Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

"Komm rein, mach mit", meaning "Come, join us".

Composing Wikipedia

Hroche83 seems to have run a successful set of editathons on female composers yesterday. I read about the events here and also looked through her latest Tweets. It all seems to have gone off very well.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Looks like they worked on over 100 articles too! SusunW (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
See my talk page for her response.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Hroche83. I read the article, and this multi-city group of editathons regarding female composers is just fantastic. Bravo! Our project, Women in Red, focuses on creating new women's biographies on 3, 4, or 5 different themes each month in a virtual/online environment allowing editors anywhere to participate. Would you like us to notify you when we schedule a Women Composers or Women Musicians event? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I see from AlexNewArtBot that on 2 September a number of drafts were created on female composers. Some of them seem up to standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Others may require additional work. Any volunteers?--Ipigott (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be great to have some help with the drafts! And yes Rosiestep it would be great to know about other events! If I can help out I'd be happy to, rather hooked on it now. I had briefly talked to someone from Women in Red on Twitter when I first started planning this event, but we lost touch after awhile, not sure what happened there exactly. Hroche83 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hroche83: After looking fairly carefully at a number of the drafts created on 2 September, it looks to me as if you and your participants could benefit from our Ten Simple Rules. I see, in particular, that a number of the drafts have already been found unsuitable for inclusion as articles in the mainspace. Some of the others also appear to be borderline cases unless they can be further improved. It must be frustrating for those who worked on them to see their efforts dismissed. One of the main problems seems to be that many of the young composers covered have not been referenced with "mainstream reliable sources which have been edited or curated such as newspapers, journals, books or award citations" and are therefore not considered sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott:Yeah, it was certainly something we talked about during the session in London - I've also noticed a big difference between those who were working with us (where they had help and a bit more community) and those who were joining in remotely. I can certainly send an e-mail around to everyone about this, if you think that'd be helpful? --Hroche83 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hroche83:: I think it might certainly help those who are interested in improving their articles. Unfortunately, in my experience, only a very small proportion continue with Wikipedia after the editathons are over. But you should certainly encourage them to try to keep going. An email from you might work wonders. Many of these young composers certainly deserve pages on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: After the events it did seem like quite a few of the participants had "caught the bug" but I imagine if their pages are removed by Wikipedia, that might be very discouraging. I've sent a message around about this, and have tried to help a few people who have asked for it. At any rate, everyone seems very encouraged to have been noticed by Women in Red and I think feeling like there's a community there is probably really a big help. So thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroche83 (talkcontribs) 13:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Need source to de-PROD Marta Brilej

Noticed that Marta Brilej was PRODed based on the rationale that it is a BLP with no sources. The source of the PROD has been chastised recently on their talk page for abusing the BLPPROD rule. And in this article's case, it doesn't even seem to be a BLP. This woman is a clearly notable Slovene diplomat who was born in 1917, it seems very unlikely (but not impossible) she is still around at the age of 101. And lo, both Wikidata and Slovene Wikipedia say she died 24 June 2016. I de-PRODed it based on all that, not realizing in my haste that Slovene Wikipedia doesn't cite a source.

I'm posting here because after I deprodded the article and fixed up the tagging on it to make it a not-BLP, someone reverted me (but did not notify me) with the excuse that I did not provide a source. Because the sources about this person are not in English, I'm having trouble finding a good source on her death, or frankly anything else about her. Her husband's bio even says, "He is buried at Žale cemetery in Ljubljana alongside his wife Marta Brilej and opposite his lifelong friend, Partisan comrade and diplomat Aleš Bebler." But the only source for this in that article is a search page at the cemetery where you can look up Jože and Marta by hand. Mainly I just need an obit so we can put the DOD back in and de-PROD. (The article needs sources generally, but I figure one thing at a time). @SusunW: any ideas? --Krelnik (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth contacting this Twitter user who says MB is her grandmother? Link Tacyarg (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I've cited the Twitter post about her being the first woman in Belgrade to drive, and removed the BLP PROD. That'll at least stop deletion; as for sources, I think I'm pretty much stuck like Krelnik. If someone AfDs it with "no sources" I don't know what to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This source says they were married in 1932, which could be wrong (married at 15?) and disagrees with the details you have. StrayBolt (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't access much of this, but this book mentions Marta 3-4 times. It also looks like she is mentioned (or her writing is mentioned) on page 183 of this. Knope7 (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Krelnik I have been offline most of the day doing real world tedium. I can find very little from Mexico, though I have a friend in Serbia I have contacted. I cannot access the book link Knope7 provided, but the other entry clearly says she was arrested in 1942, charged and tried in an Italian military tribunal, and sentenced to 12 years in prison. SusunW (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplication listing new articles at WIR

I just now realized that there is WIR Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018, and the exact listing can be made at WIR Meetup/92. Maybe you've always done it this way, and the one is a catchall for all categories, while the other is more specific. Do you have all this linked to something centralized somewhere? Otherwise, I can't help but think all this duplication will catch up with the project by way of confusion somewhere down the line, if the process is consolidated, reconfigured. if there ever comes some kind of cleanup on this project, it will be twice the effort to do so. Just thinking.— Maile (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Maile66: Thanks for drawing our attention to what you perceive as being a problem. Unlike the focus we try to provide through out monthly editathons, the Monthly Achievement Initiatives are not meetups and are not categorized as such. They are simply intended to encourage editors to list their contributions by including their user names, article classes, etc. I'm not sure what the problem is. You should be able to get a complete view of our activities under the template {{Women in Red}}. In connection with duplication, you can also find more extensive listings of all the new articles on women each month under our Metrics. Please let us know whether you have any specific suggestions for improvements, for example by more detailed categorization.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Any K-pop fans here?

Hi I was poking around some pages in the archive here and stumbled upon some previously counted women articles that have since become redirected to K-pop band pages. I noticed the talkpage of K-pop says "K-pop has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Art" which indicates the level of interest in this subject. This is probably "in spite of" rather than "because of" most Wikipedia editors, since it appears these articles are being shot down for having no reliable sources. I was wondering if maybe Women in Red should sponsor a K-pop event as a way of attracting some younger editors and maybe also giving *us* more information regarding these new "for Wikipedia unreliable, but for K-pop necessary" sources. For many reasons, not least of which lies in the title (K-pop=Korean pop), this may also be a good candidate to combine with a Wikidata project. Thoughts? Jane (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a tentative list here of members of girl bands, and it appears most of these people born after 1985 or so are K-pop bandmembers. I suppose it would probably be a good idea to tag items as being K-pop somehow, maybe through some Korean external identifier? Jane (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe Drmies is familiar with K-pop articles generally, though calling them a "fan" is probably not the right word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah me neither. I can imagine that Wikipedia must seem like a very hostile environment for fans, if we have any at all. Jane (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh there's plenty of K-pop fans. I'm also convinced there are more fan accounts then there are fans, if you catch my drift, and besides that I am convinced that a bunch of those accounts are paid operatives from SM Entertainment and the like. But as my six-year old likes to say, BTS is evil, alternative is life. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I have a niece who is taking Korean lessons because of K-pop, which leads me to conclude that we must be open-minded about this stuff, no matter whether the money involved has become an important chunk of Korean GDP or not. Plus we need more youngsters editing things they really care about, instead of being introduced to Wikipedia in the classroom. Jane (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Getting a new article reviewed?

