Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

    Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

    Shortcuts

    Coverage of me in The Guardian (UK)[edit]

    Hello folks, I posted about my global challenge on Twitter & got in touch with a couple of journalists, one of whom wrote this piece about the project: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/05/uk-academics-wikipedia-project-raises-profile-of-women-around-the-world - its quite short, so sadly doesn't include the various ways I mentioned how important this project has been to mentor me, support me and inspire me. I hope others here can see relfections on the conversations we have on this talk page in the article. Deepest thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What a fantastic piece @Lajmmoore! Thank you so much for all your efforts to raise the profile of WIR’s goals! I appreciate it so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like Congrats! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the amazing work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came across the article and wanted to come here to say congrats! I love seeing Wikipedia portrayed in a positive light in the media. Hopefully this will inspire some new editors to join the project. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, @Lajmmoore, what a great article. Thanks for all your work! PamD 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: This is just the kind of publicity we need. Not only have you demonstrated your own enthusiasm and creativity but you have shown how important it is to have more contributors, especially women, helping to improve our coverage of women. Great stuff! Especially as everyone worldwide can access The Guardian"".--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LajmmooreThe Guardian piece and you just got mentioned on Radio4 Today newspaper round up 7 40 am Wednesday 6 March. Great to have this public acknowledgement MerielGJones (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, heard it on Today (BBC Radio 4) too: I thought the tone was a bit patronising/bemused, but still great coverage! PamD 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very inspiring. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely piece, Lajmmoore. This is inspiring in so many ways. Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such great coverage @Lajmmoore, you are an inspiration! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well done you @Lajmmoore! And thanks for flagging that up; I read the Guardian daily, but somehow missed that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Late to the party (as when am I not?), but congratulations and well done on all of this. I had hoped to listen to the As It Happens interview when it aired on my local NPR station, but I...er, have been asleep whenever it's on this week (a recurring issue...hence my lateness, with apologies.) I shall seek it out online instead. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My daughter just let me know of this piece - really fantastic, and well done you! Dsp13 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As It Happens on CBC[edit]

    & I was also on Canadian radio yesterday, about 17 minutes 20 secs in: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/16047110-cancelled-culture - if there's more features, I'll share them here. Thanks everyone for their kind words Lajmmoore (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just listened: that's a great interview! Well done. PamD 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really kind Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was impressed by your pleasant voice and your relaxed responses to the questions. I'm not too sure whether I agree that you are not notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone like Victuallers who knows you better than I do could make a start.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I heard her (too brief?) appearance on Radio 4 this morning and tweeted it. I havent seen the Guardian bit yet. Always bit wary of writing stuff for mates. Jess Wade had a BEM and Rosie had been knighted before they got wiki articles I think. An obvious link would for someone to add Lucy to our Women in Red page which is very out of date and make a redirect there. Am I inspired by Lucy .... umm I'm just trying to emulate her woman for every country! Finding women for all the small island states looks very tricky. Still I did Vietnam today and I did Ethiopia and Eritrea yesterday... I'm amazed that I learn such random stuff ... did you know that there is a coutry in Africa who speak Spanish, who have had the same President for 40 years and he gets 97% of the votes despite moving the country's treasury into his own bank account! Oh and back to the subject..... well done our editor in Leeds. Victuallers (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I meet the notability requirements @Ipigott! Well done on your global challenge @Victuallers Lajmmoore (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WiR mainpage update[edit]

    Well maybe, Roger, you would like to make a start updating the main WiR page. I agree with you, it does look rather dated. Perhaps Rosie could also help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish it were, but website design isn't my area of forte. Do we have any website designers around? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's so much the design as the content. Couldn't we put something together on the history of the project?--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC Scotland (radio)[edit]

    Hello, I was on BBC Radio Scotland just now at 11.41 (that's 2 hours, 41 into the programme) talking about editing, and plugging the event above. This is the proramme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wzcf (with Stephen Jardine) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Guardian: Comment is free piece "hive heroism that changes history"[edit]

