Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::::::One generally catches flies with honey. The assumption that having brought it to our attention that only white westerners would be included is frustrating at best, as is the assumption that members of the project shouldn't "waste their time". The indignant response you think you received, may well have been more a reflection of the way in which the presentation occurred rather than a point to any "mysogonistic biases". I repeat what I have said many times before, coaching is far more likely to produce results than policing. ] (]) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::One generally catches flies with honey. The assumption that having brought it to our attention that only white westerners would be included is frustrating at best, as is the assumption that members of the project shouldn't "waste their time". The indignant response you think you received, may well have been more a reflection of the way in which the presentation occurred rather than a point to any "mysogonistic biases". I repeat what I have said many times before, coaching is far more likely to produce results than policing. ] (]) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks ] for your initial comment here. I appreciate that wikidata will one day take over the date pages but I'm a bit concerned that until that (unknown) date editors and readers have access to rather unrepresentative "on this day" date pages. WP has 16.85% women bios but those pages show about 0.5% women bios each (one or two women on a page of a couple of hundred entries). I'm happy to plod along adding women and women's achievements as I can, it's nice low-brain-demand work to do now and again! It also seems sensible to advise other editors to do the same as and when they can. As for my editing on ODT b/d, it's surprising that you seem unhappy with me adding lots of bios to those templates. Someone having a spurt of enthusiasm and time to spend on editing on WP seems something to be acknowledged and valued rather than criticized for "suddenly" adding "shedloads"! As for the quality, we discussed that at OTD - I was following the guidelines of "B class or higher" but this was later adapted to "B class or higher plus fully cited" - which is absolutely fine, but it's rather unfair to criticize an editor for following the guidelines! I completely take on board the comment about wide range of articles and the next time I did some adding I found some great non-white women to add. As an alternative, how about framing the conversation as "hey, thanks for all that editing work but in future can you add some non-white women as well to expand the range" ..... which is a supportive and acknowledging and encouraging and educational framework to use. Thanks again for engaging in the discussion. ] (]) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks ] for your initial comment here. I appreciate that wikidata will one day take over the date pages but I'm a bit concerned that until that (unknown) date editors and readers have access to rather unrepresentative "on this day" date pages. WP has 16.85% women bios but those pages show about 0.5% women bios each (one or two women on a page of a couple of hundred entries). I'm happy to plod along adding women and women's achievements as I can, it's nice low-brain-demand work to do now and again! It also seems sensible to advise other editors to do the same as and when they can. As for my editing on ODT b/d, it's surprising that you seem unhappy with me adding lots of bios to those templates. Someone having a spurt of enthusiasm and time to spend on editing on WP seems something to be acknowledged and valued rather than criticized for "suddenly" adding "shedloads"! As for the quality, we discussed that at OTD - I was following the guidelines of "B class or higher" but this was later adapted to "B class or higher plus fully cited" - which is absolutely fine, but it's rather unfair to criticize an editor for following the guidelines! I completely take on board the comment about wide range of articles and the next time I did some adding I found some great non-white women to add. As an alternative, how about framing the conversation as "hey, thanks for all that editing work but in future can you add some non-white women as well to expand the range" ..... which is a supportive and acknowledging and encouraging and educational framework to use. Thanks again for engaging in the discussion. ] (]) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::You missed the bit where you forgot to note that an eclectic range of individuals was already being selected (by me, mainly) before your slough of white western women, some of whose articles were simply inadequate. As for the daily pages, that has '''nothing whatsoever to do with the OTD page on the main page'''. Individuals can be added to the OTD template for the main page by anyone from any source. But by all means spend hundreds of hours adding those entries to those pages, but it's ultimately a complete and utter waste of your and others time; that's good advice and I strongly advise you to follow it. But that's your call. Sadly, I'm done here now, I was dead keen to help this project, adding individuals like ], ], ] etc, which aren't mainstream (as far as I'm concerned) yet are important in their individual ways. ] (]) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: (ec) Take a closer look and read what was written. MurielMary was guilty of promoting the white westerners, not me. It's a problem of your own making. Stop making problems where they don't exist outside your own project members' poor communication skills. I'm not here to catch flies, or use honey, or coach, or anything like that, but I am also not here to suffer the indignation of a group of individuals who seem actively intent on ignoring the fact that ''some of us'' have been working on ensuring an eclectic and rounded group of individuals (men, women, old, young, famous, not famous, white western, not white western etc etc etc) are featuring in the OTD template. The overwhelming message here from this project is that I shouldn't have bothered. Well played. I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people. ] (]) 21:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: (ec) Take a closer look and read what was written. MurielMary was guilty of promoting the white westerners, not me. It's a problem of your own making. Stop making problems where they don't exist outside your own project members' poor communication skills. I'm not here to catch flies, or use honey, or coach, or anything like that, but I am also not here to suffer the indignation of a group of individuals who seem actively intent on ignoring the fact that ''some of us'' have been working on ensuring an eclectic and rounded group of individuals (men, women, old, young, famous, not famous, white western, not white western etc etc etc) are featuring in the OTD template. The overwhelming message here from this project is that I shouldn't have bothered. Well played. I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people. ] (]) 21:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
… and their works -- broadly construed -- such as books, paintings, etc.
… across all languages
Off-topic:
Editor gender gap
What is it?
WikiProject Women in Red, a community-led project, was launched this week.
It is intended as a parent project for other projects in all languages whose scope covers women and their works, such as WikiProject Women Writers.
WikiProject Women in Red is a collaborative space across languages to track all things related to content gender gap.
creation of new articles, Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYK articles
events
news articles
scholarly publications
metrics
hackathon challenges
WikiProject Women in Red is a container project with links for blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Misplaced Pages; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees’ projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc.
Wikidata will be used to manage the project because of its size and scope.
We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
A global community-run project:
In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by user:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) “Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Misplaced Pages are created as part of local cooperation with universities.”
We will seek out the expertise of WikiProject X, a project dedicated to improving WikiProjects, in order to create an appealing work space.
Work together with the Chapters
Build on Wikimedia’s “Address the gender gap/FAQ“
Consider the creation of a Wikimedia User Group
Meetup page revamp
Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/35, the Women Anthropologists Meetup Page. I've made several changes to the meetup page, mostly moving informational info into "infoboxes". This was the approach we used for Misplaced Pages:Meetup/San Jose/Cisco/January 2017, e.g. informational info in infoboxes. The thought process behind this is that event should have it's own infobox with specifics relevant just to it. The Events Box replaces all the "clickable buttons" which were at the top of the page. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the info on the side, but miss the buttons on the top to switch between events. I get that they are still there on the bottom, but I find it harder to navigate for each event of the month. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, Makes sense. I returned the Clickable Buttons across the top, and removed the right-sided "Events infobox". I made the Clickable Buttons smaller and all in a row so they have a smaller footprint on the page; how does it look? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I see you have been reworking the editathon page. I was surprised to find the red links had completely disappeared from the body of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/35 and only appeared in the introduction. I frequently go back to the red link section for inspiration. As an old hand, I know where to look for the links in the nav box but I'm not sure those less familiar with our work will think of going there. I suggest they should be restored.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Overall I like the new page layout and see you have been continuing to work on it. Thanks for specifically mentioning the infobox and the redlinks at the foot of the introduction. When I first wrote on this, I had not realized so much had been moved into an infobox. I would nevertheless have preferred to see the redlinks mentioned in the body of the article in a section which would also appear in the TOC as Redlists which is where I was looking for it. I had added a couple of names to participants without noticing there was a new box. I note you have "Special requests" in the box but I can't see where redlinks should be placed. I see you've also been working on Black Women which has much clearer access to the redlists. Thanks for making all these improvements and making our editathon pages more attractive. Perhaps it is also time to update our main WiR page along similar lines. IMO, the only feature from Project X which seems important to keep is the member registration.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: On the red links, let's see what the others think before moving things around. (I don't think the opinions of an unobservant septuagenarian should be taken too seriously.) But how about our main page? Is there anything we can do about it? Perhaps it can also be improved by moving more things into boxes. Whenever I've tried to work on the general display, I have found that whole sections somehow disappear. If we really decide to reformat the whole page using a more traditional approach, it would be good if we could somehow maintain the membership registration module and perhaps also the "metrics" (unless we simply make our month-to-month metrics a separate page). I was wondering whether Tagishsimon with all his skills could help us out along these lines. Both Rosie and I have included Harej in several earlier messages on the same topic but as far as I am aware there's never been any response.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Harej: One of the most serious problems with the main page at the moment is that the icons identifying the various modules do not appear until you start scrolling down. They should of course be visible from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
J. Morgan Puett is a notable woman artist, fashion designer, and arts organizer. I've tagged the talk page of her article with WIR 2017 to draw more attention to the article. Thank you for your work on it. Netherzone (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Tell me about it! She was a Guggenheim fellow too. What does it take? Entering the page of a Guggenheim fellow and noted art is into the deletion queue is... well, it's bad. Article kept.104.163.150.250 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Notability
My article, Annita_McPhee, was tagged for not being about someone who is notable. This person was a three-term leader of an Aboriginal community and negotiated enormous ($2B) resource rights contracts that are known throughout the province. She's also won awards. Is this still not notable? Westendgirl (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: The Annita McPhee article was tagged in May 2016 by SwisterTwister in this edit. Nine months later, since the tag was still on the article, I expanded the tag in this edit so the link in the tag pointed to the more specific Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). The goal of doing so (for thousands of articles) was to generate conversations like this where knowledgeable people would either decide that the person was notable and remove the tag, or decide the person was not notable and send the article to AfD. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep In the event that there was not one already, I just made one and uploaded it to commons. Women in Red Barnstorm 2017 Feedback or suggestions are welcome if there are other ideas - I'm not a designer, but can work on it to the best of my abilities. Netherzone (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep I figured it out! See image below. can you send me or post a swatch of the actual blue? - I'm working in photoshop and can change the color manually (don't think the program accepts code). Or point me in the direction of a sample of what #ABCDEF looks like.