I'm contributing to this great project by writing an article on one of the British Poets listed as needing to be "turned blue": Sylvia Kantaris -- she's listed on The draft of the article I've put together is here: . Do I just wait the "more than two months" that it can take for draft articles to be looked at, or does the Women in Red project have some active reviewers who can prioritize reviewing of work in this Project? I added a template for WikiProject: Women in Red at the bottom of the page, in the hope that it might get flagged here. If anyone can review faster than the stated two months, given the priority of this project for Wikipedia, I'd be really grateful. I'm not sure if I missed it, but I couldn't find guidelines in the Project on how to get new page submissions included in the project -- maybe that can be flagged up more clearly somewhere? Sorry if it's already there, I did try to find it! MLDH (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 beat me to accepting your draft by about 30 seconds. Well done - that's an excellent first article! The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@MLDH: It depends on when somebody gets round to reviewing a draft. Some of them are in poor shape, badly sourced, or blatantly promotional. This one, however, is well written and sourced, and is easy to pass, which I have now done. Thanks for contributing to WiR! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, many thanks! I didn't expect such an instant response!! Thank you so much! MLDH (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

MLDH In answer to the overriding question, we do not recommend submitting drafts to AfC (Articles for Creation). What you did here, posting it to our talk page, will usually capture a fairly quick response, whether you want to have a file reviewed, or are having trouble finding sources. You can also ping someone you know reviews files, but of course, they may or may not be on-line. Welcome aboard! SusunW (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

In the same vein, is it possible/appropriate for someone to look at an article that has been in AfC since 30 June? Rookie mistake: Draft:Mariko Bando was created using the Article Wizard before realizing that the wizard submits to AfC. Seemed inappropriate to just delete the submission template and move to mainspace. Fine to leave it there to run its course, but it does fit the "Women currently in academics" theme for September. Thanks in advance for any guidance. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also done! As a general thing - AfC is so backlogged because so many of the submissions are either company spam, dubiously notable people wanting their own articles, or articles that need serious work to avoid being nominated for AfD if accepted. I have no problem reviewing any article on request that doesn't fall into those categories - which most WIR submissions clearly don't - so if your submission is stuck in the epic queue and you want it reviewed, if you post here it'll get done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Many thanks for the help and kind offer. Bakazaka (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Rachael Bland

I've nominated Rachael Bland, who died this morning, as a candidate for In The News. It's only just over the stub limit of 1500 characters currently, can anyone help expand it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie, I don't want to add tags to the article, but "She completed the London marathon every year from 2010 until her death" is sourced to a 2012 source (which of course can not make statements about later years), and e.g. for 2016 I don't see her name in the results[1] (not for "Hodges" either)? I have read the "every year" claim in a Cambridge newspaper, but I think it is wrong (and they may well have taken tht bit of info from our article!). Her blog from 6 March 2017 states "I’ve run the London Marathon 3 times.". Fram (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem there is caused by sources being out of date. For now, I think trimming it to "competed in the London Marathon several times" should suffice. Another problem is the [citation needed] tag on "She trained as a broadcast journalist", which I can currently only cite to The Sun. Hopefully with more eyes on the article, we can fix this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
If you mean the Sun articles from May 2018, they seem to be copyvio's of the enwiki article from before that date (compare our version from March 2017[2], "After training as a broadcast journalist, Bland presented news bulletins on BBC Wiltshire. She then moved[...]" with The Sun[3]: "After training as a broadcast journalist, Rachael presented news bulletins on BBC Wiltshire. She then moved [...]"). It seems that we will have to be extra careful with this one to avoid circular referencing! Of course, perhaps our 2017 article is a copyvio of something even older, but then we should look for that source, not for anything copying either us or that unknown source. Fram (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fram, if you can prove the Sun has ripped of Wikipedia and it leads to damages, I will buy you a pint :-) An early contributor to the article was Trident13 (talk · contribs), who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations - principally on this version. However, there are plenty of people copyediting the article right now, and earwig reports "violation unlikely" so any issues should be transient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Dede Alpert

Hi, I hope it's ok to bring an existing article here. I've just stumbled across Dede Alpert which is a very stubby stub. There must be more to say about a State senator. I had a quick look for sources but don't think I know enough about US politics to do much. Can anyone else help? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick crack at it and improved it a bit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject AfroCine "Months of African Cinema" Contest

Just thought I'd spread the news: WikiProject AfroCine is organizing an article creation contest for the months of October and November 2018. They're aiming to "create new articles on African cinema (filmmakers, actors, history, films, etc) on Wikipedia in any language (including through translation)". Sounds like a good opportunity for WiR members to work on articles about African women in film. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I found this blog: African Women in Cinema. Might be a good starting point for some resources, for those who are interested. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I plan to be dedicated to the Afrocine project in the month of October/November. It will be great if some of the topic of interest during that period can be centered around African cinema, but I can understand if that is not possible considering the short time and so many other factors that must be considered. I was just considering the prospect of using one bullet to hit multiple targets. And thanks for the links SAdN, I'll go through it next month. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"""@HandsomeBoy: Any time - hope it proves to be of use. I haven't looked at it too closely, since film isn't my thing, really. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you HandsomeBoy for bringing this here. I was hoping to contact Rosiestep this week to see ways through which gender-gaps can also be incorporated into the Months of African Cinema contest. I am sure there are lots of female filmmakers and actors in Africa without articles. Perhaps a recognition can be given to user that creates the highest number of female biographies? Unfortunately, I couldn't do anything this week due to a keyboard problem with my laptop....but I'm back now. cc Ser Amantio di Nicolao.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Motorcycling - Women in Red collab

I started Draft:MotorGrrl with a few sources including The New York Times and Fox Business. I'll be cross-posting here and at WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. Collaborators are welcome! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"Women Scientists Who Made Nuclear Astrophysics"

I spotted a short article, "Women Scientists Who Made Nuclear Astrophysics", on arXiv recently, and thought it might be of interest here. It looks like most of the dozen women it talks about already have articles - the two exceptions are Georgeanne R. Caughlan and Dilhan Ezer Eryurt. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Substantial increase in WiR membership

Over the past 12 months, the number of active editors who are members of Women in Red has increased from approximately 90 to over 200. The number of inactive members (those who have not edited for a month or more) has increased from around 75 to some 190. Many of the latter registered in connection with editathons but never became active on Wikipedia. For those interested in statistics, the WHGI stats for 4 September show that 17.75% of biographies on the English version of Wikipedia are about women (i.e. coded human and female on Wikidata). This is up from 16.47% a year ago. It therefore looks as if our new members are making a significant contribution.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

