afraid there are three points for notability for Jan that Natalia doesn't get: he was a writer, he was a director of a big bank, and he was an ambassador. Those, particularly the last one, seem to suffice to make him notable. Btw, you say she was a writer, did you find any sources about books she published? I missed that; it would be good to add it to her article (currently the article says she was a staff writer for a minor newspaper, which is much less conductive to notability then published several full books like her husband did, through I'd have to look deeper to be sure his work was important enough to pass WP:AUTHOR - but he has a shot at that, and she almost certainly does not...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Piotrus No it doesn't allow us to give discounts for bias but it does allow us to combine sources for sufficient coverage. I did find a book and a review of it, which is in the article. Can't find reference to it in VIAF or ISNI or WorldCat, but that also is not unusual for women. *sigh* I suspect there are more, but very few Mexican sources are on-line. All of the libraries that have decent materials are private and not lending. Someday I will make it to UNAM and check their newspaper holdings (only available in the library) and see what I can find. But we differ on whether those secondary guidelines are useful. I think for women, they are prejudicial and need to be tossed. GNG is simple, direct, and doesn't limit people to one facet of their lives but rather allows looking that the entirety of a life. SusunW (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
SusunW Secondary guidelines are just secondary, if she passes GNG that's all we need. So, in the spirit of keeping it simple: why do you think she does? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Piotrus significant coverage, over time in RS. What is used in the file adds up to significant coverage but there is a lot more which I rejected because it was about how she looked, what party she attended, the lavish home they lived in in Mexico, etc. She was someone the press covered for many years. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably if someone is a notable socialite, we should cover that. I know it can seem like a superficial aspect from other points of view, but it is culturally important, and not just in diplomatic and political circles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC).
While I am still not convinced she is notable, I don't intend to nominate this for AfD. It's borderline, but it is informative and has nothing to do with vanity/marketing/etc. Overall, good job to everyone who expanded this. Keep it up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Piotrus Thanks for your discussion. Sorry that I wasn't able to respond before, as I have had no internet service for several days (developing world issues *sigh*). I always learn things from our discussions, and while we disagree on whether she is notable or not, I think the discussion is enlightening. I appreciate your input and help on the article. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

41 out of 41 / WIR Banners

I put together a table to keep track of my contributions to WiR and found that I hadn't chipped in to some of the early ones - so I've belatedly contributed to some of the earliest editathons and have now created at least one article for all 41 numbered events! It's sometimes been quite a challenge to create articles on topics where I don't normally contribute, but I've enjoyed it. Here's to the next 41. PamD 10:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a pity there don't seem to be any talk page banners to use for some of the earlier editathons! But I guess the project has developed and become more sophisticated over time. Congratulations to the organisers for keeping us all going. PamD 10:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't see why a {{WikiProject Women in Red}} couldn't be created and used to tag and keep track of WIR-created articles, both old and new ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two banners for WiR articles: {{WIR 2016}}, {{WIR 2017}}. The project banner is {{WikiProject Women}} for women born after 1950 and {{WikiProject Women's History}} for women born before 1950. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be fairly trivial to create a {{WIR 2015}}/{{WIR 2014}}/{{WIR 2013}}/{{WIR 2012}}... then, or something similar to that e.g. {{XYZ 2015 Editathon}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb, I have no idea how to create a template, but the project didn't begin until July, 2015, so there is no need for templates before 2015. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Easiest thing to do is to click on {{WIR 2016}}, edit, then copy-pasted the code to {{WIR 2015}}, change 2016 to 2015, then save. Changing what's in |text= should let you customize messages for other editathons. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As you can see, Headbomb, we're really collaborative here so if you have the time and inclination to make this happen, thanks for doing so! Also, PamD: awesome! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
One template would be better, with the year as the parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Or 4 new templates for the 4 missing Editathons (1 to 4)? There seem to be banners for number 5 onwards. PamD 23:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW: I'm glad you brought those up. I'd forgotten about those. Maybe we need to link templates from the front page? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly had a go and created {{WIR-APA 2015}} and added it to Talk:Gina Apostol but then discovered that most of the articles from that editathon (WiR number 1) have {{APAWiR2015}}, which sends a slightly different message (eg Talk:Naomi Hirahara). There doesn't seem to be any equivalent for numbers 2, 3, 4. I'll have a go at creating those. Not sure whether the new template for the APA editathon should accompany, replace, or just leave well alone the existing template. Thoughts? PamD 15:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

And I have now created {{WIR-LEAD 2015}} (WiR 2: Women in Leadership - "L" had already been appropriated, 3-letter codes seem most common but "LEA" seemed a bit obscure); {{WIR-A 2015}} (WiR 3: Women in Architecture, following pattern of the 2016 version); {{WIR-SCI 2015}} (WiR 4: Women in Science). Please tweak any of them which don't look right. If anyone is looking for a nice mindless job to do some time these could usefully be added to the "Outcomes" listed articles in the relevant projects. (Or someone with skills might be able to do it quickly with AWB?) PamD 15:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
For info, all these are listed at Category:Women in Red templates, though you have to scroll through a lot of others first. PamD 16:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a big mess of templates out there... There has to be a way to streamline and simplify all of this. I propose {{WIR|date=|event=|link=}} in a metatemplate. (See {{WIR}} and its documentation).