Good policy. The mainpage admits the project is moribund, and so the risk of no response is high. If so, it is up to us to do our own discussion, not least so as to have something to point back to should anyone ever have the temerity, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding this image (red heart logo in light blue box) as a visual aid, as I thought of some questions. Are we cool with the "shading" of the heart in the barnstar, e.g. the logo doesn't use shading? Also, Netherzone, is the red hue in the barnstar the same as the red hue in the logo (#FF0000; see Red); if not, can you make it the same? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep the heart was shaded so that it did not sit as a flat item on top of the dimensional shaded star. An aesthetic decision which can be changed (it looked better to my eyes shaded, but we chould get the consensus of the creator of the logo, since it was an alteration of their original.) Also, when I uploaded the barnstar, I did not have the name of the logo creator's name to add to the image credit - who is it? Lastly, I will try to change the color of the star. I was working with a barnstar downloaded from Commons that was brown. Added red-fade shaded corners. I'll see if I can change it to #FF0000 without losing the detail. I'm not a designer, but will give it my best shot. The next couple days are heavy teaching for me, so don't hesitate to nudge me if you don't hear back soon! Netherzone (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Just my two cents, I like the shading of the heart. Kind of makes it "stand up" from the background, like a cameo broach. SusunW (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Love Heart Kamma RahbekWiR laurel
Netherzone, with or without the shading is fine with me; just wanted to make sure that people commented in case there was a design reason to go with one version vs. another. The original artwork is this Love Heart Kamma Rahbek. Just noticed this "WiR laurel" in our Commons logo subcat, and it's lovely! Wasn't aware it existed! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Good to know! I like the laurel a lot too, and am wondering if it could be added to the barnstar. When I have time I will experiment. Netherzone (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sitting in a meeting fiddling with the logo. The laurel has been added and looks awesome. I am unable to figure out how to get the star in exactly #FF0000 red, but was able to shift the color toward the red end of the spectrum. Sorry for the smaller size, will work on upsizing next. Feedback welcome. Women in Red Barnstar 3 - red with laurel.Netherzone (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Larger size added. See image below. I've tweaked the laurel and centered it, so version 5 will be more symmetrical (small star is centered under large star. Will upload. Once we finalize a decision, I will deleted the older versions.
While the barnstar+laural is pretty, can we also keep the laurel and the barnstar as separate things? For example, I can envision using the laurel on invitations and/or etc. I can envision two levels of barnstar, one with and one without the laurel. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I think the barnstar itself is likely to be far more frequently used than the one with laurels. So let's keep them both. I can see that Netherzone's interest in art is serving the project increasingly well.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
WiR Barnstar
I will save two versions on Commons, and delete the others so that they are not used by mistake. Is there a formal process for deletions from Commons? The two versions kept will be named Women in Red Barnstar and Women in Red Barnstar with laurels. If there are other versions for special events, I will keep my original Photoshop files so they can be modified as needed. Glad you like it! Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Good job, Netherzone; were you able to delete the ones which aren't going to be used? If not, do you want to list them at WikiProject Council and ask them to delete, e.g. they might know a Commons admin? I'd recommend un-categorizing the ones which we want deleted so that they don't accidentally get used. I can do the un-categorizing, but I'm not sure which ones we want deleted. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this info Rosiestep - I've deleted the categories on the older versions, and posted a request on the WikiProject Council talk page, asking if they know of a Commons admin or could explain the deletion process for me to do it myself. In the meantime, I was able to update some of the older versions with our final image. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I see the discussion is veering towards delete which I find rather surprising given the extensive number of exhibitions, publications, interviews, etc., posted here. I think someone needs to go through these more carefully as quite a number appear to me to be valid secondary sources. It would also be useful to know whether any of the artworks are on permanent display. There must also be Polish news sources, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Artists such as Karina Smigla-Bobinski create works that are often not perceived as "collectible" by museums & institutions because of their ephemeral, dematerialized or performative nature. These practices, like Conceptual art of past decades, may disqualify (or ghettoize?) certain artists from traditional encyclopedic standards of notability. One hopes in the near future that the criteria for artists' notability are revised in relation to 21st century practices. There are many art worlds; not solely the institutional art world of museum collections and commercial galleries, which are biased towards promoting and collecting male artists due to the subjective economics of collectability based on "market value," and political bodies such as boards of trustees private interests. Just my two cents. If I find time, will work on her entry. Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is always finding RS according to Misplaced Pages's definition. Secondary sourcing on artists and academics is hard. Journalists write about their works, not them, or you get one liners that say they had a show. Exhibit catalogs for artists are deemed as promotional. How do we become advocates for women having their stories told? How do we change the media so that they actually record the accomplishments of women? It's a quandary. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
WiR members - Some more of you may want to weigh in on Karina Smigla-Bobinski at Articles for Deletion. She is a well known New Media artist of note, shown in museums and galleries around the world. My arguments do not seem to be taken into consideration. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Netherzone: Seems to be OK now. Thanks for undertaking such an extensive analysis. We really should not have to go to such lengths to keep articles about such notable women on Misplaced Pages.--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott Yes, I see that the nominator retracted, and withdrew his nomination for deletion, but the deletion template is still on the artist's page. Will an admin do a sweep at some point and remove this? These lengthy discussions are an absurd waste of time, when a few editors want to nit-pick and hold women to an unrealistic degree of scrutiny. It is as though they are interpreting WP:Artist to suit their own criteria and pre-conceptions, while not making any effort themselves to look things up and improve the article. Well, ever onward...! Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Netherzone: Yes, the banner will be removed by an administrator soon. The only consolation is that the page reviewers are equally keen to see biographies of men deleted too. Many seem to think it is an achievement to have articles deleted and simply do not take sufficient time to look into the background of each article. I'm glad to see you have joined the team of those who are prepared to see that justice is done.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Translate-a-thon
Hello,
I would love to get your feedback on our current short list of (african biographies) candidates for the translate-a-thon to be held from around the 20th of Feb. I would like to close the list very soon. It was extremely difficult to actually come with 16 decent biographies... any feedback welcome. Thanks in advance
Anthere: It's not too clear to me which articles have been short-listed, which have been deemed unsuitable, and which still require discussion. May I suggest you prepare a list en clair of those which have been selected, and a separate list of those still under examination. It would also be useful to know which of the articles selected need further work in English. If you need any specific help from me, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the final shortlist is not set yet. I'll do the final cut tomorrow. This is now the last moment to suggest articles if any of you is aware of one that could be added there. Anthere (talk)
Our final list !
w:en:Malouma, Mauritanian singer, songwriter and politician
Your help is welcome in reviewing and polishing them. In most case, the best version is the English, but there are a couple of exceptions (Nozizwe is better in French, Asmaa in Arabic etc. if someone could help make sure that the English version is fixed so that it can be used as template for translations later on, it would be awesome) Anthere (talk)
Anthere: I've expanded Asmaa Mahfouz a bit on the basis of the sources I could find. The article in Arabic is about five times longer and contains lots of additional detail. It would be good if someone who can read Arabic could draw on it for further expansion of the English article as the English version will probably serve as a basis for translation into the other languages. I'll now try to work on the other four your have mentioned.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I already called for help several arabic speakers, but it seems to go nowhere :( I'll try some more in other channels ... thanks for your help Ipigott Anthere (talk)
Anthere: I'd like to nominate Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida, "Mother of the Angolan Revolution" for the list. When asked about the one woman's biography I've created which is the greatest inspiration to me, this is the one I refer to. Also, I see that the current list doesn't have an Angolan woman, so this would improve the diversity. However, if you're list has been finalized, I understand. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Anthere: Seconded. The article is well sourced and there are also good versions in Spanish and German. She could be substituted for one of the sports people.--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh guys... we have announced the list everywhere... so... hmmm... a bit tough to replace now. But ok. I have one more name suggested by Michael, Wangari_Maathai. So let's start a list of "additional suggestions" because life is too short... Anthere (talk)
Anyone have any ideas how to identify Black women like Sylvana Simons? I am asking because I could generate some data from Wikidata based on "ethnic group=African American", but the world is so much bigger than that. Thx Jane (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Jane023 I am not particularly good with WP technical stuff, but there are categories, Afro Caribbean, Black British, Maybe this helps? Category:People of African descentSusunW (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep This one is up your alley, writers. Just found it while trying to figure out the identity of Mrs. C. C. Stumm and I did! I'm writing on her next.
