Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

Draft article of audiologist Anu Sharma

Hi there! I asked my friends for cool women, and one of the ones who they mentioned who didn't have a Wikipedia article was Anu Sharma, so I made a [here]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anu_Sharma_(Audiologist) It would be great if anyone could review it and send some feedback :) Clau.mic11 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Clau.mic11: - Hi Clau.mic11; thanks for your article. I've promoted it to article-space since it looks to me to be a good piece of work. Some people may be concerned about whether the subject passes wikipedia's notability requirements - it's possible there will be a challenge ahead. If I can suggest one area of improvement, it would be to list some of her key publications; that often helps. See, for instance, randomly, Ann Bergren. Your article is now at Anu Sharma (audiologist). Oh, and if you can find any other article which can link to this one, that, too, will help. I hope this, your first article, will not be your last! --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: - Hi Tagishsimon, thanks for the quick reply! I'll work on the improvements! Clau.mic11 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clau.mic11: Excellent, thanks Clau.mic11. I've added an ORCID reference at the bottom of the article, which links to a list of 42 of her papers. So there's a good source for you. I'm afraid it's a bit of a tedious task, and there are better and worse ways of doing it. But at this point, any improvements you can make are helpful; either for the reader, or to forestall challanges from the deletionists. Equally, don't worry too much; wikipedia should be enjoyable, and there are many more women in need of articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved this to Anu Sharma, as there was no existing article by that name. If there is another notable person, the disambiguation can get sorted out once their article is created. Nick Number (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks Nick. Was on autopilot, as I too often am. Controlled flight into ground. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Wow, thanks @Tagishsimon: and @Nick Number: for all the help. Clau.mic11 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clau.mic11: Au contrere, Clau; we need people like you to stay & do more good work. Welcome to the borg. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
And I've added her to the Sharma surname page.PamD 15:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikigap

Do we have a talk page template for bios that are being created as part of Wikigap? --Saqib (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Saqib, Are you referring to meta:WikiGap? If so, I'm not sure about its status (is it happening in 2019) or if Women in Red, an online community, fits in. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The Swedes have been contributing to better coverage of women and their biographies for some time. Perhaps we should invite them to tie up with WiR in connection with their editathons, especially for articles in English. At the very least, we could mention their March events in connection with our A F priority.--Ipigott (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Saqib: Or maybe you're referring to #1day1women or the monthly contests? If so they both have templates.
for women articles not associated with the monthly contests in 2019 (though it should be updated to say 2019). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why template WIR-108 is not displaying correctly. Perhaps Tagishsimon can help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott What problem are you seeing? I'm not familiar with the template, but it looks okay to me. Possibly a clear your cache issue locally? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: If you look at the edit version of this section, you'll see that the template WIR 108 was used above and simply produced "Women in Red".--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I think, though templates are not my thing, that {{WIR}}, on which {{WIR-108}} is based, has a switch in it which looks at the type of page it is placed on, and adjusts the contents accordingly. On an article talk page you'll get what you expected. On this page, you'll get the default message you see above. That's my best guess; I must learn template fu sometime. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That's very clever and does indeed seem to be how it functions. But it's a pity the year is not included in the non-bio pages.--Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Bylines of women vs. men in any publication

Many know I am always looking for new and innovative ways to measure the gendergap. Well one of my pet peeves the past few years is the chyron (just figured out how to spell that today) on TV news broadcasts. Often some woman will be introduced by her first name only and she will give the news-on-the-ground without a chyron, while a man always has a chyron. More and more people on twitter are tweeting out images of TV-with-chyrons and we can link to those as "proof of a chyron". Why is this important? It is part of documenting notability for modern journalists who do not "write" in newspapers (although from time to time they might do) and therefore have chryons more often than bylines. The chryon article needs some wikilove too. Jane (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

More praise for Steven Pruitt

Despite being considered an unreliable source for Wikipedia articles, the Daily Mail heaps more praise on Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Meet the history-obsessed opera fanatic behind ONE-THIRD of the Wikipedia's English-language entries -and he does it all for free.--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: The Mail? Guess I've arrived. Not sure where I've arrived, but still. :-)
Seriously - thanks for letting me know. First I've heard of it - nobody contacted me from them. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
...Wow. Seriously, wow. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 14:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
And in German, Italian as well as here, there and everywhere.--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It's become a bit frightening, how much of a life of its own it's taken on, to be completely honest... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I think this makes it official. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Well, there's also this...I've been memed. That's...something, surely? :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Love the gregorian chant - you did wonderfully! This press coverage is so valuable to our movement in general and WiR specifically. I know you love category work but please make time for all those curious journalists. You are really doing great! Thanks for doing those interviews. Jane (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jane023: Er...Georgian, actually. (Sorry.) (Sometimes I sing it with friends. :-) Actually, if you're in DC at the beginning of June I'll be singing it again. )
I try to make time for as many journalists as possible, for exactly the reasons you describe. I try to talk about WiR every chance I get - I think it's not only a tremendously important project, but a testament to what Wikipedia can be. We're filling a niche that a lot of print publications can't or won't fill, and I believe in highlighting that...just as I believe in highlighting not only the fact that this is a collaborative effort, but also the fact that anyone can do it. Anyone. People who aren't traditional scholars or academics...we can all have a seat at the table. That fact continues to boggle my mind, thirteen years after I started this account and fifteen years after I made my first edit. And I talk about it all the time. (Now...whether or not interviewers follow through on it, that's another matter...) ---Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Great to read that, thanks. I am hoping you can ride this publicity wave for a while. I won't be in DC, but I might be in New Hampshire so if you stream your Georgian choir songs I will at least be in the same timezone. Jane (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jane023: I promise you I'll ride it as long as I can. Likely this means I'll end up face down on the beach with a mouthful of sand... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

