Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 9 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

1,000

We're at 988 new articles. Will today be the day we cross over 1,000 new articles for the month of October? #proudoftheworkwedohere --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Maybe not to write, but certainly to gnome. LOL But yes, at this point, I'd say that was an unattainable goal for now. We need to get more editors on board and surely they will run out of one/two line stubs on the sports project soon. I'd rather see more start class articles which would mean less time at AfD, I hope. SusunW (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Special thanks to SusunW who has tirelessly copied over hundreds and hundreds of names from AlexBot (in addition to the many new articles and upgrades she has contributed herself). As for 2,000 new articles a month, I don't think we should simply go for an increase in numbers of articles but perhaps work towards increasing the number of contributors. We could perhaps also embark on a de-stubbing exercise.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Ipigott. I really do not like the gnoming task but cannot figure out how we make it different. Still hoping Rosie's contacts can help automate it. I agree about destubbing and took 10 of those one line stubs from the last editathon to start class this month, after Yoninah pointed out there were one liners from the leadership one. I tend to forget stubs are there, which I guess is why I rarely write them ;) SusunW (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think de-stubbing might be a good project to work on. :) Oh! I could make a list of stubs that need work... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Events

Started Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Events. Not much to it right now. Please improve it. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I put (or tried to anyway) a ping to you on this event page. Do we have a list of women photographers? May is Photography Month and I don't recall us ever doing photographers. I think it'd be cool, if there are enough to do an editathon. SusunW (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW, I can work on a photography list. I can think of two right now off the top of my head. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) 👍 Like
I'll look around too for historic ones. You know me, I like my subjects to be "historic". Less trouble in the long run. SusunW (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool. So far, too, I've found mostly U.S. photographers. Here's where I'm working on the list: Women photographers. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep did you see that Jaluj added an editathon on architects this week for es? Very cool :) SusunW (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW no, where? Link? So awesome! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep our project front page, "October" just under our link, but here's a copy [1] SusunW (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW now I see it! I was looking in the Events section (and I've added it there); so proud to know that we are linguistically a truly international collaboration. Jaluj, hi again, amiga! So happy to work alongside you and your team. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC) 👍 Like SusunW (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I posted your link to the main page and we have already had additions for Australia and Germany! You ROCK!!!! Think there is sufficient there already to warrant an editathon and surely by May will come up with more entries. Mayhaps we ask WikiProject Photography to join us? Also occurs to me that Black History Month except in Britain when it occurs in October?? is February for US/Canada/Caribbean and Indigenous People's Month is in August. Can we work on lists? SusunW (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL. I'm glad you have more diverse sources. :D I think asking WP Photography to help is an awesome idea. I'll start looking at Black History Month and other lists. It is also probably a good idea to start Hispanic History, too, We're already in the middle of it, but for next year would be good. Coverage of Chicana artists is poor on Wikipedia. :/ You know what's weird? I used to think that having so many lists would be overwhelming, but now it's almost inspiring: there are so many amazing women out there that deserve their space. When I was a little girl (a billion years ago), I used to think women's history was boring, because I didn't see women doing anything, except Betsy Ross (sewing, probably not real). But now that I see so many women who have done amazing things, I'm inspired and it fuels my interest more and more. I'm so angry at people who say women haven't contributed to history: it's so obvious that's not true. They've just been missing from the story. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I dunno what happened to my "February is" part before Black History month, but you get my point :) I have always been fascinated by women's stories and knew even as a kid that they were there, they just weren't told, same with Native and African American stories. There was an AME church next door to my grade school. I would sneak over and have those ladies tell me stories and then try to look the people they told me about in the encyclopedia. Not one was ever in there and I was soooo disappointed. Of course, that was back "Before Dirt", though things haven't changed a whole lot there are some inclusions. Maybe we ask WP African Diaspora and WP Indigenous to help when we get to those. I think it would be awesome to get several WP working together, as long as there is good will all around an no warring results. Rosiestep we are being bold here. You said add stuff. If you want to change the direction or proposals, please feel free. SusunW (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know who suggested we check with AfroCrowd for an event in February, but I went to their Wikipage and cannot for the life of me figure out how or where to post a message. The talk page is blank and the Black History Month section is for last year. I did note that Pharos is on that page and since there was input for the architecture editathon from that quarter, possibly that is a place to start for asking if any events are pending and help with lists of missing women that would work for both our purposes and Black History Month. I'm going to reach out to contacts at UWI and see if they can help with Caribbean women. SusunW (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW Be Bold! should be our motto. Lol! Definitely, let's collaborate with anyone/everyone who might intersect with our work. Those two are great suggestions. Also, I've reached out to Pharos (he may still be knee deep in the architecture guggathon) regarding the NY Academy of Science event for next month. And I'll see if he has any meetup pages or points of contact yet for AfroCrowd events in 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW Thanks for the ping, I can confirm that we're planning to do this again in February with Afrocrowd, hopefully centered in NYC at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture. We can also reach out to the other physical locations that hosted last year in other cities.--Pharos (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Pharos Great! You will note that on the front page where all the other lists are, the awesome Megalibrarygirl has started a Black History list. Anyone can add to it. SusunW (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Olga Ravn for deletion

For info and maybe some support

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. valereee (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this in some detail but further support would be welcome. I've also added a snippet to the article with an English-language source which might be more meaningful than all the Danish citations.--Ipigott (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I added some English-language sources and wikified the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoninah, for you edits and your support on the article deletion page. I'll try to flesh out the article a bit more myself today.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Aviatrix (Aviatrices?, trixes?)

Discovered this prod Melanie Astles in my morning's gnoming. Could definitely be a cool DYK. But needs tons of work. Very flowery language and no sourcing other than the one link I found to deprod. Anyone interested in a daredevil pilot? SusunW (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, there appear to be a group of Aviatrix that were created without sources. I am finding one for each so they don't get prodded, but they need work.

Sadly those are all copyright violations, and so I've had to tag them for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well even more sadly, before I could get to them, they were speedy deleted. As I said, all had links to Russian Wiki with sources. They did not have to be deleted, only the copyvio blanked and the sentences I documented could have stayed to be fleshed out. I have retrieved 2 already and will get to the other 2 after I do my architect of the day. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: 2015 Art+Feminism Grant

Art+Feminism has prepared a combined renewal of our IEG grant and PEG grant. If awarded, these grants will fund: childcare and refreshments for the 2016 international Art+Feminism Edit-a-thons; in-person training sessions for New York-city based volunteers and online training sessions national and international node organizers; the expansion of our outreach to post-secondary institutions and international Wikimedia chapters; building sustainable infrastructure for node organizers; and making our materials more intersectional. We seek community comment to help complete the grant process: here -- Failedprojects (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata, etc.