Does anyone know how to put all these sources into one master list on black women, but keeping the individual pages intact? I don't know if that request is clear, but like a page of Black women in dictionaries that then has links to each individual dictionary. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Might mean one of at least two things: single list, each entry pointing back to the dictionary source(s); or, single page on which there are a number of discrete lists, each list pertaining to a discrete dictionary. Which did you have in mind, SusunW --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon I think that I mean the second one. I don't want all the names on one page, only all the dictionaries with links to the pages with lists of names. Each list of names belongs to the page for that dictionary. Is that clear as mud? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yippee kayayyyy! That is exactly what I wanted! I started to add the links to the pages in the template, but then it seemed strange to name them all the same with different lists, i.e. how do you have 5 template links with the same name and know which link you are getting? That's what prompted me to ask for one list of dictionaries which then breaks out to separate lists. If we could then remove the two that are in the template and replace it with this lovely, lovely page you have made Tagishsimon, I think it would simplify matters. SusunW (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, Tagishsimon: This all seems to be coming along extremely well. The only problem is that as far as I can see, the majority of those listed are in fact black women living in America. With all your international experience, Susun, have you come across any dictionaries or encyclopaedic works dealing with black women in Africa, Britain and the rest of the world? If so, it would be good to have them on the list. (Hope I'm not being too demanding.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of these old dictionaries on international women. As I am researching one woman, I seem to find another source. When I finally get my OUP access (I've been waiting for 6 weeks, its approved, just awaiting the password), I will have access to one from the Caribbean: Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American biography and possibly others which reach farther. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Per the language links on our mainpage, effective today, there are 11 other language versions of Women in Red, Galician language being the newest! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done that - there are many blue links which need to be checked & removed, and which I may or may not get around to doing (I'm a bit behind on my Petscanning right now...). This list would also presumably qualify as another dictionary for the purposes of the WiR template, should anyone wish to take it forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Amazingly fast work as usual. I've looked at a few in more detail. Although the database includes several references on each, it is not easy to find background on many of them on the internet. But some of them are well documented.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in this contentious AfD of a recently created biography of a woman scientist. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Joe Roe I looked at the article and as it stands, it does not meet WP criteria. All the citations are BY the subject. You found a ton of sources, which do meet our guidelines. I would recommend that the article be userfied and totally reworked, because at this point, the cabal of naysayers on women scientists have already pounced and pretty much made a case that canvassing has occurred. Just my two cents. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
German-language participation in the Anthropology editathon
Rosiestep: This is a truly amazing development. I see that on behalf of the Germans, Emeritus has put it forward as a contest. As a result, they've already produced 39 new articles compared to only 15 in English. You'll see from here that their page de:Benutzer:Emeritus/BRA/WikiProject Women in Red/Anthropologists/DE has been posted on eight other German pages. For those who read German (Gerda Arendt, Jane023), there is an interesting discussion on some of the names inappropriately included on the German Wikidata list of red links although some editors seem to have found the approach very helpful]. Emeritus is to be congratulated on taking this initiative. I certainly agree it would be a good idea to extend our invitations for March to other languages. I think we also need to develop a WiR page listing other languages showing an interest in WiR as well as a mailing list of users wishing to receive information about our activities. (In this case though, it looks as if Emeritus just picked up the invitation from his/her EN talk page.) Up to you to decide which other languages we should cover and how we should keep them informed. It would also be good to have a point of contact such as Emeritus for each of the languages we cover. Any idea how we could achieve this? If you make a start on all if this, I'll try to help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am glad you found this amazing, Ipigott; me, too. I think the new MassMessage list should at least contain links to the 11 other language WiR versions, and we can add points of contact as we discover them. Also, we should add pages such the one for the French-speaking Swiss women who are working "Women in Red in Switzerland". Do you agree with this approach? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Yes, I certainly agree we should notify all these of our editathons. Unfortunately we cannot use mass-messaging as it only works on the EN wiki. Nevertheless I'll make an "international list" which we can draw on manually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hope it's okay, I've included some of their articles for the editathon in the Pinterest board--as mentioned above, they've done a lot of good work on this month's topic. I labeled each one "German Misplaced Pages".Penny Richards (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I've created a new mailing list at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/International_list of wikiprojects and individuals participating in other languages who have shown interest in Women in Red. Some of the individuals are listed because of their editing histories, others because I have had contacts with them. Unfortunately I cannot remember the names of those who have been trying to encourage better coverage of women in Arabic and in the various Indian languages. I'm sure they would be interested in our efforts too. If you Rosiestep or anyone else has had contacts with other potentially interested international contacts, please add their names to the list. I'm not too sure how we should proceed with notifying those on the list that we intend to keep them informed. Should we send out a first message advising them that we have included them on the list to keep them informed of WiR activities or should will simply go ahead with an invitation in connection with our the next editathons, encouraging them to contribute in their own language? (I would be happy to send messages out manually as mass-messaging is not available for other wikis.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
In connection with "The women you have never met", I already included the organizer Anna Torres on the list. I did not receive any suggestions on how we should launch our first messages. Perhaps we should prepare a special invitation, encouraging the international Misplaced Pages community to follow our lead in March on Women in Red. As you have put together an attractive editathon page, Rosie, perhaps you would also like to prepare the invitations, one for our EN participants and one for the other language interests. If other wikis can develop Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages along the same lines as the Germans, this would help them along. As we're already half way through February, it might be a good idea to start moving soon. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We could lend assistance to other language WiR projects by putting their wikidata redlists toghether for them, if we have an idea of their preferred location. I'd be up for doing this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: That's a really great offer and would certainly help them along. For March, the most suitable would probably be those on artists, painters and feminists. (I've just created feminists for EN.) Up to you which languages you would like to handle but we could start with German, French and Spanish, then Italian and Dutch. Other candidates appear to be Catalan, Galician and Albanian. There's also Chinese, Hebrew and Farsi if you want to get into the chicken scratches. I suggest we create them on our own WiR site which we can then link to invitations. If you, Rosiestep, have other priorities, please list them here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Being as inclusive as possible would be good, so in addition to the artist subcat of painters, I'd include sculptors, printmakers, carvers, art patrons, see also Category:Artists by medium; plus Category:Works of art would be nice, too. Last year, there was a lot of interest in adding Activists and Social Reformers, so I'd suggest we continue we them this year as well. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: While I agree that all these might be useful for our English-speaking editors, I think it might be more sensible to start with just a few redlists for all the other languages. I know the Germans and the Dutch know how to create Wikidata lists themselves. I expect others do too. Once they get the hang of things, they can expand their own Women in Red or Art and Feminism sites to cover their preferred areas of interest. I don't think it's really necessary to spoon-feed them with lots of different options at this stage. BTW, you never got back to me on how we handle the invitations. Any suggestions or should I prepare something myself?--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Apologies; I misunderstood. I was referring to English language redlists. Regarding invitations, just haven't gotten to them, though I understand the importance of getting them out soon. I'll create them today or tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
According "Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages"
Maybe a subject for its own. Checking and adding to that German redlinks, I came to the result: it's hell. We have been generously in updating missing German descriptions to Wikidata in using the term anthropologist, even it's not really similar. I have been wondering why there so many non-anthropologists got listed? Proofing version histories I found out, that ca 2013 in Wikidata a bot named Legobot was active. He seems to have been working like this:
a "she-linguist" does work in human languages. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just linguist.
a "she-archeologist" does digging human remains. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just archeologist.
a Lady, collecting folk-tales in neighborhood collected human tales. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just folklorist. And so on.
The list of results using P106 ist partly correct, but not in any case scientifically. This time we got the occasion to change and add German descriptions to Wikidata. Every other wiki like to develop Wikidata redlinks must do the same. English Misplaced Pages will, in my opinion, not be able to correct and be precisely, except: a complete stuff check and change them, if necessary. In our case I have to figure out new search strategies to list proper ethnographers, ethnologists and in wider range anthropologists. Regards, --Emeritus (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Emeritus: Thanks for pointing all this out. Unfortunately I don't think any of us will really be able to spare the time to edit out all these additional categories, especially if a bot is going to add them all again. Nevertheless, from the work you and your colleagues have been doing on the German wiki, the Wikidata list of red links seems to have turned up some interesting women requiring coverage. We hope you will be able to continue your efforts in March (Women's History Month) when we will be inviting editors from other language versions of Misplaced Pages to contribute to articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The article on Tania Antoshina (artist) is up for deletion. Probably will survive, but it still needs work. I've added a number of citations, etc. If anyone has a moment to look at it, or vote, please do, as she is an important, well-known Russian artist. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I think the intention was to include Featured pictures which made the grade as a result of all Adam Cuerden's successes but there is no reason we should not also have a section on "New or improved pictures" under Outcomes. The only problem is that all those added as fair use by editors such as Victuallers will not be allowed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
US State encyclopedias
Another potential source for some redlink lists - the various U.S. state encyclopedias that are available online. Not every state has one, but most of those that do have a separate, browseable category for women.