4,995 Twitter followers

Wiki Women in Red has 4,995 Twitter followers and counting. Assuming we'll be at 5,000 soon! Total of 18.4K tweets. And there are all those Twitter banners that Victuallers keeps making. What a cool out-growth of our community! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of followers! Keep up the good work :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It's official, tonight, January 31, 2019, we have 5,000 Twitter followers. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that's awesome. :D--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice way to start out February :D --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it was inevitable...

Having watched BBC One's critically praised adaption of Andrea Levy's novel The Long Song over Christmas, this morning I tried to look up the three-part series only to find we lacked an article on it! I was initially surprised that this much-praised, bold and very well put-together series had been overlooked by our editorial community, especially given the amount of clutter that Wikipedians seem to add to the article space – one assumed that our editors would at least get the important stuff added first. But then, on reflection, I realised that it was almost inevitable something like The Long Song was going to be absent: it revolves entirely around the story of a black woman, and was directed and written by women, based on a book by a woman. Indeed, it wasn't just about women per se, but strong, complex female characters. I suppose that's not something most of our editors are interested in, and its absence should be a clear reminder why we need projects like WIR, because I know you all will be interested in the topic. I have created the article, but would welcome anyone to expand it – there's much more that could be said (it received a lot of reviews). Sadly, the director also lacks an article, so perhaps we could look into that. It's not really my specialism. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC).

Thank you for penning The Long Song (TV series). It might be that it was not written for the reasons you state. Just as possible is that no-one had yet got around to it, just as no-one has got around to writing hundreds of thousands of other articles which are equally or more deserving. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, there's lots of content that needs to be created; but that doesn't mean all articles are just as likely to be created and it's random as to which ones are. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC).
Do articles really get written that fast? It premiered in December 2018, and yesterday was January 2019. Anyway, good job writing the article.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it depends. This was one of the BBC's main dramas advertised over Christmas and it had a strong cast; it was on BBC One at a prime-time slot, so I would have thought it would get some attention around the time it airs. It also generated a lot of reviews, and was considered by some critics to be one of the BBC's top dramas of the year. In my experience, people are very quick to add stuff about TV shows regardless of their quality. Another major drama on the BBC over Christmas was the ABC Murders adaption which premiered on the 26th December, but its article had been created 11 days earlier in draft space and moved into mainspace on 17 December. I don't know how best to compare these cases. It just struck me that not even a permastub existed for the The Long Song. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC).
And I've now created a stub (work ongoing) on a social worker Juliet Bingley: she is in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Her husband Alec Bingley is not in ODNB - but has had a wikipedia article since 2010 (although until today didn't have a redirect from the form of his name which appears to be his common name as it's used in her ODNB and obituary, as well as the Times of Malta article which I haven't yet incorporated!) He was a naval officer, and the Military History Wikiproject seems to have been very energetic over the years - and that's one area where women genuinely haven't participated as much as men until very recent times. Still, bit by bit we make progress. (But don't forget the redirects!) PamD 18:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@PamD: I think you're right about current literature on Wikipedia. I've found a number of cases, for instance, where a book has an article but its author does not. (Plays as well: see, for instance, the title Sarah DeLappe, which redirects to her play The Wolves.) While this has long been accepted practice (and may even be the subject of a rule; I'm not sure) I've always found it troublesome. I would prefer very much to separate the writer from the written work, because the two are distinctly separate entities and ought to be treated as such. Especially in the case of living writers. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
It's very often appropriate to have an article on a book, with the author redirecting to that. Especially for young authors with just one notable book. Once they write more, & there's more to say about their life, that can change. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Eh, I'd rather have them separated - I think there's always something biographical you can say about people independent of their writings. But different strokes, and all. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Help

Technical issue that I don't know how to fix. My reference shows:

  • Isastia, Annamaria; Crociani, Piero; Ducci, Paola; Fichera, Ada; Formiconi, Paolo (2015). "Atti del Congresso di studi storici internazionali: Stato maggiore della difesa, Congresso di Studi Storici Internazionali, Roma, 25-26 novembre 2015, Roma, Piazza della Rovere, 83" [Women in the First World War: from the advanced lines to the internal front: the Great War of the Italians]. Le donne nel primo conflitto mondiale: dalle linee avanzate al fronte interno: la Grande Guerra delle Italiane (in Italian). Rome, Italy: Centro Alti Studiper la Difesa. ISBN 889-818-5-276 Check |isbn= value: checksum (help).