The technology piece is way over my head. I opt for the KISS principal. Tell me what link to use and I'll use it. If I have to remember to input a specific link to an event each time, I will probably fail to do it. (Just being realistic, my brain only holds so much information and WP requires way too many technical skills. I'm far better at simply writing and get overloaded trying to remember what code to input where.) On the other hand, if at each editathon we can use the templates you have devised and pre-insert the event page, I'm good with that. SusunW (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW: I've created {{WIR}}, and implemented this in {{WIR 2016}} and {{WIR-APA 2015}}. The nitty gritty is that you can use those templates exactly as before, and they will automatically categorize articles (or rather their talk pages, as should be done for WikiProjects) in Category:Women in Red YEAR articles and Category:All Women in Red pages (currently not ALL, but once I take care of the other templates, yes). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I haven't created the categories yet, because I want to make sure the scheme is right (e.g. should this be WikiProject Women in Red articles or just Women in Red articles, etc.). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It should be WikiProject Women in Red articles (not Women in Red articles as we encountered problems with this at Commons). Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

WIR Banners

Alright, I've created {{WIR}} as a meta-template and updated all edit-a-thon specific sub-banners like {{WIR-APA 2015}}. These will automatically populate Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2015 articles and Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages automatically.

However, the abbreviation scheme is completely obtuse and makes it hard to track/find out what template to use for what meetup.

Generic templates (OK)
Specific templates (awful, IMO)

I suggest instead that a more standard naming scheme for these templates are developed. Possibilities include

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb I very much support standardizing them. I like including the number; I also like including the year; and I like abbreviation letters but would suggest three letters for each. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep The problem to me seems mostly that it's fairly hard to come up with a sane 3 or 4 letters scheme, and it doesn't really add much. The simplest solution is to go with {{WIR-1}}, without the year/abbreviation. If the concern is that it would make it easier to figure out what the template is and which to use, the details of the events/dates can be explained in the template documentation.

Meetup Template Edit-a-thon Date
#1 {{WIR-1}} Asian Pacific American Women 4–6 September 2015
#2 {{WIR-2}} Women in Leadership 7–20 September 2015
#3 ... ... ...