Remember to use Mix-n-Match on Wikidata items for women!

Hi all, this is just a reminder to search for the name of your biographical article and any other commons spellings (such as initials+surname) in Mix-n-Match! This will help add extra sources to the Wikidata item with just a few extra clicks. Here is the link: Mix-n-Match. Best, Jane (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to put this together but I don't think it is what is needed for most of those writing biographies about women. What we want is a Wikidata for Dummies starter page, preferably running to no more than about 100 words, explaining (a) why anyone should bother with Wikidata, (b) how to make a first entry and what is the minimum amount of information required (maybe instance of = human, sex or gender = female, given name = xxx), and (c) important potential additions (occupation, date of birth, date of death). But I must say it is not easy to enter info on Wikidata. The basic claims simply do not show up when you enter a name.--Ipigott (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually Mix-n-Match is a way for external parties to hook their data up with Wikipedia. Let's say you are a dictionary of people (like the HDS) and the spelling is not a way to succesfully match your records up. You can ask to have your metadata loaded into Mix-n-Match and then if enough people match it up, the matches can be used both ways (from Wikipedia through the authority control template we can link out to the source, and the dictionary can link their entries to Wikipedia articles). Jane (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There's something seriously wrong with Wikidata. I went in and clicked on "Create new item" in order to try to add Marina Tognetti. I managed to add the name and basic description but could not find out how to add a link to the EN wiki. No help available. Sorry, it's late, giving up for now. Not a user-friendly experience.--Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata doesn't work like Wikipedia. It only accepts micro-contributions. Each statement counts as a complete save. So you created the item with a label. Next you should add claims, such as "instance of" = human, "Gender"= female, "occupation" = writer or whatever, and so forth. You add statements with the "Add" links on the right under the description. Under the Add link you will see the area to add links to other projects and Wikipedia is the first one. You need to select your language (enwiki) first in order to add a link. You can take just as long as you want to do it. If someone comes along and creates a new item that does link to your article, then you can always merge the new one into the old one. It's a wiki, and though it looks very different, you can figure it out pretty easily. Eventually if you make lots of similar edits you can learn a bunch of shortcuts, but in general just adding claims by hand is the most efficient way to get started. There is no rush or anything, it's not like the item will get deleted if it is missing all statements. Generally people will figure out that you wanted to link it to an article. Jane (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor with nine years' experience on wiki, I am here to say that I'm not about to ever deal with wikidata or anything like it; I have enough work writing the articles. Someone else can do it, I refuse to and, frankly DGAF for anything that makes it harder for content creators to create content. Let me just insert parameters into an infobox and call it good. Montanabw(talk) 21:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, but I certainly am glad you are willing to deal with infoboxes! I know lots of editors who hate infoboxes too. I keep telling people that you need to think of Wikidata in the same way as Wikimedia Commons. It is a useful project meant as an adjunct to Wikipedia, but it is not a threat or a fork or anything like that. If you are curious and willing to learn, you will soon see that it is also a lot like Commons and Wikipedia. It's a wiki, with a group of persnickety editors who are interested in sharing their knowledge. Most people don't care about other languages at all and think it is just the repository of interwikilinks. Other people have moved all of their stuff there. I myself have moved all of my working lists there that I used to keep on my PC. Jane (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

So can you explain how the infoboxes populate Wikidata? Are there any WikiData for dummies tutorials online? I get confused too.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes no problem. I will repeat what I stated above. Wikidata has nothing to do with infoboxes, and any information you put in an infobox is because you like the way infoboxes look. Period. Wikipedia is a consumer of Wikidata for the purposes of interwikilinks and the few properties accepted in the authority control template. Other infobox templates may include certain fields that pull specific data from Wikidata (I recall seeing one for lighthouses or somthing like that). If you want to build an infobox to pull data from Wikidata for say, women writers, that is possible, but there isn't one that does that ... yet. Jane (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The best way to learn your way around Wikidata is the same way you learn your way around Wikipedia. Go to an article about a place that is well documented (like Berlin) and check out the item associated with that article. For artworks, look at the Mona Lisa, etc. etc. When you want to add an image on Commons you can either upload with the default uploader, grab the url to use on Wikipeda and forget about it, or you can look at the file template and see if you can use a different uploader so you can add your own template or put the file in more categories. It's all about your curiosity and what you want to do. I like to work on paintings, so I am pretty interested in both Wikidata in order to make lists, and Wikimedia Commons in order to categorize paintings. Jane (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jane023: I know my way around Wikidata enough to create an entry, link it to its Wikipedia article, add its properties, etc. I haven't sorted out Mix-N-Match or reporting. (a) I was wondering why some biographies get a Wikidata entry quickly while others don't. Do you know what triggers someone who's "working" at Wikidata to spot an article on Wikipedia and create an item for it at Wikidata? If we knew the magic trigger, it would be helpful to those who don't want to dabble in Wikidata themselves. (b) I am very interested in Max Klein's WIGI work. We spent some time together in July in Mexico City and discussed his research and the work that Roger and I were doing (creating this WiR project). His time is pretty tight these days as he's working on his Ph.D. and I haven't seen anything more about WIGI data, although maybe I'm not looking in the right place. Now that I've seen your research, I find it very interesting and I'd like to sort out how to run the reports myself so that I can replicate the data, but I don't understand the process. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
As a Wikipedian, you are a curator of content, including your own content. It is up to you to see how your content is reused on other projects. Personally Ì prefer to curate that content as well. It's that simple. So Wikidatans generally create items, then articles, as I said before. Wikipedians who dislike or who are confused by Wikidata don't touch it and that is a shame. There are various bots and I suppose Wikignomes who create items for orphaned articles, but I have only done this on rare occasions when something has crossed my path. I don't know about who is behind those item creations, but I am sorry that you feel unable to create your own items. Running reports is easy with autolist and there is a help page to get you started. Jane (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing explained somewhere that properly formatted infoboxes can also emit whatever is needed for wikidata. There is zero reason any content editor should be required to be a programmer to create an article. Certain basic formatting requirements, such as infobox content (and there are infoboxes in well over half of all WP articles) should emit the microdata or whatever it is for wikidata to pick it up. It's all magic pixie dust to me. Montanabw(talk) 03:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The "emitting" as you say is not done automatically, but semi-automatically by someone who cares about that specific article. If I knew of a link to give you that would create the Wikidata item based on the infobox I would give it to you. The other way around, namely creating a short stub + infobox from a biography item, is a tool I use quite often and it is called PrepBio . Jane (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a developer and do not program on Wikipedia, Wikidata, or Wikimedia Commons. I do use lists and tools to manage those lists, such as Listeria (for example I created the "List of paintings by Jacob van Ruisdael" after working on the userfied list User:Jane023/Paintings by Jacob van Ruisdael. I just keep searching the list for various things, such as catalog numbers, or museum names, or items in the depicts field (such as "waterfall"). I enjoy working on sets of paintings and 17th-century Dutch painters, and as I do the work, I become better at using Wikidata for curation purposes. I feel that Wikidata has made this much much easier since I worked on my "List of paintings by Frans Hals". I only just noticed that the "List of paintings by Rembrandt" needs some Wikilove so maybe I will work on that next. On International Women's Day, March 8th I created a list based on a book called Women Painters of the World and tried to do as many women on that list as possible. Jane (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes, Wikidata, DBpedia, Persondata