but if you type in the ISBN to world cat, you get the right entry.[1] It's like it is telling me there is an issue when there is not (but I did note that a search of the ISBN in World Cat takes you to the right entry but the isbn doesn't show on the record detail), so how do I fix this? SusunW (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

SusunW, I don't think it's you. When I input the ISBN at Worldcat, what pulls up shows an OCLC number 1002803728, but not this ISBN. I did look on [the Italian ISBN catalog]. The source is there. It shows that ISBN with the word "Errato". I don't read/speak Italian, but I think they're saying there is something wrong with the number. — Maile (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
And having done that once, I now cannot get it to pull up on the Italian site. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Maile66 so should I just leave it? Take out the ISBN? Input the oclc #? The number is as it appears on page 2 of the source[2] SusunW (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I would just input the OCLC number. BTW I figured out how I got it to pull up on the Italian site. Special:BookSources/8898185276, scroll down to the bottom of the page where it says "Worldwide". Select Europe. Scroll down to Italy. Click on "Find the book in the National Library System Catalog". — Maile (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The given ISBN-10 has an invalid check digit (a final digit of "8" would be valid). It's fine as a text identifier in a text field somewhere, which is probably the internal workaround at OCLC, but any automated ISBN validator will flag it as an error. Bakazaka (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Help WLW

Hello. Apologize if I am on wrong place. It would be great help to me, if someone from here can create this project page for English wiki. I and User:Nizil Shah want to sign up for this contest. The contest is focused on Indian women biographies. Today is the end date of 'project page creation'. Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: can you or anybody else do this? Sorry if its late.-Nizil (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah and Gazal world: At the risk of being flamed for creating the page in entirely the wrong place, I give you Wikipedia:Wiki_loves_women. Now: What do you want on it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon:. Thank you for responding. I have redirected it to the project page. User:Gazal world meant that WiR should collaborate and create project page for upcoming contest event WLW/India on English Wikipedia. So he and I can participate in the event. Other interested can join the contest as well. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women is the page and /India subpage can be created for the contest. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nizil Shah: Thanks. I've done some more improvisation here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women/India. You can tell me whether that was useful or not ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I have filled up the page there but it seems that contest is not yet ready for implementation as no project is created on fountain yet by any community. If it goes forward, I will ask here for the organisers of the contest. Sorry for all the trouble. -Nizil (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Scotland?

Hello all, does anyone know if there is currently (or recently ended) an edit-a-thon affiliated with Women in Red going on in Scotland? Also, does Wikipedia curate a list of editathons? Thanks.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You can find the editathons for 2019 under Category:Wikipedia meetups in 2019. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events and UK Events. Last October, there was an editathon on women from Skye: see Wikipedia:GLAM/SLIC/Events/Women of Skye Wikipedia Editathon. Unfortunately, not all editathons are properly announced in advance. Delphine Dallison and Sara Thomas (WMUK) may be able to provide more information.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm in Edinburgh, if that helps. I'd be glad to help out a bit, or just meet up for an evening and work on stuff. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 12:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @SamHolt6 and Adam Cuerden:. For Edinburgh, you might want to bookmark these pages: Wikipedia:Meetup/Edinburgh and Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh/Events and Workshops/Women in Red. Another good point of contact regarding Scotland is Stinglehammer who is a Wikipedian-In-Residence there. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Love to see you both (more?) at these meet ups. They are help at Edinburgh University's Library and the only trick is to make sure your name is on the guest list. It attracts between 12 and 50 with some travelling from England! I am nearly always there and Ewan McAndrew gives excellent tutorials on editing the 'pedia and Wikidata. (Adam on pictures???). Books are available and if you look at Scottish suffragettes template or Eagle House then you will the kind of stuff we've achieved. Old lags benefit from giving out tips to each other. We always give notice of these on our Twitter feed @wikiwomeninred (which has over 4700 followers and 23K hits yeaterday). Victuallers (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Next one is Feb 1st
@Victuallers: Shove me on the guest list for the 1st. What time does it start? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi SamHolt6! Is it anything in particular you're looking for or are you just interested in taking part in some events? If it's events, I think all the places where we generally advertise them have been listed above, but if you have a more specific event or project in mind, please feel free to get in touch and we'll see how best we can assist? Delphine Dallison (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone over there in Scotland with a pic of art historian Romita Ray? I understand she has been all over the UK doing research on history of the British Empire and the tea trade in portraiture, among other artworks. Was shocked she wasn't even on Wikidata yet (until today). I guess because she seems to have no social media presence. Jane (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers above. Unfortunately I will not (to my knowledge at least) be in Scotland anytime soon; it seems you have a good community going. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Jane this sometimes works] to get pix from Flickr. Victuallers (talk) 20:01, 16 January

2019 (UTC)