💗thumbs up Great!
☕ Antiqueight chatter 09:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this news, Ipigott. Great way to start my morning. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks, @Ipigott: for sharing that information. I wonder if Dr Jess Wade speaking about her "One scientist a day Wiki goal and Women in Red" in the news recently has influenced the increasing number of new active editors. Or is it too soon to see any change in active editor numbers? MauraWen (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@MauraWen:: As far as I can see, of the 80 or so new members since late July, only a handful are specifically interested in women scientists. But I'm sure the project has benefited from Jess Wade's wide coverage in the press. The project has certainly also been helped by the June initiatives of Sadiq Khan, London's mayor, also widely reported.--Ipigott (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting Financial Times article on Forgotten Women

I just came across Harriet Finch Little's "What redress for the ‘forgotten women’ of history?", FT, 31 August. It contains some interesting info on various attempts to cover more women who deserve to be remembered.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sometimes I wonder if people really get what we're doing. Nice to see that some actually do, and that we are not alone. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: The link is no longer working. MauraWen (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a subscription site - it probably depends where you are. I can't see it from London. I think they may make it free after a week or so. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the access. Most of the cultural stuff ends up access free.--Ipigott (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Women who see red

FYI, there's a new list at AFD: List of men killed by women. But should that be list of women who killed men...? Andrew D. (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hardly worth considering.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Because it has been deleted, the issue is moot but I don't see that those two options are alternatives. The first would be a list of people who happen to be both male and notable and were killed by women who may or may not be notable. The second is a list of people who happen to be both female and murderers (or maybe just manslaughterers) who killed man who may or may not be notable. Very different lists. But both seem unlikely to qualify as articles.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"The Wikiman"

A very nice article about our prolific editor, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, including mention of Women in Red. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I like to read success stories like this, gets me inspired since we have at least one thing in common. Very soon he will pass GNG sef.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • blush* It did turn out well, didn't it? :-) I think it's much the best piece I've read that anyone's written about me, really - it gets a bit deeper than the whole "wow, look at the number of edits he's made" that most of them want. Pleasant way to end the week. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Very interesting article. We are now beginning to see that there is in fact a real person behind that strange user name. Collaborating with users on Wikipedia provides only fairly superficial insights about who they are. Detailed articles like this are revealing -- and intensify our willingness to work with them. Lots of useful material here to include in an article on Steven Pruitt. He must be at least as notable as many of those he has written about. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow - super nice article! Love the shameless plug for this project, but being September, it's too bad the shameless plug for WLM couldn't be made with a link out to the NRHP stuff. And do I detect work on Wiki Cheese? Cool. Yes someone please, somebody with BLP skills, make an article - we need this! Jane (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations. It's a really nice piece. Nick Number (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao I am swamped with real world stuff for the next few weeks but was so glad to see this. Congrats on a lovely article. By the by, the answer to your previous question is they moved from Midlothian to Mechanicsville. I have no idea where either of those are, but at some point in the future, we may find out :) SusunW (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW: Not to hijack things around here, but Mechanicsville I know of - it's a fairly sizeable suburb of Richmond, located to the northeast. Near as I can tell, that's where some of my own earliest ancestors on these shores lived, back in the 1630s or so. :-) Don't know that I've been, myself, but I know the name quite well.
And to all - thanks for the kind words. As I said on Facebook, it's always nice to get recognition for one's work...but it's even nicer when that recognition comes from one's alma mater. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, great article! Its nice to connect people with their contributions. @SusunW: Jumping in to the discussion on Mechanicsville and Midlothian. (I lived in Richmond for 10 years). Midlothian is south of the James River, west of Richmond. Mechanicsville is North of the James River, east of Richmond. Places are important in terms of their location/relationship to the James River. Many historic homes and plantations in the area are along the River ("Rivah"). The smaller farms, less expensive property, and newer homesteads were further away from the River. Nowadays, those small towns and unincorporated areas have become bedroom communities, with people commuting to Richmond for work. Its a beautiful, historic area. MauraWen (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I scratched my head at the above comment, then realised you weren't talking about the Richmond at the end of the District Line, although there is a well-known river nearby and it does have some important residents. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@MauraWen: Whereabouts did you live, may I ask? My father's a Richmond native, which is how SusunW and I managed to get onto this topic. 'Course, it's changed a lot since he was there...I visited a few months ago, and had a sushi dinner with a friend in Shockoe Bottom. I don't know what surprised Dad more: that I was admitting to eating sushi, or that I was admitting to walking around unmolested in Shockoe Bottom in the late afternoon.
@Ritchie333: You know us colonials...we tend to forget, sometimes, that there are things we borrowed from the motherland... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:I love talking about Richmond. It was fun living there. My children were small at the time. The youngest was born there, a native Richmonder. I still teasingly tell him his real name (on his birth certificate) is Beauregard, not Matthew. I think I am the only one in the family that finds that funny. :)
We lived in Henrico County in the suburbs, west of the Richmond and north of James river. Living there in the eighties and early nineties was taking a step back in time 20 years, especially after moving from California. It was an ideal place for kids: they were safe wandering the neighborhoods and woods, climbing trees and building forts. and so much wildlife at the time. We used to explore the backroads in the area and would venture as far north as Washington DC to go to the Smithsonian and other cool places, like the The Torpedo Factory. Colonial Williamsburg to the east and Monticello to the west, civil war sites all over the place--great places for kids (and their parents) to wander around and enjoy American history close up. The interesting thing I noticed about Richmonders (U.S. Richmonders) was that the FFV's (First families of Virginia)—the people who lived in the area the longest, had an interesting accent that (to me) appeared to be a cross between British and Canadian. We finally moved back to the west coast, because it was a bit too backward. Glad to hear that you got to enjoy Sushi, unmolested in Shockhoe Bottom! I bet Richmond looks completely different now and is has caught up with the times. I bet your dad has some very interesting stories about living in Richmond. Its an interesting place. MauraWen (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
{I realize this is going rather off-topic, so if anyone wants to smack us back to the matter at hand please feel free. :-) )
I know Henrico County well...although in my father's time it was Hen-REK-kuh county rather than Hen-RYE-co. (I have since adopted this pronunciation as my own.) Daddy was born in Church Hill, if I recall correctly, and lived up there until the family moved; he grew up all over western Virginia, and never lived in Richmond again, although he visited frequently as that's where my grandmother's family lived. He had an accent such as you describe, when he was small; but it gradually disappeared as he spent more time around people in the western part of the state.
Talking of which, the Richmond accent is fascinating: there's a bit about it here. Whenever I'm in Tidewater (and I spent some time out there a couple of months ago) I always tell my friends to pay attention to the accent. (Although I have at least one friend who claims the Richmond and Tidewater accents are a bit different.) It's dying out as more out-of-staters move in and as mass media starts to kill the linguistic differences. You still hear it most pronouncedly in eastern Maryland and in portions of tidewater Virginia. And Tangier Island, but that's an extreme case unto itself.
As you can imagine, Colonial Williamsburg is very special to me. W&M students had free rein there - our student ID allowed us a pass into any buildings we wanted, although I didn't take as much advantage of that as I should've (does one ever, though?). I do remember Homecoming one year, though - the parade always goes down Duke of Gloucester Street, and so they'd closed off the historic area for the morning. The reenactors were lining the street along with other visitors, in costume, and I remember seeing some of them waving green and gold beads. And I remember thinking, for once we're the attraction and they're the tourists, and how wonderful that was. Oh...and I took a class in the Wren Building, because of course you do.
Wonderful place. God, it was a privilege to be there. Though I'm not sure I'd be able to get in nowadays. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Integrating our articles into Wikipedia

