Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Formatting the data for May 2016 Metrics page

Thanks to Sage Ross; he's compiled the May metrics. Does anyone know how to easily add formatting (pound sign; brackets) to this list? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007:, thank you; that was fast! There are a lot of redlinks because of some character issue. Don't know what caused that and I will check with Sage. Do you know if there's a shortcut to sorting out what articles they should link to? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected a few of the commons ones, but got stuck on the less common special characters. Maybe there's some automatic utf-8 reformatter out there? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: thanks again. Maybe a pagestalker knows something about the utf-8 reformatter.

Is there an easy way to merge this this list with this list, but duplicates removed? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, removed 173 duplicates and ordered alphabetically. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fixes. The May metrics list, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics#May 2016, is looking better. We can archive the list after the funky character reformatting occurs. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

... plus after other cleanup occurs. Commonly, the cleanup is done by @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW: and me, but I am traveling and it's not easy for me to do so at this time. See Ipigott's comments below for suggestions on what to look for. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Serious problems with the Metrics list for May 2016

May 2016 Metrics page

@Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, Sage Ross (WMF), and Edgars2007: and any others involved in WiR. I assume the outcome is simply the list presented under the May outcomes. I see the list now includes 1777 articles, including such things as 2016–17 Portland Pilots men's basketball team and disamb pages like Aldighieri. There are lots of other serious problems. As far as I can see, out of the first 10 articles listed, only seven are specific to women. And all of these come from the sports community with which we have had little or nothing to do. I think we need to take a far more disciplined approach to the outcomes of our project. I suggest we clearly list the results of our editathons (for some reason they seems to have completely disappeared from the metrics) and include everything else under other headings, e.g. "Other articles related to previous editathons" or "New articles independent of WiR". We should also immediately exclude all articles which have nothing specifically to do with women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you for noticing the errors. I hope that you've removed them? The section just above your post explains that the list was compiled by someone outside of WiR using a script which he developed for us. Sage saved SusunW/Megalibrarygirl/me about 10 hours of work by hand per month by developing the script. The results are not perfect, so each of us can contribute to review and cleanup, vs. one person dealing with metrics by themselves (from experience, I can tell you it's a time sink).

The metrics list tries to compile all articles within WiR's scope, not all articles created by WiR members. As we already have Outcomes lists per editathon, IMO, it would be very painful to maintain multiple lists per month on the Metrics page.

As for sports community articles, they are not everyone's cup of tea, but they are someone's cup of tea and they fall within WiR's scope, so I cannot imagine excluding them. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thank you for your explanations. I apologize if you found my comments upsetting - it was certainly not my intention to be negatively critical. Indeed, I realized after I had posted my reactions that they might have come across as rather unkind, especially as Sage Ross (WMF) has certainly helped the project along by automating part of the exercise. As you say, the list now needs to be cleaned up and I will spend the next few days going through it carefully. I am only too well aware how dangerous it can be to use the raw data from AlexBot for our own lists. The AlexBot day-to-day search on Women in Red always comes up with a considerable number of articles which are completely out of scope for us. On the other hand, while I am reviewing all the articles recently created by editors involved in our editathons, I often find they have written many which cover women (or works created by women) which have not been picked up in any of the AlexBot lists. There may well be hundreds of them per month but we are not catching them. I'll try to start keeping a list of them for future months. Maybe once we see how they are escaping AlexBot we can improve its search routines.

Despite what you say about how painful it would be to keep multiple lists, I think it would help if we could keep a separate, accessible record of the number of articles created in each of our editathons, perhaps with a simple link from the "Metrics" section. The editathons are after all the major incentive we use to encourage people to focus on women and their achievements. I think many participants, like me, would be interested to see how many articles have been written in connection with each of our editathons and how overall results evolve from month to month. As for sport, it is of course an extremely interesting and absorbing sector of interest and I would certainly include it as "my cup of tea" too, even if I have not been very active in creating new articles on sports people. I also agree with you that the scope of WiR covers women in all walks of life including sport. My only concern is that the vast majority of articles on women in sport would be created with or without the existence of WiR. I therefore think the project would receive wider credibility and support if we simply explained somewhere that the majority of new articles on women each month come from the sports sector rather than from the sectors covered by our editathons. Maybe for one or two months we could develop somewhere a separate listing of the sports articles in order to create a better understanding of the statistics.

Everyday I look through the output from AlexBot Women in Red and am amazed to find how many articles are included which are not about women. On the other hand, in answer to your suggestion that our metrics should not include the results of our editathons, I personally think it would be extremely useful to keep an accessible record of the results on a month-by-month basis.