Ha Great tip! I noticed she is now following me on the academic.edu social media site. That doesn't do me any good though because I only became a member so I could download texts. I don't plan on publishing anything myself. I wish whoever tipped her off here would just take a pic and upload it ;) Jane (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey folks, sorry just caught this - I'm lirazelf most of the time. For things happening in Scotland in general, you might also want to keep an eye on the Wikimedia in Scotland page. Cheers! Sara Thomas (WMUK) (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edinburgh AGAIN

The meetup if on for the 1st Feb but there is also a talk by Jess Wade on the 30th January and there are 370 seats. Arranged by Ewan McAndrew (again I think). Anyone fancy a snack/drink/meal before? Victuallers (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

In the end, I was too ill for any of it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

FPC report for 17 January

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt redux is passing; as is a new one, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt. So, two new FPs are on the way, it looks like. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 06:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This is just awesome, Adam Cuerden. I am so happy to see these gorgeous photos becoming Featured Pictures, particularly Carrie Chapman Catt as she's been an icon of mine for a long time. Thanks for all your work with images. If you're going to Wikimania (Stockholm; August) again, I'd sure like to sit down with you over a cup of coffee and ask some Commons questions. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to, but I can only afford to go with the scholarship, and after two years' off... I don't see it happening. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been a bit. I've not had a good January.

Still, on with the notifications. Carrie Chapman Catt passed. Finally. Martha Erika Alonso, the recently deceased first female Governor of Puebla (a state of Mexico) also passed. Marie and Pierre Curie's Nobel Prize in Physics has passed.

Moving into ones up in the air: There's a fairly inconsequential one involving which version of Elisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun's self portrait should be featured that looks to be going firmly to maintaining the status quo. Great image, great painter, inconsequential vote. Joséphine Fodor, the first one of mine since Catt, is passing. She's a rather notable operatic soprano, because I'm trying to help out opera a bit, but insist that, if I do, there's going to be women. There's a set of Costume designs for William Tell that painted the people who were going to sing the roles in the costumes. That features Laure Cinti-Damoreau, a very notable operatic soprano again. We need more contraltos and mezzos. Feel free to suggest. And, while there will be a more relevant one, The poster of Gillette de Narbonne does include Marie Montbazon, but there's going to be a photo of her, so not really that WiR-worthy. (Wait, we don't have an article on her?!)

As always, please don't use this as a guide to voting. If you want to participate at WP:FPC, please make your own judgements. WP:CANVASSING is a thing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 19:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Created Janet Franklin - please improve!

Hi y'all - I created a page on Janet Franklin, an American academic and geographer well known in landscape ecology and remote sensing. Subsequently noticed she was flagged here in a few categories. Please improve the article! There are bunch more women in the social sciences that should have biographies but don't. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Adapting the Biography Percentage Tracker for Good Articles

Would it be possible to adapt the biography percentage tracker to monitor the percentage of good article biographies (and/or featured article biographies) that are about women to use for Women in Green? Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Very probably. Repots bot is run by User talk:Harej - perhaps best to talk to him (althougb he doesn't seem to be on en.wiki much.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe try here - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harej_(WMF) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I left them a message. Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red image uploads to Commons

We may have talked about this before during last year's "Visible Women" campaign, but what do you think about having a category on Commons called Category:WikiProject Women in Red uploads or include a year, e.g. Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2019 uploads? All the images in our Wikipedia events' Outcomes/Media section could be tagged with that category. Any of us could also tag other images that we upload, and think are pertinent to our scope, but don't want to add to an event page. Note, we have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject_Women_in_Red this (Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject Women in Red)] which could become a part of Category:WikiProject Women in Red 2018 uploads. If you like the idea, creating the category is easy, but tagging all the images would be quite time-consuming unless someone has a tool or AWB or etc. for that. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't promise I'll always remember to add a category, but I think its a good idea. Just uploaded two African-American suffragette photos I found and was about to add them to the editathon page. SusunW (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I have recently started using "Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject Women in Red" for my uploads to Commons and plan to go back through and ensure all my relevant uploads are so tagged. I also use #VisibleWikiWomen when tweeting. I'm not sure why we need to change from this on Commons. But am happy to hear your reasoning. Oronsay (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I think the new WiR Commons categories are good idea but I don't think we should make additions to Commons any more difficult than they already are. Personally I would like to see improvements in the licensing options on Commons. In many countries, photographs are PD if they are over 50 years old but it takes time and effort to turn up the correct licence tags (and these are supposed to be complemented by equivalent US tags). On the other hand, it would indeed be useful if the new images we post on WiR could be automatically updated with the new category.--Ipigott (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback regarding a Women in Red Commons category for image uploads, @SusunW, Oronsay, and Ipigott:. As the responses have been positive, I will create Commons categories for our uploads, by year. This isn't meant to add difficulty to any editor. Just like editors don't have to add their images to the Outcomes section of our events' pages, they won't have to add a new category to the image they've just uploaded. So it will fall on people like me (or anyone else) to add that cat to the images probably the beginning of every month. Let me think a bit about naming convention and process. In the meantime (talk about timing!!!), I've been informed that the "Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen" campaign will be occurring again this year (we're scheduling a phone call for planning purposes), so it's good to know that other like-minded communities are thinking about women Commons (cc: Señoritaleona).
Ian, regarding licensing options, I agree; I wish they were easier! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons subcats for Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red