    & there's a comment piece published by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/08/the-guardian-view-on-wikipedias-female-volunteers-a-hive-heroism-that-changes-history - this specifically mentions Women in Red! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another interesting article, with a few curious extensions. These "print" items are easier to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bizarre statement that "Louis XIV's elephant is among Women in Red’s additions", but I can see no mention of WiR in its talk page or edit history. Very odd.
    It seems to have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot, but why? Does that bot detect words like "she" and "her" (it was a female elephant!)? If so, I wonder how many ships are claimed for WiR! PamD 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikidata Louis XIV's elephant was human (and an elephant). TSventon (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD Human was added by a bot to Q124610027 here, then Q124610027 was merged to Q1326205 here. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Éléphante de Louis XIV (now a redirect) was also added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot. TSventon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On another bit "Unsurprisingly, in such a culture, [in the OED] Walter Scott was quoted about 15,000 times, while Jane Austen’s wit made a mere 700 appearances" - could this be because Scott's 27 novels (a good 4-5 times longer than Austen's on the bookshelf, far more if all his works are included) are full of Scottish dialect words, while Austen's vocabulary is famously and deliberately restrained - I think shrubbery is one of her OED appearances though? No, it must be sexism. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite this and several IWD articles based on Wikipedia Needs More Women, I have not yet detected any noticeable change in new articles or new contributors. It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect there won't be much immediate change, but hopefully this coverage and encouragement will get women thinking longer term about ways to contribute Lajmmoore (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lajmmoore, I am a bit late to this post, but I only just saw it, and I want to let you know that I read this ‘hive of heroism’ article a few weeks ago, having never heard of WIR, nor having ever edited wikipedia. And I immediately signed up. That day was a hot Australian Saturday, it was in the morning and I had made some vague plans to go outside and enjoy the weather. But after reading the article, I forgot about the weather and didn’t leave the house for the entire weekend. And here I am. I’m absolutely obsessed with editing and creating articles about amazing people. So, thank you for making the effort to get the word out. AdaWoolf (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for saying so @AdaWoolf that isso wonderful to hear & you've got the hang of it so fast (I was so much slower). Team work makes the dream (of gender equity) work! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AdaWoolf Brilliant! Thanks for telling us. It looks like you found your feet here really quickly! I see Ipigott found one of your early drafts at AfC and accepted it to mainspace. If you find yourself at a lull in your own article creation in the future, I hope you'll consider helping out at WP:AFC. Lots of drafts on women there that need a bit of a nudge to make it to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I would be interested in helping out with those @Asilvering.I will go and look into the process. AdaWoolf (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women lists all the articles on women (as defined by a bot, so not always totally accurate) that are waiting for reviews. Many of them really won't be any good, and probably not notable enough to be worth saving. But about as many could probably make it to mainspace, but the editor who drafted the article is new and didn't catch on as quickly as you did and they don't understand what's missing. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CNN INTERNATIONAL[edit]

    & I was also on the CNN International show, Isa Soares Tonight (this evening at 7.40pm-ish) - I have a link to the segment and I've been told it will be up on social media soon. This time I mentioned Women in Red by name! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a link to watch here: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/03/08/exp-international-womens-day-wikipedia-moore-live-030802pseg2-cnni-world.cnn - I was extremely nervous! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weekend - BBC World Service[edit]

    & I was also invited on Weekend for BBC World Service this morning - you can listen here, about 50 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172z37rh4rq6rg It's challenging to include everything you want to in live conversations, but I am hopeful some of this week's coverage will have got more people thinking about our project Lajmmoore (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lajmmoore I can't find you in that link at 50 mins, have dipped in at various other points too and not found you! PamD 12:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PamD - I think I put the wrong one down - it's this about 44 mins in. I changed th link above Lajmmoore (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hero of the Week - Pod Save the UK[edit]

    & a UK-based podcast called Pod Save the UK named the project as "hero of the week" (link to a X post is here) & this is the episode (link) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff post[edit]

    I wrote a bit about the project on the Diff blog too - thanks for all your kind words over the past month (& past five years) Lajmmoore (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Katarzyna Paprocka[edit]

    Dear Friends.

    I expanded the article about Katarzyna Paprocka, based upon the Polish Wikipedia article. However, my English and understanding of Wikipedia is not perfect - if a native English speaker could look at the current version of the article, I would be grateful.

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaworu1992 Please remember that in English wikipedia we do not link dates or years. Thanks. PamD 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And when including references with non-English titles it's helpful to use the "trans-title=" field in the citation, to show readers the title translated into English. Thanks. PamD 18:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend.
    I am not very good with Wikipedia "code", so to speak. Could you please say something more in this topic?
    Best wishes
    --Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the translated titles (using Google translate) to three of the four books in the Bibliography section of Katarzyna Paprocka, so you can see there how this works. I didn't add the translated title of the Tarnowska book, because Google turns it into "Spell-mary ending at the stake in Fordon": with your knowledge of both Polish and English I'm sure you can produce a better translated title (and please change the other three if they are not right: they all looked plausible, but I don't read Polish!). It's just kinder to the readers of English Wikipedia if we show them what the titles of the sources are, translated into the language they know. I hope that explains it OK for you. Thanks. PamD 13:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jadwiga Szubartowicz[edit]

    Dear Friends.