These terms have come up in recent discussions. I must say I am becoming more and more confused about what is needed when drafting a Wikipedia article and what is not. Past discussions refer to tie ups between infoboxes and DPpedia and more recent proposals have been made on developing infobox structures which are more compatible with Wikidata. There are also queries on who, why or how data from a Wikipedia biography is transferred to Wikidata: maybe by hand (there seem to be people reviewing new articles and adding basic data to Wikidata), by means of the "authority control" tag/mechanism, or in certain cases (I believe dates of birth and death have been mentioned) from infoboxes created in new articles. It seems to me that all this is extremely confusing even for experienced editors, never mind the newbies we are trying to attract. And I have a sneaking feeling, with a few notable exceptions, that women are less keen to delve into all this jargon and database creation than men. Indeed, it has frequently been pointed out that Wikipedia is far more of a computer programmers' environment than a content creation site accessible to all and sundry. While I would like to thank Jane023 for the time and trouble she has taken to give some basic information on how to add information to Wikidata, it seems to me that what we need above all is a simple guideline on: a) what essential information should be included in Wikipedia biographies on women; b) how should this information be formatted (in the article lead, in an infobox, or on Wikidata).

Once this has been clarified, we can no doubt then set about having bots developed to pick up key data from the articles themselves or to assist editors while they are creating new articles. For example, a Wikidata prompt/ in the LH margin (similar to the existing interwiki language link) could turn up a box and/or Wikidata creation format which would simplify the addition of key information. There seem to be considerable weaknesses in the existing approach: there is no guarantee that important information is recorded anywhere (now that Persondata is on the way out); the amount of information on Wikidata seems to depend above all on the efforts made by editors other than the article creator; and there is no simple tie up between Wikipedia and Wikidata allowing the information to be checked/corrected.

Are these issues for Women in Red or should we just hope that things continue to improve?

(I hesitate to complicate matters but as Pigsonthewing has been mentioned, User:Pigsonthewing/Persondata may be of interest. There are also extensive discussions of the development of bots for Wikidata.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a tool to help readers glance at Wikipedia pages. They should sum up the article at hand. They are only located in Wikipedia articles. You will not find them on Wikidata or on Wikimedia Commons (Commons uses something called galleries, which can be included on Wikipedia articles, but which are also not on Wikidata). I believe infoboxes are relevant to this project and should be used on all articles about women (though sometimes you just don't have enough information for an infobox). Wikidata is a Wikimedia project external to Wikipedia, along the lines of Wikimedia Commons, Wikisource, Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, etc. Wikidata is highly relevant to this project, as it can give you access to lots of data about women who do not have articles yet on the English Wikipedia, but who may have detailed articles that can be translated from other language wikis. DBPedia is not a Wikimedia project. It is a third party website that scrapes Wikipedia and only uses information it gathers from infoboxes. I believe the project is considering moving its target to Wikidata, but I don't know. As far as I know, there is nothing useful to this project in DBPedia and I wouldn't worry about it as a Wikipedian. Persondata is an old Wikipedia project that was started by the German Wikipedia and was used in the English Wikipedia for years before Wikidata was born. Wikidata is generally more up-to-date for these articles today. I believe it depends on the domain. If you are creating a new article, you should certainly not add a persondata template! You can better add that data in an infobox. Of course, if all you want to do is create articles on Wikipedia without infoboxes or worrying about other projects, that is fine. Your contributions will not be included on Wikidata until someone creates an item for them. I believe this will happen eventually, but I have no idea what the backlog is. Hope it helps. Jane (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jane023: you hit the nail on the head. If we create an article on Wikipedia, and if there isn't a relevant item for it on Wikidata, it isn't accounted for by the WIGI tool or scholarly research that uses Wikidata to measure content (gender gap or otherwise) on Wikipedia. We need a tool to interface between the two, which resides on Wikipedia as that's where the content editors are spending their time, not the other way around (a form in Wikidata that when completed creates a stub-like article on Wikipedia). --Rosiestep (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: The whole point is that if you reverse your workflow, then you only need to input the information once. So first Wikidata, then Wikipedia. The problem with going from infoboxes to Wikidata is that those infoboxes take free form inputs by definition, to make it as easy as possible to fill in. So for example in a birthplace field of a biographical infobox, this may be a house, a village, a county, province, or country, based on the information at hand. Depending on whether there is an article for the place, it may include double brackets or not. Occasionally you may see something like "New York City or White Plains", which is not a place, but the best information that the Wikipedian had at hand who typed it in. In Wikidata, when you input the birthplace field, you have to be very specific and this enables Wikidata to know just what it is you are referring to. So you could type in "White Plains" and add a link to the source where that was stated, and then also add "New York City" with a link to the source where that was stated. I hope this makes it clear why you couldn't make a program to copy from Wikipedia to Wikidata. It just won't have the desired results. At the end of the day, this will always be handwork. You can delay it for a year or two, there's no hurry, but it should be done someday. Jane (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jane023: I may try to change my pattern and create an item in Wikidata first, but I'm just one person. I don't have any expectations that others will follow suit when it seems clear to me that most Wikipedia editors don't want to engage in the Wikidata universe. We're lucky we have @Missvain: signed up for our next edit-a-thon (Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3) with a note that she'll deal with the Wikidata piece (thank you!). What bothers me is wondering how many of the articles created at WiR's first two events, Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/1 and Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2, were added into Wikidata? I'd venture it's a small number. And what keeps me up at night -- yes, really does keep me up at night -- is wondering how many of the women bios created in September through the WiR program have a WikiData item (see here Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red#Metrics (new articles) and the balance are here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Metrics#September)? If the answer is "only a few", then maybe my time would be better spent creating Wikidata items for WiR's biographies instead of some of the work I do do on Wikipedia. I would not want to ask anyone else to do that as it defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do... create more women's biographies. It's disconcerting to think that we started this Wikiproject in the hopes of "moving the needle" in terms of percent of women's biographies only to find out that our efforts on Wikipedia are not specifically accounted for in the Wikidata/WIGI universe unless someone deals with the Wikidata piece. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: That is so sweet to read! It is very nice of you to worry about all of that, but let me remind you that this is an encyclopedia, so there is nothing urgent here -ever! Those Wikidata items will eventually get created and have statements added to them, believe me! As far as managing a Wikimedia project goes, welcome to my world! For years now in Wikimedia Netherlands we have racked our brains how we can measure our progress as a chapter. What should we measure? How should we measure it? Have a look at the presentations on Wikimetrics and then look at some of those videos of Wikimania attendees demonstrating how they edit on mobile for some sobering thoughts on how terrible we are at both measuring impact and helping mobile-first editors. So don't sweat the gap between new articles created and lack of Wikidata items - it's not an issue so don't make it your issue. Sure those new articles created just on Wikipedia won't get counted in Wikidata queries today, but they will get counted next year and so forth. Each day lots of people are working on ways to help Wikipedians use Wikidata better and the other way around. This will improve. If you are uncomfortable on Wikidata and making queries, then just stay on Wikipedia within your comfort zone and take small steps. You will figure it out eventually, it's not rocket science. And have faith in the crowd-sourcing model. Articles will get Wikidata items, followed by people playing the gender game on the Wikidata game, linking those items to women or people playing with matching in Mix-n-Match adding sources to those items. You don't need to do all that on your own, and you certainly don't have to teach others to do that if you aren't comfortable doing that. Even today, Google indexes Wikipedia and not Wikidata (though I suppose this too may change eventually - I have noticed that Google has indexed Wikimedia Commons files of photos of people without Wikipedia articles). So spreading your knowledge just by contributing to Wikipedia is a perfectly sound approach that has the biggest impact in the long run I think. Jane (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep, you are a jewel. Truly. I tried, again after yesterday's fiasco of trying to add 3, and I managed to make one entry that I cannot figure out how to delete and add another that is anything but complete. I used that mixmatch thing to search for Shadi Amin and her alias Soheila Amintorabi getting no matches, I added it, but when I went to link it to a document, it told me an entry already existed??? So, I added the alias to the entry already there and have no idea how to delete the second one. Rather than use that mixmatch which did not give me a hit on Amin, I added Annalee Stewart and input her and her VIAF identifier, but when I tried to copy paste other info, it kept telling me there was an error, so I gave up. If we can get clear instructions on how to do this, I will help, but honestly think my forte is creation of articles and not the technical stuff. I honestly cannot believe that there is no way to automate this process, which is what I know we had both hoped for. SusunW (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW, thanks so much for trying! Don't worry about deleting mistakes. In general items are never deleted, but just merged. If it is a really basic mistake on creation (so no way of knowing what it should be merged to), those items will eventually turn up on someone's list and be cleaned up either by a mass deletion or reuse. Don't worry about it. Glad that you looked in Mix-n-Match but it's of course always a gamble when it comes to the ladies - they often don't make it into the sources on their own, but only included in their husband's, father's, or son's entry. Jane (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Some background info