For a start, would you consider creating a US women online dictionaries by state page which contains bullets for the state dictionaries? Someone may then want to build on that work by creating redlist pages for the biographies themselves? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone interested should feel free to add files of those in the PD to commons or wikisource, where they could be used in proofreading the text and making separate, stand-alone articles there which could be used as the basis for articles here. It would also, in general, raise the visibility of wikisource, which can also host a lot of similar biographical dictionaries, like the Marquis Who's Who series, which may contain bios which don't meet our standards of notability here. On that basis, increasing the SEO of that site could also be seen as being in the interests of this group, particularly for individuals whose notability might be disputed. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm up for doing redlists, but short on time. Might take a week or more before I can get around to it. Keep adding to the list of sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
To me there are far more glaring gaps in WP's coverage of women art historians than women artists. Academic art history is an area where women have had a very strong presence for almost a century now, and in museum curation for perhaps 50 years or so. I don't think our coverage is worse for women than men, as both are poorly covered compared to some other fields. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, although I think our coverage of notable nuns is probably pretty poor too. Are you aware of any particular reference-type works, maybe of a broadly encyclopedia-dictionary type, which might be available to help somewhat quickly fill some of these gaps, @Johnbod:? John Carter (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an entry there is pretty conclusive for notability. They are better on dead people than live ones though. It has to be admitted that most art historians lead rather quiet lives though (if not as quiet as nuns). The complete list can be trawled fairly quickly. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
We do have many more than that; the great majority are in the 47 subcats of Category:Art historians by nationality, eg. 466 Americans. I'd guess we have something like 1700 altogether. The head cat is treated as "diffusing" for nationality. Entries should be in the nationality tree & women in Category:Women art historians. I'll mention the lists at the project & try to add. The Germans and Austrians more or less invented art history & have always been strong in it. But the list has hardly any of the American & British figures missing. I'd think a lot of the list would have notability issues on English WP. I also suspect that there are many like Christiana Payne, who are not yet caught in Category:Women art historians. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sausalitoarchitect who joined Misplaced Pages and WiR in January has been experiencing difficulties with his or her first attempts at biographies. There were several attempts at Draft:Violeta Autumn (now Draft:Violeta Eidelman Autumn) which was twice turned down, followed by Draft:John Marsh Davis, also declined more than once. The main reviewer appears to have been SwisterTwister. I have looked at both these articles and am surprised that they were not found acceptable for Misplaced Pages. The architects seem notable and both the articles include secondary sources. Can we help to sort this out? We don't want to lose another competent new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Tip three: Structure- all WP articles have sections. there are at least three. The Lead, the body, and the references. The lead is a précis of the whole article usually 1 to 3 paragraphs. It is the bit that broadcasters cut and paste into their scripts when a new item breaks. The body has several subsection == Birth and parentage==, ==Early life==, ==Education==, ==Career==, ==Lasting influence== In references there are the the usual bits ==See also==,==References==, ==Further reading==, ==External links==
ClemRutter: I appreciate your dropping in here and leaving your comments, especially "Misplaced Pages is about sharing so we can all join in and help." As we are dealing with a completely new editor here, I think it's a great pity that despite several calls for assistance, no one was ready to offer any real help or advice. S/he asked Swister for help more than once but received no reaction. On 26 January, s/he posted a query on Teahouse, but no one bothered to reply. On 6 February there was another request for help on the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk but this only led to a vague reply from NewYorkActuary who failed to explain how to resubmit the article on Violeta Autumn and gave no encouragement on the improvements made. And now your own demanding reactions on structure. I simply do not understand why articles which have been well researched and are well presented with lots of pertinent sources, illustrations, etc., are considered to be substandard. In my opinion, for someone who was new to the complex requirements of Misplaced Pages editing, the result was pretty good. I would be interested to hear whether others think these articles are not yet suitable. Maybe some are even ready to help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't do a great deal of hard editing these days but given a cursory look at the two draft articles, it would be easy for any experienced editor to just make a few changes and the articles would be fine. The Violeta Eidelman Autumn article is fine, just needs a bit of formatting. But there is no issue with notability or citations, as far as I can tell. ClemRutter offers good advice: I copied existing articles when I first started 10+ years ago as this made the most sense. I finished them in the sandbox and just plunked thew whole thing into mainspace (I was worried about being speedy deleted before I had a chance to finish). There's a learning curve on Misplaced Pages but it's pretty easy to create a stable article if you've done the initial research, as Sausalitoarchitect clearly has. freshacconci talk to me15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree. When I started here eleven-plus years ago, I did the same thing - found an article that looked likely and copied bits and pieces of it until I got what I wanted. A lot of those editing habits stay with me - I don't worry about sections, for instance, unless the article is beyond sub-stub length. (If it's three paragraphs I won't bother.) I'm most concerned with creating a readable article about something, or someone, notable. Which these seem to do just fine. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa.15:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is submitting any file to AfC. The notes from SwisterTwister claimed there was insufficient coverage of the subject, and yet, not one source cited was given on on-line link. The bias against off-line sourcing is really, really clear. Rather than talk, I did something about it. Worked the sourcing and moved one to main space. Will work on the other one and post a note to Sausalitoarchitect on her/his own page. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and Ian thank you so much for bringing these to light. I am not quite sure how you found them, but I appreciate that you posted about them. SusunW (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's thanks to Sausalitoarchitect. I mostly just added sourcing, formatted the page and added a few sentences here and there. But thanks ClemRutter. I was happy to have found the fair use photo. By the by, I like your manuals. Nice that you included the screenshots. SusunW (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments and your work on the articles. I thought it would be useful to draw the attention of WiR participants to the problems faced by new editors who are keen to join our project and help us with our work. @SusunW: You were interested to hear how I picked this up. Every couple of weeks, I look at our new members to see what they have been doing. Unfortunately, many give up editing within a day or two but here we had someone who was keen to edit, had an excellent background as an architect and an author and had sought to put people on the map from the San Francisco bay area. I was amazed to see how badly she was treated and how her calls for help received so little attention. Some of our members have been encouraging new editors to join the Teahouse where apparently they can receive guidance and assistance but this is obviously not working. I could of course have just moved the articles into the mainspace myself but I preferred to allow others to see what was going on. May I suggest we all keep our eyes open for problems faced by new editors, particularly those keen to participate in WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a missing article, but one which needs thoughtful experienced attention
I was directed to the page of Virginia Zeani today, by someone noting that the bulk of the BLP article was plagiarised/wholly unattributed. Indeed, I found a half dozen sections or so, all with material that had been section tagged since 2015 as unsourced. I pasted the mess into Talk, and began searching for sources, and moving sourced, verifiable content back into the article. Problem is, (a) I am now in business, and not academia, and so academic references in the humanities and arts are unavailable to me, (b) I am not an expert, or even a devotee, and so even the non-professionals access to these sources. So, for instance, I can only access a snippet version of the Grove Book of Opera Singers, etc., etc.
Hence, I would call this to your attention, for a careful return of the article to a more complete version, after the few days work that would be required to make it encyclopedic, rather than sixth form plagiarised in quality and honesty. Cheers, hope someone with biography and music background can turn their attention, or at least properly post this. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am thinking to create a similar project on Commons to help and promote multimedia content by women and about women. The first issue is the name, which should be in English, with translations in other languages. Any ideas or suggestions? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann: Sounds like a great idea. The name will no doubt depend on whether the emphasis is to be on images or other forms of multimedia. What are the priorities? I don't want to complicate things but it might be sensible to try to organize a tie-up with Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Initially emphasis will be on images, but that could be expanded later to other types of content. Anyway images form the vast majority of Commons files, other types of documents are much less numerous. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A pretty neutral yet translatable name could simply be Illustrating Women: Filling the Gaps. But I'm sure others could come up with something more attractive. I know Victuallers is interested in improving coverage of women on Commons. It's the kind of project which could benefit from Wikimedia support. Or is it something you think we could start without assistance? Perhaps Rosiestep could bring it up in Berlin.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting idea, Yann, though I confess that didn't know Commons has WikiProjects. Would it make sense to call it by the same name, e.g. WikiProject Women in Red? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann: "Her Missing Face" is OK in the Germanic languages but in the Romance languages you would need something like: Le Visage qu'elle manque. Rosiestep: There are lots of Commons projects: see here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a great project. Not much good at naming, but I wish you luck. It is certainly frustrating to have to struggle so hard for images of women. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I could see this as a great partnership. If people working on Commons who are familiar with imaging requirements could work on images for editathons we host ... dreaming ... SusunW (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The way things are at the moment, Commons is particularly useful for images of people who died at least 70 years ago. Perhaps a WikiProject would help to encourage those who add images of living people to Facebook or the other social networks to give them Creative Commons licenses allowing them to be included on Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we have a lot more images than only of "people who died at least 70 years ago". We have images under a free license or in the public domain taken by contributors, or by external sources. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Before this starts disappearing into the the theoretic ether- you have grabbed the attention of a lot of practising academics Could every one of you approach your employer and ask them to release under cc0, photographs they have in their archives of alumni and graduation ceremonies. These can be scanned and uploaded to commons for future use. Can I add a plea for these to be linked to the folks wikidata item. If a commons project happens, it will have an initial scheme to promote and work with. ClemRutter (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
For now I started it under Commons:Illustrating Women. We could always change the name later if a consensus arises for a better name. Please note that the idea is also to promote images made by women, or images promoting women. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Assistance needed with our March Role Models meetup and online editathon
Interest has recently been building up on our innovative Women's History Month Role Models initiative. In collaboration with Carol Black of Newnham College, Cambridge, and thanks to Victuallers of WiR and the support of Charles Matthews of WMUK, momentum is growing on our objective of creating at least a thousand new biographies of notable women associated with women's colleges and universities worldwide. Our problem is that we have little Wikipedian contact with the institutions involved. These include (to name but a few):
Please help us to sensitize those associated with these and similar institutions, encouraging them to contribute to our ambitions for Women's History Month. Feel free to forward our invitation to as many potentially interested editors as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I like it, too. Regarding the new redlists ("by education"), which is a good idea, will they be added to our navbox so that they are visible to editors who land on our meetup pages? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: I really appreciate your support. And thanks for your Oxford correction, Tagishsimon, and all the other Wikidata lists. I'll wait until tomorrow to see if there are any further reactions, especially from Victuallers.