    Seems I had a productive night. I translated an article about Jadwiga Szubartowicz into English from Polish (it was on one of the redlists). Please, check my grammar and other stuff, okay? ;-)

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaworu1992:: I should first point out that our redlists are not intended to indicate suitability for inclusion. This biography may meet the requirements of the Polish wiki but I'm not at all sure she is notable enough for the English version. Unless they were notable for other reasons, many articles about centenarians and supercentenarians have been deleted. In future, whether you are translating or creating biographies yourself, I recommend you make sure articles meet the notability requirements listed in our Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend.
    I wasn't aware. I thought since the lady is "in red" and has a Polish Wikipedia article, an English translation should follow. I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I will remember to ask in the future for other's opinion on whether a given lady is or is not encyclopedic.
    Again, very sorry.
    Best wishes
    --Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WiR template[edit]

    Despite many requests for restoring the template we have used over the years for navigating past meetups, etc., nothing has been done. I have therefore restored an earlier version myself. It looks OK to me but might need to be updated for anything included over the past few weeks. You can view the template at the foot of our main WiR page. (Or go to Template:Women in Red navigation and click on Show.) I for one make frequent use of the template but was unable to find anything in the version recently reworked by MSGJ in good faith but without prior consultation. In connection with the preparation of events for April and beyond, we need to be able to review past events which are similar or relevant.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, this module is behind the various new presentations of our events. By returning to our traditional navigation template, I appear to have caused our two new events for March to disappear from our Events page. I have now added them "manually" but the heading "Ongoing initiatives" now appears twice. We have called on the assistance of MSGJ to help with these problems but as yet there has been no response. I'm not sure how we should proceed at this stage. It seems to me we are increasingly near to re-adopting the approach we have used for years without major problems. Perhaps WomenArtistUpdates who has given support to some of the new features would like to respond.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, I think you should rollback your changes and give MSGJ time to fix the problem. Also remember to Help:Purge the pages to check on updates to cascading templates. I wish we could all work together to make WiR the best it can be rather than fighting. That means both sides. WiRers couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and the coders really need to get a consensus before making changes. MSGJ is really good at documenting the changes and assisting with directions and fixes. Can't we all just get along? Meanwhile, can someone please respond to the request for an update on the "One biography a week articles" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293. Who's doing the tallying? Also, anyone want to work on proofing the pages for April? Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WomenArtistUpdates: Thank you for responding so quickly. I'm really surprised you believe I have been involved in some kind of fighting. Quite the opposite: I've been looking for solutions. I've followed your advice and restored MSGJ's navigation template. I see he's already resolved the Events page. As for the "One biography a week" issue, I had not seen the query you refer to but I was prepared to handle this myself unless you would like to handle it in your usual expert way.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, I am referring to the discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming_up_for_April. I can't remember who started the "One biography a week articles" challenge back in January. Could they take ownership? Do they want an announcement in the invite. etc... --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WomenArtistsUpdate: Thanks for alerting me on this. I've responded on the Ideas page and edited #293. As for recognition, I had simply intended to send out suitable barnstars but you might be able to come up with a more suitable one, for example combining a WiR barnstar with #1women1week or something similar. Are you interested or should I take care of everything myself?--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I edit the Events page? Why has this been hidden from me? I have edited that page for a number of years and am deeply unhappy with recent changes. For example, a number of Events occur over several months and would appear in the old template correctly. Now, the new-look template and changes to the Events page no longer reflect what we have done accurately. For example, Women who died in 2023 is not shown as a January Event. There is also the issue that past event pages no longer show the events happening at that time, just the future, current and most recent ones. This was pointed out by @Rosiestep in an earlier post. Why are we allowing one editor to change the way we work? Oronsay (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oronsay, The page Events is generated automatically from the main events template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/events. Instructions for updating that are at Template:WikiProject Women in Red/doc. I believe "Women who died in 2023" is not showing up in January because it spanned 2 months beginning in December 2023, which is where the event shows up in the archive. Hope that helps. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why only one month when it's a two-month event? It didn't used to be like that in the old template, so why the change? Oronsay (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the code can only grab one month. When we hand-coded everything we could list things once, twice, or three times. That said, we chose to only list #1day1woman only once, the same with the year-long initiative. When content for the pages is "managed" centrally it saves time creating new pages and updating existing pages. If an error occurs it only need be corrected once and it is correct on all the WiR pages. Taking the really long view, after you and I are gone, the next editors should be able to pick up where we left off. Also taking the long view, if the English Wikipedia continues to grow, the server space required to house it all will just keep warming up the planet, so I think the idea is to find space saving for the good of the encyclopedia. And, as I understand it the server fees are in the multi-mullions annually. Money and resources. That's my understanding anyway. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oronsay, many events are identified as spanning multiple months, so it can be done. I didn't realise we had any that spanned more than 1 year, so I will need to do some further work to support this. I agree it is really important that these are represented accurately. Are there any other events that span more than one year, do you know? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In December each year, WIR starts a two-month event for women who have died that year. The most recent event was named "Women who died in 2023" and should appear under December 2023 and January 2024. However, I notice that the event pages have been re-named to "Women who died", which implies that articles about any woman who has died should be added to that event. The invitation for December and January show the event correctly. So the event pages for "Women who died" need to be correctly titled with the year added AND the template should reflect the two-month duration in each case. I know that @Rosiestep is keen to retain the history of the WIR project via the template. Oronsay (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oronsay, indeed, that's a type of event we repeat every December/January. Don't know how the name got altered, but would someone please correct it? Thanks --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/291. I have rewritten the code so it can now display dates which span more than one year. I will do likewise for the other "Women that died" events. In terms of including the event in lists, I need further guidance. I don't think you want to list it in each month that it spans, because then the same event will be listed multiple times. A 3-month event would appear three different times, etc. and this could be impractical for long events (such as the annual initiatives). So instead should they be listed according to the start of the event, or perhaps they can be listed separately to the monthly events. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better. But rather than "Women who died: in 2023" I think it would be better "Women who died: 2023". The year-long events are listed separately as such and don't need to be repeated. Oronsay (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oronsay I think I have finished all the code changes to fully support flexible start and end dates. Can you please check that everything looks correct and let me know if any other changes are required? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your work. I regret I am not able to do the checking that you request. In any case, it is not a one-person job. I hope that @Rosiestep, @Chocmilk03, @Lajmmoore, @WomenArtistUpdates, @Ipigott and other WIR editors will help with this. Oronsay (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oronsay, I don't feel comfortable in checking code changes at this point. What I suggested several days ago was that a process be instituted describing tech changes that affect WiR pages/subpages, and that discussion ensues, and that consensus occurs within WiR membership before changes are implemented. I don't know who wants to draft that process, but as MSGJ want to make changes, maybe they're working on it. If not, my preference is to leave things the way they were as they worked well for us. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pinging me, Oronsay, but I don't feel comfortable about commenting further on this and don't want to upset WomenArtistUpdates who still seems to be a strong supporter of the new approach. What I do regret though is that we used to be able to make changes to the template ourselves. I also admire the skill with which Rosiestep was able to maintain the template over the years and ensure that it provided an effective record of progress on the project. It seems to me that this will no longer be possible and that we are now fully in the hands of MSGJ (unless other participants feel they are ale to deal with this level of coding). The only consolation is that if things prove difficult to manage as they so often did with Project X, we can always revert to our old approach which most of us seem to prefer. I support Rosie's idea of initiating a more formal decision-making process but am not happy about taking it on myself. We really need someone with more experience of such things.--Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad to see that on the basis of our discussions, MSGJ has restored our old navigation template and intends to make improvements to the new version on the basis of the discussions on this page. On this basis, we should be able to proceed without further difficulty.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved this request for feedback to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Technical --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Circling back to comments addressed by @Oronsay and WomenArtistUpdates regarding server space, event duration, etc. I want to address the factual depiction of the duration of a WiR event as it is an important element of our work. It is something that researchers are and/or will study in years to come because what we do and how we do it is unique. MSGJ, WiR members have been meticulous in documenting event duration (1 month, 2 months, 1 quarter, half a year, 1 year) in the "green template". If you have an automated method to factually document WiR event duration (green template, event pages, and/or elsewhere) please explain on this page what you think is a good way forward. The level of frustration by some contributing editors, evidenced on this page and mentioned elsewhere, is high because there's a feeling that you don't adhere to a basic principal of Women in Red: we do things by consensus. This takes time. WiR has never curbed enthusiasm or de-valued automation. For example, and you may not be aware of this, WiR was an early adopter of WP:WikiProject X, and used it as our starting page management system in July 2015. When it no longer worked for us, it took us months of discussions and hours of work to change to a different style. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what is in order is to develop some simple guidelines/processes for addressing potential changes to WiR templates and/or other structural changes. This idea is influenced by Ipigott's comment in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Archive it! section regarding a recommendation for simple guidelines in other areas where we work. Curious to know: how do people suggest changes in technical spaces? Hoping our tech-inclined editors can get some guidelines started. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a section on the Ideas page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red. Ideas for changes can be presented there. If they are for a beta version of a template the creator can point to that and users can respond. That way the conversations wont be sprinkled throughout the main talk pages
    I used up a lot of time arguing (persuading?) to get the data preserved (itemized tags on talk pages ). I am not so concerned as to how that data is presented in templates as long as the underlying data is preserved.
    Thanks for the background on project X! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Preservation is of course extremely important. I spent the last 12 years of my career with the European Commission working with libraries and museums across Europe in projects designed to help them preserve cultural heritage by means of digital collaboration. Librarians in particular are expert at devising methods for ensuring a systematic approach to cataloguing and exchange of digital data. But at the same time, they recognize the importance of facilitating the practical requirements of users. In our case, we need an easy means of reviewing past events, especially when dealing with similar but not identical proposals for the future. You may be right, WomenArtistUpdates, that this entire discussion should have been handled on our Ideas page but as it has been such an important item here, it seems logical to continue discussion. I would therefore simply like to suggest that we support two "navigation templates", one in the interests of preservation and saving computer resources, the other to give an accessible and uncomplicated overview of everything we have accomplished over the years. As Rosiestep mentioned Project X earlier, I must say when I saw MSGJ¨s Module:Women in Red event/sandbox it reminded me of the problems we had with Project X when those involved moved on and no one was able to correct things when they went wrong. One of the major advantages of the old template is that we can all edit it without any special technical experience. If there are problems with the new one - or even the event pages displays - there's only one person able to put things right. This does not appear to me to be a sound basis for further development. I really appreciate MSGJ's enthusiasm for trying to resolve WIR problems triggered by the introduction of the banner shell environment - and some of these now seem to be working well. But I really think we should be wary of introducing changes which could lead to future difficulties. Finally, I agree with Rosie that before any major developments are undertaken, they should be discussed here, based on a definition of the problem, explaining why the current approach is causing difficulties and needs to be changed, assessing the amount of development work required, and explaining the expected advantages/improvements when work is completed. As far as I can recall, no one was experiencing problems with the navigation template and it was therefore quite a surprise for most of us that it was suddenly replaced with what we might call a technology-driven approach. Sorry to have given such a lengthy reply on this but I can assure you all that I am not trying to fight anyone but am sincerely trying to ensure our project can proceed on the best available basis. That surely must be in everyone's interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier this week, I noticed for the first time that there's a section on the WiR "Ideas" page that includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red (mentioned above by WomenArtistUpdates). I only came upon it by chance. Mostly, I only go to the "Ideas" page to participate in conversations regarding next month's events; I imagine this is common with other WiR editors. Conversely, this talkpage gets thousands of monthly pageviews -- from WiR members and from civil society. I suppose that our talkpage archive gets its share of searching, too. So if we want to socialize a "request for comment" regarding coordinating our work (tech, templates, etc.), there's a benefit to keeping the conversation here, vs. splintering onto a WiR subpage, or a user talkpage, etc.
    What's been missing, though, is a defined "process". Things have worked okay till now without it. But now it's time to develop it. There are on-wiki talkpage models for these sorts of discussions (Request for Comment pages, Articles for Deletion, Administrators Noticeboard, etc.). What can we take from them and apply to us? I agree with Ipigott regarding a "request for comment" for coordination-related work should incorporate several project-management-style elements, e.g., "... definition of the problem ... ". Maybe a KEYWORD in the header? Maybe an icon at the top-right, as a visual? Let's open a discussion and develop a process in a new section. Ipigott, as you have professional experience in this area (broadly-construed), would you be comfortable in getting this started? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Rosie, for your confidence in my abilities and for agreeing with the approach I suggested. While I would be happy to contribute to any discussions, I would feel happier if the initiative could be launched by an administrator.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Best month for two years[edit]