Thanks for inviting me here. As a general response to the above:

  • Infoboxes provide structured data, which can be read by computers ("Machine-readable data").
  • They emit microformats, which make the data readable using non-proprietary standards (standards used commonly on the web, not just Wikipedia)
  • A lot of data was ported from Wikipedia to Wikidata, by reading it from infoboxes
  • If a new Wikidata property is created, a bot may read corresponding data from Wikipedia infoboxes
  • Conversely, it is now possible to populate infoboxes, and other templates, (on this and many other-language Wikipedias) by calling data from Wikidata
    • This is important, because it allows facts to be stored, and changed once, but to be displayed on up to 290 different Wikipedias, plus other sister projects.
    • Examples of such templates, other than infoboxes, include {{Authority control}} & {{Official website}}.
  • For every new Wikipedia article a Wikidata item should be created (unless one exists already, of course)
  • Tools exist to do batch updates to, or item creation on, Wikidata
  • We lack a tool which will take a single new Wikipedia article, read data from its infobox (and other templates/ categories), and create a corresponding Wikidata item - but there is definitely potential for one to be provided
  • When I get the chance, I will write a (or make a video) guide to creating and updating a Wikipedia item
  • Persondata is deprecated, and should not be used. Please remove it if you find it in an article you're editing.
  • DBpedia is a non-WMF project that reads data from Wikipedia (infoboxes, other templates) and puts it into an alternative machine-readable format. You don't need to worry about that.
  • There are lots of tools that let people contribute to Wikidata, with a human-friendly interface. For example, the Wikidata game.