Like everyone else, after I create a new article, I add links to it in various other wiki articles. Recently, I started adding the biographies I've been creating to disambiguation pages for the person's given name and surname and I've seen a marked spike in page views as a result. I have not been adding the biogs to date pages (birth year; death year), but I'm wondering if that would yield even more page views? Wondering if any of you have tips/tricks for maximizing page views. Though this has never been a concern of mine, I'm starting to recognize its importance. Better late than never. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps obvious, but I also:
  • Add links to occupational lists (e.g. List of archaeologists)
  • Look for a "notable people from..." section of the article on the subject's birthplace
  • Look for a "notable alumni" section of the school/university they went to
  • Search for the subject's name to find pages where they're already mentioned and turn those into links
  • For scholars, search for references to their work and add an |authorlink=
I don't know if these actually help bring views to the page, but they can't hurt. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent advice all. I always try to do this, not only to drive page views to the article but also to head off someone who is looking for a reason to drive-by-tag the article in some way - marking it as "orphan" is a common such thing.
Two other opportunities: first don't consider just their birthplace, but other cities/towns/counties with which the person was long associated. Second, if the person is deceased and the burial cemetery has an article, add them to the "notable burials" section. This is a good way to link together people who are associated with the history of that town in a way that encourages serendipitous browsing. I've even created articles for cemeteries that clearly merited one, just so I could add my person to it!
I'm sort of an advisor to another editing project that does focus on page views as a way of motivating their editors. They had a programmer friend whip up a script that scrapes through the official page view data, and aggregates the numbers for all the articles their team has worked on. Its quite encouraging to be able to tell the team - "You've helped create or improve articles that have been read 3 million times in the last year" or however the numbers pan out. They also watch for news stories that might encourage people to read the articles they created and sometimes post graphs of the pageview spikes that occur on "their" articles. --Krelnik (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving the needle

LE15 Gender overall in 2018

The Wikimedia survey results have been published and the particpation levels look unchanged as far as gender goes. More disturbingly, the age seems to have crept up, which means to me that our editor population is aging and we are not only failing to attract new women editors but we are also failing to attract students and other young people the same way we did in e.g. 2006. What happened to our community to make it so hard to join in? Jane (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere several times, but primarily I would say it's the difficult user interface (compared to Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp etc, having a talk page discussion like this is too hard), which in turn leads to boilerplate templates and a proliferation of policies that present far too much of a learning curve. Throw in general aggressiveness, accusations of "spam", "sockpuppetry", "COI" and "canvassing" and you end up where we are. I don't think "desysop all admins who don't write at least DYK worthy content, and ban automated tools from anyone else who doesn't either" is a starter, so I'm not sure what we can do. Sitting down side by side with an experienced editor can help, but getting to the level where you're comfortable working on anything anywhere is generally too much of an effort for people to undertake. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure making it too easy is a good thing but certainly a little easier - not to edit but to understand the various policies and pages and how tos and all that...I dunno - do we ever get feedback from people who tried and failed and work with that? I have met some people who give out about the biteyness towards them (as newbies, as women, etc) but when I looked into it, basically they didn't get bitten, they just didn't like that they got reverted at all (anecdotal only, just a few people I met).... There is a disconnect between the idea that anyone can edit and anyone can say anything anywhere on the wiki. I'm not sure it's that the user interface is that hard as that unlike anywhere else on the net, you have to justify everything you write here. You can't just say what you want and move on. It is harder, more like building a computer or knitting a jumper as a hobby than posting about your day on FB. Perhaps the sales pitch is wrong. Should we stop talking about how easy it is, and talk about how rewarding a hobby it can be. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 11:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Playing devil's advocate slightly, Wikipedia's interface and documentation might be "difficult" compared to Facebook et al., but it wasn't unusually difficult when I started editing (when you had to learn a different markup language for every forum/bulletin board/mailing list), and it isn't difficult when you consider what it's for: researching, writing, editing and type-setting the world's foremost reference work. Faulty comparisons with social media sites, where self-promotion is the norm, also helps explain the extraordinary proportion of new editors with COIs: most people under 25 have probably never used a traditional encyclopaedia, so don't have a clear idea of what Wikipedia is, so end up seeing it as yet another place to have a "profile". I think we might have to accept that the days where anyone can leap straight into editing are gone, and instead focus on more effective ways of inducting and training new editors. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think you're on to something. Certainly my younger nieces and nephews have never needed to crack open an encyclopedia, and I believe my own daughter at one time used one as insulation against a draft in the winter. Jane (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Insert rant about how the WMF is still not measuring ethnic and religious diversity in their survey about diversity.)
I feel a bit like a broken record. (I've even pitched this over skype to the WMF but no one seems to care all that much.) But the two major barriers to entry are 1) interface, and 2) policy. We've done all this work with visual editor to lower the first barrier, and we've done nothing to lower the second.
The average new editor does not have the buy-in to commit to the 5-10 hours of required reading needed in order to just get a handle on how much policy is out there. The average new editor is just going to start editing, muck it up, and then get frustrated with what looks like an insider clique speaking a foreign specialized language, because that’s what it is.
One way to lower that bar is to have digestible ~10 minute videos summarizing each major policy page. I even wrote up a first draft of a script a few months ago to illustrate what I mean. But basically,there’s no reason to expect a new editor to take the time to read a 10 page essay on reliable sources, even when they’re pointed directly to it, and even if they know what they’re being pointed to when someone goes [[WP:ABCDEFG]].
Half of our regular editors need to be pointed to a policy a half dozen times before they actually take the time to read it in full. So you fix that by giving editors something digestible where they can passively learn, and then if they have questions, they can go directly to the policy itself and figure it out, but do so in a situation where they’re broadly acquainted with what’s there and what it covers. GMGtalk 13:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Speaking as a fairly young person myself (not quite 25!), I have a few comments. I joined Wikipedia last year (and stayed) for a few different reasons: I enjoy writing and editing, I wanted to improve sub-standard articles on topics I cared about, and I had also just finished my undergraduate university degree, which meant that my research and citation skills were much stronger than they used to be. Lastly, when I found Women in Red, I started connecting more with other editors & online community members, which meant I wasn't just editing (and learning/struggling) alone anymore.