    I'm not sure how many of our participants are interested in statistics but some might like to know that our Metrics page shows that in March over 1,960 biographies of women were created. Not since March 2022 have there been so many. It's also good to see how many new members have been signing up: 22 in March, 18 in February and 21 in January. It all looks very encouraging.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is great news, Ipigott! Thank you for bringing it up here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reporting on these figures, @Ipigott. It's very good to see growth in both numbers – new members and articles created. Oronsay (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Metrics wow reporting 2,005 new articles for March. This may partly be a result of Meta initiatives in Africa and Asia in connection with biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Core Contest[edit]

    The core contest is back and ... since the 2012 contest, we've not improved a single biography of a woman. I was hoping somebody here would be willing to correct that record.

    The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most fun contest—runs from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Brunson Marks[edit]

    Members way wish to comment at this discussion. All opinions welcome. Any help with finding sources to improve the article would be appreciated as well. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Redlist not updating[edit]

    I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Number of links, and several of the listed items now have enwiki articles associated with them. Is there a reason why the list hasn't been updated since May 2023? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ListeriaBot tends to struggle with managing large redlists, though this is an odd case as that one is not insanely large. Curbon7 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ListeriaBot especially struggles with list cells that themselves link to other complicated or heavily linked wikidata items. In this case, that would be the occupation and citizenship columns. Removing them from the table might help it proceed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Roma Day Edit-a-thon (April 1st – 15th, 2024)[edit]

    Hi all! Wikimedia Serbia is once again hosting an international edit-a-thon in honour of International Roma Day this year. This year though it lasts two weeks. In addition, English Wikiquote is included and there are at least six local editathons if any of us speak those languages! If you notice any Roma topics or people missing from the edit-a-thon lists, please feel free to add them! -Yupik (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this @Yupik - I really enjoyed it last year! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My pleasure, @Lajmmoore! I hope as many people as possible can participate this year, since I won't be able to to the extent I want to. Will you be participating? - Yupik (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yupik - I've only had time to add one article, but here it is Philomena Franz. What an amazing woman Lajmmoore (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lajmmoore You don't seem to have added it on the results page. Mine seems to be the only new en.wiki article listed, plus two Improved articles. PamD 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen that! Ooops! Thank you Lajmmoore (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inspired by @Lajmmoore: and by the fact that tomorrow is the last day, I've created Melanie Spitta: I looked at the "People" list from the editathon to find someone (a) not in en:Wiki, (b) present in a language I can at least partly understand, (c) female, and (d) initial S-T (if there was one), and found her! PamD 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much Lajmmoore and PamD! <3 -Yupik (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yupik Is there a talk page banner for the editathon? I added a manual note, but wondered whether I was missing something! PamD 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of. But that's a good suggestion for next year! - Yupik (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be okay if someone was bold, and created it (talkpage banner), and we started adding it to applicable talkpages? Seems like a good idea for tracking, branding, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should probably come from the editathon organisers? Though it would need to be in lots of different languages. I don't think we need a WiR-specific version (actually en.wiki isn't even listed as one of the "Supported by" wikis on the participants page. Odd. PamD 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Polish female (ex)leaders of Campaign Against Homofobia[edit]