Finally I think it would be useful to see whether we cannot develop simply tools for ensuring all relevant new articles are included in Wikidata. It seems to me that this is particularly important as Wikidata is used by many to see how we are progressing as we edge up from 15 to 16% and beyond. For a while, some of our participants were making a special effort to do this manually but no longer appear to be following up so consistently. If the inclusion of infoboxes is the only way of ensuring inclusion, then perhaps it would be worth the effort to see that simple infoboxes are at least included in each of our new biographies. If this can be automated (or semi-automated) all the better. (I would appreciate receiving other reactions and comments on all this, perhaps from @97198, Alafarge, Megalibrarygirl, T. Anthony, Harej, Victuallers, and Dr. Blofeld:).--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I spent all day cleaning the list up. Not an easy or enjoyable job! I sympathize with SusunW and you. The new total for the May metrics is 1276. I imagine we could find a lot more to add if we looked for pertinent articles created by our more enthusiastic participants but I don't feel like doing much more on the list at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If the new total is 1,276, it probably doesn't contain all the articles in our scope for the month, which is a pity, as I don't know which ones are missing and I don't have the time to figure it out. Yes, compiling the lists, adding the punctuation (pound sign; brackets), removing duplicates, removing non-WiR scope articles, assuring there's at least 1 "women" category, adding Authority Control, etc. is a lot of work done by hand. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So it seems that we'll still need to "clean up" with the automated list, Ipigott. Is the new bot automatically adding WikiProjects, Rosiestep? We should perhaps create a sign-up list for us to volunteer our time. I need to volunteer more, and I'd enjoy clean-up more than generating the list itself.... Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I should clarify that Sage didn't create a bot. He created a script which compiles a list in Excel format, using AlexNewBot entries to generate the list. So WikiProjects, categories, Authority Control, VIAF, etc. still have to be added by hand. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: That's a great offer. As I say, everyday I notice lots of new articles which are fully in scope with WiR but apparently not picked up by the bots. In my opinion, the problem is that people only include the articles they create on the lists for the editathons which are running at the time. If someone creates a stub on, for example, a political leader from Tanzania, with a name that cannot be recognized as male or female, the bots do not pick it up and the editor does not list it under the Metrics section of WiR. So we need to look into what everyone is doing each day in more detail or encourage them to add all their pertinent articles to the Metrics section.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep:, I think we should make a sign up list for the stats. I need to step up and take my turn again, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: that is a good idea. Maybe you or a pagestalker can get it started up? :) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl: Buenos dias from the Czech Republic. As suspected I have had very limited computer access or time. Will be home in ten days and should be able to be of assistance in July. SusunW (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Enjoy you holiday and don't worry about Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 counting - missing women athletes form Metrics list

I see that May has >1200 new articles created. This sounds a lot, but I think the list is far from complete. I created in May alone around 900 articles of rhytmic gymnasts (all women). I see some of them are in the list, but only a small selection of them. See lists below or articles at Category:Rhythmic gymnasts.

See a raw list here. Might include 1 or 2 menen. And might include disamb pages.

My May created female articles

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: thank you for spotting this discrepancy. As you can see from the above convo regarding May's metrics, a script was used for creating our metrics list and the script missed a lot of articles. The question we couldn't answer was, which articles. Thank you for coming up with this list!

Pagestalkers: We need to add Sander's list to our May 2016 metrics list, and remove duplicates if applicable. I'm at Wikipedia:GLAM/Boot Camp so not easy for me to handle this at the moment. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: I know I keep asking you to help with these lists but you seem to have tools which could help to solve the problem. If I were to go about it, I would have to check that each one of the 900 names was not already on the list.--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Theoretically 218 articles were in both lists... --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007:, @Ipigott:, wow great work!! Thanks! And to be a step ahead, for June, I also created some more rhytmic gymnasts and currently working on Category:Female trampolinists. Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

That was really quick work, Edgars2007. My sincere thanks. You deserve a promotion! Rosiestep will be pleased to see that we are now up to 1,955 new articles on women for June. And as only about a quarter of the articles by SvG were picked up initially, there must be many more on women in sport which were created in June, not to mention all those I keep finding in other sectors which have not been picked up by AlexBot. I was wondering if it would be possible to create a tool which would try to pick up all the new women's biographies each month based on categorization, similar to the Edgarbot for Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Keynote - Wikimedia Diversity Conference

Proud to have been asked to deliver the keynote at Wikimedia Diversity Conference. Described our history, our editing community, our best practices, some of the issues we encountered/resolved, and the amazing work done at Women in Red (articles, redlists, communications, etc.). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the post, Rosiestep! Was the speech well-Received? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl yes!! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep Glad to hear it went so well. I see we can view your presentation here. I was not aware that we already had so many international tie-ups. Perhaps you can provide more specific details of these. Was there any concrete follow-up? Can you give us the link to Max Klein's paper you mentioned in the presentation?--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott Sorry for brevity. There's a lot going on. (1) The interlanguage links can be found on each project's mainpage if anyone wants to do followup with Wikipedians in other languages. Many of those relationships developed in-person at wiki meetings and via social media. The link for Max et al's paper is here and on the Credit's page of my slidedeck. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red @ Commons

Commons category for Women in Red

I think some of you have created unique barnstars which we've used on WiR thank you notes, etc. Assuming those barnstars are on Commons, can you please add the Women in Red category to the image? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: The ones I have used were not created specially for WiR. I just managed to find something more or less suitable.--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hannah Chaplin deleted