Check out our new categories on Commons for image uploads: Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red. Hopefully it's self evident to add Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red - 2019 to all the images you upload this year. If you forget, no worries. I will try and remember at the beginning of every month to add the Commons category to all the images in the Outcomes/Media section of all the previous month's editathons. I will also go back retroactively through all 111 event pages and add the applicable Commons category, e.g. Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red - 2017. Any assistance would be VERY WELCOME. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The normal thing on Commons is to make categories like these "hidden" (they can still be seen if the preferences option is switched on). Thus this file is in the Commons hidden categories: "Public domain images from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art" (auto, via a template), "Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ", and "Category:Images from LACMA uploaded by Fæ (check needed)". Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't heard of this before, but if there's consensus to hide them, seems ok to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, as no one else has commented on this, it seems like it would be ok to make it happen. Do you know how to do that? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, done that (I hope). See Commons:Categories#Categories_marked_with_.22HIDDENCAT.22 for how it works. Basically you just add sqigglysquiggly Hiddencat}} (without the spaces). Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnbod! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Images uploaded in 2015
Images uploaded in 2016
Images uploaded in 2017
Images uploaded in 2018
Images uploaded in 2019
Quality images
I may be excessively shy, but I'm kind of hesitant to speak on behalf of the group and say Women in Red supports my work. Also, a LOT of my work is in the featured content gallery, but not the events, if that matters. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 04:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
For sure, Women in Red appreciates and supports your work, Adam Cuerden! You have such a talent. Thank you for what you do. I don't imagine the images you restore and/or the ones that make it to featured status should be mixed in with the rest of the "by year" photos. Do you have thoughts on appropriate category name(s)? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's a slew of categories along the lines of "Featured pictures of...." Which might not be a bad start. Of course, I suspect they'd be most appropriate to put on Commons Featured Pictures, but, honestly, there's pretty high overlap. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 19:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden - I've created Category:Featured pictures supported by WikiProject Women in Red. I'm looking forward to viewing all the beautiful images once you've populated the category. Question... Are all your restored pictures "Featured", and if not, would it make sense to also have a subcat for the "restored" images? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Irene Castle

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Actresses - US has Irene Castle in red (number 67 as I write this message). I had begun finding material about her to start an article when I discovered that a good bit about her is include in the existing Vernon and Irene Castle article. Is a separate article about her needed? If not, you might want to remove her entry from the table of US actresses. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave them as a pair, as with some other performers. I hesitate to bring attention to this here, but Category:Married couples is actually rather large, and there are other pairings - see Category:Articles about multiple people.Johnbod (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
That's a terrible failure to redirect, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 05:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I think I get it. It's because it's not properly linked on Wikidata. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 05:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the redirect has been there since 2005. Johnbod (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
But she didn't have her own entry in the surname list at Castle (surname) until just now - though I'm please to see she's in a dab page at Irene Foote, her birth name. PamD 08:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Newbie mistake; Rescinding request. Page not ready for review.

I am requesting a review of a page I am drafting on a Lesbian Fiction author, as suggested on your project page. User:IdRatherBeAtTheBeach/sandbox/Fletcher_DeLancey

The draft article needs a lot of work on the intro, but we wanted to get expert advice at this point.

Thank you for being here, and your project is fantastic. I look forward to participating regularly when I have more experience.

IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not even sure the best way to rescind my request. Whether to edit the original request, or add a comment like this. That reinforces my opinion that I need basic Wiki experience. So for now, I am not actively working on my draft page. Instead, I'd like to help with the February projects, but I am not even sure where to begin. I am madly reading FAQ's, but I am not having luck yet finding an entry point to contribute with the limited skills I currently have. Any suggestion is welcome.

IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

IdRatherBeAtTheBeach There are many, many ways you can help and participate. At the top of this page is a box that says V.T.E Women in Red. If you click on [show] on the right, it will expand. Look at the help and resources section and there will be a selection of essays specific to our work. If you aren't ready to write a full article, maybe you want to start with "Writing women into the encyclopedia", which gives multiple "gnoming" tasks that are needed and often overlooked. Of course, you can always just post on this page and someone will be along to help ;) SusunW (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
SusunW Thank you for your suggestions. (I really needed the hint to on the V.T.E box [show] button. Who knows when I would have stumbled onto it. ;) ) The Writing Women into the Encyclopedia is just my speed. Thank you!! - IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
IdRatherBeAtTheBeach Glad to help. I don't find Wikitechnology intuitive, so I am usually pretty specific with step by step instructions for what I know how to do. But that being said, I also have a whole parcel of people who have way more skill in various areas to assist me with stuff I don't have a clue how to do. Learning the ropes is hard. Just ask here or ping me on my talk page any time if you need help. SusunW (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sustainability initiative