How would you feel about that possible standardization? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it is important to have codes which people can remember easily. Even though they might not appear too logical, if the abbreviations reflect the theme of the editathon, they are easy to reproduce. Figures to me are pretty meaningless. I can never remember the numbers of the various editathons, But that no doubt explains the "big mess" you refer to. I was in fact commenting with the following message but ran into an edit conflict:
Thank you, Headbomb, for all the work you have done on these templates and your efforts to clean things up. I apologize for creating such a big mess but I had very little experience with templates like these before I started to add them in connection with each of our editathons and I just tried to draw on the examples I could find. The disparate codes are simply a result of my trying to find something simple to remember for each editathon. In retrospect, they do seem to lack any kind of conformity. As you seem genuinely interested in improving our WiR pages, perhaps you would also like to assist in creating the month-by-month editathon pages as we go forward. It's taken me quite a lot of time and effort each month over the past two years to put them together and it would be good to have a helping hand. You can see our tentative plans for May here. We usually try to firm them up at least a week before the beginning of each month. Let me know if you would like to have a go at putting them together for next month. Of course, if you feel this is unreasonable, just let me know and I'll continue cutting and pasting in the same messy old way. But if you have any suggestions for improvements, go ahead and implement them. And BTW, greetings to Moncton, I know it well.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Not really interested in helping setting up edit-a-thons and the like, sorry. Too busy with other things. But I am interested in setup up WP:AALERTS for this project, cleaning the template framework, and the like. If people are happy with the "mess", it's of little consequence to me or the alerts. I just felt, organizationally speaking, it's much less confusing to people, newcomers and veterans alike, if they have a simple "This is the 43rd meetup, so the template is {{WIR-43}}" sort of logic to follow & remember. Keep in mind the redirects from {{WIR-APA 2015}}→{{WIR-1}} would still work though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb:: I mentioned the editathon pages because the templates, like the invitations, info boxes, etc., are closely tied up with them. Systematizing the templates with the number of the editathon could provide a basis for overall rationalization. As you probably noticed, I fully support you efforts on article alerts. I look forward to seeing a concrete proposal. I look forward to feedback on both issues from Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, PamD and any other frequent contributors. On the templates, if we are to undertake a general revision, maybe we could improve the wording changing "The editor who attended the event " to "The editor who participated in the event" given that most of our editathons are online events.--Ipigott (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
If there's something systematic to be improved, I'd be up to help with that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Pleased to hear the old system still works. I do find WIR-BA ,pre memorable than the number that use in the url. Not sure what happens but can we have a "WIR" template that works a) when I can't remember which one to use or b) for one that doesnt fit into the editathons running at the moment. Thanks for all this. Victuallers (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Those would be {{WIR 2015}}/{{WIR 2016}}/{{WIR 2017}} for articles. Failing that, {{WIR}} works all the time, but is mostly designed to handle non-articles like templates, project pages, categories, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb Thinking it through, as we have settled on a sequential numbering for our events, then replicating that numbering for the talkpage templates makes sense. While probably none of us can remember what our 10th, 20th, 30th, or 40th events were, we could make a habit of including the number in the top of the event page, e.g. "Welcome to Women in Red's, Book artists online editathon, April 2017, our 40th event" or something like that. The numbering association should be easy enough deal with for each event, and it would be the simplest of the standardization options which are event-specific (vs. a yearly template). Also, I like the template documentation box. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
First, I'd like to thank you for your work on this Headbomb. I'm happy with whatever system makes it easy to categorize, find historic data, and make it *simple* for me to implement. As I am not technically apt, I need whatever we come up with to be easy. As long as the template we are supposed to use for each editathon still appears on the sign up sheet for that editathon and I can copy and paste it to my talk page, without searching for other data to input, I'm good. If that's numbering, fine. If it's alphabetical, that's fine too. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then I'll do numerical. This will be the easiest technically implementation, and the easiest one to document. The old shortcuts will be available, and nothing should need to be retroactively updated. Each meeting page should then prominently display that it's the Xth meeting somewhere to create a strong association with the template. I'll update meetup documentation on which template to use through AWB, which should let me do this fairly easily. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb, I feel the same way as SusunW: as long as the system is simpler and makes sense, that's awesome. Thank you for taking the iniative on this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see that all of this has been sorted out. I too agree that the simpler the system, the easier it should be to implement. Perhaps you Rosie could design a new basic editathon page, stressing the number of the editathon in addition to its name. Over the next couple of days, we'll need to launch the priorities for May.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, @Headbomb: for picking up the task into which I dipped a toe! The existing list of templates had grown organically, resulting in the mildly chaotic set of template names. Numbered templates will be simpler, though less easy to remember. Well done for getting us organised.
There are still a couple of pointss:
  1. Should {{WIR-1}} replace, or complement, or leave alone, the existing {{APAWiR2015}} which is in use on many, but not all, of the articles from that first editathon?
  2. Will some kind soul, either using clever AWB stuff or just doing a quiet wikignomish job, add {{WIR-2}} to {{WIR-4}} to the articles which don't currently credit WIR at all though are listed in the respective "outcomes" lists? PamD 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Clarified 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

PamD funny you mention that, I just deployed {{WIR-1}} out there , and removed {{APAWiR2015}}. I was just about to start doing WIR-2/3-etc... I note that Edit-a-thons 5, 23, and 28 don't seem to have templates for them, but it might just be because they weren't categorized properly. I'll be look for them a bit more deeply once I get there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: For 5: {{WIR-R 2015}}. I seem not to have added banners for my contributions to 23 and 28. If you want a list of one sample contribution per editathon (albeit mostly very stubby), see my table. PamD 19:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, there were many many more than just 4 articles missing {{WIR-2}}... It seems most pages are not tagged at all. This will be truly a massive task to tag them all, so I'll get some bot people on this. Also, I had no idea WIR was so prolific. I thought may you were getting 50-60 per month done, but you got crazy numbers like 800+ per editathon sometimes. This is truly impressive work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Headbomb for recognizing the problem. WiR editors create a lot of articles, but tracking them became so labor-intensive that most of us became exhausted from the manual effort. We have to rely on tech experts, bots, etc. to develop methods for tagging/tracking the work. Much thanks for understanding and working towards a solution. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
(after e/c) No, I didn't mean that there were 4 articles lacking {{WIR-2}}, but that articles were lacking that template and also {{WIR-3}} and {{WIR-4}}! Have clarified above! But where does the 800 come in? Each editathon has an "outcomes" list, and I've not seen one that big ... unless it's for 28, which seems to have a complex relationship with Asia Month. PamD 21:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/8 has 800+ listed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow! Didn't we do well! I hadn't spotted that giant. PamD 21:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Of a random sample of 4 (numbers 200, 400, 600, 800), two have {{WIR-AF 2016}} and two have {{ArtAndFeminism2016 article}}. I guess there's another complex relationship there, between WiR and A+F? I don't know all the background! PamD 21:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There were probably many more articles in our editathons than those listed on the editathon pages. For several months, we used to go through the new articles and AlexBot outputs looking for articles which came under our priorities but this was not always done systematically. I'm sure that many of my own articles were never tagged and many probably escaped the listings. More recently, since our automated "metrics" was introduced, we seem to have given less attention to the editathon listings, simply assuming that they were in any case included in the new articles for the month in question. I don't really think that at this stage it is worth going back and searching for everything we missed. In any case, as far as I remember, we introduced the tags so that those creating or improvong articles could mark them as belonging to current editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to look for things that would take me forever to find, but those listed on the meetup pages can reasonably be construed as of interest to WiR, so I'll tag them. This way they'll show up in the relevant categories, and will be trackable. This will both pay of for Article Alerts, and similar things like WP:RECOG, which I'll be setting-up after I'm done dealing with the template situation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable enough, Headbomb. It'll be interesting to see how many more are tagged. I also look forward to your presentation of Article Alerts and the results displayed through WP:RECOG. Thanks once again for all your efforts. I can see from some of your comments that you've been quite impressed by the progress we have made on this project. So it would be great if you could bring it to the attention of anyone else you think might be interested in participating, either on the content or on the technical side.--Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Banners - have we got the wording right?