On going through the Wikidata list of red-linked actresses I came across Hannah Chaplin, Charlie's mother. I was surprised to see there was no article about her on the EN wiki although there were (sometimes extensive) articles about her in French, German, Spanish, Norwegian and several others. I was about to start a biography when I discovered that a previous EN biography had been deleted in March on the grounds that she was not sufficiently notable in her own right (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Chaplin). I find this very surprising as not only has Hannah Chapman been included in many sources related to Charlie Chaplin (e.g. [1], [2]) but she has also been the subject of an entire book [3]. I do not want to embark on a new attempt to cover her just to have the article deleted but it seems to me extremely strange that Wikipedia can document her life in several world languages but not in English. @Rosiestep: Can you clear the ground for this or should we just accept that she is not notable? I suppose, if the worst comes to the worst we could just append her biography to the article on Charlie Chaplin but it seems to me she deserves an article of her own. Any ideas on how we can resolve this one?--Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll look at this tonight after work. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If anyone is interested, I see the same source (of Wikipedia deletions) also lists recent female biographies such as Myra Louise Taylor which appears to me to be fine too. There are also several beauty queens who may or may not be notable but are certainly entertaining. Interesting site for retrieving past deletions and reviewing AfDs.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this carefully, but I notice that the AfD discussion page mentions only trivial sources, which suggests the deleted entry was written without reference to the stand-alone biography. My guess is that with such a bio and other good supporting refs, a page could be made for her that would pass muster. Alafarge (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Alafarge: Thanks for your support. I would have thought the original article would have been sufficiently noteworthy too. And after all, the Daily Mail article appeared in 2009. It took me a couple of minutes to turn it up. Why couldn't our friend Sandstein find it and all the other stuff too? But thanks to your encouragement, I'll have another go at it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As AfD closer, I'm not searching for sources myself, I'm just doing what the consensus of the discussion tells me to. But if there are undiscussed significant sources, a recreation shouldn't be a problem. Sandstein 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I found many gbook references which verify the statements in the deleted article, and additional info about Hannah. I concur that she meets general notability standards and the she should have an article on en wiki. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. She'll soon have one.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've now produced a new version of Hannah Chaplin which might be found more acceptable than the March attempt. Maybe Alafarge or Rosiestep have something to add to it? Or someone might like to nominate it for DYK just to show that sometimes articles on women deleted under AfD are not completely lacking in notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What a tragic story. Thanks for taking this on and doing such a thorough job, Ipigott. I'll see about putting in a DYK nom.Alafarge (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I read through this article, and found the tone of it to be somewhat condescending and victimizing. I boldly worked on the language. If my edits were too bold, please revise. However overall, it seemed that the article needed much work in reframing it from the subjects perspective, rather than that of her famous son. Please let me know if I've overstepped, I appreciate feedback on these edits. Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Netherzone and Rosiestep: Thanks for contributing to the article. Many of your edits were helpful but in one or two cases there were changes which did not accurately reflect the sources. See my editing comments for more detailed explanations. I agree with you, Netherzone, that it would be great if we could find more sources on Hannah's life which did not relate her life so intimately to that of Charlie. I must say I only spent a day or two on the whole thing but if you feel the article should be expanded further, then we could try to look for more details of Hannah's music hall career. On the other hand, I was also wondering whether the article would not benefit from an additional section on how Hannah's life and background influenced Charlie Chapin's own career. There are many indications about this in the Daily Mail article.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you for clarifying - this is helpful information to know - I am learning. Will try to find more information on her life during her music hall career days. I hope the article can be (or has been) saved from deletion.Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Woot! Ipigott's new page on Hannah Chaplin just got DYK (dateline 17 June). Nice work WiR (looking at you Netherzone). Alafarge (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Super!Netherzone (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Monitoring the Gender Gap with Wikidata Human Gender Indicators", Max Klein et al.

I've been communicating with @Max Klein regarding content gender gap stats. Last night, he told me that as of 2016-3-28, the stats for women's biographies on the en-wiki are 16.14%. The data hasn't been updating weekly since then because of a bug; he is working on resolving that. His paper, which was just accepted (trying to figure out how to link to it) mentions Women in Red, and finds that the degree to which women's representation is increasing is correlated with WiR activity. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: This is excellent news. You'll be able to go into more detail when you meet him in Europe. It would be great if we could follow the Wikidata stats more closely and also receive confirmation that all our new biographies have indeed been included in Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me when I add a VIAF # into the Authority Control template on a Wikipedia article, a bot creates a Wikidata item and removes the VIAF from the Wikipedia article, so that has become my practice. I don't know if there are any other alert systems built into Wikipedia-Wikidata, e.g. if a new article has a DOB or no DOB but has a "women" category. @Jane023 knows much more about this. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: How exactly do you add a VIAF # to the AC template? I have been consistently adding the AC template to all my biographies and most of those I find in connection with our editathons. I have noticed many of our new articles are added to Wikidata without the attribute "feminine" (e.g. Judith Irvine). I don't know if there's an easy way to fix this without going physically into Wikidata and correcting it. But at first sight, it looks to me as if we might not be properly credited on Wikidata for much of the work we do. I was wondering if the Wikidata people or the WMF could develop a simple tool with minimum data (e.g. male/female, years of birth and death, nationality, occupation) which could be completed via a template when an article is created -- rather like the old persondata but properly interfaced with Wikidata. Perhaps you could take this up at your meetings.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: (1) Search for the name here: http://viaf.org/. I searched for Helen Keller and her VIAF ID is 36920292. Add the VIAF to the AC like this: {{Authority control|VIAF=36920292}}.