Hello everyone! I didn't know about this proposal to encourage Wikipedia to use servers that run on green energy, but I think that it's an initiative that many WiR members would also care about. The environment is often intersectional with women's, transgender and non-binary people's issues. So I'm being bold and posting it here. Add your support if you are interested. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative

The Sustainability Initiative

An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It looks very much as if those responsible are not treating this as a priority. For the disappointing details of server energy consumption, see Wikimedia servers. I am also surprised at how many Wikipedia/Wikimedia trips by air are paid for each year, both for executives and ordinary collaborators. Now that video conferencing is a viable alternative, consideration should be given to how best to limit unnecessary air travel. In any case, I hope more WiR members will support the initiative.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this, Megalibrarygirl! I had no idea this existed, but I'm definitely adding my name to it. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Surname pages

Hallo, I've nattered here before about the importance of creating redirects from all likely versions of people's names, but I've only recently looked at surname pages and thought about their importance.

When you create a biography, please do a search for the surname, and do what's necessary to provide access to (ie raise the profile and visibility of) the page you've created.

  • Sometimes the link will be a surname page already like Dubner - great, add your person.
  • Sometimes it will be a disambiguation page with a list of people, like Woolley
  • Or a page like Baker has a hatnote linking to a dab page which then links to Baker (surname)
  • If your initial search shows that the surname is a red link and there don't appear to be any other people with that surname, from looking at the search results, then make a redirect - I've used the edit summary "r from surname - as she is the only instance at present" as for Agapakis (if an article is written for someone else of that name, it can be overwritten as a surname page). But then do a "what links here" to check that there aren't other people with the surname redirected, and edit any other links appropriately
  • If there are one or more other people there with the name already, create a surname page: I've just created Swackhamer.
  • If there's already a redirect to one person, and they aren't obviously the primary topic, turn the redirect into a surname page - I did that to Dernburg just now.

And there are probably a lot of other variations. Just make sure that your article can be found by surname, and that any list of surnames shows the notable women with the name. PamD 13:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