@Rich Farmbrough, Fram, Headbomb, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW:

I've just seen a conversation at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Women_in_Red which alerted me to a possible improvement to our new banners.

The old wording eg here said: This new or improved article was submitted as part of the Women in Entertainment virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WikiProject Women in Red, June 2016. (with some links).

The new wording at {{WIR-15}} is: This article was created or improved in June 2016 as part of the Women in Entertainment edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project. The editor who attended the event may be a new editor, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. (with some links).

I wonder if we should tweak the first sentence to: This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Entertainment edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in June 2016. ..., moving the date to allow for work done as belated contributions to Editathons? The Editathon was hosted in June 2016, but the work on the article may have been later (or even earlier, if someone got keen in May 2016 as soon as it was announced). And leave the second sentence unamended (though I'm not quite sure about it either: surely we assume that all editors will AGF and they shouldn't need to be asked to specifically because an editor may be new? And Ipigott suggested above that "attended" should perhaps be replaced by "participated in", to allow for the online nature of the editathons.) Any thoughts? PamD 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You'r right Pam we should treat newbies exactly as we do each other. However some don't treat each other well (sometimes!) and sadly it appears part of the cost of enjoying the company of many who do AGF. Newbies frequently get chewed by over enthusiastic guardians of the Wiki. Can leave that bit in? It won't help much but it reminds. Victuallers (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@PamD: I'm not too happy with the new wording. As I pointed out to Headbomb, I would prefer "The editor who participated in the event..." as we are dealing with online rather than physical meetups. In regard to the month/year dates, I think we should keep them as they are. I think we are all ready to allow for work a few days before or a few day after the month in question but not several months later.--Ipigott (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW: (my ping above didn't work - left in a comma from a cut-and-paste - so belatedly re-pinging)
@Ipigott: Ah, Ian, you probably disapprove of my very belated additions to a couple of the early editathons, which I made a few weeks ago to fill in the missing lines of my table of contributions! Definitely on the "several months later", and stretching "several". Must now crack on with May's three challenges ... PamD 09:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@PamD: Your keenness to participate in all our editathons is of course to be welcomed and is clearly a case of "it's the exception that proves the rule". For most of us though, I'm sure the "flavour of the month" provides an incentive to branch into new areas or revisit older ones.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I got no real opinion on whether participated is any better than attended. Seems exactly the same to me, but YMMV. {{WIR}} is there for anyone wishing to tweak the language though/move the date around. Or settle on a wording and I'll implement it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as the date is concerned I did add "c." temporarily to one of the items, but it would be needed in WIR. There is also a concern here about art-and-feminism overlaps, which User:Rhododendrites might like to comment on. It's easy enough to skip these pages of course.
One of the curious pages was moved (thus apparently created) in the period concerned, and then added to an event list. This is a tricky one as we really do not want to spend editor time checking up on minutiae like this in the back end of the encyclopedia, but there are folk who consider these things very important.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC).
Responding to the ping above. I reverted the banner at Talk:Molly Zuckerman-Hartung because it seemed like a straightforward mistake. It was created at the MoMA A+F event and has the A+F banner. The only other edit at that time was this one. Perhaps adding a category is sufficient to add it to the list? I would not have thought that to be the case, but if so, I've no objection to restoring it. I know that there's a challenge in trying to draw lines to determine what "counts". I will say that in my experience adding A+F article templates and, more recently, the WIR-YOS template, I came across a little bit of pushback in some cases where the article was created/improved during a particular time but was not part of the event, or only saw a minor edit for the event. I think that someone added all articles about women scientists created during WIR-YOS to the list on that page. If the goal is to celebrate women scientists on Wikipedia, that makes sense of course, but the wording of the banner ("This article was created or improved in 2016 as part of the...") should be changed to "This article was created or improved during the...". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It was added simply because it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/8#Outcomes_-_articles. If that list is not accurate, then it should quite likely be updated. Having the wording during instead of as part of could also solve this if the dual listing is desired. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@PamD and Ipigott:, you are correct, I did not get the ping and as I've pondered numerous times before, though this page is watchlisted, it doesn't always show up for me. Would it just solve the attended/participated debate to say "took part in"? That solves both whether they were at a physical event or were virtually participating. I actually prefer the date at the end of the sentence, but I am thinking it doesn't really matter where it is. I am not too much of a stickler that the article be created in the month that the editathon was held. I am just grateful for articles ;) SusunW (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Right. Based on the lists. Didn't intend to suggest that Rich just added it based on nothing. :) When I was adding banners and ran into a couple objections, I had been going by the lists, too. The problem isn't at the stage of adding the banners; the problem is adding articles to the lists when there's no indication it was part of a given event aside from the subject of an article. For the women scientists editathon, I believe all articles about women scientists created in that span of time were added to the lists. Of course, I say "the problem", but that's if it's a problem. The point of the banner is to celebrate content, Wikipedians' work, the subjects of articles, and a particular collaboration around a common goal. To that end, I don't have any real objection with banners on articles I've created/improved outside of that banner's event if it's not entirely unrelated and for a good cause. :) But I understand why people do object ("credit" is a fraught thing on Wikipedia, after all), and it seems preferable that the banner text be accurate (all of this is to belabor the suggestion I've already made, changing "as part of" to "during")... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