    Dear Friends.

    I see that English Wikipedia has no articles on two ladies that were leaders of Campaing Against Homophobia (KPH). However, the Polish WIkipedia has such articles. Do you wish for me to translate them? I suppose they are encyclopedic, right?

    Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Each Wikipedia has it's own inclusion criteria, so just because Polish Wikipedia has an article it doesn't necessarily follow that we can have one here, best to use the WP:AFC process when in doubt. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft: Michèle Hayeur Smith[edit]

    I'm not sure I'm in the right place so kindly re-direct me if necessary.

    I have been trying to submit an article (my very first from scratch!) about Michèle Hayeur Smith, a Canadian archeologist. I submitted a draft last September & it was immediately declined for 'lack of notability'. I have since tried to add more references etc. but I am nervous about submitting it again. Would one of you more seasoned editors be willing to look it over & suggest improvements?

    I was a bit surprised that this researcher was considered 'not notable enough'. When I compare the work of M. Hayeur Smith to that of another archeologist (e.g. Kirsten Bos) or of a male athlete (e.g. Ivan Belfiore), Hayeur Smith seems at least as worthy of a WP article.

    Thanks for any help or advice you can provide. Redwidgeon (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Her status as an independent scholar should not be problematic: notability comes from recognition of accomplishments, not so much from job titles. I wasn't able to find enough citations to her work (for instance by searching for her name as an author on Google Scholar and looking at the citation counts in the search results) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the other WP:PROF criteria look out of reach. For WP:GNG notability, you would need multiple in-depth published works by other people about Smith herself, published by other organizations than her employers, and I didn't see anything like that in the references of the draft. Grants are not prizes that can generate notability. So the likeliest option for notability seems to me to be WP:AUTHOR, and multiple published reviews each of multiple books. I did find two books by her, but only with reviews of one of them:
    • Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears: An Archaeology of Jewellery, Gender and Identity in Viking Age Iceland (BAR International, 2004): No reviews found.
    • The Valkyries’ Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic (University Press of Florida, 2020). Reviews: Douglas J. Bolender, American Antiquity, doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.75; Shannon Lewis-Simpson, Antiquity, doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.139
    So if there is a third book I am missing, with multiple reviews, or if you can find multiple reliably published reviews of Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears where I failed to do so, then I think there might be a good case for notability that way.
    When comparing to others, it might not be obvious to you why those others are considered notable, but in the case of Kirsten Bos, her Google Scholar profile shows heavy citations to her work [1], a couple dozen publications with triple-digit citation counts and an h-index of 40. Smith doesn't have that, and should not be expected to have that, because she works in a field where book publication is more important than journal publications and citations. So comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges. For sportspeople the comparison is even more strained. The people you should be comparing to are book-publishing archaeologists. Usually the notable ones have multiple books with multiple reviews of each book, and their notability is supported by WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, David Eppstein; this is very helpful & informative. Redwidgeon (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I was able to dig up, Redwidgeon, David Eppstein. For her first book, I agree that there seems to be no reviews to find, but I did find some coverage and usage of the book.
    As for the second book, in addition to the two reviews you found, I found these.
    And finally there's just coverage of Smith herself and her work.
    No idea on if any of this is enough to pass notability requirements, since it still seems on the line. But you can at least buff up the draft with these sources. SilverserenC 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much, Silverseren, this information definitely gives me more to work with. Maybe the article still won't get published but no doubt I will learn a lot along the way. Redwidgeon (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think, Redwidgeon, that if you add the sources I and David Eppstein found to the article and re-submit to AfC, there's a much better likelihood of it being accepted. SilverserenC 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dodi Leal - page for Gender Studies[edit]

    Hello! I tidied this draft up, which had been started and then deleted. Would someone mind accepting it through? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a longer Portuguese article at pt:Dodi Leal, written by the same editor who started the en draft. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: Thanks for bringing this up to standard. Now in mainspace, added to #303 and to List of women's and gender studies academics. As already noted, it could be significantly expanded from the Portuguese biography.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both - I agree, but I didn't have the energy! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Catherine Emihovich[edit]