In addition to VIAF, I think Wikidata bots also look for other "magic words", perhaps articles with "women" categories but I don't know that for sure. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I am super interested in reading that paper! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I think you'll find most of the information here. You have to click on each of the headings. See in particular this page where you will find the 16.14% by hovering on English.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The easiest way to make sure a wikidata item is created is to create it yourself and connect it to the article. In fact I generally create the Wikidata item first. So e.g. I will create items for all items in a catalog or dictionary and much later I get around to creating articles, and I will create articles for some or all of them depending on how much time I have and how notable the subjects are. Once you get used to it, Wikidata is pretty easy to navigate. I agree that WiR has created a backlog of genderless items and some items have yet to be created. It's a shame really that this process can't be sped up a bit with simple instructions to article creators. Jane (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Jane023, can you clarify what this refers to: "... WiR has created a backlog of genderless items"? Does it mean WiR articles are getting a Wikidata item, but the item is missing gender, and if that is the case, is it because the WiR article is missing a "foo women" category? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jane023: While I have no problems editing Wikipedia, I find Wikidata extremely user-hostile. I have tried to battle with it on several occasions but without success. I simply do not have hours and hours to devote to a system which offers no help for carrying out simple data entry tasks. And if I find it so difficult, what about all the newbies from our editathons?--Ipigott (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please note that having the backlog doesn't mean it won't get done, and I am not asking you to step outside your editing comfort zone. I already wrote about the backlog here : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Analysis of New articles 6-dec-2015 to 20-mar-2016. Jane (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jane023: I am indeed very grateful to editors like you who spend so much time creating Wikidata entries for our new articles. Nevertheless, if we had a simple tool in the EN Wikipedia for interfacing with Wikidata, perhaps a template providing slots for essential basic data on biographies, rather along the lines of Persondata, editors creating new articles could add something like: "name=Ann Other|gender=female|birthyear=1850|deathyear=1925|nationality=Australian|occupation=writer" in less than a minute. As there is already an interface for adding new language links to articles existing in another language, it should be possible to add an interface for completely new articles. Up to now, it seems that this can only be achieved by adding boxes to new articles and not all of us are happy about that approach, especially for articles on art, music and culture in general. Maybe Edgars2007 or Harej could comment on the feasibility of this approach?--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Since our paper was mentioned, I'll link to the pre-print version: [4]. Max also has a number of conference presentations based on that that he may link; my primary contribution was with the journal article (which, for the record, is not accepted yet, I presume what the op meant was that one of Maxes conference presentations was accepted, which is pretty routine, if always cool - good to get the word out). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks for communicating your long detailed analysis. Very interesting. Could you provide the date when the data were accessed for the graphics? Please let me know when the paper has been accepted for publication. Is there a site where the graphics can be accessed online? In her recent presentation in Washington, Rosiestep referred to a paper by Max (see below) which has apparently been accepted for publication but not yet published. I've asked her for the url.--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly are you asking, but you should be able to find that information on meta:Research:Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index (this was my project to which I invited Max as a collaborator, and which ended with the paper I cited above) and meta:Grants:IEG/WIGI: Wikipedia Gender Index (this was Maxes's spin-off project which yielded some conference papers and a website, through he is better to comment on that and provide related links). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Headdesk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeanIn.Org. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

We're now at 16.34%

I see from here that we're now at 16.34%. I have a feeling the recent change may be mainly due to the bot run by Edgars2007 which adds female to Wikidata on the basis of categories for women's occupations. And I've just noticed that from 13 to 19 June, there were 2,280 new English biographies of which 1,146 (50.26%) were female biographies. @Rosiestep: This may be useful for your next presentation.--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Women in Halls of Fame

The focus for July is women in halls of fame. I have created a basic editathon page but would appreciate some assistance in adding further details to the sections on "Add these to articles" and "Add these to article talkpages". I'll also prepare an invitation but am not too sure whether we should just send it to our main list or whether all recent editathon participants should be included too. As you, Rosiestep, suggested the topic, perhaps you have some suggestions, also in regard to sponsors.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I can help, too, Ipigott. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott I won't be able to research sponsors as I'm traveling most of the rest of the month. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, just saw your post above mine! Eek, how did I miss it? :) Maybe add invites to the state wikiprojects? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

FloNight, you may have some thoughts on this, too, if I remember right. Also reaching out to KellyDoyle as this might tie in with your work. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott:, I added a little to the meetup page. And no worries, Rosie, it's easy to miss stuff when you're traveling. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft invitation

You are invited...

Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon

Host: Women in Red
July 2016
#wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Ipigott would you like me to MassMessage this to those on our Opt In list? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Yes, that would certainly help. I'll leave the timing up to you but maybe sometime next week. I'll also compile a list of our more enthusiastic unregistered participants and send it out to them too.--Ipigott (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, I think it's too early to send out today so I'll wait, but if I get distracted, please ping me with a reminder. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday would be appropriate. I have also been wondering about international coverage of Halls of Fame. As you probably realize, while the American Halls of Fame relate to accomplishment in virtually all walks of life, those elsewhere are primarily concerned with sports. Do you think it would help to include women corresponding to categories listing recipients under Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country including Category:Order of the British Empire, Category:Légion d'honneur recipients, Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the states of Germany, Category:Recipients of the Italian Order of Merit for Culture and Art, Category:Recipients of Ingenio et Arti (Denmark), and Category:Litteris et Artibus recipients (Sweden). It would be easy to find deserving women by reviewing the equivalent lists in the other languages. Maybe Megalibrarygirl would also like to comment on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: as an inclusionist, the answer would be, sure, include them! They certainly attention. But I don't know how much work it would be to create those redlists? P.S. I am traveling again today/tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave any expansion of the red link lists to Megalibrarygirl but perhaps we could in any case just include the categories as a guide somewhere on the red links page. Otherwise I think we are going to end up mainly with Americans writing about Americans. Rosiestep, enjoy your trip to Italy. From the programme, it looks as if they are really going to entertain you.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I'll look at those to make redlists later on. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No rush, Megalibrarygirl, your existing lists provide plenty of red links to start with. There's actually lots to draw on, especially when you turn up the equivalent categories in each of the other languages. I don't know how you intend to go about picking out the most important missing women from each list. Maybe you could just include a few names for each country and list the category for further research. Up to you, but it all gives an estimate of how much work we still need to do on the English wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for a new project