I hope that's answered everyone's questions; please let me know if I've missed anything, or if you'd like further clarification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Andy: "We lack a tool which will take a single new Wikipedia article, read data from its infobox (and other templates/ categories), and create a corresponding Wikidata item - but there is definitely potential for one to be provided". As there is "potential for one to be provided", is anyone working on developing it, and if not, why not? It seems like a very obvious necessity as Wikipedia's content producers don't seem to want to to take part in the Wikidata universe. I've jumped the broom myself and I do create Wikidata items for articles I start on Wikipedia, but I do so only when I have the time/inclination to do so, mostly after creating an article with a VIAF identifier so that there's the link with Authority control. As for Persondata, I'm curious why there isn't a bot running to delete that information from articles as it is superfluous and has been for well over a year. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"Wikipedia editors prefer not to edit and outsource their content on a different Wiki" (Wikidata): In case anyone wants to make your comments heard elsewhere, there's someone working on this issue as part of a bachelor thesis and they are seeking comments here. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Your guess is as good as mine, but factors at play may include lack of volunteer availability, complexity (lots of different, inconsistent, infoboxes), would only work for one language, and not seeing the value - I'd certainly challenge that last one. I don't have the necessary coding skills, but I'd be delighted to work on this with anyone who does. As for persondata, there's a further RfC, for which I've just requested a close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Andy: for providing all these details. I support Rosiestep 100% in the need to improve the interfaces between new articles on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Perhaps you could bring this to the attention of your colleagues on Wikipedia and Wikidata in the hope that we can quickly find a solution. It has occurred to me that a fairly simple facility for creating both infoboxes and Wikidata entries based on a restricted dataset (name, first name, dates of birth and death, place of birth and death, main occupation) would facilitate our work and free our contributors from repeating information on the same person two or three times. I imagine it would be reasonably simple to define this more clearly and allow the rest to be done by bots. Do you think there is any chance of initiating work in this direction? Do you agree it would be useful?--Ipigott (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree and also note that I fluctuate between using infoboxes and not. Depends on how much time I have to input them, but one of the things I noted in the link Andy provided above was the loss of name-same data in the migration to Wikidata. This is critical for women and needs to be addressed. Maiden name in countries wherein a woman changes her surname is often critical data for determining who she is. I recently ran into this very issue and found a huge clue that had been missing from all accounts of the architect E. E. Holman's life, as a census record listed a daughter with another surname. That surname led me to Holman's marriage and thus her birth date which was previously not shown in any biography of her that was written. With the Spanish women I do, the template for Spanish naming is valuable giving both primary and secondary surnames, but then the question is do you list the article name as birth name with married "de hubby" as an alternate or list the full married name. I tend to go with the name notability was derived under, but make sure that all known variants are in the article. None of this even touches on pseudonyms. Thus, when we are addressing the Wikidata thing, we need to address the name issue for women, IMO. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW, multiple common spelling of names, with or without the married name, is a common problem. On Wikipedia we have redirects for that, and on Wikidata we have aliases. I agree that best practise is to use the name notability was derived under, as this is the name recorded in various databases in Mix-n-Match. When you make links in Mix-n-Match, you add those sources to the item. So in the example yesterday that you gave, I searched for the Olschak name in Mix-n-Match and it came up with two hits that I linked to the item, and one of these triggered the authority control template. It is a problem though that the authority control template only seems to take a small number of library sources. Jane (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, one of the most helpful aspects of the old Persondata was name variations. Now that we are told these data should be deleted, it would be helpful to know that someone somewhere (Wikidata?) was absorbing the research carefully undertaken over the last ten years or so. I have spent considerable time and trouble documenting name variations in Persondata but now Pigsonthewing is instructing us simply to delete it! Maybe it's not much of a problem for the English-speaking community but it can be extremely important for the Spanish and Portuguese speaking communities in Iberia and Central and South America as well as for the Japanese, Chinese and Koreans. Should the existing research really be deleted without any safeguards?--Ipigott (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not telling you "simply to delete it"; that was the consensus of a well-attended RfC, which considered the matter in detail. I'm not clear, though, how it was ever "most helpful", for the reasons outlined in the essay page linked in an earlier section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlike persondata, Wikidata distinguishes between birth names, pen names, honorifics, nicknames, and other forms of alternative names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You find a link to this information (and a women-related user box) on WP:QAIPOST where you can post yourself whatever you think may help article quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 October 2015‎

Further to the above, this tool parses infoboxes (and other templates) and copies the data to Wikidata. You need to specify a single Wikidata property and the template parameter that it corresponds to. If the template parameter value is polluted with extraneous material such as references (or presumably text in a numerical or date field; I've note encountered this), it fails with a warning. If it includes things like parenthetical comments in text fields, they are copied across, and need to be manually adjusted afterwards. Of course, it also fails to read data from articles without infoboxes... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Women in Architecture Template

Hi! Here is the basic template to tag pages that result from the Women in Architecture virtual initiative. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This article was edited as part of the Women in Red's Virtual Edit-a-thon, Women in Architecture

The editor who attended the event may be a new editor. In an effort to support new editors, please assume good faith to their contributions before making changes. Thank you! Talk page: Women in Red Women in Architecture Editathon.