Ipigott, oops, you're confusing me with someone else as I said the opposite on your talkpage and Roger's: "But certainly, we need to be inclusive of all continents (e.g. avoid UK/US content gender gap systemic bias), so I hope the plan is to include redlists based on some of these schools, Category:Women's universities and colleges too." --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You might use the WP:WIR twitter account to tweet each college, one by one, if there's a suitable landing page to which you could direct their attention? Might get a retweet and find people that way? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: I knew some of the guys who were behind Twitter in 2005 and joined the beta shortly after it started but have hardly tweeted since. I simply do not have time to spend on the social networks. But if you, Victuallers or anyone else would like to take this on, it might get people interested. For now, I'll try to draw on traditional Misplaced Pages channels. They've actually provided a pretty good level of support over the years.--Ipigott (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott: Do we have a landing page, or, put another way, what is the proprosition we wish to put to these people and have we documented it somewhere that we can point them to? I can draw up a list of twitter addresses; whoever has the keys to the WiR twitter account can tweet. Sounds doable. Who has the keys? Roger? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not far from Smith and Mount Holyoke -- and would be happy to support one of them if they are interested in hosting an event or participating. I don't know anyone at either of them. @Pharos: might have connections via Art+Feminism Sadads (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a contact at William & Mary, but she's unavailable until next week. Wikimedia DC can probably generate some interest at local schools, too. What about University of Maryland? I know there are contacts there, also. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa.20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Wooo! lots of promising comments here. I will get busy on Tweeting, but I have also put an invitation at "wikiproject universities" and the talk page of every uni we identified above. (Sorry made one up) Thanks to Ian for being bold and just doing it! I think one of the lures may be the lists that Simon and Charles have created. Is it possible to add a few more under a sub title on the editathon page so that others may be tempted to ask for a list for their favourite Uni? Victuallers (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Victuallers: Thanks for sending out invitations to all those universities. I'll also send them out now to a number of other talk pages. The problem with the Wikidata red links is that apart from the non-English-speaking universities, the red links are unlikely to be useful for people working on the EN wiki as there are no Wikidata entries in the other languages which have not already been covered by articles in English. I've linked to the list on Barcelona as it seems to be one of your contacts.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Generally yes - but the redlinks that Simon created have ODNB reference numbers which means that there is a good biog available and notability is fairly assured too. I did adjust the invite as it appeared that it was women's colleges only - which today in the UK are very rare. Historically that is where role models came from as it was your only choice on UK etc. Now that is not the case in 1st world, but not sure about all countries. Newnham are inviting 30 colleges to editathon and NOW only one is women only but there were a few more. Victuallers (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, Charles Matthews Oh dear - I realise my answer above is not only Anglocentric it ignores other languages... sorry. Tagishsimon's list for the University of Barcelona highlights this. These alumni are mainly in Spanish or Catalan, occasionally English and other languages. They are unlikely to be in the ODNB. The only was to approach them is to look at the wikipedia entry and then look to see what other languages are available. I see that we have an Oxford College but it only has one entry. Is there a solution to the translation problem? could we have a column with "en,es,ca" in it? Victuallers (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm grokking that Roger wants lists like the 'by education' lists, but (for non-UK people) minus the ODNB column, and plus a column which indicates & ideally links to other language wikipedia articles on the person. I've not got around to figuring out how to deliver that. Right now I can, for instance, filter a list of Spanish redlinks to include only those with an es.wiki article ... but that's not ideal. I'll see if I can get advice from the wikidata Request a Query page. If not, I can for sure create lists showing that for these redlinks, there is an article on another wiki (which can be accessed via the wikidata link). --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm very pleased with stuff so far though. I just feel that Brits have ODNB and the rest of the world need a similar first guess at how to start an new article. Victuallers (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
VictuallersTagishsimon It looks to me as if the lists of Wikidata redlinks are sufficiently developed as they are. It would probably be a never-ending project to tailor them for each institution and each language group. I have seen how the Germans have adapted lists of red links for the German-speakers and I expect others can do the same for other languages. As far as I can remember, we have never had such a comprehensive list of red links for any previous editathon. It looks to me as if any further work on red links should be based on the crowd-sourced approach under which editors could add names of successful women attached to specific institutions who have not yet been the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. Let's see if there are any developments along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I was just going from "the red links are unlikely to be useful for people working on the EN wiki as there are no Wikidata entries in the other languages which have not already been covered by articles in English". As I said I'm "I'm very pleased with stuff so far". It really is a great set of lists. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Art + Feminism mini update and info about Spanish-language wiki training
Hello! Just an FYI about the Art + Feminism project. For anyone who is doing a physical event, funding will be available for childcare and refreshments.
There are also two training sessions being held in Spanish: Cómo editar en Misplaced Pages. If you know anyone who could use that, please pass the info along! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Where would I put a request for an article to be written on Ellen Kelly? (Note that the link redirects to her son, Ned.) A biography lists her occupations as farmer, prisoner, sly-grog operator. None of those seem to be represented in the lists below, unless you call her a businesswoman. There's a new book being written about her, so I think she's worth investigating to see if an article can be written about her. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
122.108.141.214: Looks to me as if you've successfully made your request here. I'm pretty sure someone will pick it up. Perhaps we should start a new set of red links covering women prisoners or women criminals.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
These editathons are welcome, but need to be conducted with discretion if they are to avoid the over-enthusiastic mistakes of Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina which did such harm to the reputation of women's editing on Misplaced Pages. There are simple ways to keep out of trouble: 1. Don't write about yourself, your friends or your institution; if these are notable enough somebody else will do that. If you are editing under an institutional banner, your edits may reflect upon your institution. 2. Concentrate on quality not quantity. A flood of substandard articles creates work for other editors. 3. Remember that BLPs of early career academics are rarely found to be notable under WP:Prof, except in exceptional circumstances. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
Georgia Plessas up for deletion
Despite considerable efforts by other editors, Georgia Plessas - originally written by Sanders - is up for deletion once again. It certainly looks fine to me but there now seems to be quite a gang of deletionists ready to counter contructive efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Proposed design re-vamp
This is long overdue, but here is what I would like to propose regarding the design:
Make the introduction dramatically shorter. It should be approximately one sentence, with a link out to an "About Us" subpage.
Move extended introduction, press, and research sections to About Us page.
Make the tasks section link out to subpages representing high level sections. The idea is that it starts off as a high level directory with a few options (by occupation, by country, by institution, etc.), and then you get more detail the deeper into the directory you go. This keeps the main page very simple to navigate.
Reduce the showcase to just high level numbers, with links out to details. Such that when you scroll down to the showcase section, you let the numbers speak for themselves. We could also consider combining it with the Metrics section.
The goal is to make the landing page very simple and easy to interact with while managing information overload. I'm ready to move quickly on this, but I want sign-off from the other members before making huge changes. Rosiestep, Ipigott, what do you think? Harej (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Harej for getting back to us on this: The main problem for me at the moment is that the icons do not appear until you scroll down the page. A major improvement would be to move them to the top where they can be seen and used from the start in the same way as we now have clickables at the top of our editathon pages. We used to have a much shorter introduction but some of us felt it was important to outline our basic strategy so that those new to the project could see our priorities. I'm not sure many people would take the trouble to go into "About us" and if they did it would already have taken them away from the main page. Press and research could probably be moved to separate pages provided there are links from the main page.
What bothers me is that in contrast to the main page, we are able to change the look and the formats of most of our other pages, especially the editathon pages, as we wish. Indeed, I think the "new look" resulting from Rosie's adjustments makes things more attractive and more dynamic. But the same colour schemes, boxes, etc., cannot be reproduced on the main page as it is out of our control. There are however two aspects of the main page which many of us would like to maintain: the user registration and maintenance, and the metrics. I was wondering if it would be possible to deal with these as separate module pages which we could place on the main page wherever we wish as it evolves. Even if you undertake some of the work you propose above, we are likely once again to be constrained to work within an unadjustable straightjacket. I've always found that one of the main attractions of Misplaced Pages is that with experience most editors are able to create and adjust formatting changes, adding new features they discover elsewhere. It would be great if we had the same freedom on Women in Red as it grows increasingly popular. I have not answered all your points in detail as I think it is important for you to understand some of the reasons behind our wishes to make general changes. But this is also an excellent opportunity to hear from others, especially those who like your proposals. It would be good if we could sort things out within the next few days as the main page is likely to be accessed frequently throughout Women's History Month.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think I'm nearly always in favour of shortening the message and decreasing the difficulty of making changes when we want to. Twitter allows us about 20 words to say who we are. Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Victuallers. Short and sweet is good. There can be links/tabs to go into further detail. I agree that Rosiestep's new look has been good at accomplishing a lot of that. It's easier to find templates, for example, on the editathon pages. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for circling back, Harej. The re-design should support/promote: (1) our community, (2) our work, (3) project administration. The cleaner the look, the easier the maintenance, and the easier it will be to zig/zag as we grow, the better.
Mainpage. Agree with above comments from others re shorten the description succinct; retain Members and External Links; move icons/tabs across the top.
High-level-subpages: About Us (to include Announcements, Press, Research, Resources). Project Administration which will be a directory for items which are in the bottom rows of the navbox {{tl|Women in Red}}. Tasks (needs to be renamed Worklists or Redlists or?), Events, Metrics, Showcase.
Harej: I can go along with all these suggestions. I am happy to see there is general agreement on the need for simplification. It would also be good to have more extensive editing possibilities so that we can make changes without having to bother Project X. It would be great if we could move things around a bit more easily, change the colour schemes, add or reomve icons, etc. But if this proves too difficult, then let's just have a simplified page on the basis of the comments above.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I am concerned that several of the keenest and most productive editors I know have recently been faced with such a level of aggression that they no longer feel happy about contributing to the English Misplaced Pages. There have been instances of stalking by editors and administrators who set out to find fault, especially with those who try to explain the reasons behind the work they have undertaken. In addition to having their articles deleted, editors who attempt to argue their cases with administrators can be threatened with action by ArbCom. Some are officially suspended from editing, others feel they are unable to edit further without facing continued aggression. While a number of new editors seem to face repeated discouragement, I am mainly concerned that several editors who have contributed for years are now so fed up with the hostile atmosphere here that they have decided either to abandon ship completely or to cut back on their contributions. Many have stopped contributing to DYK or to discussions on AfD.