OK, this seems like it is all in hand. I wonder if the "newbie" part of the message should be suppressed after a decent interval? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: having seen another instance of the banner placed on an article created at an IRL event (Talk:Dona Nelson), I wonder if the banner is just being added to all Art+Feminism articles. The banner wording, "the Art+Feminism edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in March 2016" seems to say that A+F (unqualified, thus the entire project) is hosted by WiR (i.e. that A+F is put on by WiR). I'd encourage you not to just add it to all A+F articles, which are already tagged with an A+F talk page banner. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, then I propose to skip {{ArtAndFeminism2016 article}} tagged pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) - was adding this to the end of my comments above, but will just add it here instead for clarity: Or perhaps the more appropriate request is for them not to be added to the lists, since I understand that's the basis for adding the banner. If it's important for WiR programmatic metrics/measured impact, and if there's consensus that all A+F articles were part of the WiR editathon as well, then perhaps it would be better to add a WiR parameter to the existing A+F template? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the main implication is if you leave them out, they won't get picked up by WP:AALERTS for WIR, or get categorized in WIR-related categories. Which is true for plenty of women-related things. The question is mostly equivalent to should those articles be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/8, or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb and Rich Farmbrough: perhaps I don't know how the wikiprojects are set up, but it seems like if the goal is just to track all articles about women created in a particular time period, the better thing to do would just be to go by a WiR wikiproject tag rather than a banner stating that it is part of a specific event? If the A+F banner were modified to include a WiR parameter, it could also include it in whatever category allows it to be tracked FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me rephrase something, because I think there are several possible solutions: What is the tracking-related goal of the banners? Is it (a) to track all articles about a given subject created in a given time frame, (b) to track all articles created for a particular event, (c) to track all articles about women created since WiR launched, or (d) something else?

It seems like the status quo is closest to (a). If that's the case, it seems like it may be more straightforward to use a single WikiProject template with different parameters for tracking purposes? If (b), it seems like the only ones that should be added by others are those created/improved by people who have listed themselves as participants or for which there's otherwise some indication of participation in the event. If (c), again, a single WikiProject template seems best. Maybe? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's mostly for the project to decide, but as someone who's not associated with WIR really, WIR-related lists to me would make more sense to focus on articles created/expanded as part of WIR-related efforts, rather than anything women-related. That's what {{WP Women}}/{{WP Women Scientists}}/etc... would be for. But again, that's only my 2 cents as an outsider. I haven't really been involved with the project, so I'm not quite sure what its scope is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd think that the WiR template should only be added to items created or substantially expanded by an editor editing in connection with the relevant editathon - possibly a few days before the stated time period, very likely during it, occasionally afterwards but inspired by it. It should not be added to other articles - see the understandable anger this causes, at #Inappropriate tagging below. The talk page banner for {{WP Women}} is there to identify all articles about women or women-related topics, a much broader group. The list on the editathon page should only include articles listed by their by their creator or expander, and not just "This article was created on a woman topic in this period so it's going into the list". PamD 21:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've added a notice on the template on what to do if the article shouldn't have been tagged. That should take care of the inappropriate listings. I propose we leave that notice up during the retroactive tagging run, and take it down some time after we're done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea, but I don't think it should be so prominent. What about this:
I added a section to the Template:WIR documentation. I'd like the small text to be over in the bottom-right corner rather than directly underneath, but my CSS-wrangling patience has run out for now. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Kat Blaque nominated for deletion