Being able to teach yourself how to edit Wikipedia properly is great, but it's complex. It takes time. I think it can be intimidating (and sometimes discouraging) if you don't already have the inner drive/motivation to do that. I didn't have any Wikipedia-savvy friends/family/mentors to show me how to edit Wikipedia, so I had to start from scratch by myself. My first new article was deleted because I didn't understand how the notability guidelines worked. While Wikipedia does have training resources (e.g. the Teahouse or Help Desk), they're not always easy for a new person to locate, and it's not really the same as being able to just talk to somebody face-to-face. I suspect more young people would be willing to edit Wikipedia if there were more real-life peer groups or training sessions they could access: groups where they could ask questions and learn their way around more easily. I keep thinking I would like to develop a group like this in my community, but I don't really know how to begin. Maybe this is something we should be having more discussion about? Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed you've stuck with us to the point you're now churning out GAs, Alanna; I would have expected people like you to have given up ages ago. Possibly it's because you've found a niche area that not too many editors work on, so you can use your writing and researching skills easily and learn as you go, without other people getting in the way. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I entirely agree with your point about policy Alanna the Brave but disagree (somewhat) with the solution. I think it would be helpful for some people to have videos but I read a lot faster than I can watch a video and so they drive me nuts and I will avoid anything which requires or even requests me to get my information that way. I honestly think it isn't so much the form that the information is in as that the information is fragmented and ill defined. We need a project to turn the policies into clean simple documents. Then if people want to create videos or gif collections which explain them, that's great. But we should not have 6 different pages from policy to essays on a subject that indicate how, why, when etc. But then I'm not under 25. But I still think it's the confusion of policy that causes the issue, not the interaction methods. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean, you and I are probably the type of people who prefer to read the policy directly, because we're the type of people who stuck around, read hours of policy, and figured out what we're doing. This is aimed at people who come here, get overwhelmed, and nope on back to instagram and twitter. Half of what we do at the Teahouse is summarize policy in digestible bits, because your average denizen of the internet doesn't have the the time to figure it out on their own. GMGtalk 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I have to confess that I myself still cannot say I am proficient in all of these policies and guidelines, but I know where to locate them (I guess this is somewhat related to "institutional memory"? A term I strongly dislike). I agree that the interface needs to be better, and I think WMF folks are aware of it, although they are probably mostly too disconnected from the actual community to come up with creations like Visual Editor. Reading about editors like Alanna the Brave always bring a smile to my face (a quick reply: have you already read about Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon?); the community aspect is what makes everything click together (that was my experience back when I first started), but I think sometimes that very aspect is slowly drifting away outside of projects like Women in Red. Alex Shih (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick tip Alex Shih – I hadn't seen that "How to run an editathon" page before, but it certainly looks like something I could use in the future! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If you mean me here- then nope. I struggle to follow the policies and have survived by a process of luck and copycatting. My first article was deleted because I didn't understand notability - I didn't even know there were guidelines. So it's not that I don't agree. Alanna the Brave is entirely correct that the policies are a major obstacle IMO. I don't read policy here - I skim it looking for the key words that affect what I'm currently working on. I use find and google search and look for where people answered the question already and I go ask people who were nice to me once upon a time..I avoid offering to help in the Teahouse because I am never sure I know what I'm doing without the addition of trying to help someone else do it. So I totally think we need to get the policies into a more digestible format but I think we should do that as much by eliminating the debris that has built up around the policies as by creating a new way to interact with them. We need to prune first - or mostly. Actually of course, creating a video as well could be done simultaneously but as soon as we make changes to policy it becomes another thing that needs to be updated. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, in that respect, that's why they have to be written as broadly as possible covering mainly core policy content that is unlikely to change. That's what I tried to do in the script linked above. (Now that I'm thinking about it, I may try to start a second one today.) Instruction creep is a problem too, but it's just one I don't think the community is going to get behind any radical changes in.
But for my part, I would much rather welcome new users with a template that has embedded videos for N, V, RS, NOT, and OR, than welcome them with a million policy links. GMGtalk 14:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies GreenMeansGo I misread the above as originating with Alana where as it was your position I was discussing. I can get behind offering video as an option for the new user but only as a secondary information source, with text, not instead of or dominating over. I know too that people using computers in public spaces will skip video as they can't listen to the sound and it requires good hearing to follow verbal instruction. I think it's a good idea to have them available for those who do prefer it as an option.   ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries. My intention was to essientially end each video with some boiler plate statement like "Hope this was helpful, for more information see the policy itself." To make it clear that this was just an explanatory suppliment, and did not itself carry the weight of policy. In my imagination, it was also supposed to be written basically for teenagers at about a 10th grade level.
Anyway, the things would be easy enough to write. It's just getting the WMF to cough up enough money for a couple half decent actors and the production involved. Either that, or get the right volunteers in one place to make it happen. I don't pretend to have any solutions to either of those problems though. GMGtalk 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Gender of community audiences for 2018