It seems to me that there is little hope of improving participation on Women in Red unless we can put a stop to continued harassment along these lines. It would probably be counter-productive to cite specific instances of aggression on-wiki as this could well result in further oppression. As a result, I have decided after some consultation to try to draw up an account of serious instances of hostility by inviting those involved to keep me informed by email. Those who have suffered unjustified aggression should therefore let me know by email. They can first let me know in general terms how they have been treated. Later, it would be useful to have more details, including the names of the editors and administrators concerned, backed if possible by reference to specific instances of aggression and cases of continued stalking. It would also be useful for me to have the names of other editors who have been mistreated so that their cases can be investigated too. On the basis of the communications I receive, I will try to research cases in more depth although as I am not an administrator, I may have difficulty in identifying articles and talk pages which have now been deleted. Once I have sufficient evidence of aggression, I shall communicate the results to a number of progressive Wikipedians who have expressed interest in taking concerted action at appropriate levels.
As many of you will know, the Wikimedia Foundation hopes to improve the editing environment on Misplaced Pages, especially as a means of attracting more women editors and better coverage of women. If we can assist by identifying those behind cases of aggression, we will certainly help to bring about improvements. I look forward both to general support here and to more specific details of bullying by email.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
One of the main reasons I've not been contributing much in the last few months is the level of childishness I experienced from the infobox enforcement lot. Cassianto in particular was being targetted. The nastiness that went on and the blatant bullying has soured my attitude towards wanting to produce content. At times it seems nobody seems to care if I contribute or not. Another major concern is the level of deletionism which goes on on here, the laziness in checking for sources and helping the wikipedia cause. Just look at my talk page for what people have tried to delete in the last month. Deletionism is a major obstacle if we're to keep editors contributing women articles. We need something to protect newbies and their articles created at editathons. I hope the site will get better again later in the year with the contests I have in mind and the project will become more positive.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow. I am really sorry to read this thread. All I can say is that on the Dutch wikipedia this as been going on for years and our little Gendergap group has a safe haven on Facebook where we can exchange tips and tricks. The odd thing is that the most determined "stalkers" as you call them are mostly just over-sensitive Wikipedians trying to defend the "rules". As everyone knows who works on articles about women and their works, it is sometimes really hard to find reliable sources. I think it is important to keep in mind that all of the work here is harder than work on items about men. I think that helps. Since my hobby is 17th-century art it is always easy for me to escape from time to time. I agree that we need to keep it fun and sometimes crabby people seem to suck all the fun out of it. It helps to remember that crabby people are just reacting to what annoys them individually, and it may have nothing to do with the female aspect, but simply fallout from the fact that there is no single source for the text you have written. But let's keep the faith! Jane (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Xxanthippe: Thanks for your interest. I'm afraid bringing up specific instances of harassment here might only create more problems for those concerned. That is why I have suggested further contacts by email. I should nevertheless point out that many of us, including Jane023 above and I myself, have never experienced any serious problems on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, WiR members have generally welcomed the positive and cooperative atmosphere they have experienced in the project, not only in our discussions but perhaps more importantly in collaboration on our articles. That said, the cases of harassment which have come to my attention seem to be serious enough to call for more careful investigation.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes but it might help to put up some examples of what happens in user talk page exchanges. I think a lot of problems occur because people "mis-read" each other and jump to conclusions. Unfortunately it seems to me that some Wikipedians love to bait new users for some reason. I am willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but some very experienced users do seem to be overly critical of minor details in a way that may come across as aggressive. Without naming names I think we can document a few common scenarios. What bugs me is there is no central page for this, but it comes up in almost every newbie editing session I have attended. So some general work is needed, but I am at a loss as to which form it should take. Jane (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott, I'm sorry to hear that this is happening and understand you frustration. If you don't want to publicly point out particular situations with editors, you can send me an email with more details so I can offer suggestions of possible methods to resolve the problem. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
There are also problems with overzealous new editors sometimes, I've found. I've had a couple of people swoop in to touch up articles I've been working on even though I've had an under-construction tag up on them and was still working on them myself. Not the greatest sin in the history of things, but after a while it can become frustrating. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa.17:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I split this conversation, because edit-a-thons are a whole different subject. I think it may be helpful here to mention that there is a draft code of conduct being written here: mw:Code of Conduct/Draft, which has sparked a lively thread on Wikimedia-l mailing list here. Jane (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
This a a very sad thread. WIR has remained a safe area but we have well meaning and imperfect editors being hounded by editors who claim that they are improving Misplaced Pages by getting rid of contributors they don't think are "up to standard". There seems to be an idea that the project is more important than one editors work. Some believe that one day Misplaced Pages will be free from errors - that may be possible but only by getting rid of all the editors. The editors create content AND errors AND corrections. The project is proof that this works. What is happening is that editors are being hounded off the projects and the middle-ground editors who create the majority of the content are (not surprisingly) the people who create the majority of the errors. They are also create the majority of the corrections but this is never noticed. The argument goes that we can get rid of most of the errors by getting rid of the most productive editors. This is a valid argument if you want the project to stagnate. We need new additions, we need productive editors and we need errors. WIR has remained a safish area - why does it attract so many good editors? ....Sadly this means that other areas of the project are creating stagnation. I didn't think that editors should be hounded off the project .. but .... Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Roger, and of course I agree with you, but I think we all need to step back and think about why this is happening now. For example, that CoC I linked above has been stalled for a year but has now become the lively subject of the mailing list. We are dealing with various forces in the media that have to do with fake news and suddenly people are looking at Misplaced Pages for answers. After years of being ridiculed and vandalized by academics and journalists (though thankfully not all of them), the irony of people looking at Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies as a way forward is just amazing to me. So the typical Wikipedian doing their normal duty of "cleaning up the errors" has now suddenly gone into overdrive. This project has not been targeted I don't think. It's just a simple factor of the systemic bias that means most of what we would like to create in terms of women's bios is just not going to pass muster in the current scheme of things, because we lack the reliable sources. Add to that simple fact that we have been looking at Black women in particular this month and suddenly our "normal lack of reliable sources" has been dialed back even further! All of that said, I think we need some guidelines about how to deal with this kind of talkpage conduct, even if all we have is "go vent on the Women-in-Red talkpage" which may help people, who knows? Jane (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been watching this thread with interest, trying to gather my thoughts. I am thankful that WiR remains a safe place, with the exception of a few stalkers who watch our pages and occasionally comment or push their POV. I think that overall, Misplaced Pages will not change unless the WikiMedia Foundation actually puts effort into creating policies that stop these behaviors. Self-policing has not worked. The groups of people who participate in these types of behaviors reinforce each other and back each other up. When one begins their Wikilawyering tactics, the rest will follow. I don't participate in many projects on here simply because of the pack mentality, whose goals appear to be to tear things down rather than build them up. The ultimate goal of WP is to create a reliable encyclopedia and yet, creation always seems to take a back seat. It is interesting that the proposed code of conduct refers very little to the actual work of the encyclopedia. "Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling)" appears to be the only reference and is totally insufficient. Is is so vague as to not address anything, in that the offenders are likely not to consider their behavior to be sustained issues, nor trolling. SusunW (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In answer to some of the above comments, I should let you know that the Wikimedia foundation is in fact taking all this extremely seriously as you can see from here. It is therefore all the more important that we monitor unacceptable behaviour on talk pages, article reviews, DYK submissions, AfDs, etc. It certainly looks to me as if we can expect positive changes over the next few months. Better reporting mechanisms are to be introduced soon but for now we have to rely on more traditional forms of communication.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Well...I hope your optimism isn't misplaced. But I'm afraid that at least some of the problems have been longstanding...it's only now that they seem to be lapping at the feet of more established editors. (I have evidence from discussion with a couple of friends that we've lost some potential new editors over the past couple of years due to some nastiness.) Whether or not that will lead to a long-term change in attitudes I cannot say. Apologies for the cynicism, but...well, it's well within my nature. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa.20:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Problems with edit-a-thons
I completely understand your situation. I recently hosted a Misplaced Pages edit-a-thon for Black History Month, and we got several new editors involved in adding to and creating pages. A handful of new articles were immediately flagged for deletion, one of which was deleted within days despite the hours of hard work a new editor put into the article. The article was written by a woman on Evita Robinson, a black female who had been mentioned in multiple major media outlets for her business endeavors and for her place in the urban travel movement. I was very disappointed with this because of how discouraging such actions can be, particularly for new users. PersnicketyPaul (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@PersnicketyPaul: But why didn't you defend the article at AfD? Surely you were only encouraging your editathon attendees to create articles which you believed to be Notable, so you must have had points you could have made in that discussion to try to avoid deletion? Or, as part of hosting the editathon, did you cast an eye over the articles they'd created and do any necessary cleanup (eg toning down of promotionalism) to help ensure the survival of the articles? PamD22:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
A trick that might reduce premature deletions is for members of an editathon to first prepare articles in their sandbox. The article would be put on-line only when the convenor and other members felt it was ready to go. This would spread responsibility more widely. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC).