The Kat Blaque article was proposed for deletion yesterday, I deprodded and then the nominator sent to AfD. Note: this AfD is actually the second, not the third as the title says, because the second nomination was made in error. Funcrunch (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch Worked on cleaning up the formatting. Netherzone (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Young, gifted and red

I've been trying out a tool which colours wikilinks according to their status. For example, if a link is a redirect then it's coloured green; if it's to a disambiguation page then it's yellow. Note especially that it shows a link in a magenta shade of red if the page is tagged for deletion. It's therefore useful for this project in showing links which are at risk of turning red for everyone. For example, please see Afua Richardson – one of the few black women to work as a comic book artist. She may still look blue to you but she looks red to me because she's under discussion at AfD. Kudos to Anomie for creating and hosting this link classifier. Andrew D. (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a great idea, Andrew. For example, when looking at recent deaths, I recall accidentally discovering that someone I thought had an article did not, it was merely a redirect to (shock, horror) her husband. Anyway, I've just installed the script (very easy) and it works! Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
FYI folks on the AfD for Afua Richardson rallied to improve the article, and the AfD was closed as KEEP today. As Edwardx commented here [6] a nice example of it working the way it should. --Krelnik (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you user:Ipigott

I don't know how many of you follow Ipigott's edits at {{Women in Red}}. He's been updating the template with the WHGI statistics for a long time. Today, May 8th, we're at 16.94%, while on January 8th, we were at 16.81%. Those of you who are better at stats than me can address the significance of this difference. What I can say is, thanks, Ian, for documenting the progress we are making, and thanks, everyone, for the many things you do within the scope of Women in Red, not the least of which is writing hundreds of women's biographies and articles about women's works, broadly construed. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree - Ipigott is an invaluable member of this project, in ways too numerous to mention and/or count. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ditto to all of the above. My admiration for Ian and his many many skills, especially with language, has no bounds. I try to tell him often how much his skill is appreciated, but I am sure I do not say it often enough. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Not only is Ipigott always there for you when you need him, he is quick at everything he does and never seems to forget a request. Amazing! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm really pleased to see that my back office work is appreciated by key members of the project. Such effusive appreciation will of course encourage me to continue along the same lines, as far as time permits. As for the weekly WHGI statistics, I'm also happy to see that we are continuing to progress slowly but surely. In connection with Rosie's increasing interest in global outreach, it is interesting to note that although the EN wiki still has the not only the highest number of biographies (1,464,756) but also the highest number of biographies about women (248,177), progress on many of the other language versions has been impressive. Last week there were 885 new biographies on women in English but there were as many as 2,072 in Japanese. Our proportion of new biographies on women was 21.92% but we were well behind the percentages for new women's biographies in many of the other language versions: Slovenian 81.25%, Hindi 73.02%, Cebuano (Philippines) 49.64%, Japanese 41.39%, Chinese 41.10%..... This seems to indicate that especially in Asia, great efforts are being made to give proportionally more attention to women. As for the overall percentages of women's biographies in the various languages, many of the Nordic and Western European languages have significantly higher proportions with Norwegian 21.98%, Swedish 20.43%, Spanish 18.31%, Finnish 17.73% and Portuguese 17.31% although with 16.94%, English is still ahead of Dutch 16.56%, French 16.18%, German 15.26% and Italian 14.84%. Of course Welsh still stands out as the proportionate leader with 9,371 of its 18,023 of its biographies (i.e. 51.99%) on women, although this is mainly due to a semi-automatic, one-off effort to create stubs by translating information from Wikidata into Welsh. All this goes to show that we still need to devote more time and effort to narrowing the gender gap by creating far more women's biographies in English. Let's hope that Dr. Blofeld is soon given the green light for launching contests devoted to articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to find our red link lists to add a new link but they seem to have disappeared from our main page. Is this intentional? I know there has been a lot of criticism of our site but I would have thought our red links were perhaps the most important item we have to offer those visiting our project. If you look at the icons at the top of the page, the most obvious for red links seems to be Resources but there's nothing there. I realize of course that the lists can be accessed through the navbox at the foot of the page but the lists have also been hidden there. I think we should offer newcomers easier access to an essential part of our work - but I may well be in a minority.--Ipigott (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They are there Ipigott just beneath the Article Alerts is Work Lists. SusunW (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Susun.I did click on the "Worklists" icon but it seemed at first glance that I was simply turning up the focus of the month. If it wasn't obvious to me that "Worklists" means "Lists of Red Links" or "Missing articles", it might well not be obvious to others. But if you think "Worklists" is self-explanatory, then let's just leave it as it is. At least I can now find where to put my additional link.--Ipigott (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott I would prefer it to say "Redlists", but I thought that was just my OCDness. ;) SusunW (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I've solved the problem by adding a short introduction to the section. If people scan the page for missing articles or red links, they will now find them without difficulty.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