    Hello everyone! I recently have been slowly editing the page Catherine Emihovich by myself. I have a conflict of interest however so if someone could help by suggesting or making changes it would be greatly appreciated. I also am fairly new to editing as well. Thank you for any help you could do! Shane emihovich (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shane emihovich I've replied on your talk page and done quite a bit of work on the article. PamD 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to other editors: the article concerned was created in 2008, so although the current editor has a COI, as declared, the article has established notability - Dean of a college. PamD 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dean of a college is not a notability criterion. Looking at it more, only ne source is independent and secondary, so the article currently violates WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:N. She could potentially meet NAUTHOR if multiple of her books have had multiple academic reviews, or GNG if there are more SIGCOV profiles of her in different, non-local newspapers from different times. But she does not appear to meet NPROF unless she's been cited enough for C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The position of dean should meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC#6 ("highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution"). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it would not. That criterion refers to the position of president of the university, not dean of a particular school in the university. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon[edit]

    Something a little bit different, but I'd like to mention it now so that people who are interested can have a little time to prepare.

    My choir, the Capitol Hill Chorale, has a particular interest in various strands of American folk music; to that end, our last concert of this season will be featuring works by, and inspired by, the Shakers, especially Shaker women. 2024 marks the 250th anniversary of the arrival of Shakers to the United States, and our concert will be dedicated especially to the memory of Mother Ann Lee, their founder.

    We'll be hosting an edit-a-thon on the subject of Shaker women on Saturday, May 11. It's just gone live today, and I don't yet have a link to anything other than the Eventbrite registration, which is here. I have a list of thirty or forty notable Shaker women that I've developed over the years, and we'll be looking to create articles on a number of them, plus updating a number of other articles.

    I will be crossposting this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion; it would be nice if some folks would be able to join virtually. Or live, even, if you're in the DC area.--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for sharing this, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Marvelous to hear what your choir will be doing! I registered for the event, but there wasn't a way to indicate that I would be a virtual attendee (and no Zoom link was provided). If the registration is supposed to be only for people who will be attending in person, would you please cancel my registration as I don't want to reserve a seat and be a no-show. That said, I'm looking forward to participating remotely! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosiestep: Thanks for letting me know about that. We do want to make virtual attendance possible, so I'm glad to know that there wasn't a way to indicate. I'll raise it with Wikimedia DC and make sure it's rectified if need be. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ser Amantio di Nicolao yes, thanks for the cross post at WiR. I'll get the word out, too, during our monthly planning zoom session next Thursday. If I'm available, I'd like to jump in virtually, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Figureskatingfan: Excellent - the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feminism page deleted[edit]

    I notice that somebody has wiped out the entire Feminism page. Could somebody with the right skills deal with that? Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been done - surprisingly it took 22 minutes for someone to notice and revert the edit (changed at 8:51, reverted at 09:13)
    @Balance person Another time you see vandalism like this, you can revert the edit yourself if you look at the "diff" or open the "page history" and click "Undo". PamD 08:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Okay. Thanks! Will do. Balance person (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential subject to write about[edit]

    Came across an interesting subject that may or may not warrant an article: Cissie Watson (sometimes spelled Cassie Watson). She was apparently the first female boxing referee ever -- in 1934. A woman officiating important sporting events that far back seems like something significant - although surprisingly I only find coverage exclusively from a span of a few months in 1934 and 1935 (making me hesitant on whether she is notable considering WP:1E). Here's some sources I located: Green Bay Press-Gazette, Western Daily Press, The Daily Telegraph, Liverpool Echo, Daily Mirror, The Expositor, Edmonton Journal. Wondering what the folks here thought about this, and whether I should start an article on her? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see, BeanieFan11, no one has yet attempted to create an article on Cissie Watson. I suggest you go ahead and let us know if you run into any difficulties. Thanks for your continuing work on covering women in sport. It's really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott: I'm aware no one has tried to start Watson an article. I certainly can start it, but I guess I'm just a bit concerned about whether it will stand if, e.g., brought to AFD. There does seem to be a fair argument that this could potentially fail WP:SUSTAINED, considering that the only coverage is from August 1934 to February 1935 (even if international). As such, I brought it here as I'd like a few opinions on whether she's notable or not. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This question sent me down a rabbit hole. I found a few more clippings on Watson that I am happy to share. I also found Belle Martell who was a referee in California in 1940.[2],[3],[4],[5]. I think both of them are interesting candidates for articles, and I would be happy to add to articles on them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think WP:SUSTAINED is a problem for Watson based on the attached clippings. They all seem to be about her first day of refereeing in August 1934, five published in the UK in the next couple of days, then two reports published months later in Canada, which don't mention when she refereed. That possibly says more about how Canadian newspapers filled space in 1934 than about the importance of the event. The British Boxing Board of Control said she was not licensed. TSventon (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This got me thinking: could I find any other women referees in sports that early? I was actually able to locate a good number of them. Here's ones I've found (not sure if any are notable, just listing if anyone wants to research further): Barbara Scott (boxing, 1931, [6]); Norah Lattey (tennis, 1909, [7]); Mrs. Butler (association football, 1919, [8]); Helen Clark (association football, 1920, also coach, [9] [10]); Ruth Harrison (billiards, 1932, [11] - this Ruth Harrison?); Lillian Merrell (gridiron football / basketball, 1908, [12]); Sophie Henry (gridiron football, 1908, [13]); Betty Bushey (wrestling, 1931, also "world's champion woman wrestler", [14]); Mademoiselle Curabet (rugby, 1926, [15]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TIME100 Women[edit]