Watching Rosie's speech recently at the diversity conference, and something she said also made me think heavily about the quality and importance of articles being produced too, those well known women who had articles even in encyclopedias years back and might be in a poor state on here, IMO improving the quality of those articles should also be important to people who want to see improvement of coverage of women on wikipedia. So many important women articles are neglected and suffer from bloat/are unsourced, or badly underdeveloped. What I propose is a new spin off project Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green. It wouldn't require much to run, not like this but could simply function as a sub page for monitoring what good articles we have on women to date. We could create a hotlist of the 100, 500 or 1000 articles we most want to see promoted to GA for women on wikipedia, a hotlist of women articles by traffic/and some idea of what needs the most work given the level of traffic. People could then "reserve" one and have a long term project to work on aside from their new article creation work.

Obviously I don't want to interfere with the growth of Women in Red and increasing the sheer percentage of article subjects, but ultimately producing an encyclopedia of the highest quality is the overall goal of the project. Some of the poorly developed articles on important women might get several thousand women reading them every day, and each day they see a poor article. I think this aspect of the project needs to be developed too, identify articles which must be minimum GA status and aim long term to tick off lists. Perhaps we could come up with a Hot 100 to start with, 100 articles, 10 for each subject perhaps of articles we desperately need brought up to GA? Women in "Green" of course is inspired by the good icon for GAs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To kick it off I would suggest a month contest/editathon with a handsome prize, like $250-500 worth of books about women of the editor's choice. We draw up a Core article list for Women on wikipedia based on the WP:Atdrag model and give out books as prizes. It could be something like a Hot 100 and a Hot 1000 list of the articles we most want promoted to GA. Not just women biographies but also works. The prizes could include one for most articles on the list promoted to GA in the month. Another for best quality article during the month. Perhaps the DC chapter of wikimedia would be interested in funding something like this? If it was a success you could probably run a similar contest to the Dragon one for Women in Red too and reward the people who produce the most articles in a month. If there was enough support in fact you could probably run a contest which develops both, rewards for both most GAs and most new articles created. And you could probably run different contests with a different theme too, you could have one for Women writers for example when that is the focus of the month and prizes for getting important women's novels and writers up to GA status etc. Anyway, for starters I would think it would be great to make a list of the 100 most wanted GAs on women and then a Hot 1000 core list on the Wikipedia:Women in Green page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Should we do it as an extension of WP Women in Red or perhaps WP Women or are you proposing a completely new, separate project?--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is easiest, though Women in Red really is for missing content only it seems. You could probably set up a Women in Green page as a spin off or subpage though and for starters come up with a core list of articles we most want to see promoted to GA?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to combine an analysis of the page views of women's biographies with their quality ratings? That might give us a basis for choosing which ones deserve priority attention. It might also be possible to see whether any have reached GA or higher in the other language wikis, particularly those for the major European languages. As WiR's topic for next month is "Halls of Fame", we could try to pick some out for further work, perhaps 25 or so to start with. SusunW is away on holiday for another few days but I'm sure she would be interested in your proposal when she returns. Is their any reason why you suggest Women in Green (rather than perhaps Women in Silver or Women in Gold)?--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "Women in "Green" of course is inspired by the [green] good icon for GAs!". I think it would be good for somebody to create a list of the 1000 most popular women articles on English wikipedia and a proper core list drawn up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a terrific idea and would love to contribute on any remotely within my areas of knowledge. I'm less keen on the 1000 most popular articles (because that's likely to skew towards the kinds of topics who could use the attention least; it's not like Wikipedia has a huge shortage of recent women pop singers, sports stars or Western politicians with detailed articles). I wonder if a different metric could be used so it catches more of the sorts of articles mentioned in the first post. Still a great idea though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point, it would be stacked more towards pop and porn stars I'd guess, but it would at least show what gets the most traffic. Out of that we could decide which are really priority to promote and include some in with a healthier balanced list. What I suggest we start with is a Hot 100 list. 100 women biographies which aren't GA or FA and should be. I'd imagine some might be listed under the Vital articles criteria so that might be a good place to start. There would be a good balance of women from all subjects I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a great sister project to Women in Red; daughter project to WikiProject Women. But unclear how to avoid bias in determining the Top 1000. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think to start with come up with 100 articles, try to include 10 from each subject or at least have some fair sort of distribution. A wider 1000 list would take more time and thought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll work on Audrey Hepburn next, she should be in a top 100 list I think, agreed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't done so already, you might want to consider cross-posting the Women in Green concept at WikiProject Women as the scope of WikiProject Women in Red is new article creation. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Will do. I've started a page for now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green. It seems only 2.06% of all GAs are about women, I'd take that very seriously as it's pathetic!!! It wouldn't be a thriving wikiproject like Women in Red of course, but it would allow anybody who might want to work on an article long term amid their new article creations to do so and give us a target. I think we should aim to have at least 1000 Good articles on women!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OK I've created a list of 100 articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green which urgently need bringing up to GA status. It's appalling really that all of those articles still haven't been promoted. The real core articles. I'd say the bias is even stronger in the core articles developed. The WP:Vital articles list I think you'd find is at least 95% male. what I'd suggest is proposing an additional Vital articles list on wikipedia, but one specifically for women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed a new Vital Articles list purely for women at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. If you'd like to see a list like WP:Vital articles specifically for women by subject please comment there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hot 100