World Conferences on Women

I have completed writing the 3 missing World Conferences on Women. If anyone can help add delegates or address redlinks, make corrections, etc. it would be greatly appreciated:

On the 4th one, I think it should be renamed and have made a proposal on the talk page if anyone wants to weigh in. Talk:Fourth World Conference on Women Thanks! SusunW (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Women inventors

I started a redlist for women I'd been stumbling on who are inventors. If you find any in your research, please add! It's very small right now. :) Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Invention Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I managed to turn up a few more (but not many) on Wikidata. I'll try to help with expanding the list.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if this source would be any help, but I found American Women in Technology: An Encyclopedia while poking around the stacks at our local library the other day. Seemed like it might have some likely information to dig into. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both Ipigott and Ser Amantio di Nicolao! I wonder if there are any other topics we've overlooked? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

May 12: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#16)

The core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes.[1] To be clear, these are not the final themes! They are just an initial working draft of the core concepts. There are more conversations yet to come.

Starting this week, you are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th.[2] You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

For each theme, we are asking five questions. These questions are intended to help us understand the impact of these potential themes and the tradeoffs we will have to make. To succeed in any strategic venture, we must not only declare what we will do, but also what we will not! If you have research and other citable data related to your opinions, please include them! Finally, we ask that you participate in an honest and respectful manner.

Each theme has a page on Meta-WIki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion. Here are the five major themes, and their brief descriptions:

== Healthy, inclusive communities == [3] By 2030, the Wikimedia volunteer culture will be fun, rewarding, and inclusive for both existing contributors and newcomers. We will welcome new volunteers to our movement and mentor them to ensure that they have a great experience and continue to engage in the projects. People from every background will feel included in an ecosystem of unique groups and organizations that deepen connections with each other. As a result, our movement will grow both in size and in character, as our projects flourish from the healthy community we cultivate together.

== The augmented age == [4] By 2030, the Wikimedia movement will collaborate with learning machines to help our volunteers be much more creative and productive. We will use prediction and design to make knowledge easy to access and easy to use with novel, humanized, intelligent interfaces. Volunteers will collaborate with machine translators to deepen the quality and quantity of content in more languages – at a heightened pace and scale. We will curate knowledge in structured and interactive formats that enhance and reflect the way people learn and contribute — beyond the browser, the app, and the encyclopedic format. We will embrace technological innovation as the most viable path toward meeting our vision.

== A truly global movement == [5] The Wikimedia movement will turn our attention to the places in the world that were underserved during the first 15 years of our history. We will build awareness of Wikimedia and make it more useful to people. We will overcome barriers to accessing knowledge, so more people can freely share in the Wikimedia projects. We will support communities in underserved parts of the world and make space for new forms of contribution and citations that meet global knowledge traditions. By 2030, we will be a truly global movement.

== The most respected source of knowledge == [6] By 2030, Wikimedia projects will be regarded as the most trusted, high-quality, neutral, and relevant source of free knowledge in the world. We will uphold the accuracy and verifiability of our content by integrating high-quality secondary sources and supporting the existence of reliable sources in society. We will improve public understanding of the processes that make Wikimedia reliable, and we will invite experts to join us and share their knowledge. We will surface the most relevant information to people when and where they need it. We will expand the depth of knowledge available, while upholding our standards for verifiable, neutral and comprehensive knowledge.

== Engaging in the knowledge ecosystem == [7] By 2030, the Wikimedia Movement will have dramatically improved the quality, diversity, and global availability of free knowledge by working with diverse institutions and organizations that collaborate toward free knowledge for all. Wikimedia content, technology, and communities will be embedded in formal and informal learning throughout the world, in partnership with the world’s leading institutions in education, the arts, entertainment, civil society, government, science, and technology. Through strategic partnerships across our movement, we will build a diverse new generation of knowledge providers and seekers who will build and care for a growing body of freely accessible knowledge. We will make Wikimedia an integral part of a global knowledge ecosystem.