PamD I wonder if it would be worth it to create a guidelines page somewhere, if there isn't one? valereee (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Such an important topic, PamD. DYK that for the first 11 years that I edited Wikipedia, I didn't add biographies to surname pages. Why? Just didn't think of it. It wasn't until last year that I made it a habit. Plus given name pages. Plus year of birth pages. Plus year of death pages. Certainly agree with Valereee that a guidelines page would be useful. @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW, do you recall if one got started? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Rosiestep. You can find the essay with guidelines here Writing women into the encyclopedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about doing this. I've just been through all my bios and found 11 where I hadn't entered them on their surname page. I also created a surname page for Bywaters, with hatnotes to and from Bywater (surname). PamD and Rosiestep, when you add the surname work to all the tagging, tweeting and recording for relevant WIR project and in my case the Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge‎, it's a lot to remember! I think I need a checklist. Oronsay (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Heavens! I tend to do it if I can't think of a way to link a page or if the surname page exists and I think of it or spot it etc. But I never think of given name pages or year of birth pages or year of death pages!! ☕ Antiqueight chatter 08:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I must say I don't bother adding to given-name, birth or death pages either! I can't see that anyone is going to look for a person by their forename (unless it's something really weird and wonderful: would anyone look for "Jane" or "Pamela"?), and birth and death dates seem fairly unlikely search terms, though yes, it could be argued that we need to make women prominent there too given that the pages exist. Maybe a bot could add those at some point? I'll concentrate on surnames for now,which is quite enough. And of course redirects, from all plausible versions of the name. And I now need to go back through all the biographies I've created and sort out their surname links which I didn't make in the past - that's my WiR contributions and a motley collection of others. It's quite good mindless-but-useful work to get on with while feeling stupid with a bad cold! PamD 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
And that was really interesting: in the last hour I've gone through all my 2007-2008 page creations and checked/added their surname access. Also found that I wasn't so hot on redirects in those days so added a few from longer/shorter versions of names. And it's just been fascinating to see how those articles, usually a solid little stub, have been expanded by other editors, quite a few of them moved to different titles (I've got the gadget which colours the links so that they show up as green redirects now), but none so far which have been deleted or turned into redirects by way of pseudo-deletion. I'm so glad I've kept a list of articles created and why (on my user page). Not many early articles about women, except for my very first article Mary Robinson (Maid of Buttermere) for which I wrote the comment "having witnessed confusion between her and the poet of same name, among students studying Romantic poetry" (I was doing an Open University literature course at the time). If you don't already do it, I can really recommend keeping such a list to look back on in the future when you can't remember why you created a particular article. PamD 10:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
PamD That's such a good idea. I'm going to go back and make a list of article creations and major expansions. valereee (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay, I think a checklist of potential places to cross-post a newly-created biog is a good idea. Maybe we could include such a list on each of our event pages?
As for why I add to given name pages: the first WikiProject I joined, back in 2007, was WikiProject Anthroponomy (the study of names). I learned that there are a LOT of people, who are interested in "name" articles, and they not only view name pages, but they click the links of newly-added entries. PamD, you mention Pamela (name); DYK it averages 55 pageviews per day? Some of the folks who visit that page are looking for newly-added names, and when they spot the new article, they might not only view it but perhaps improve it. I've recently (2018) learned that the same is true for year articles (year of birth/date). I created a new article yesterday on a person born in 1842 (averages 53 pageviews/day) and died in 1931 (averages 121 pageviews/day). Year pages are in abysmal shape in terms of gender imbalance! Not just % of women's/men's names but photos, too. Ugh! So I'm not adding the biog to given name and year pages thinking someone will look for her there; I'm adding her name to these pages so that someone might "stumble upon her". Certainly, it is more work. And I have not gone back to mop up my pre-2018 article creations... yet. BTW: just one more page for consideration... and note, I haven't been adding to this one but I tell myself that I plan to go back through my biogs and so when I get better organized, e.g. with a checklist: [0 "List of people from (foo)" pages.
BTW, me too; I keep a list of my new article creations. I think @Penny Richards and SusunW and at least few other members of WiR do also. I'm guessing they have their own "trips and tricks". --Rosiestep (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Why maintain a list when it's right there in your contributions page (set Namespace: Article and click "Only show edits that are page creations")? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Because I annotate each creation (see my user page) to record why I made it - sometimes to disentangle a confusion, sometimes because I saw the actor in a play last night, sometimes for a WiR monthly challenge, etc etc. PamD 17:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I also keep a list - Mine started so I could use my own pages as templates for the next woman of the same area and then became a way to remember what eras I'd covered, what subjects, whether I had a photo up, what quality the page was, etc, etc. To be seen here:User:Antiqueight/Pages#Articles Created. Just above you'll see some reminders for me for things I can add once the page is created. I must add some of these ideas here. Also I must go look at how other people keep track of their articles... ☕ Antiqueight chatter 19:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks everyone. You've given me lots of ideas for additional linking. The bios I write are of Australian women - you've reminded to add their births and deaths to the relevant "Year in Australia" page, plus any important books they wrote (year of publication) or other significant events in their lives. I often click "What Links Here" to see how well integrated an article is and then increase links where I can. Oronsay (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, that was a bit of a marathon (see my contributions list). Eleven days on from my first post in this section, I can now say that every biographical article I've created since 2007 is accessible by surname: either on a dab page, or a surname page (sometimes newly-created), or through a {{R from surname}} redirect. In some cases I added several missing people to a surname page - where I'd had to use a disambiguator but then found that the basic name wasn't listed yet either, etc. I'm not totally convinced that surname pages are useful (especially the ones which hide a lot of people under links to disambiguation pages, so that if you really were looking for, perhaps, an architect of that surname you'd have to follow up a lot of links to check those dab pages), but they are a fact of life, and by adding our women biographees to those pages we raise the profile of women as well as making those articles more findable. (It wasn't just women who were missing - I added two Thomases to the Thwaites page, the one I'd written about plus another). I'm not prepared to put the effort into retrospectively adding to given-name or birth or death year pages, as I'm much less convinced of their usefulness despite Rosie's argument above - and not sure whether I'll even add those as I go along - but will certainly add surname links now for every article I create, and recommend it as good practice throughout the project.
If you find you need to create a new surname page, there's a helpful template: {{subst:refer|type=surname}} (it picks up the surname from the page name). Then you just need to add entries for the two or more people you've found with the surname, stick {{surname}} at the end, and you're done. PamD 17:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WIR and Uralic competition

In honour of this being UNESCO's International Year of Indigenous Languages, Wikimedia Norway and a few partners are holding a contest this month to up coverage of this subject matter as it pertains to Finno-Ugric cultures and languages, so if you're interested, please join the competition! And if you can think of anyone to add to the article lists, please do. More articles will also be added in as the month goes on. -Yupik (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gendered Pronoun Resolution competition on Kaggle by Google AI

There is a new data science competition on Kaggle, sponsored by Google AI Research, to "help end gender bias in pronoun resolution".[3] However, they seem to have a some issue with the data at the moment. Hopefully this will improve Google Translate's issue with pronouns.[4] StrayBolt (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Linguistically, a lot of languages treat female as an exception, so a group of one man and three women gets masculine endings. (Kind of like if we had four members of the police, three women and a man, and we called them "policemen" and only ever used "policewomen" if they're all women, and didn't have a gender neutral term at all, and this applied to pretty much everything.). It's going to be hard to get this right in machine translation. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, just that there's a reason human translators exist. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 23:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Back to 17.79% - 10,686 new biographies of men but only 1,229 of women