Here's my hot 100 list of biographies to be promoted to GA. It's appalling really that in 15 years none of these articles have been promoted to a high enough standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll commit to Audrey Hepburn. Anybody else think they could work on something in the long term?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for these. Not sure how you selected them but most seem worthy of additional work. I'll see what I can do with first with Karen Blixen (over 18,000 views per month) and Astrid Lindgren (over 9,000) and possibly Birgit Nilsson (around 1,500) later. I see that the major problem with all three is referencing, especially the in-line stuff. I was also wondering why Margrethe II of Denmark was not listed with her 35,000 page views per month rather than the 17th-century Christina, Queen of Sweden who only gets 16, less than one a day! So I would be really interested to know how you selected them.--Ipigott (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm committed to Caroline Herschel, now that I've finally finished moving. :) Keilana (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Most were extracted from the WP:Vital articles list, which I don't think has Margrethe but has Christina. Feel free to replace with Margrethe. I'm sure there's other very notable ones missing too, but I wouldn't worry too much about it, they're only an example of 100 important articles. I do think more consideration should be given to the quality of the important articles rather than just missing ones. The bias is very strong. If you count how many articles on the WP:Vital articles list which are actually GA or FA it's shockingly low. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be willing to take on Audrey, Natalie Wood and Greta Garbo this year, time permitting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the articles suffer from bloat, inconsistency in sourcing and some haphazard material. A lot of them should probably be restarted from scratch I'd imagine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll start working on the list and on two or three of the articles soon. I'm not too sure how the "vital articles" are compiled but some certainly seem more vital than others.--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I could start working on Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba. :) I like the Women in Green idea, too, Dr. Blofeld. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Margaret Mead pour moi. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers MLG. Yeah it's good to have an ongoing project I think amid the new creations. It is something we need to think about on here as if you really count how many articles of quality we have on the central core articles for women it's pretty pathetic, no more than a dozen or two really. If we could set a project target, even if to get 2 articles to GA a month that would be something. That's 25 a year, a quarter of the list. I'm ordering half a dozen books on Audrey Hepburn at the end of the week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the DC chapter of Wikimedia is good with books, do you think they might be willing to help a few editors out with a handful of books for each biography? If somebody could alert them of "women in green", the idea to get the central core articles on women all up to minimum GA status that would be good! I know a few people, including Ipigott prefer the library loan route, but people are different and some may find it easier to just be sent the books! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Hell yes we would! Consider us alerted. :) Our last two rounds of book grants were super-successful, and if Kirill and James are interested, I'm sure we could arrange some support for this project! Keilana (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be interested in supporting this in principle, but we'll need some more information before we can commit to anything specific. Can you all compile a list of books that would be needed for each of the articles in question? That will give us a better sense of what the total budget needed to support this might look like. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: Thanks for that. What I was thinking was a month contest focusing on this top 100 core list. It could either be a substantial Amazon voucher prize to the producer of the best article in a month or give a book prize of the person's choice up to a certain value to whoever promotes one of them to GA. That might be more productive that just giving one person a large prize. If we knew what the likely budget might be I could set something up on this and arrange a contest. Of course we could do a contest and reward whoever produces the most new articles in a month, but I think it would really be a good idea to get more of the important women article improved. I think for the women project I would opt for giving a book prize of the person's choice because that in turn increases the chances that they will use that book to start/improve future articles on here. I know Penny Richards valued getting the Welsh women book as a prize from the Dragon contest for instance and I'm sure she'll put it to good use! So I think the budget would need to cover the book supply fund to write them and books as prizes to the prolific editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, what we could do is put in book requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green/Book requests. Editors who are interested in working on any article on the Hot 100 list add the books you'd like under your name and Amazon.com link and cost. Once we have a rough idea of the book fund total we can then work out the potential prize fund for promoting them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