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.[2]

We also have efforts underway to collect feedback from people who are not currently involved with Wikimedia - and may not even have internet access. We will be summarizing how we’re collecting this information, and the perspectives themselves, and sharing them on Meta-Wiki as they become available.[2]

One more thing - hopefully you are already aware that we are in the final days of the community selection process for the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees![8]

If you are eligible to vote and have not already done so, please consider doing so before voting ends at 23:59 (UTC) on Sunday, 14 May 2017. You can find out more information about the candidates and how to vote on Meta-WIki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10240438. Thank you!

مع أطيب التحيات (Arabic translation: “Best regards”) Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[9]

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Participate [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/Healthy,_Inclusive_Communities [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/The_Augmented_Age [5] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement [6] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/The_Most_Respected_Source_of_Knowledge [7] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/Engaging_in_the_Knowledge_Ecosystem [8] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Board_of_Trustees

[9] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/12_May_2017_-_Update_16_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

— Katherine Maher, Wikimedia-l
I guess my only comment would be that if we cannot make "Healthy, inclusive communities", none of the rest of the goals will matter. We will continue to lose editors, the data we cover will continue to be lopsided and the whole point of being an encyclopedia (comprehensive knowledge) will be moot. I know I sound like a broken record, but if we are going to move forward policies and guidelines must acknowledge and come up with solutions that presently are exclusionary, such as eliminating secondary notability guidelines which don't meet GNG or are discriminatory, clarifying that weight and not length is what indicates sufficient coverage, and quite frankly making the system not one that anyone can edit, but one where anyone may. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. SusunW (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki

The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the online and offline discussions taking place on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation • Please help translate to other languages. • Get help

19:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanda E. Brunstetter

Anyone fancy taking a look at this? She is notable, within the confines of writers of Amish romance - I think I tried to whip up an article myself a few months ago, but didn't get very far. Sourcing is difficult, to say the least. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If you could produce sales figure, that might help. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC).
Done. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Prolific author per Worldcat (>400 works). Wish there were better media coverage. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
That number is not really accurate, since Worldcat does a bad job of merging editions into a work. Certainly there are a lot of editions of her books. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll take a look on EBSCO. There's often a lot of reviews there that don't seem to turn up in Google searches. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing is difficult for these sorts of niche writers, I've found - there are quite a few mega-bestsellers on the Times list whose online profile is barely extant, if even that much, due largely to the kinds of things they write. (Mostly Amish romance...one of these days I'll get a photograph of the paperback aisle at the local grocery store and try to determine how many of the writers therein have articles hereabouts.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is would this BLP survive an AfD? I think it might. Wikipedia has articles on junk science and junk scientists, provided that they are sufficiently notable, so I don't see why there should not be articles on writers of junk literature. The subject would not pass WP:Author, but might pass WP:GNG based on the high number of sales (if those figures are accurate). There is also the question of whether this is the real name of the person or a writing name. In this genre, pseudonyms are frequent, so sources about the person may be hard to find. They like to hide their identities. However, in this case the identity appears to be genuine. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC).
The awards listed at the bottom of http://wandabrunstetter.com/about/ would make this article very hard to delete at AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You may be correct, although some might say junk awards for junk writing. I guess we are not thinking about WP:Prof#C2. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC).
"Junk writing"? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what User:Xxanthippe meant was that some of us are more used to writing about professors than genre fiction authors. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sophie Labelle nominated for deletion

Just returned from a week-long Wikibreak to find another article on a trans woman, Sophie Labelle, nominated for deletion. Funcrunch (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Lorca Cohen

Lorca Cohen was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorca Cohen. She is a professional photographer and antique dealer and is the daughter of Leonard Cohen. Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

Could the Women in Red members please take a look at Ann Louise Gittleman? I have made several requested edits to the editors to help make the BLP page neutral, fair, verifiable, and credible (see talk). In its current state, the article falsely portray's Gittleman's education (the editors deleted reference to her M.S. from Columbia University and her CNS from the American College of Nutrition), puts undue weight on certain critical sources (WP:UNDUE), and heavily relies on Healthline.com, a source which does not accurately describe Gittleman's Fat Flush Plan WP:VERIFY. The overall tone of the BLP article lacks neutrality (WP:NPOV). My attempts to request edits or to provide other sources with other points of view via the Talk page and BLP Noticeboard have been rejected. I have disclosed my FCOI and do not believe I can edit directly under WP:COI. Thank you. Mnh429 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)— Mnh429 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

As has been explained to you more than once on the talk page, wikipedia is a tertiary source, we write based on independent reliable secondary sources. All of your problems will away if you find independent reliable secondary sources reflecting the changes you want to make in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The user making this request has been forum shopping. Delta13C (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
and is a paid editor who works exclusively for the subject. Time for a second Afd? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC).
I think the article could survive an AfD, but it could be close. Perhaps this is a case where a WP article serves the public in providing factual information and not promoting fringe and pseudoscientific ideas, which on this subject in particular run rampant online. Delta13C (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_27&oldid=1241383582"