@Megalibrarygirl you (or anyone else) use this template on articles generated by our recent Women in Architecture event, and if so, do you have any feedback? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:, I didn't, since I didn't get any feedback on the template itself... and then I got distracted. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Pharos and I are working on this with the NYAS folks and once we have details sorted out, we'll get a NYC meetup page created, and a WiR meetup/virtual edit-a-thon page created. We have a planning meeting with NYAS next week so Wikipedia event pages will be created after that, on or before November 1st. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I've started Women in Science virtual edit-a-thon. Pharos will be able to flesh out some of the details from today's NYAS phone call, but the WiR meetup page is up so that anyone who is so inclined can work on it, plus the invitation, thank you note, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The in person event is here: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS.
  • The sponsor is: New York Academy of Sciences.
  • Dates: do these dates look ok? The NYAS folks liked the idea of our virtual event preceding their ground event as they believe some of the NYAS edit-a-thon attendees may like to improve an article vs. creating one from scratch, but we have some latitude with dates.
@Rosiestep: This looks like another opportunity to forge ahead on biographies. I think the event should also be closely coordinated with WP Women scientists and their members and participants. I've also suggested the Women scientists template should be included on the talk pages for new articles (maybe together with Women's history if appropriate). The Women scientists talk page also has some interesting new red links which could usefully be added to our own list. As for the dates, maybe we should start on Saturday, the 14th and end on Tuesday, the 24th. That will give us a couple of days to work on some of the new articles from the NYC event (while also avoiding a start on Friday, the 13th!). Fortunately, I won't have to spend so much time on preparing lists of red links although I would have liked to see wider coverage of women from the non-English speaking world. SusunW might be able to help. Maybe we should wait a few days before we send out invitations although I think it would be useful to inform other relevant WikiProjects at the very beginning of November. Could we not include a full introduction in running text on Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4? I'm not too good at finding information in boxes. It took me quite a while before I found your proposed dates. And should we not include the New York Academy of Sciences logo in our communications?--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: agree; I emailed Keilana about it yesterday. :) Yes, Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4 needs the running text we normally include; I didn't have time to deal with it because of RL (work, family, etc.). As for redlist(s) we should add all the names we want to add. The NYAS event will focus on women scientists in general. I've asked NYAS for a redlist of their members who might meet notability standards, and I believe they've started working on that list. As for changing the dates to 14-24, yes, that works. Let's send out invitations on November 1st-ish. Suggest we use 3 logos: WiR, NYAS, WikiProject Women Scientists. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Rosiestep: yes, I'll help in whatever way I can. This one I can write articles for, the next one I'm not sure about. And to give credit where credit is due Megalibrarygirl has spent hours and hours on these lists. I have no doubt she will be helping too. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott, Rosiestep, and SusunW:, I redid the Women in science list and categorized it by type of science. I hope that works better. I could also split it by nationality, but most of the scientists are UK/US right now anyway. I also redid the women artists list, since the way the WikiProject Women artists has their lists set up confused the heck out of me. I tried to find at least one source for everyone on both lists, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: I like how it's catagorized by type of science, and I've added a bunch of anthropologists to the list... go figure. :) (... I'm the armchair anthropologist whose father wouldn't let her major in anthropology as he thought it was impractical.) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, I'm going to add the women from the talk page on Women scientists to our list and try to get links. I think it helps people in the editathon to have some links to start with. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and SusunW: Hey y'all, Women Scientists and User:Gobonobo and I all maintain lists of redlinks. I'm happy to throw some up with some sources if you think that'd help. I'm super looking forward to participating! Hell yeah women scientists! Keilana (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Keilana:, I pulled many of the names from the scientist list on Women Scientists, but I categorized them by field and tried to add references. If you want to add a link, please do. If you have a reference, add it, and if you don't, I'll try to source one if I see any without reference. Thanks so much for helping me to add to the list. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Awesome!! I'll go through and add some in the next few days when I have a spare moment. User:Gamaliel may also be useful, I know he's collecting some resources as well. Keilana (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi @Jaluj in Argentina! This is awesome! If you'd like to add links to your articles at Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3 (Women Architects), please do so, but not necessary if you'd rather not! I hope Wikiproyecto:Mujeres is ready to create articles on Women Scientists because we're going to make huge progress on that in November and we can use your help in Spanish and any other languages! Here's our virtual meetup page Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4 (Women Scientists); feel free to add yourself as a Facilitator in the Infobox if you'd like to assist with Spanish language in person or "virtual" women scientist edit-a-thons during November... and someone in Spain can do so, too, and so on. Yay! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep: I've expanded Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4 but have again changed the dates after realizing that the Academy of Sciences event is to last a whole week from November 22. I also think that with the huge number of red links we have, we can easily work on new biographies of Women in Science for a full two weeks rather than just ten days. There is already a list of prominent women from the Academy of Sciences on the NYAS page. @Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for all your work and updates on our "Women science and technology" list. The breakdown by areas of interest is very useful. Maybe we can just include women from other countries in each section, perhaps specifying dates and country. I think the international coverage has helped a lot with our other editathons and would like to offer the same opportunities this time too. Another concern is that the full list as it stands at the moment is rather daunting. Can you think of any way in which we could highlight the really notable women, or possibly create a subset for the editathon?--Ipigott (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, if you want, I can break down most of the areas by nationality, too, since I tried to figure that out also. If I knew, I added it next to the redlink. As for breaking out the really notable ones, that might be a good idea. We could pull the ones I found with 3 links or more to start with and highlight them on the edit-a-thon page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think breaking it down by subfield is also a good idea. If we broke it down by subfield and by nationality we could get a way more manageable chunk. From my experience getting people to write about women in science, they look for people from a specific field and then pick kind of at random (or whoever has an amusing name... Icie Hoobler comes to mind...). I also find that too many sources is also overwhelming, and people are more likely to pick an article with one big source they can kind of follow, and maybe one or two smaller sources they can use to fill in the gaps. Keilana (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Yes, the ones with three links seems to be a good starting point. Perhaps we could create a list on the editathon page as you suggest. For the non-English-speaking women, I think a photo or other images in the bios in other languages is often an attraction. Perhaps we should start by creating a separate list of notables for the editathon and incorporate later on the editathon page - just as Pharos did with the architects?--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yes it is! If y'all want to use it that'd be great. Keilana (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can I just say I LOVE working with this group! So dynamic and so positive. Would that all of WikiPedia would take a pause and see how much better it is to be proactive and help each other. I like the idea of by specialty *AND* by country. Really helps for resources. I know that in Mexico, I don't have availability to some market areas and others I have lots of sources for. Weirdly, I can hardly find hits at all in search engines for Chile, but I get lots for Romania. Besides which, country designations allow others to pull out just their countries for on-site editathons during ours if they are so inclined. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
We love working with you too! <3 I'm working to find more sources and such (I think Gamaliel is busy right now but he's willing to help) and will try to find non-Anglophone scientists. Keilana (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, most of the list is now by speciality and country. :) And ditto on how awesome this group is. I'm really glad to say that I'm a lucky woman to have had an awesome experience on Wikipedia. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
And I second that, @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW! @Pharos, Keilana, and Ipigott: Can we revisit dates? I'm hearing through the grapevine that some editors would like to work on women scientists before the official start date or after the official end date (because of the Thanksgiving holiday in the US). What do you think about making this a 3 week virtual event, 8-29 Nov? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Women in Red/4 and suggest we continue the discussion there.--Ipigott (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Literature by women

@Missvain: We have {{cl|Category:Literature by women}} but it does not appear that we have {{cl|Category:Art by women}}. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. If someone wants to create it and deal with distributing it, go for it. :) Missvain (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing women scientists

I've put some up on the board at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, important ones which have been identified as missing. Rosie might want to copy them to the Women page for targets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Done! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wei Tingting

I created an article about this Chinese feminist and LGBT/women's rights activist as part of the ongoing Wikipedia Asian Month campaign. Just sharing in case WiR tracks newly created articles. I saw the red link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/API Women and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women activists. All are welcome to help expand the article! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Another Believer I have moved it to our metrics section Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Metrics#November 2015 SusunW (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


BLP

Regarding our events and the lists associated with them, such as this one, it has been suggested elsewhere that we distinguish the redlink entries as a BLP vs. a biography of someone who has passed. So, if you know the year of death and want to take the time to add it to the redlink, that's awesome (but not required); or if you know the person is alive, maybe add BLP after their name. This would probably benefit our newer editors the most. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Afd

I did what I could. Cannot find further sources from here in Mexico, but there are clues that other sourcing may exist and she does meet GNG, IMO.SusunW (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X up for renewal

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for Women in Red for testing the new WikiProject interface and tools. Thank you.

WikiProject X is up for renewal at the Wikimedia Foundation. We would like to continue working to make our existing tools better: to make them easier to use, and to integrate them with other Wikimedia projects, including Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Please review our renewal proposal and leave feedback. Note in this proposal we refer specifically to Women in Red by name—I've been very impressed by the enthusiasm of Women in Red, so I would like to prioritize helping this project.

As always, if you have any questions or feedback, please let me know on this talk page or the WikiProject X talk page.