There are three things going on this thread
Advising newbies on how make themselves less vunerable
Advising Editathon Organisers on how to change procedures to minimise the attacks
How to stop the aggressors in their tracks
What a state of affairs. We all have a very enjoyable time cooperating and building an encyclopedia, but our editcount has given us a certain immunity. We have to stop the aggressors in their tracks. Like dung beetles the aggressors do a valuable job and they are convinced they are right because they are following all the rules. They are following all the rules but psychologically are incapable of factoring in human emotions. Call it wikiautism if you like.
We can only change their behaviour by rewriting the rules they assiduously follow- as we are never going to persuade them to be less aggressive. Take for example WP:ACSDspeedy delete of articles: These rationale have the code numbers A1...A10. They are open to abuse because we haven't made it clear that these rationale can only be used if and when it is clear that is the author not a newbie struggling to master editing. I propose we actual write that in the policyWP:SPEEDY.
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Misplaced Pages pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here.
should become:
The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Misplaced Pages pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules here.
Speedy deletion can only occur when the administrator has checked that the author is not a new editor struggling to make their first edits. Speedy deletion cannot happen if a registered-editor has created less than 5 articles or has an edit count of less than a 50, In those cases an encouraging advice template devoid of threats should be left on their talk page, and the full deletion process used instead.
That will be the backstop position. Any user can summon up a speedy deletion by using the A1..A10 tags. WP:ACSD There is currently no preamble to these. I suggest we provide one to explain to our aggressors the presumed limitations on these
Articles Wikipedians support new users, endeavouring to make them comfortable while they are gaining the basic skills, thus the article criteria below can only be used when the author has already created 5 articles of any length and they have made over 50 edits. The full deletion procedure will also be inappropriate.
I write that as an example- but advice must be given to the overworked administrator, and the frustrated aggressor. details and numbers and terminology is all open to discussion. I just want to extinguish the fire not treat the burn victims afterward. ClemRutter (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Though I agree that we need to change current edit-a-thon procedures, I object to calling deletionists "dung beetles" unless, ClemRutter, you are willing to verify that everything currently produced by so-called edit-a-thons is better than "dung". The main problem here as I see it, is that most people have come to associate the word "edit-a-thon" with "introduction to Misplaced Pages", which it certainly isn't. I see that the term doesn't appear to be bluelinked from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/36. Such a "female bio editathon" page with general advice and a talkpage (split perhaps by popular occupations) could be very helpful to us in March for all sorts of things. Jane (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am rather fond of dung beetles and their positive contributions. I keep my opinions to my self on the value of a whole range of topics :- though sport and entertainment do seem to be important to some while passing me by. I would still be willing to train at one of their dedicated edit-athons. I am like all other editors in this cooperative voluntary project.
So focussing on the issue- we are spending an inordinate amount of time on trying to persuade shy folk to become contributing editors. Their first tentative edits are often dire but valuable in that it helps to build up their confidence. Assume good faith. is relevant here. With a few positive comments from the community- they learn. Forming storming, norming, performing describes the process they will pass through. So I have written a proposal- you have read it and agree that something needs to be done. Others have also read it but just don't understand the problem- and predicably defend their corner.
When training at an editathon far too much time is spent on discussing ways to protect the editor first article. Many students wont contribute as they have heard that their work may be deleted of the syntax is too hard, many of the trainees at institutional events are there because they need to understand the system that some of their staff use. It really is an exercise in persuasion. So we do need to have the admins and speedies on board.
Training is a small part of the edit-athon. I do it, as a retired teacher I am familiar with the learning process. There is a lot to get through- far too much for the average participant to absorb in a 2hr session, training is very different from reading bullet points at a lecture. Teaching at a training session is on an even higher plane. Trainers need simple rules to guide their tutees though the Scylla and Charybdis of getting their first articles accepted. It is a brilliant idea to put together "a female bio editathon". Can I suggest that you start one right now at WikiProject_Women_in_Red/female bio editathon advice. I'll be at Cambridge and I have on User:ClemRutter/training links to booklets I have produced for other training sessions, and I am proposing to add some advices page as a preface to Wellcome Library:Creating an Article- traditionally and with Visual Editor (16 pages). I really don't have the experience to produce them myself though (hint).
In wikipedia we work together. So, if the system I have suggested above is too radical- what is a better way? The problem basically is that a group of us are being undermined by a group of loyal wikipedians that refuse to address the problem- and oppose any attempt to be constructive. Can I ask them what do we have to do at an edit-athon training session to alert them that our particular editors should not be zapped until they have enough experience to do it 'correctly'? ClemRutter (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The proposal would have the undesirable feature that any newbie (paid editor, promotionalist, POV warrior) with less than 5 articles would have them remain in Misplaced Pages for ever, even though they might be junk, and then move on to a new account or username and repeat the process ad infinitum. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
Tweak the wording- I don't propose to enter the dots and commas game. I am happy to imagine that as soon as one of our less valued contributors has passed the threshold he is then 'in play' and can be retroactively zapped. If you suspect that the editor wears multiple socks- then do the count across all known accounts and use full Delete procedure.
It seems to me that one of the problems is that a considerable number of article reviewers have been recruited recently. They are constantly being urged to work faster and review up to 20 articles each and every day. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that many assign tags without sufficient care, encouraging undue deletion. I am equally concerned about new editors who have reasonable drafts refused time and time again. I agree with those who think we need to change the rules, especially for articles written by newbies.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to propose this, I think it would only make sense for this to apply only to A7, as there already is some feeling that deletion on these should not be immediate. Surely you don't mean this to apply to empty or indecipherable articles, vandalism, or schoolchild pranks. I'd also suggest i makes much more sense to apply it to first article not first five articles. After the first article people should learn; and if we are going to tolerate needing to use one cumbersome process to remove a first utterly unacceptable article, it is making things worse yet to have to do it four more times. But even if modified, I think any of us who have actually been working at screening new articles would think it very counterproductive; it is detrimental—not helpful—to new editors, for them to continue to submit questionable articles.
Altogether, I think this is not a good idea--. The new page editors are not newly arrived--they are mostly people who have been doing it all along; the change was to remove those without sufficient experience to do it right. They have more roles than to mark articles for deletion--they also indicate which are basically acceptable, and mark what needs improvement. They are already supposed ot know which ones can be deleted by speedy, and which need Prod or AfD--the choice is not between keep/speedy delete --rather, the role of speedy is to quickly indicate the hopeless. There are errors, but they are much less than they used to be. When I started working with new articles 8 years ago, I estimated there were about 10% errors (in each direction); now, I think it's less than half that. 5% error is as good as can be expected from a process here. eight years ago there were a number of stubborn admins who deleted single-handed, apparently under the assumption that they would make no errors. I don't think there is any admin doing that any more, except for the most harmful material. So a speedy A7 means not just the opinion of a patroller, but of two people, one of whom at least is supposed by the community to know what they're doing. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No I am not going to propose it- I have left it here for discussion, and then if it gains consensus I would expect one of our wikiwonks to take it through the process of ammending the document- as this is an area within which they excel. I would prefer them to identify any sticking points now, and revise the idea here so when it is proposed it passes nem. con.. --ClemRutter (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem with operating like a police state is that it creates fear and a perception, whether real or imagined that the authorities have run amuck. A teaching environment nourishes talent and trains people by example, in how to do things. It seems quite apparent that all the focus on policing of WP has created the environment which WikiMedia foundation has recognized is a problem. The entire deletion program needs a thorough review, as does AfC. Both are horribly broken. When one doesn't recognize the national award for a field as sufficient notoriety or more than twenty articles on a subject which are solely about that subject as sufficient, we clearly have issues. (Both examples from a real situation experienced by a recent new editor.) But the bigger problem is that those self-same people will never vote for a change of the status quo. It is like being forced to rely on Congress to pass law limiting their own terms, not going to happen. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Evita Robinson deletion- Black history month
It's worth noting that the Evita Robinson article referred to at the top of the previous section was deleted at AfD, not by CSD. The same editor had also created Lindsey Day which was declined at AfC and an hour later moved into mainspace by a different editor who noted "four news profiles about the subject of the article appear to confer sufficient notability" - perhaps one of those had been added since the AfC decline, but only one as far as I can see. It must be dispiriting to come to an editathon and get your work rejected like this. PamD09:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
A look at the AfD debate shows that the article was almost unanimously felt to be dire, only one editor thought it might be improved. The evidence suggests that the deletion was not unreasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
This is already a pretty long thread but I really feel the last comment deserves a response. It seems to me we are dangerously close to ignoring emerging trends in the way news and items of interest are communicated. Much has been written about Trump's use of Twitter but when a Black woman is recognized in a host of blogs and internet media, the sources are simply ruled out as unacceptable. It might be sensible to take a new look at what justifies notability in today's world. Is it more important to have a few lines in a local newspaper or a biographical dictionary or dozens of reports in new media sources consulted by millions? Here we seem to be discussing a borderline case but it is becoming increasingly difficult to include the biographies of contemporary African and Asian women on the EN Wiki, even if they are covered on the new media. It much easier to write about them on wikis in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
"only one editor thought it might be improved." The editor was Montanabw who has 55 GA and FAs to her name, and made over 72,000 edits. She offered links and suggestions on how the article could be improved but was shouted down by eight editors experienced in policy- but full of negativity. It is worth looking at this AfD to see what is going wrong with AfD. There was no consensus established- I can't explain the theory of consensus to an audience and then justify that. ClemRutter (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have looked over GeoffreyT2000's recent editing history. He has listed several article for deletion which received unanimous "keeps". This is wasting everyone's time and upsetting a number of article creators.--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
And since losing these he seems to have switched to speedy deletion noms, which go through in the blink of an eye. Someone with admin rights should check these out. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I just look at his user contributions, where already deleted one stand out in red. There may be another way for admins. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmlarson: Good to see you are helping to have another article on a woman promoted to FA. Unfortunately I am not at all familiar with the conditions for assessing article on soccer, even less lists. The first thing that struck me towards the beginning of the lead was the assertion that Wambach made "255 appearances for the senior national team" and "scored 184 goals". I see that Ref 2 informs us that she broke the record when she reached 159 goals on 20 June 2013 after participating in 207 games. And I see the table documents 184 goals by 19 August 2015. It would nevertheless be useful to have a source for this figure too. And I can't see where the figure of 255 appearances is sourced. I might well be off-target with these comments which is why I have made them here rather than on the FA review.--Ipigott (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just seen there is no source for the last statement in the second paragraph. There is a risk this could be interpreted as original research.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a good place to post this, please redirect if not! In the last couple of days I've been trying to assist with selecting biographies for the new main page/On this day section which features a person born on the day and a person who died on the day. I've realised it's quite difficult to find good quality articles on women to put in that spot because their policy is to find the article from the appropriate date page e.g. February 26 and there are very few women's articles listed on the pages. I am going to start working through the category of B-class women's articles and make sure they are listed on the date pages for their birth and death, but I think this also needs to be added to instructions/guidelines on writing new bios for WiR - i.e. the woman's birth and death need to be added to the appropriate date pages, and also any particular events concering that women need to be added as well e.g. if someone invented something, got elected to a notable position etc that should be on the date page too as that's where OTD editors go to find content for each day's main page entry.