It's interesting to note the discrepancy between the makeup of organizers vs. editors (see chart). This is my experience too, going to edit-a-thons and other in-person events. I'd be curious to see how that breaks down regionally, too, since the data is across Wikimedia projects. I feel like these discussions typically bring up the technical element and the policy element. Both valid points. IMO technical barriers have been drastically reduced since the refinement of VE and the citation tool. Policy is still a challenge, but that varies based on the kinds of articles/edits someone enters into, and is too much of a bear to try to change rather than develop ways to onboard people without policy becoming a problem. There are ways to do that, such that they're prepared for the kinds of interactions they'll have and policies that will come up, and I know most everyone here has a lot of experience doing just that. Something I wonder about though, is that big group of people who do get it, who we do bring in according to best practices, and who are interested in editing Wikipedia... but don't. That's a really big group. I talk to people all the time who are excited about Wikipedia, found editing rewarding, and just don't follow up and do it. If you were to ask them, they'd say "yeah I want to get around to it". Of the people I talk to, these are primarily academics, librarians, and nonprofit sorts. People are busy. In-person events are clearly bounded and digestible, feeling good about doing something that you know you can schedule and won't stretch out towards infinity. Does anyone have experience with doing structured off-wiki follow-up with the people who express that they like editing and/or want to do so but just haven't? Even collecting emails at events or using the email function on-wiki to send personalized (i.e. probably not mass messages unless they look personalized) follow-ups with clear tasks (i.e. these articles I'll list, this topic to correspond to a particular holiday/event, etc.)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Though I've never really been involved with on-campus outreach events, I've often thought that trying to get academics directly involved in editing is futile. They just have too many other things to do. It'd be more productive to convince them that Wikipedia editing is a valuable thing for their graduate students and brighter undergrads to do. – Joe (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are barriers to getting academics to edit, but for those who are interested to do so -- and there are an awful lot -- I've long thought there were ways it should be possible. So see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Fellows for an ongoing effort. Our pilot program of 9 academics resulted in 1 GA, a couple substantial new articles (e.g.), substantial improvements to 10-15 other articles during its 3-month run, at least one ongoing active editor (currently working on another GA), and 4 people teaching with Wikipedia. It was successful enough that Wiki Ed decided to expand the program (there have been 6 more cohorts while I've been on leave from Wiki Ed, and we'll start several more in the next couple months). There are several people who fall into the category of "excited to edit, but just haven't" and how to re-engage them has been on my mind. Getting them to teach with Wikipedia is one way, but I wonder if specific tasks/articles that I know are relevant to them would be worth doing, too... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on the idea of getting people to edit as a hobby rather than a thing which should be done. Or to see what they and theirs get from adding to the work. I think if it is something people think they should be doing it will remain like exercise - a good idea not followed up on. But whether it will work or not, well - I should have a better idea at the end of October. I'm starting small. As I said above - I'm uncomfortable trying to lead too much in this since there is so much I haven't read myself, so much I don't know. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Late to the party (as when am I not?), but I would wager that at least part of the problem is that beginning to edit has become so much more complicated than it was way back when. When i started editing, it was pretty easy to pick up the syntax on the fly - there were only two or three things you needed to know. And you didn't really need to know was enough to just sit and watch for a bit before making a few test edits here or there. The atmosphere didn't hurt, either - it was a bit looser back then, a bit more Wild West. Which has its disadvantages, sure, but it meant that I could make mistakes without too much fear of horrible consequences. I'm not opposed to a lot of the changes that have taken place in the years since, but I think it's important to realize that they may have more to do with being a barrier to entry than perhaps people realize. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting responses here! I agree it used to be a bit more Wild West and also that the policy pages are confusing and messy. I believe we didn't have them back in the beginning and I have avoided them quite well and try to make a point of ignoring all comments that go [[WP:ABCDEFG]]. I am a big fan of copy/paste and copycatting to keep articles sticky in the sense they stick around from year to year. Now and then you run into page squatters and then I just shrug and leave the page alone. I am always quite pleased to see pages grow that I have started and often feel I am at my best when I discover some group of things worth making stubs for, especially when these stubs grow substantially within a year. These days I have pretty much moved completely over to Wikdata, but I feel that Wikipedia is the first port-of-call for new editors. Odd really, because it is much easier to "knit a sweater of edits" on Wikidata than on Wikipedia. I agree we need to teach people how to make it a hobby like knitting rather than try to make them do stuff on our priority list. Not sure how to explain that though to newbies (and believe me, I have tried). Jane (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am aware of some of the policy pages, generally older ones. In the sense that they exist and I know that. But I can't cite chapter and verse on any of them. I don't feel that it's hampered me at all, as an editor. If we could convey that to new people, maybe that could help some of them stick. I agree, though: Wikipedia should be a hobby, not an avocation. Trouble is, it's not a hobby for everyone, just as knitting isn't. And I'm not sure the focus on bringing new editors in recognizes that, necessarily. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
For those that would benefit from watching training videos, there's a set at Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism/Resources that break editing Wikipedia into chunks under the heading: 1. Get started: Learn to edit! Perhaps new editors could be directed to them? Oronsay (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been on the road for the past couple of days and have not been able to contribute to this discussion until now. I must say I have to agree with those who say editing Wikipedia (particularly the English version) is far more difficult than contributing to the social media or even to some of the most popular informative blogs. I also have to agree that the level of control on Wikipedia is particularly intimidating for many of the competent young women who try to come along and contribute positively to improving coverage, not only of women but to all the other areas of interest. Somehow I think we should try to develop a more user-friendly interface for younger people (both boys and girls) with more supportive assistance from administrators and article reviewers. This could be aimed at facilitating contributions on new articles (perhaps even as a competitive challenge). In my opinion, we need to do something about the dominances of male technically oriented players soon or the battle will be lost. I think we may be able to devise a wikiproject, maybe "WP ComeInAndContribute" (or something along those lines). Isarra: Project X may even be able to devise an attractive user interface. I think we need initially to support younger contributors from both sexes but if it gets off the ground we could provide additional incentives for women. Rather than just discussing difficulties, we need to come up with something new and attractive.--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I think this sort of thing would be great, but it's a cultural issue as much as a technical issue when it comes to engaging younger people IMHO. Most recruitment pitches in my part of the world are definitely not aimed at younger people - I'm in my 30s and I can usually expect to be, if not the youngest person, definitely the youngest woman if I come along. I'm not sure how exactly, but it's definitely a gap that I can see: my peers think my Wikipedia editing is a big quirk because even though they use the site, they've never been sold on contributing to it. And I don't think that was always the case - I think this is something that's been a bit lost over the years, because I certainly had some my-age peers here once upon a time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would agree that there were younger 30-somethings around a few years ago and they seem to have disappeared. There is an interesting email conversation about the survey results in general, but this email from Kerry Raymond seemed to me to be more specifically about women and also offers a few insights here. Jane (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting you both bring this up, @Jane023: and @The Drover's Wife:, as I myself am a younger 30-something (34, to be exact), and I can see a lot of reasons why Wikipedia would appeal to our demographic. Specifically; we came of age as adults at about the time it came into existence. So it wasn't an integral part of our schooling, yet, but it became part of the way we thought about learning. I graduated high school in June of '02, and I distinctly recall watching Wikipedia grow in prominence in varied Google searches when I was doing research in undergrad, through 2003 and 2004. It was slowly beginning to insert itself into the conversation in those days - it hadn't become the juggernaut then that it is now, so people had more of a chance to get familiar with it on easier terms. I wonder...maybe if they felt the barriers to entry then were too great, they've only gotten worse since? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Promoting our work

I personally don't do social media. But on a article totally unrelated to this project, the views jumped to 240,000 in one day because of a post at Reddit, Message from my talk page. Maybe this project might want to add Reddit to "Promote our work" on Meetups. Not everybody is writing about a national hero, but those Reddit results eclipse any that have ever happened in the history of that article. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the spike, Maile66. This is important. I don't do Reddit so I'm not sure how to "promote our work" on that site. Hoping that others who are familiar with it pop over here and offer insight. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
A lot of page views, it seems to me, have come in the past from Reddit's "Today I Learned" subforum, though it's been ages since I kept up with the most-viewed pages count. We would probably have our best luck looking there. Trouble is, I a.) spend very little time at Reddit, and b.) have no desire to change that. So I don't know, for one thing, what the forum's etiquette might entail (i.e., how welcoming are they to posts from new members, for instance.) If someone's willing to investigate, and maybe develop a profile to post things there, I see no reason why the rest of us might not make some suggestions for articles to feature. It could be an interesting experiment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford

The new article Christine Blasey Ford is a complete disaster; some members of this project may be interested in improving it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Freddie Oversteegen