Thank you again, Harej (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: I'm glad to see you have finally made contact with us again and are hoping to improve the WikiProject X interfaces. The project is indeed proving to be a huge success thanks to the involvement of all those contributing to new articles. The major problem with Women in Red is that we are unable to correct errors on the project page or provide a table of contents which covers it efficiently and not just one item at a time. Work on Metrics has become particularly critical as despite several attempts to alert you to the problem, the Metrics icon simply does not take you to the Metrics section. We have introduced a subsection on DYK successes but the only way we can draw attention to it is to mention it in the announcements. As the Grants section has never been used, it could perhaps be usefully replaced by DYKs (in which there is considerable interest). But as I have mentioned to you on several occasions, the most important correction we need is for you to have Metrics icon respond again. Once this works, we can perhaps address other improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry the problem slipped for so long! It should work again. I can also break out DYKs into a separate section if you all would like: the "pre-fab" module is called "Showcase" but we can also go with another name. Harej (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Thanks for the fix. I'm glad to see it's finally working again. I'm sure "Showcase" will be fine for DYKs too in the new version. How about the problem of a table of contents? Would it not be possible to provide for all the subsections in addition to the icons? The only way I can see of doing this at the moment is to add items under announcements. I have also noticed that the "Tasks" section has never really followed up on your plans to retrieve red links via WikiData. Should the "From WikiData" section not simply be eliminated so that we can continue adding our own tasks in the traditional way? I also think it might be useful for you to take a closer look at the main page on Women in Red and see how it could be improved in the light of the development of each of the sections. I think a more straightforward way for new members to register would also help. There have been lots of additional participants who have added their names to the lists on our editathons (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Women_in_Red/2#Participants and Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3#Participants) but many have not become members of WiR. Some (as I was) may be put off by the rather complicated registration procedure and the suggestion a photograph should be provided. This might deserve closer attention. I think it would also be useful for you to receive feedback from our other regular contributors including @Rosiestep, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, 97198, Alafarge, Yoninah, and Nvvchar:--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott, I have a theory about editathon participants. I think they don't sign up for a larger wiki project for 2 reasons, 1) they consider themselves casual editors... perhaps with the perception that they aren't really part of the online community and/or 2) it never occurs to them to sign up. I like the sign up process for WP Women, Harej, having a little pic is fun and cute. :) Plus you can skip the pic if you want to. I did at first and later added a pic that looks like my dog. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Harej: I have the same issue I have expressed all along. It is difficult to navigate. WIR seems to open new pages for sections, such as when you add an item to metrics and sometimes you return to WP Women and others on WP WIR. I cannot figure out why that is. The missing metrics piece IMO is the biggest challenge of the project. I simply do not understand why that is proving so difficult and why it cannot be done. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: Thanks for asking for feedback. I agree with the other editors who say that navigation is difficult, and doubly so after WiR merged with WikiProject Women. To help with events navigation, I created {{Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/Navigation}} this morning. IMHO, I really like the simplicity, look, feel, navigation of this one, Wikipedia:Art+Feminism. Are you thinking of offering various style options in the future? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I really like your navigation box, @Rosiestep:. It's a great first step to making the WiR page easier to get around. Regarding the sign-ups for editathons, I personally don't understand the need to "RSVP", unless you're trying to build a base of users to notify of future editathons. Without signing up, I started writing Women in Leadership articles and found I liked it, so I amassed quite a few. I skipped the Women in Architecture editathon, but will try my hand at Women in Science and Women in Religion. Is it really necessary to sign up for these? Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Nope, RSVP is not required. And yes, participant names are helpful for future event promotion. The main thing is writing articles. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have been hesitant about signing up for WikiProjects — any projects, not just this one — mainly because of uncertainty as to what is expected when one crosses over from being vanilla editor to project member. (Honestly, I signed up for my first WikiProject or two in the mistaken belief that only project members were entitled to put WikiProject tags on Talk pages, and I wanted to be able to do that.) Also, I don't often have time to read all the material that accumulates on WikiProject pages, useful though it can be, and even though this community in particular is unquestionably the most gracious I've found on Wikipedia so that dropping in is a pleasure. A case in point: an entry further up this page about Wikidata, which is completely opaque to me and which I'd clearly have to spend some time to figure out. So for me the navigation issues are far less important than it sounds like they are to all of you with more experience in WikiProjectLand.Alafarge (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all, very much, for your comments. I have prepared a list based on what has been said here. I want to make sure I have captured everything that's been said, so please let me know if I need to add anything to this list or otherwise change it:

  • Create a separate section to list DYKs
  • Find a way to list sub-sections in the table of contents
  • Auto-updating lists of redlinks from Wikidata. (Specifically, the ability to sort by category; right now, the tool gives just one list.)
  • More straightforward way to sign up, including de-emphasis on the picture aspect. (I wish to emphasize that having a picture is optional, though I understand how this may not always be clear.)
  • Interview most active users
  • Automate the metrics report for new articles
  • Fix navigation bugs
  • Offer various styling options
  • Clarify what exactly being a member entails.

Harej (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone also proposed a concierge bell for reporting problems and asking questions. An excellent idea as well. Harej (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Userbox

I created this user box if anyone wants to use it or improve it - it's my first attempt to create a user box.

This user is a member of WikiProject Women in Red.


Minor4th 22:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like this. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Very cool! Thanks!SusunW (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Very nice! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Aphra Behn Society Editathon

I missed seeing this, Wikipedia:Meetup/Aphra Behn Society Editathon, on WiR's mainpage in the Events section. We could have done a 1 week virtual edit-a-thon; sorry I wasn't on top of it. If anyone would like to participate, please join in virtually. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

New showcase section

I have moved the DYK entries into a section called Showcase. (Incidentally, there is a bot that automates this, but I think it requires categorizing all the articles in scope for this WikiProject into a special category, which I am not sure is feasible given the broad scope.) Please let me know promptly if anything broke in the process. Harej (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: I like it. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Counting growth in article types: Did we just have a 37% spike in Women architects?

Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/3 seems like it may have had a very measurable effect on the total number of biographical articles - but this needs a stronger technical confirmation. For details, please see the Village Pump question. Thanks for everyone who contributed to this campaign!--Pharos (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact, we had a 40% spike!--Pharos (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
👍 Like I tried to look at the link in Village pump but I get nothing when I click on it. But 40% spike is huge! Hoping for a big spike in women scientists too. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I've put the list on-wiki here: User:Pharos/WABY. I wonder whether this might make a good case study that could be developed as a Signpost feature?--Pharos (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
@Pharos: I think it has potential to tell a great story as we have access to accurate before and after numbers with this one. Let's do it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Women Olympians

Fellow Editors, While looking at another article, I noticed that per WP:NSPORTS@WP:OLYMPICS all persons competing at an Olympic Games are presumed notable. I thought this might offer some scope for articles on Women Olympians. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's good to know! Thank you. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just acquired a new book

Elliott, Clark A; Kohlstedt, Sally Gregory (1979). Biographical Dictionary of American Science: The Seventeenth Through the Nineteenth Centuries. Westport and London: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-20419-7.

All the women's biographies are indexed under the entry "Women in science", saving me much time!

SO far I have looked at 6 women's biographies and only 1 needed creating. Not sure whether to be disappointed!