I've been writing women's biographies for about 18 months and have never entered anything onto those date pages, so I have a bit of a backlog of my own to work through! What do you all think about adding these guidelines to the standard WiR editathon template? MurielMary (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi MurielMary, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Like you, I've written a lot of bios, and haven't add any of them to date pages, due to lack of awareness. Since WiR's founding, we've created ~30K articles and I'll assume most of haven't been added to date pages. It would be useful to get the data entry done, but manual effort seems inappropriate for so many articles. Is there a bot or maybe AWB? Also, does someone want to develop instructions for current/future meetup pages? --Rosiestep (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked on the OTD page about whether entries have to be added manually, and apparently yes - the pages are lists which are manually created. Aaagh!! I will draft up some instructions and post them here shortly. MurielMary (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Just had a look at the current editathon pages and I think this information should be added to the yellow boxes on the right hand side under a separate box headed "Add article to date pages" - "Add the name of the woman to the date page for her birth and death (if known) for example Susan B. Anthony appears in the February 15 births list and March 13 deaths list" ... In addition, another box headed "Add specific events to date pages" would be helpful - "Add any events which the woman was involved in to the date page for example the event of Anthony's arrest for illegal voting appears in the November 18 events list". MurielMary (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks MurielMary for bringing this to our attention. There's absolutely no reason why this should be done manually. I agree with Rosie that it could be handled by a bot, at least initially. Editors could then go in and improve entries for upcoming dates. But of course we should try to make sure that new articles are dated correctly as proposed.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I suspect I can put together a petscan report which'll identify lists of candidates based on a full DoB or DoD being in Wikidata, and there being a class= attribute on the talk page; but absent someone able to code a proper bot, we'd have to add to the February 26 type pages manually. I'll try to do some work on this this week. I agree per MurielMary et al that we should advise biog writers of the utility of adding to the day pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I had no idea this wasn't just automatically done. *sigh* Having written somewhere around 800 biographies, I have never done it. I will try to remember to do it going forward. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've never done it either, largely because at some point I'm afraid of allowing one of those date pages to be overtaken with all manner of names. Also because I'm not always convinced I have the correct birthdate data for a lot of these artists I'm writing about, though Lord knows I do what I can to be accurate. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa.20:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't waste your time. In due course, Wikidata will have all this sown up. Pages like this will be automatically generated from the database. In the meantime, take it easy and just find really good articles for inclusion at OTD. Also, do consider the fact that the OTD template should be reflecting Misplaced Pages as a whole, not just prominent women who are mainly white westerners. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Strange assessment of our work The Rambling Man, especially after all our recent efforts covering Black Women, Caribbean Women, women from Africa and Asia, etc., etc. There have been many extremely good biographies of women who are not white, although I see no reason to ignore biographies of outstanding white women either. I certainly doubt whether there have recently been more biographies on men who are not white but I have not examined the statistics. In any case, I think Muriel is right in encouraging us to take this seriously.--Ipigott (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't an assessment of the project's work at all. It was a note to remind the all Wikipedians that while the birth/death slots are now available, we should be careful not to over-compensate. I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, nor did I suggest this shouldn't be taken "seriously", although I'm not certain I know what is meant by that. Of course it's serious, it's an opportunity to highlight quality biographical articles on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ipigott you expressed my sentiments better than my frustration would allow me to respond. "Over-compensation" of adding/profiling articles on women has not been a problem in WP, probably ever. As our project is extremely inclusive of achievements, ethnic identity, sexual identity, ad infinitum, I think MurielMary's suggestion gives us a venue that might showcase some notable women. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you've also mis-read the meaning or intent of my responses here. It's not a comment on this project, it's a comment on MurielMary's sudden race to include a shedload of white western women (mainly actresses) to the b/d section of the OTD template while actually overlooking that I was doing my best to include decent articles on women from around the world and with eclectic backgrounds. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant. Please, in future, take some time to understand what the modifications to the OTD section have enabled and what those who have contributed to it have attempted to achieve. To not do so is infuriating, and frustrating, and completely unhelpful to this project's aims. We're trying to work with you not against you. Just not to the end where all births and deaths featured in OTD are white western women who act. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a way to communicate this perspective without a tone that can easily be misconstrued as mansplaining by other editors that might be more effective. Thanks for your quality work over the years. Hmlarson (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There's also a way to explain to the project what's going on without spinning it into some kind of mysogonistic bias. Before you all bandwagon, please check how I tried to provide a balanced view of Misplaced Pages's quality articles in the b/d area of OTD. Then please check how MurielMary added a shedload of women's articles, many of which simply weren't up to the quality thresholds required for the main page, not to mention from a very narrow perspective. Now I'm done here. Little wonder that those of us who actually try to help don't stick around for long, too much artificial indignation and certainly too much real patronisation. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
One generally catches flies with honey. The assumption that having brought it to our attention that only white westerners would be included is frustrating at best, as is the assumption that members of the project shouldn't "waste their time". The indignant response you think you received, may well have been more a reflection of the way in which the presentation occurred rather than a point to any "mysogonistic biases". I repeat what I have said many times before, coaching is far more likely to produce results than policing. SusunW (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks The Rambling Man for your initial comment here. I appreciate that wikidata will one day take over the date pages but I'm a bit concerned that until that (unknown) date editors and readers have access to rather unrepresentative "on this day" date pages. WP has 16.85% women bios but those pages show about 0.5% women bios each (one or two women on a page of a couple of hundred entries). I'm happy to plod along adding women and women's achievements as I can, it's nice low-brain-demand work to do now and again! It also seems sensible to advise other editors to do the same as and when they can. As for my editing on ODT b/d, it's surprising that you seem unhappy with me adding lots of bios to those templates. Someone having a spurt of enthusiasm and time to spend on editing on WP seems something to be acknowledged and valued rather than criticized for "suddenly" adding "shedloads"! As for the quality, we discussed that at OTD - I was following the guidelines of "B class or higher" but this was later adapted to "B class or higher plus fully cited" - which is absolutely fine, but it's rather unfair to criticize an editor for following the guidelines! I completely take on board the comment about wide range of articles and the next time I did some adding I found some great non-white women to add. As an alternative, how about framing the conversation as "hey, thanks for all that editing work but in future can you add some non-white women as well to expand the range" ..... which is a supportive and acknowledging and encouraging and educational framework to use. Thanks again for engaging in the discussion. MurielMary (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
You missed the bit where you forgot to note that an eclectic range of individuals was already being selected (by me, mainly) before your slough of white western women, some of whose articles were simply inadequate. As for the daily pages, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the OTD page on the main page. Individuals can be added to the OTD template for the main page by anyone from any source. But by all means spend hundreds of hours adding those entries to those pages, but it's ultimately a complete and utter waste of your and others time; that's good advice and I strongly advise you to follow it. But that's your call. Sadly, I'm done here now, I was dead keen to help this project, adding individuals like Mary Whiton Calkins, Æthelberht of Kent, Chelsea Clinton etc, which aren't mainstream (as far as I'm concerned) yet are important in their individual ways. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Take a closer look and read what was written. MurielMary was guilty of promoting the white westerners, not me. It's a problem of your own making. Stop making problems where they don't exist outside your own project members' poor communication skills. I'm not here to catch flies, or use honey, or coach, or anything like that, but I am also not here to suffer the indignation of a group of individuals who seem actively intent on ignoring the fact that some of us have been working on ensuring an eclectic and rounded group of individuals (men, women, old, young, famous, not famous, white western, not white western etc etc etc) are featuring in the OTD template. The overwhelming message here from this project is that I shouldn't have bothered. Well played. I repeat what I have said many times before, if you want good results, be good people. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Leigh Markopoulos
Critic, writer and curator Leigh Markopoulos has just died. Quickly looking over her bio I believe she would pass WP:GNG, sadly not during her lifetime. I haven't the time today to attempt it but if someone is feeling energetic that would be a good addition. freshacconci talk to me20:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Love Heart Kamma Rahbek
WiR laurel
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