    If anyone needs ideas for new articles, it looks like there are five women on the TIME 100 list for 2024 who don't have articles yet: Rena Lee, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, Lauren Blauvelt, and Kelly Sawyer Patricof and Norah Weinstein. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And as a note, have we done checks of previous years' TIME lists for women who might be missing entries on Wikipedia? ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft article on artist Bonnie Rychlak[edit]

    In the spirit of narrowing the gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles, I spent a significant amount of time composing a page on the artist, curator, and writer Bonnie Rychlak. As I think has been established with numerous references, she has had an illustrious career in all three areas. However, I am having difficulty getting it accepted and finding it hard to believe that she has not met the notability standard, as one reviewer claims. Any assistance would be much appreciated to clarify exactly what needs to be done at this point to publish this article. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As previously advised the public collections (if they are notable) need sourcing. Having an illustrious career is not one of Wikipedia's criteria I'm afraid, see WP:GNG or more pertinently WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if notability can be established, the large amounts of unsourced material needs to be removed or properly attributed to published sources before any draft can be accepted. Also the WP:INUNIVERSE international art English is a problem. Write in plain English. Phrasing like "strongly illustrative of this invitation to plumb unassailable depths" is evocative but meaningless filler. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this. Also the assumption that there is a "gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles" is probably wrong, as far as artists of the last century or so go, not least because of projects like this. If a proper survey was done, I'd expect it to show that it is easier for a female artist to keep a page than a male one. Obviously, historically, known artists are mostly male, but that's different thing. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suspect that there still is a numeric gap in our coverage of modern artists, not so much because of Wikipedia editor behavior, but because of the greater tendency of men (artists included) to self-promote rather than just producing good work and hoping someone else notices, and the way this sort of self-promotion interacts with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps this is something that could be clarified by a careful analysis of data, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Open letter to protect Wikipedia and other public interest projects in the Global Digital Compact[edit]

    I don't know if this open letter, published today by the WMF, is of interest to our community. But sharing it nonetheless. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Preparations for May[edit]

    It's usually around this time of the month that WomenArtistUpdates prompts us to start working on preparations for the following month. But she hasn't edited since 9 April and seems to be on a wikibreak. Would anyone else like to make a start? If not, I'll see what I can do myself in a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can make a start @Ipigott I can help out later today or tomorrow Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see who else responds today, otherwise I'll make a start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: I've tried to develop Press Women but as you can see it's a real mess as I have no idea what MSGJ has been doing in connection with our meetup presentations. Unless I can go back to our old approach, I'm afraid I can no longer create meetup pages but would be happy to look through those created by others. Rosiestep might nevertheless like to look through the story so far.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I can't see how this new approach to creating our monthly event pages is a good idea. WiR has no coordinators, no grants. Historically and purposefully, our volunteers have kept event pages simple to replicate so that any editor can do so. Ipigott, IMO, returning to the old approach makes sense. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know there was a different way to do it - where are the instructions @MSGJ? I don't have much time to learn something new Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WAU wrote down the instructions (see here). There are 6 steps. I have sorted 305 for you Ipigott — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we have to do this? Why can't we do it the previous way? Where was consensus for this change? Doesn't this just already make an extra burden for the already small organising group? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually easier, because the previous method had a lot more than 6 steps. But yes, you can do it the old way, of course — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for reworking things, MSGJ, but I am not happy with this kind of "automation". In the old days (i.e. up until about three or four years ago when I handled everything myself), I was able to create two or three new meetups together with an invitation in about half an hour. I was simply able to copy earlier creations and make any necessary adaptations -- a one-step process per meetup over which I had full control. I had intended to do the same today but was surprised to see that the copy/paste approach was no longer possible. This morning I spent more than half an hour struggling with #305 to no avail. I have considerable experience of Women in Red but how would new members be able to cope? But if automation is the way to go, I hope WomenArtistUpdates will be back before the end of the month to sort things out and add one of her striking images to the invitation.

    I was also wondering if it would be useful to have an additional event in May on "Nobility". I have noticed several editors take an interest in creating articles about women who were either members of royal families or prominent nobles. It would also encourage a wider international approach. In this connection, we have a Wikidata redlink page. I think it would be useful to have at least one more event in addition to the alphabet run. Geofocus is also up for suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Voting ends 9 May for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)[edit]

    A friendly FYI: The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open through 9 May 2024:

    Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1220718332"