Lucretia Crocker is a one-line stub, until I get some caffeine or some sleep.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC).

The five missing (women's) articles have been created. Three are still stubs, but I'll expand them over the next few days.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC).


AfD

Women in enterprise promotion - UK

The The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is awarded to about 8 people every year, along with one Lifetime Achievement Award. The following 10 (women) awardees and 2 lifetime awardees have no article.

The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2014

The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2013

Lifetime Achievement

  • Claire Dove MBE, Chief Executive, Blackburne House Group, Liverpool, Merseyside

Achievement in Enterprise Promotion

The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2012

Lifetime Achievement

Achievement in Enterprise Promotion

The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2011

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC).

DYK

If anyone wants to help with the Women in Science editathon and doesn't really want to write articles, or just has time to do QPQ reviews, I could use help with DYK nominations. I've nominated a bunch and so has Yoninah but I think these would be good candidates:

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to add a line or two and make yourself a co-author ;) SusunW (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Quarry

I had a phone call today with Amanda Bittaker regarding our Metrics. Amanda thinks she can help us with this. There are multiple steps. The first thing she needs from us is a list of categories within our scope. She suggested that we start with User:AlexNewArtBot/WomensHistory (I've pasted here). Category:Women writers is missing. Also, books written by women. What else? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm removing the pasted list from last night which was a mess; it's link is in the post right above this one. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep I don't quite get if these are parent categories or the actual ones it is searching. I don't see activists, I see activism but is a computer going to pick up on that? or suffragists only "suffe?rage" (what IS that). (Could explain why I keep saying none of my women appear on the list????) Also don't see social work only social reform. I did a German woman today and it would only take women academics not educators. I can also say that while we got songs in the new files list, we go no notifications on musicians though I know some were created. I do not see artists. Is this what you want? SusunW (talk) 03:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
SusunW yes, that's what Amanda needs. Regarding suffrage, I started those 8 suffrage congress articles earlier this month and I wonder now if I hadn't added them to the Metrics list by hand, would they have showed up? (e.g. First Conference of the International Woman Suffrage Alliance)? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep They were on the list, but not sure which marker made them appear. Also note there is nothing to do with film unless I am missing it. No film, no actress. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Rosiestep on musicians, no singers, songwriters, sopranos, altos. No instrument players of any kind, i.e. guitarists, drummers, etc. etc. No scientists, but science. Does it pull from that? What about chemists, biologists, mathematicians, economists ... This could go on forever. ;) SusunW (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, here's a list of what the bot captures in more natural language:
Points Phrase
2 Is a history stub or contains phrase "ground-breaking" or "revolutionary"
11 Contains language on "first woman" or "women's history"
2 Contains language on a peace organizer
2 Contains language on peace corps or human rights
10 Contains language on a woman mathmatician/scientist/enginner
10 Contains language on a woman education/administrator/library scientist
10 Contains language on a woman architect/builder
10 Contains language on a woman technology/industrial revolution or woman inventor
10 Contains language on a woman physician or nurse
10 Contains language on a woman and birth control or abortion
10 Contains language on a woman religious figure
10 Contains language on a woman sports person
10 Contains language on a woman artist
10 Contains language on a woman journalist
10 Contains language on a woman scientist/pilot/astronaunt
10 Contains language on a woman military person
10 Contains language on a woman government official
10 Contains language on a woman lawyer/judge/police
10 Contains language on a woman farmer/rancher
10 Contains language on a woman conservationist
10 Contains language on a woman activist
10 Contains language on a woman union organizer
10 Contains language on a woman slave/abolitionist
10 Contains language on a woman businessperson/banker/executive
10 Contains language on a woman philanthropist
4 Contains the phrase "for women"
4 Contains the word "women's" or "women" or "female"
10 Contains the word "all" before the word "women" or "female" or "woman"
-3 Contains the word "man" or "men" or "male"
10 Contains language on a Victorian/medieval/reaissance/ancient woman
6 Contains language on proto/first/second/third wave feminism or women's lib
3 Contains language stating the century
2 Contains the word "she"
-1 Contains the word "he"
The first column is the number of points assigned if that page (article, category, or template) contains the language in the second column. Eg, if an article contains language on a woman artist, language on woman journalist, but mentions the word "he" twice, it would have 18 points. (10 + 10 - 1 - 1).
The rules can be re-written so less slips through the concepts already covered, but hopefully this list will help highlight what concepts are missing as well. For example, scientists and mathematicians are already covered, but sub-categories of scientists such as chemists or biologists are not and could be added. I hope this helps, please do let me know if you have any questions on technical details as you are compiling this list. Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A list of missing occupations. Please add to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Actresses
  • Altos
  • Archaeologists
  • Biologists
  • Chemists
  • Drummers
  • Economists
  • Geologists
  • Guitarists
  • Linguist
  • Pianists
  • Physicists
  • Psychologist
  • Singers
  • Sociologists
  • Songwriters
  • Sopranos
  • Writers

Without trying to list them all, what if we ask Amanda to include the categories and all of the subcategories in {{cl|Women by occupation}} and {{cl|Category:Literature by women}}? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Good morning, @Abittaker (WMF). These two categories and all their subcategories encompass our scope. Can you create something which will display in list form any new articles created within these parameters? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Rosiestep, sure, I can put together a query for that. Just to be sure, do you want to also include the categories Category:Women's rights or Category:Women? I remember we discussed the possibility of including Women's rights, which includes suffrage topics, and these are not included in Women by occupation or Women's culture.
Also, I've asked about the best ways to capture the proportion of biographies that is women's biographies. There is no exact science to be sure of the most accurate way, but the feeling seems to be that a Wikidata query would be best. Another option would be looking at a biographies category and women's biographies category using catscan. Do you have someone who knows how to do one or both of these? I can send along some instructions as well. Best, Abittaker (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Abittaker (WMF), I think it simplifies the process if the query is for Category:Women and all its subcats. When the list is posted, we will weed out the articles which are outside our scope. We'll leave it to you to decide which query option is best (Wikidata vs. catscan). Thank you, --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
While I realise that it is volunteering others for work, it might be useful to do the analysis using both methods (wikidata & catscan) to see the difference between them. I also think that it would be prudent to use the same methods to determine the proportion of biographies that are men, and the proportion that are as yet undefined or unknown; though this may be difficult with categories. I mention this having reviewed some of the list of AfDs related to Tara Teng, kindly provided by Jbhunley; while the article subjects were clearly women, the majority did not seem to be tagged with a Women's category, and may not have had relevant wikidata either. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_4&oldid=1076158631"