It me, I'm afraid. I'm working through coding all wikidata biog items with gender - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata#Wikidata list reports, so what you're seeing right now is a large backlog of uncoded male biogs being attended to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of so much of that backlog! I was really impressed when I went to the report for no gender, single property, and saw that there were only a couple items on the list! It may be affecting our overall numbers, but it's giving us more accurate data on our progress.
Also, I meant to drop by your talk page to say this but kept forgetting. Thank you for putting together those queries! I modified them and am working through the Japanese Wikipedia backlog since you seem to have a pretty good handle on things in the English Wikipedia. I really appreciate the work you put into this project!--Mcampany (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. When I saw Ipigott's edit summary, I wondered what caused the uptick in men's biographies. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: I'm pleased to see that the reason we've fallen back is because of incomplete coding of male biographies on Wikidata rather than lack of enthusiasm for creating new biographies of women. In fact 1,229 new women's bios over a two-week period is pretty good. Over the previous two weeks there were only 1,155. Have you now completed backlog gender work on Wikidata or can we expect any more major adjustments in the coming weeks?--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
For those of us who understood approximately 25% of that, if I start a new biographical entry, what key word(s) or phrase(s) or category/ies should I include to encourage these semi-automated gendering sorts correctly and easily/rapidly to identify the gender of the person I am writing about? And please don't tell me it's not that simple: if it was simple I'd probably have worked it out for myself. Please. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Charles01: If you write a woman's bio and add it to one of the current WIR meetups, the WIR team will ensure that it gets coded correctly on Wikidata. Oronsay (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Ipigott If you click through to Tagishsimon's link in the first para above, you will see the scope of what needs to be done. It's more than a little disheartening. Oronsay (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Per Oronsay, I'm afraid the gender coding project will go on for some time; can't say how long because there doesn't seem to be a good way of measuring how many wikidata items exist that have instance=human but no gender code. And for the two-week period, just as the male biog figure is inflated by tacking the backlog, so is the female count. Better to look at the Report Bot metrics for a view of progress in current periods - but it's still healthy.
Charles - the most important thing to do in a biography is categorisation, at least from a consideration of whether it'll be quickly picked up for wikidata coding. The ideal is that the article gets an occupation in a subcategory of category:Women by occupation, since I mine that tree on a daily basis. Less frequently I mine category:Occupations, category:Births by year and category:Deaths by year. Beyond that it gets complicated and I can't give good advice. Most articles will be picked up and coded correctly eventually. But there is still a minority which which will disappear for a protracted period into a black-hole, as they're added to wikidata with no properties at all, and fishing them out again is vrey labour intensive & so doesn't often get done. The sad truth is that en.wikipedia produces articles of all sorts much faster than the rate at which they're added and coded in wikidata and so we're stuck in a permanent & mainly losing catch-up campaign. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Then we'll just have to see how things develop. From the remaining ungendered lists of Wikidata entries, it looks as if there are still a considerable number of males to be covered and only a very few females. I suppose we can therefore expect further reductions in the percentages of women's biographies in the coming weeks and months.--Ipigott (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
With a bit more digging, looks like another 8.5k items need gender adding (at least, for the set of items with up to 8 properties on them); and I've done half of them already. After that, there are two further backlogs: items for biographies with no properties whatsoever - number unknown. And articles with no wikidata item - number unknown but right now relatively small, in the low hundreds. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up Tagishsimon! There are still tons of backlogs on Wikidata to do for both works by women and works by men, but it's really nice to see the work being done on the biographies of the writers/creators themselves! Here's hoping 2019 makes a dent in the "Wikidata backlog" for all things relating to human biography in the wikiverse. Jane (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if its simple, but what exactly is tick-over mode? Tagishsimon? Nat965 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It seeks to convey that the list has been emptied, and that a few new entries will appear from time to time as new items are created; in contrast to the lists that are still 500-long with, possibly, many thousands more items behind them. The analogy is with an engine running slowly in neutral. Don't get me started on the analogy of small cups (the lists limited to 500 items) baling out huge floods (the large set of ungendered items), or we'll be here all day. I'm open, of course, for suggestions of more comprehensible comments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: I'm intrigued to learn how you managed to clear out so many of your lists. I've been doing my little bit towards adding female/male in Wikidata to those on your various lists, and suddenly, today, so many of your lists are empty or populated by only a few. Oronsay (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay Somewhat obsessive streak. I extracted a list of 8.5k items from wikidata and picked off those with clearly gendered names to clear - using quickstatements - a few thousand. Now I copy a full Listeria list into a spreadsheet, and view the wikipedia list in the browser, using the mouse-over preview to ascertain, for many, whether they're male. If female, or if uncertain, I visit the article page, code females and remove them from the excel list ... when bored, such as just now, I run a Quickstatement session from the spreadsheet data to code all the found men. It is driving me slowly madder, so please don't let me dissuade you from helping. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon Happy to keep going with it but am heartily sick of Indian politicians and association footballers! I guess next time the percentage is done the outcome will look very poor for the WIR project overall. But when you/we get to the end of coding all the people on all the lists, we will really know where we stand. Oronsay (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay It'll be interesting to see. 17.76% is my guess, for the end of February. Add IEEE Fellows to the list of disliked biography types. I've just knocked another 400 on the head. I think we have somewhere below 3000 to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, 2,842 left to do from the 3 & 4 properties lists ... 1,520 in the 3 properties, 1,322 in the 4 properties. Sigh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_56&oldid=1241383639"