ODNB women redlist

ODNB women redlist

Hi Megalibrarygirl. Charles Matthews has made me aware of this list. Do you have time to create a Women in Red redlist with the redlinks? Victuallers has created a lot of bluelinks off this list but maybe with more eyes on it, other people will consider creating some of the missing articles. If I understand correctly, the list is updated 3x per year, so there will probably be an endless supply of more redlinks in the days, weeks, months, years, decades to come. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Edgars2007/ODNB. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Edgars2007, this is a gem. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've started a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Women in Red which begins to explain how to get lists specialised by occupation. There's a quick explanation also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Edgars2007: Nice! I'll link Edgars' list on the main page and template. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the May 2016 ODNB update list. I make that 22 new biographies of women there (for the avoidance of doubt, Muhammadi Begam and Swarnakumari Devi are female). (The ODNB is behind a paywall, but this is a public page.) Some of those names are already here, naturally. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews:, @Sadads:, @Nikkimaria: This list is great! I have access to ODNB but I'm sure most people won't be able to access it. Does the wiki library have an agreement with them? If not I'll propose something, or has somebody already tried to no avail?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I gather Wikipedia:OUP covers this? It might be worth pointing out here that if project members are interested in building the missing articles on that list they can apply for access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography there?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library does have an agreement with the OUP; and I checked a while ago that it covered the ODNB. As British people can get ODNB access with a library card, subject to a few quibbles, this route would preferably be reserved for those outside the UK. But the other accesses probably affect that. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, WP:OUP includes ODNB in the Scholarship stream, for which there are 65 accounts available. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Nikki. Anybody here want to apply for that? The ODNB is a great resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Presentations and awards at Wikimania 2016

Today's presentation on "Content gender gap, an international movement" summarized the work WE have been doing the last 11 months at Women in Red, and introduced Women in Green, which was very well received. Some of the comments regarding WiG were: semantics, categorization, quality, linkage, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's excellent Rosie, very promising!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I really liked Rosie's lead into Women in Green with the WiR icon in green.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

And Jimmy Wales named both Rosie and Emily Wikipedian of the Year. What an achievement!--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

OMG! Rosiestep, that is Awesome!!!!!!!!!!! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic achievements! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 03:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone!! Humbled and grateful for the award. Honored to share it with my wiki-daughter. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all! I'm honored and happy to share this with Wiki-mom <3 Keilana (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Invite opt in / opt out lists

I'm on the opt out list (and not on the opt in list), but I keep getting invites. I don't have the time right now to participate, so I'd rather not get the invites. Can someone please check on this and make sure this is fixed? Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: My apologies, Nihonjoe. This was entirely my fault. I did not realize you had specifically put your name on the opt out list. I simply picked your name up from your earlier involvement in women's biographies. I'll try to remember not to bother you again in future.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bother. I just don't have the time right now. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Women GAs

We apparently have 3711 Good articles on men and 701 articles on women. Perhaps this is an area where Women in Green can really gun for 50-50 on GAs vs men long term haha?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Another Afd

Of interest to this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alanna_Shaikh . Montanabw ^(talk) 07:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding image from another language Commons

I can't read Hebrew, but if anyone can sort out how to add this image to Berthe Bénichou-Aboulker, that would be great. It's used on her Hebrew language article. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: The file is Berthe Bénichou-Aboulker.jpg and is given as fair use on the Hebrew wiki. It comes from here and in my opinion could be uploaded to Commons as the painting must be about 100 years old. But I think you should decide whether it might be a copyright problem or should again be used as fair use.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gadget for facilitating data entry to Wikidata for new Wikipedia articles

Short answers to the above:

No, WD bots doesn't ignore articles without infoboxes or Auth.control template. If article has infobox with some data or Auth.control template, then bots can sinply put more data into WD items. To mark person as male/female at Wikidata, bots usually follow some categories (like Women by occupation)
For "simple interface for adding basic statements to Wikidata, staying at enwiki" you can try out WE-Framework. To start using it, place at Special:mypage/common.js this line, follow instructions at the top of page about reloading page and go to some biography:

mediaWiki.loader.load( '//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:WEF_AllEditors.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

--Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Thanks very much for your suggestions. I thought you might be able to help. I tried to update my pages as you suggested and was indeed successful in obtaining a list of Wikidata items in my left-hand margin. The "WEF: Person" looks useful for our biographies. I tried it our on Amalie Claussen. With the article displayed, I clicked on "WEF: Person" and the form appeared. Under "Description" I added Danish photographer, under "pseudonym" Emman Claussen, under "sex or gender" female, under "country of citizenship" Denmark and under "native language" Danish. I then clicked on the "Update labels" button but received no confirmation the data had been updated. When I looked at Amalie Claussen on Wikidata, nothing had happened. So the system did not appear to have worked unless the data has been mysteriously stored somewhere for verification. But I think not. And despite what you wrote above, although Amalie Claussen had category Danish women photographers, her occupation and gender were not picked up by Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- You had to press "Save", not "Update labels" (that is different thing). And you may take a look at other tabs also :) About Danish women photographers - I didn't say, that bots will pick it up immediately. It will be picked up when some bot operator will be working on those categories. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: I now see your bot at least added "female" but I don't know why the other data were not included.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me to use Save (which I couldn't see in the reduced display size). I've done this and it worked. This looks like a great easy way to introduce simple info. I'll use it on all my new articles. I think Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl will start to use it too as it makes everything so much easier. Thanks for your help.--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because I worked only on Women by occupation and nationality and was setting only gender and nothing else. Occupation and nationality setting aren't so easy. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The tool is proving to be much easier to use than I expected. I've now created or enhanced Wikidata entries on 18 women's biographies. I highly recommend the approach to all those interested in ensuring Wikidata reflects WiR progress. What you Edgars2007 have been doing with the categories is also a quick and straightforward way of introducing the all important "female" entry. Once Wikidata is debugged, the results should help Maximilianklein to monitor improvements in the coverage of women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. You will find also "WEF: Links" interesting (if you have time). There open "Authority control (VIAF)" tab and press the magnifying glass icon in VIAF line - it will help finding VIAF entry. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ipigott and all, last week whgi.wmflabs.org successfully automatically updated itself. (Note that it seems very many Women's biographies were added!) Also according to request, the date is now attached to all-time plots. I'll keep trying to support this project on weekends. I cannot make guarantees about using WHGI as metrics for WiR (since last time when Wikidata changed their format it took me 3 months to find out), however it would not be too difficult for me to every week output a report of the enwiki gendered-biography movement if that would be useful. (P.S. Ipigott I did just have a paper accepted on this work which you can read [5]. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maximilianklein: As you can see from recent communications from Harej under "Automated metrics report" below, Project X also plans to automate the provision of "metrics" on new women's biographies for Women in Red. Nevertheless, the way your data are graphically displayed is attractive and easy to access. The only problem is that as far as I can see, there are no archives or history, i.e. past results cannot be accessed. Would it be possible to provide an acccessible record to the results for each week? If so, we could then trace more accurately the number of new EN biographies as a proportion of the total and also maintain an overview of how the EN results compare with those from other languages. I'm glad to hear your paper has been accepted for publication. Please let us know when and where it is published.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, I see so you would like a historical view of of EN's (and other's) trajectories. Luckily, I have been automatically keeping archived data since the beginning (here), so just it's a matter of putting it together in a historical view. Maximilianklein (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maximilianklein: That's great. Do you think you could provide a short account of progress since you started monitoring the data? I think it would be of great benefit to Women in Red and related projects, now that we are trying to introduce the approach more widely.--Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Women in Red and the University of Edinburgh

Hi, following up our conversation at Wikimania, I thought I'd make you aware of some of the upcoming projects we're planning for Autumn, Winter and Spring at the University of Edinburgh: Projects in Development If any of these appeal - thinking Reproductive Biomedicine (working with Kelly Doyle at WVU on this) might be one, History of Nursing perhaps, Day of the Dead/Samhain? History of Medicine? Edinburgh Gothic? - then let me know. All the best, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

project page format

Is it just my lappie or is the top of the project page messy, with the lead words of a larger font size then most other projects/articles and the meet our members box covered in words? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding @Harej and Isarra to the conversation as they coordinate our project page design. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Coolabahapple, the introduction section had larger words because of some custom styling; I removed the styling. The overlapping text/boxes is a known issue in Internet Explorer 11 and possibly other browsers as well. If I may ask, what browser / operating system do you use? Harej (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

tks Harej, exp11/win10, btw i noticed it since last year when coming across this project, just mentioned it now:) Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been happening to me with Firefox all the time when I had two or more smaller windows displayed. The only way I could get a clean display was by expanding to full screen size. Harej's latest edit seems to have solved the problem.--Ipigott (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Tobey

I've expressed some concern on the talk page on the quality of the article for GA. I'm not sure there are enough decent third party sources to build a better article on it. I wouldn't want to take it to GAR but I think it is in danger of being taken to AFD unless it can be reinforced with better content. Can somebody help improve it? I would be surprised if enough could be found to keep it as a GA, but enough might be found to make it acceptable as a C-B class entry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Progress

In August 2015, it was announced on our main page that "15% of the English Wikipedia's biographies" were about women. In January 2016, this was changed to "fewer than 16%". By March we had 16.08%, by May 16.14%, by 20 June 16.34%, and as of 26 June 16.35%. In addition, from user:Maximilianklein's research, we can see that in November 2014 just over 15% of Wikipedia's biographies were on women, a percentage which rose to 15.7% by January 2016.--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I think it would be cool to have this blurb on the project mainpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I was hoping to expand on this a bit but I have been pushed for time. Max Klein has also agreed to prepare a more detailed progress review based on the data he has saved from Wikidata since he started work on the issue. In the meantime, I'll add something in the intro to indicate that in the past 18 months, we are up from just over 15% to today's 16.35%. I think it would also be interesting to monitor the percentage of women's vs men's biographies on a month-by-month or week-by-week basis. At the last count, new women's biographies represented only about 22% of the total which shows that men are still receiving far more attention. Maybe we should start brainstorming on how to achieve better balance? I have noticed, for example, that some of the more active creators of women's biographies are actually writing far more articles on men than on women. This is particularly true in the sports sector.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reworked the introduction on the main page but while doing so I noticed that there are two links to articles with tags indicating they are outdated: Gender bias on Wikipedia and Systemic bias. Do you think anyone would be interested in working on them? Maybe you could help to rally the troops.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott thank you for reworking the intro on the main page. And it will be very interesting to see Max's more detailed review. I'm short on time and need to get some rest over the next few days, but perhaps there are some pagestalkers interested in looking at those articles? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Suzanne Guité

How do I add Suzanne Guité to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Requests, specifically to "Women artists"? Information on sources for Suzanne Guité is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women#Suzanne Guité. --Bejnar (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Bejnar Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Art Add her and your sources to Canada. Anyone can edit any of the redlists. We only ask that you add sources to confirm notability. Hers seems fairly solid given your sourcing. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)