Freddie Oversteegen, Dutch resistance fighter, is an newly created by the excellent Enwebb. I added some sources, but perhaps there are more out there to be found by the excellent team here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red in an academic article,

"Stepping Beyond Libraries: The Changing Orientation in Global GLAM" has been published by Women in Red is mentioned on page 26. Big thanks to the authors, who are long-time, respected Wiki(m)(p)pedians: Alex Stinson, Sandra Fauconnier, and Liam Wyatt. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article. Maybe we should brainstorm on how we can improve our coverage of women in libraries, museums and archives. We could adapt our monthly achievements to give special attention to the sector in October. We might also try to arrange a tie up with Europeana in order to improve coverage of the EU countries. Maybe Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, Alanna the Brave or Antiqueight can come up with suggestions too.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting piece. It was Liam who inspired me. I met him at the British Museum and returned back to my home city determined to get my museum to emulate what Liam had demonstrated. The first large multi-lingual competition came from Liam's example competition transferred to Derby. Wikidata is great news. (I notice that @GerardMeijssen is targeting women academics in loading their citations, awards and prizes into Wikidata.) I'm away for a couple of weeks on holiday but I think that gathering our 16 sister projects around a multi-lingual contest would re-invigourate our work. They are cross translating with good results. The en:wiki achieved 15% in 2015, 16% in 16, 17% in 17 and we must make 18% this year. Roger Victuallers (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear on how wikidata works - does it allow us to see what articles exist on other languages so we can translate them to en (or vice versa)?
I'm working on the idea of getting people in one hobby area to see the overlap with Wikipedia and the benefits that go both ways in the hope of attracting people who have declared interests in diversity. But I'm not sure that I have any ideas you haven't all already seen, tried, thought of etc. But I was thinking - in the same way that we partner with libraries etc, we could reach out to national organisations like Engineers Ireland (if we aren't already) and try to get their involvement to get the notable women up on the wiki (and notable men, images etc). There are libraries within these organisations and we know we are missing STEM women, historical and current (I mention that one because I know of it). I don't know if other unions would also have resources. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Antiqueight, on Wikidata you can see what other parts of the Wikimedia group have entries. It acts like an overall index. Oronsay (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Does women in red have subscription to

As we are aware, there is an issue with accessing sources for pre-2010 Nigerian contents. And this normally have an effect on the number of women topics that can be covered. I don't know how allAfrica did it, but they have online versions of the daily news reports of top Nigerian newspapers, dating to the late 90s. Even the websites of these news agencies only contain reports from a few years ago. You wouldn't even get a cached copy from Google! Although I believe older reports might be also gotten from their offices. Is it possible for wir to find a way of getting allAfrica to allow experienced editors to have full subscription to their site? The reason it needs to be experienced editors is so that there will be no copyright violation of their content. There are a number of editors of African topics who have signified interest in the site.HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would definitely support this -- I've attempted to access archived articles from before, with limited success, but they definitely have a range of stories/info on African women. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I would, too. I found some sources from Botswana there that have disappeared on their sites of origin. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
We asked the Wikipedia library to get access for us. I will followup with Jake Orlowitz to see if they are making any progress. Also would remind everyone to archive links in Wayback or so that they are preserved historically and are still accessible. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Susan, I really hope the feedback will be positive. Really really looking forward to it. Even though I have had this in mind for a while, it was a conversation with Alexplaugh12 that rekindle it. Our conversation can be found here. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-event in London

Hello all! There's going to be a 4-day Wikithon at Wellcome Collection, 18-21 October and it would be great if WiR members could get involved! I'll add specific time details soon - if this sounds like something that you would like to do, remotely or by coming along (there'll be lots of other great events about writing women back into history in museums, libraries and archives too!) then please could you add your name to the participants list on the event page to give me a vague idea of how much involvement to expect?

If WiR people would like to participate, I'd be happy to list WiR as a collaborator on the official Wellcome Collection webpage for the event too. I can write a two sentence description of the project or am happy to use one created by the community - just let me know!

Zeromonk (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeromonk: Looks good. Let me know if there's anything specific I can do to assist. Otherwise I'll just try to help along as articles are created. You are of course welcome to add Women in Red as a collaborator.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about this event, Zeromonk. Is the theme "museums, libraries and archives"? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott, If WiR is to be involved, is it appropriate to offer the London event links to some of our WD or CS redlists of scientists? Oronsay (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's quite ok to use Women in Red redlists at these sort of events, Oronsay. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I could be around for some of these dates if required, though if we could somehow get the triumvirate of Rosie, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW over (does Jimbo have a private jet?) it would be much better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If y'all have a private jet, come to Octocon from the 19th to the 21st and come to the panel planned around Wikipedia!!! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 21:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott, Oronsay, Ritchie333 thanks for the brilliant and speedy response! Yes, the main theme will be museums, libraries and archives (there'll also be a session on scientists) - I saw the conversation above, would be wonderful timing if we could tie in with October's WiR theme and help with some of the redlists. The artists running the programme were so excited to learn about WiR and to learn themselves how it worked as advance preparation they were looking at your redlists of artists :) Antiqueight sorry we can't join you at Octocon! Thanks all! Zeromonk (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott, Oronsay, Ritchie333 here is the link to the event times and details - would be lovely to see you or any other WiR folks who can come along! Zeromonk (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zeromonk and Antiqueight: Thanks for the invite, but I'll be in Columbus, Ohio, for WikiConference North America during the same time as Octocon and the Wellcome event. Sending best wishes that your events are successful and I look forward to hearing updates afterwards! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep:-Excuses, excuses... Have a good time. Say hi for us.. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 21:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

NASW Social Work Pioneers

A very interesting-looking source put out by the National Association of Social Workers Foundation, which I found last night while poking around online:

Seems to me most, if not all, of these figures are likely to meet the notability guideline given their prominence within their field. And many of them - not all, but the lion's share - are women. There's also an Encyclopedia of Social Work: More fodder for exploration, surely? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yay! I like this topic! Maybe we can use it for November or December's editathons. @Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: what do you think? SusunW (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: I like it! Maybe add social reformers and social activists to the social workers, unless adding these others would be too much? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Without sources, or any indication what their methodology is in gathering this information, I don't know how much weight I would put on the NASW write up alone. Ten bucks says these were written by an intern or an undergraduate student with no formal historical training. Full disclosure: Am no longer a member of the NASW for reasons. GMGtalk 19:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Well, I did a cursory search yesterday, and of the three I picked, two would likely pass the notability threshold (in my admittedly inclusionist eyes). (One easily so: she has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Social Work as well.) Still, your point's absolutely well-taken. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I took Bess Adams (1893-1985) as a test and couldn't find anything else at all. But if you find one that's borderline, I've still got stacks of social work text books. Lemme know and I can see what I can see. GMGtalk 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
As per typical for women of her time period, you aren't likely to find her in scholarly journals or book publications. She wasn't famous, but Bess Adams looks plenty notable to me. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] SusunW (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Which of the newspaper clippings, in a local daily, makes her pass GNG? None of the awards are any significant/notable and the last time I checked, receiving an alumni achievement award or holding a middle tier executive position is neither an indicator. I appreciate the aims of the project but to cling to anything and everything is a bit...... And, iff that's the only available sourcing, I will dispatch it for AfD. WBGconverse 01:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric aggressive attempts to intimidate people and discourage participation are generally neither the means nor method that builds collaboration or influences people to share your POV. That local daily has won three Pulitzer Prizes, all during the period in which Adams was featured. In the days of print journalism, editors evaluated which articles to print and which to leave out based on import and costs, so there were controls to publishing notable stories. After the birth of the internet, that changed, so while your bias against local sources may hold for post 1990-media, historians would refute your assessment of the value of local media. Academics place value on local newspaper accounts of historic events. The awards she won are not necessarily notable, nor are awards of any kind required to meet GNG. The articles were chosen for the detail they give, i.e. parents' names, schooling, employment history, etc. What is required is significant coverage in RS, over time, in sufficient detail to develop a complete biography which shows that the subject did something unique or of note. Since juvenile courts arose in the United States in the Progressive Era, Adams was one of the first generation of workers in the juvenile courts. At a time when few women worked, she was the director of a state agency and served in every office, including that of president of the Alabama Conference of Social Work. Easily satisfies GNG and there are also articles (which I cannot access or assess) about her in almost every year of Alabama Social Welfare between 1938 and 1966. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
SusunW, I apologize if I came off as aggressive.I do not agree that local media prior to the birth of internet, was much selective and my observations does not either support it.(Obviously more selective than what happened after internet-boom but nowhere as selective as national media outlets of prominence, which is somewhat obvious).Also, as much as it's a fact that the sources can be used to verify information about her, I disagree that significant coverage in a local daily musters passage of our GNG guidelines.The director of any state agency, (sufficiently broad) will fetch routine local coverage.And, that you have raised the pint of academics, I fail to find a single one, who was interested enough to study upon one of the first generation of workers in the juvenile courts and who held office At a time when few women worked.And as to your latest source, I will take the opportunity to remind you that we need independent sourcing. WBGconverse 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As Exemplo347 said on a occasion, Since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling.All of the clippings can be easily used to add details about the career of Bess but IMO, neither of them individually nor the summation of all clippings, propels her past our notability guidelines. WBGconverse 14:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, your lack of understanding of historical research in general and women's history in particular, which did not emerge as a field of academic study until the 1970s, is evident in the statement that no one has written about her. I apologize if I came off as aggressive, but will continue my aggression? I think the conversation needs to end and I shall not engage further. Thank you for your opinion and anecdotal observation. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
SusunW, I am at a loss to understand as to how relevant, the age of emergence of the field of study about women's history is.
There have been ample dissertations, where academics have chosen important local-characters from times of Civil War, from times of Reconstruction era et al to document the broader scenario or specific character-sketches.
And, obviously, you have the right to disengage at your will. WBGconverse 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There is a problem that I've been seeing going around Wikipedia recently (especially in AfD) that local sources aren't "reliable sources." GNG only specifies that the sources must be reliable and describe the subject with enough information to write about them. SusunW has here, adequately shown how local sources are plenty reliable, especially before the age of the internet. Local topics are actually quite important to building a robust encyclopedia that won't be biased towards just the most populated areas of the world or the most popular topics. As to your comment Winged Blades of Godric, quoting Exemplo347, we often at Wikipedia choose a random name off a list, learn about that person and then write about them. That's what redlists are for and it's really a lot of fun. I've learned about interesting and notable people from all over the world doing this and would highly recommend the practice! Most of my over 400+ articles I've created were made in this manner. For example, I would never have learned about the first woman Afghani helicopter pilot Latifa Nabizada, or about the amazing railroad doctor, Sofie Herzog. These are just two amazing people I would never have met without taking a random name off a list, finding sources and then writing about them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, thanks for chiming in:-)
If you read carefully, nowhere did I state that local sources aren't "reliable sources." and have instead explicitly written that as much as it's a fact that the sources can be used to verify information about her. Any such notion, as their reliability in AfDs ought be plainly wrong.
What I wish to state is that the bar of sourcing for establishing notability and that for verifying information is (or shall be)not same.Whilst, (supposedly) four pieces of quite-significant coverage about a subject at NewYork Times would be sufficient for meeting GNG, the same number won't be sufficient, for a local county-daily or so.It ought be something more, which shall be evaluated on a per-se basis, by editorial consensus.Four is a number, taken at my own whims and may not represent anything ideal. BLP1E is excluded:-)
As to taking names off randomly and writing, what I mean is starting articles, in the hope of sources, (Example:-He held such an important position, he must be notable.So, let's start it!!.....A week later, there 's a comprehensive search and all that is located is remote routine coverage from non-independent sources or in local dailies et al) without anything concrete in hand shall be avoided.
Thanks, WBGconverse 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Winged Blades of Godric, that's not what GNG says. All it says is that there need to be a number of RS backing up the information. The sources can be extremely local and that doesn't diminish the quality of the source or the information. In fact it's really important, as I said, in building an encyclopedia that intends to be broad in scope, that we don't discount the value of local sources of information. There is no weighting of information based on population size of the city of the newspaper in the GNG guidelines. The New York Times is not necessarily "better" than the El Paso Herald Post as a reliable source of information. They can equally be used for establishing notability. Dailies, as SusunW are not all the same and neither are they low-standard sources that deserve less weight in determining GNG. There's rigorous journalism done at most dailies, especially in the age before the internet. I'm really puzzled why you don't understand this distinction. Creating an encyclopedia that only cites what has come to the attention of the New York Times or the Washington Post is going to be substandard. If you think we should "weight" sources based on population size, then you're free to bring up such a discussion at the appropriate talk page. I suppose we've highjacked this thread quite enough! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, my point is precisely we should "weight" sources based on population size.To keep it short, as coverage-area decreases, the distinction between notable and non-notable events (which are made to look notable, by giving coverage) is bound to dimininish. I think that there have been some discussions in these aspects but with nothing close to a consensus.As to GNG, as DGG once remarked, it's something that can be reasonably skewed to supoort any opinion, as to any article, even in dire-opposites.I agree with you, as to our disgression and will continue the discussion but somewhere else:-) Thanks for your valuable opinion and participation. WBGconverse 16:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


Can anyone explain what has happened to the announcements on the main WiR page? They simply seem to have disappeared but I can see no record of deletions in the page's history. Indeed they have disappeared from all the old histories I have turned up. Is this once again an unintended result of Project X?(cc Rosiestep, Isarra).--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Ipigott, but I have no idea what has caused this. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean this? That was on the 10th, but because the page is transcluded onto the main page, it's possible you continued to see it via a cached version until more recently. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Rhododendrites. It's the first time I've seen them all removed at once. Time to add some new ones!--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA