![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[ crosspost from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Assessment#No Importance scale? ]
Hi there - Re the {WikiProject Women} template: When I click on This article has been rated as ???-importance on the project's importance scale, I see Quality criteria, but no Importance criteria. Is there a link I'm missing?
Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Czar - Dood! Please do not mischaracterize my conversation with Maunus as a "war". I am sick of these macho-bs compensating-for-something so-called "wars" in Wikipedia (ref User:LeoRomero/scx#Assumptions). Aren't you? - Thanks, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
|importance={{{importance|}}}
{{
WikiProject Women}}
; but if the WikiProject decides in favour of the use of importance ratings, there should be a section named "Importance scale" at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, describing the permitted values (Top, High, Mid, Low, NA). See for example
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment#Importance scale - this section is automatically linked in two places: in the banner template itself, in the phrase "on the project's
importance scale."; and in the template documentation, in the sentence "See the project's
importance scale for details." These automatic links mean that if a section is added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, the section heading should not be varied from "Importance scale". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Thanks! @ SusunW and Redrose64: I'm inclined to incline you further against having an "Importance Scale" in the first place. There's only one person who determines the Importance of any and every Wikipedia Article, and s/he's The Reader.
And, as a Reader, as well as an Inmate? To be totally frank and honest with you? At the end of the day, when all is said and done, In My Douchie Opinion (IMDO-ccbysaLoRETta): Madonna (entertainer) over Cate Blanchett. Or at least equal.
Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Per consensus within this discussion, I have removed the importance scale from the {{ WikiProject Women}} template. sst✈ (discuss) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for chiming in late. I would think that, if there were to be an importance scale, it would be in the project's best interests to see what articles and subarticles are given the most coverage by article and subarticle length in other extant, well regarded, encyclopedic sources, like Britannica for a general perspective or whatever the most highly regarded more directly relevant reference works might be, and basically follow their model. I have started a few pages of such listings like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus. Importance assessment could be useful in helping editors decide which articles to link to in other articles, or determining what content should be placed in which articles, and so on, but I think it would definitely be a good idea to have some sort of prospectus to work from first. John Carter ( talk) 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion concerning the suitability of some content in this article at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Comments from other editors would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been revamping lists of women's halls of fame that I have previously worked on. "Why use parentheses in the table?" had been inserted years ago in one of the tables. What it is referring to is the table column that contains this: (1868–1952). All the women's halls of fame tables have this formatting. But I don't know why. It's like the lead sentence on a bio article has the birth and death date in parenthesis. I can't find any Wikipedia guideline to cite for this. Does anybody know why Wikipedia does it this way? — Maile ( talk) 14:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
To finally move forward, I suggest tagging in several phases. The first one (probably it could be the most accurate) is tagging women biographies, that have an article in German Wikipedia. In next rounds we can tag other articles. In my current list, there are 34837 biographies, so that would be a very good start. SSTflyer has done some job, but I suppose, he would get blocked for making so many edits without bot flag. If it's not against the rules, then you (SSTflyer) can tell me, and I will add some more comments about my list. But I think it would be better to give it for bots, so if nobody disagrees, then I'm making that bot request, finally. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 13:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Like
SusunW (
talk)
17:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century, which excludes a lot of women. Down the page, there is a section that is for criteria that is complicated, and varies depending on what other project is associated with the article. Ala "If X equals Y on project A, then we include. But with project B, X must equal Z and include C, D and Q." I was kind of hoping WPWomen could be more inclusive in its criteria. And a whole lot less complicated to figure out who belongs. — Maile ( talk) 16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
parameter in cases when it could easily be copied from other banners on the same page, that is, they are doing
this and not
this. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
since it is determined automatically by the WikiProject banner template. So the only ones that we should care about are those in the "standard" scale plus Disambig and FM. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
parameter should be included and, if possible, set to a non-blank value. But if the talk page is that of a redirect, or any page outside mainspace that is not a
featured picture, the |class=
parameter may safely be omitted. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)OK, about tagging. I wanted to give you folks some days to express yourselves. I finalize celebrating New Year and update the list, then will do the bot requesting job. You don't have to worry about that, you can continue writing amazing articles :) -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The request is here. Sorry for late response - have quite many things to do in other Wikipedias and Wikidata. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The German Wine Queen, Nadine Poss, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Poss. The question is about the notability of the representative of the German Wine Industry and is likely to be a test case for the other articles about women who have held the role. Bermicourt ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a request to move Princess Leia to Leia. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
All women are "xx people" now, and mothers are "bearers"! [1] Is this how we want to go? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
MOS:LIST for reference. How big is too big?
As we maintain existing lists of women in various categories, and create new ones, it might be a good idea to think about the future once these lists grow. In 2011, I began dividing List of museums in Texas into regional lists, because at 129,935 bytes, my existing browser at that time froze and took forever to open the edit window. The same thing with the California museums that had reached 273,722 bytes in 2011. I now see that as a future for women's lists, and a little brainstorming wouldn't be a bad idea here.
Yesterday, I completed a retooling (for style and format) of Michigan Women's HoF and found it to be 295 entries with 43,384 bytes. The size is relatively small, because almost nothing is sourced.
Today, I counted the Ohio Women's HoF which has a little over 50% of the entries sourced. It has 366 entries on this list, and the article size is 107,814 bytes. It is not even plausible to source every entry, because the sheer size of it would make future editing inaccessible for some browsers.
So, whether it's the hall of fame lists, or any other, how do we handle the women's lists? Feedback is encouraged on this subject. @ Crisco 1492, Giants2008, PresN, and SchroCat: Pinging the FLC gurus for thoughts. — Maile ( talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging @ SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: as they've worked on some of these lists and Women in Red will be hosting a focused editathon on HoF laureates later this year. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm also going to ping @ RadioKAOS: who has been editing the Alaska HoF list, and @ Gobonobo: who has worked on multiple WHoF lists. — Maile ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
and {{
ping}}
are merely redirects to {{
reply to}}
, and it is immaterial which one of the three (or many others) that you use. The point is that you did not add a new signature in the same post as adding those names. It's also explained at
Template:Reply to#Usage. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
does) but no signature. Therefore, the circumstances necessary for a notification were not satisfied in either of those edits. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I see a lot of advice on dividing the lists into smaller individual lists, and no real opposition to do so. It would be appropriate here to decide which method should be followed. If we divide by year, we are limited to the names we see. If we divide by alpha, we are limited to the years we see at a glance. Which style best suits this project? Please add your thoughts below. I would suggest using Ohio Women's Hall of Fame as the measuring stick, since it is the oldest and largest. The last entry was for 2011, and I find nothing on the internet to suggest Ohio has continued their women's hall of fame since 2011. — Maile ( talk) 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women celebrates Wikipedia's 15th anniversary by launching the Wiki Loves Women #15Challenge writing contest to increase the number of biographies on notable African women on Wikipedia. Please join in and celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating in this bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of notable African women on two language versions!
Hello all ! Glad to see you jump in !
I wanted to bring a clarification because 1) I got several requests about that and 2) the French teams started doing that anyway :)
So, I wanted to clarify that it is perfectly fine for a team to work on several articles if they feel inclined to (we need many articles, see
Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Women/Writing Contest/Articles suggestions sooooo many red links !). BUT only one article should proposed for the prize of best article in the end per team.
However, if some work on several articles, that may help to celebrate team work or get a special prize.
This said... the talk above reveal cool team work :)
If some wonder... translation is perfectly fine.
Anthere (
talk)
Errr.... I think it is fine to either move it to the main space or to keep it in the user space. My own choice is to always work in the encyclopaedic space *precisely* because I can get help from other contributors, whilst if I keep it in my user space, there is somehow an understanding that I do not want others to join. And I am usually happier to get some help than not :) But just do as works best for you.
4-6 countries... ok... there is a bit of confusion here :) Let me explain.
A project called Wiki Loves Women was just started this week. It is a project of content liberation. More explanation on m:Wiki Loves Women. We got some approved funding from Institut Goethe to run this project in 4 countries (not yet fully decided). But many months ago, Wikimedia Foundation also told us it would support 2 countries (we have a phone call due next week to talk about that again to see if they are still on the same page). In this project, Wikipedians in Residence will get in contact with Public Institutions or Civil Society Organisations in their countries and will identify already existing content about african women (pictures, texts, records, videos, stats) and will negotiate with those organisations so that all this content may be uploaded in Wikimedia projects.
Since the project was approved just before Christmas, we wondered how we express our happiness about this news :) And since the project was due to start basically mid january, we thought it cool to organize a little writing contest about african women. It has four benefits in our opinion.
But the writing contest is not limited to any country. It is about african women. Continent wide.
Anthere ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikicology, do you think you could note the effort being made here and hold off on future hasty deletions?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Since it appears that article alerts do not include notices of Redirects for Deletion I would like to bring the following discussion to your attention in regards to the redirect Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm. Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Please don't forget WP:DYK during Women's History Month, March 1-31, 2016. The 2016 theme (in the United States) is “Working to Form a More Perfect Union: Honoring Women in Public Service and Government”. — Maile ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of wp:WikiProject Women in Technology? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
GLAM editathon #2 on Montana Women's history coming up: WP:GLAM/Montana history. Can someone post the info in the appropriate spot? Montanabw (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meetup/February 2016}}
; feel free to rename if you want to make it more descriptive. Also, is that where you wanted it? --
Rosiestep (
talk)
05:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Invitation | |
---|---|
Black Women's History online edit-a-thon ![]()
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i have been recently adding projects to American librarians and just wondering if i should add the women project or if there is a more specific one, maybe Women scientists? thanks. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I know editors are not supposed to refer to subjects of articles by their first name. But when referring to women what last name should be used - maiden or married? See: Diane_Rehm#Personal_life. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but my own take is that the person should be referred to throughout by their best-known last name wherever possible; it is usually informal style to use first names, or refers to people of "inferior" status (children, servants. etc.). Also, to switch names in the middle of the article confuses the reader. There are always WP:IAR exceptions, of course (such as referring to a parent and child, sometimes use of first names is unavoidable). I also think that women being called by their first name when similarly-situated men are called by their last names is another of the many ways women are treated as somehow "less" -- in this case, by being addressed akin to a manner used to address children.
This is regarding the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding deletion debate. Please note, I am so weary of this article that I no longer care personally whether it is deleted or not. However, I do think this is a potential example of the systematic bias against women in Wikipedia, so would appreciate if you could take a look. If the article survives I will gladly persist in trying to get it into mainspace.
Everybody who has voted in the debate so far have been male and I can't help but think that if the subject was male they would be taken more seriously. To me this is a borderline case of notability and I'm convinced there are others out there who would have sympathy with me. I may be wrong; this may not have anything to do with sexism, but I wanted to flag it up here in case I have a point. Again, I have lost interest in the article and am defending it more as a point of principle. Neilho ( talk) 10:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Stub class AfD here: Miss_Monaco. Montanabw (talk)|GO THUNDER! 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you all know about this event? They specifically mentioned your project. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There are 2 AfD's I noticed that I think could use some fresh eyes. They are: Carri Leigh Goodwin and Monica Plank. Both are part of educational assignments. It's super late here for me, and I haven't run references yet, but both cases involve the US military and tragedy. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Wisconsin Women Making History. If anyone is interested in this as a source. — Maile ( talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Sisterhood Is Global Institute was on NewPages. I added some quickly found links so it would not be up for deletion. However, maybe someone here knows of this institute and can add a little content and sourcing. — Maile ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi WP:WOMEN contributors, the following article popped up on my Google News results because of the "Wikipedia" keyword: [6] - it contains the line "I jumped onto the computer to see who this Elvie Hill was. With no Wikipedia reference to her, I was astounded that this lady was so unknown today if the quality of her couture had been so highly regarded,” - I figure this WikiProject may be able to help! -- Chuq (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I'm going to add her name to Wikiproject Women in Red's Art+Feminism relinks for Women's History Month. SusunW ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[ crosspost from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Assessment#No Importance scale? ]
Hi there - Re the {WikiProject Women} template: When I click on This article has been rated as ???-importance on the project's importance scale, I see Quality criteria, but no Importance criteria. Is there a link I'm missing?
Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Czar - Dood! Please do not mischaracterize my conversation with Maunus as a "war". I am sick of these macho-bs compensating-for-something so-called "wars" in Wikipedia (ref User:LeoRomero/scx#Assumptions). Aren't you? - Thanks, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
|importance={{{importance|}}}
{{
WikiProject Women}}
; but if the WikiProject decides in favour of the use of importance ratings, there should be a section named "Importance scale" at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, describing the permitted values (Top, High, Mid, Low, NA). See for example
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment#Importance scale - this section is automatically linked in two places: in the banner template itself, in the phrase "on the project's
importance scale."; and in the template documentation, in the sentence "See the project's
importance scale for details." These automatic links mean that if a section is added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, the section heading should not be varied from "Importance scale". --
Redrose64 (
talk)
08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Thanks! @ SusunW and Redrose64: I'm inclined to incline you further against having an "Importance Scale" in the first place. There's only one person who determines the Importance of any and every Wikipedia Article, and s/he's The Reader.
And, as a Reader, as well as an Inmate? To be totally frank and honest with you? At the end of the day, when all is said and done, In My Douchie Opinion (IMDO-ccbysaLoRETta): Madonna (entertainer) over Cate Blanchett. Or at least equal.
Mabuhay! - LoRETta/ LeoRomero 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Per consensus within this discussion, I have removed the importance scale from the {{ WikiProject Women}} template. sst✈ (discuss) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for chiming in late. I would think that, if there were to be an importance scale, it would be in the project's best interests to see what articles and subarticles are given the most coverage by article and subarticle length in other extant, well regarded, encyclopedic sources, like Britannica for a general perspective or whatever the most highly regarded more directly relevant reference works might be, and basically follow their model. I have started a few pages of such listings like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus. Importance assessment could be useful in helping editors decide which articles to link to in other articles, or determining what content should be placed in which articles, and so on, but I think it would definitely be a good idea to have some sort of prospectus to work from first. John Carter ( talk) 18:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion concerning the suitability of some content in this article at Talk:Women in the military#US centric material. Comments from other editors would be great. Nick-D ( talk) 23:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been revamping lists of women's halls of fame that I have previously worked on. "Why use parentheses in the table?" had been inserted years ago in one of the tables. What it is referring to is the table column that contains this: (1868–1952). All the women's halls of fame tables have this formatting. But I don't know why. It's like the lead sentence on a bio article has the birth and death date in parenthesis. I can't find any Wikipedia guideline to cite for this. Does anybody know why Wikipedia does it this way? — Maile ( talk) 14:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
To finally move forward, I suggest tagging in several phases. The first one (probably it could be the most accurate) is tagging women biographies, that have an article in German Wikipedia. In next rounds we can tag other articles. In my current list, there are 34837 biographies, so that would be a very good start. SSTflyer has done some job, but I suppose, he would get blocked for making so many edits without bot flag. If it's not against the rules, then you (SSTflyer) can tell me, and I will add some more comments about my list. But I think it would be better to give it for bots, so if nobody disagrees, then I'm making that bot request, finally. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 13:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Like
SusunW (
talk)
17:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
the lives, activities, achievements, and experiences of women up to the mid-20th century, which excludes a lot of women. Down the page, there is a section that is for criteria that is complicated, and varies depending on what other project is associated with the article. Ala "If X equals Y on project A, then we include. But with project B, X must equal Z and include C, D and Q." I was kind of hoping WPWomen could be more inclusive in its criteria. And a whole lot less complicated to figure out who belongs. — Maile ( talk) 16:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
parameter in cases when it could easily be copied from other banners on the same page, that is, they are doing
this and not
this. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
since it is determined automatically by the WikiProject banner template. So the only ones that we should care about are those in the "standard" scale plus Disambig and FM. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
|class=
parameter should be included and, if possible, set to a non-blank value. But if the talk page is that of a redirect, or any page outside mainspace that is not a
featured picture, the |class=
parameter may safely be omitted. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)OK, about tagging. I wanted to give you folks some days to express yourselves. I finalize celebrating New Year and update the list, then will do the bot requesting job. You don't have to worry about that, you can continue writing amazing articles :) -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The request is here. Sorry for late response - have quite many things to do in other Wikipedias and Wikidata. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 20:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The German Wine Queen, Nadine Poss, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadine Poss. The question is about the notability of the representative of the German Wine Industry and is likely to be a test case for the other articles about women who have held the role. Bermicourt ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a request to move Princess Leia to Leia. The discussion can be seen here. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 18:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
All women are "xx people" now, and mothers are "bearers"! [1] Is this how we want to go? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
MOS:LIST for reference. How big is too big?
As we maintain existing lists of women in various categories, and create new ones, it might be a good idea to think about the future once these lists grow. In 2011, I began dividing List of museums in Texas into regional lists, because at 129,935 bytes, my existing browser at that time froze and took forever to open the edit window. The same thing with the California museums that had reached 273,722 bytes in 2011. I now see that as a future for women's lists, and a little brainstorming wouldn't be a bad idea here.
Yesterday, I completed a retooling (for style and format) of Michigan Women's HoF and found it to be 295 entries with 43,384 bytes. The size is relatively small, because almost nothing is sourced.
Today, I counted the Ohio Women's HoF which has a little over 50% of the entries sourced. It has 366 entries on this list, and the article size is 107,814 bytes. It is not even plausible to source every entry, because the sheer size of it would make future editing inaccessible for some browsers.
So, whether it's the hall of fame lists, or any other, how do we handle the women's lists? Feedback is encouraged on this subject. @ Crisco 1492, Giants2008, PresN, and SchroCat: Pinging the FLC gurus for thoughts. — Maile ( talk) 14:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Also pinging @ SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: as they've worked on some of these lists and Women in Red will be hosting a focused editathon on HoF laureates later this year. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm also going to ping @ RadioKAOS: who has been editing the Alaska HoF list, and @ Gobonobo: who has worked on multiple WHoF lists. — Maile ( talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
and {{
ping}}
are merely redirects to {{
reply to}}
, and it is immaterial which one of the three (or many others) that you use. The point is that you did not add a new signature in the same post as adding those names. It's also explained at
Template:Reply to#Usage. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
yo}}
does) but no signature. Therefore, the circumstances necessary for a notification were not satisfied in either of those edits. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I see a lot of advice on dividing the lists into smaller individual lists, and no real opposition to do so. It would be appropriate here to decide which method should be followed. If we divide by year, we are limited to the names we see. If we divide by alpha, we are limited to the years we see at a glance. Which style best suits this project? Please add your thoughts below. I would suggest using Ohio Women's Hall of Fame as the measuring stick, since it is the oldest and largest. The last entry was for 2011, and I find nothing on the internet to suggest Ohio has continued their women's hall of fame since 2011. — Maile ( talk) 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women celebrates Wikipedia's 15th anniversary by launching the Wiki Loves Women #15Challenge writing contest to increase the number of biographies on notable African women on Wikipedia. Please join in and celebrate Wikipedia 15 by participating in this bilingual (English/French) writing contest to increase the number of notable African women on two language versions!
Hello all ! Glad to see you jump in !
I wanted to bring a clarification because 1) I got several requests about that and 2) the French teams started doing that anyway :)
So, I wanted to clarify that it is perfectly fine for a team to work on several articles if they feel inclined to (we need many articles, see
Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Women/Writing Contest/Articles suggestions sooooo many red links !). BUT only one article should proposed for the prize of best article in the end per team.
However, if some work on several articles, that may help to celebrate team work or get a special prize.
This said... the talk above reveal cool team work :)
If some wonder... translation is perfectly fine.
Anthere (
talk)
Errr.... I think it is fine to either move it to the main space or to keep it in the user space. My own choice is to always work in the encyclopaedic space *precisely* because I can get help from other contributors, whilst if I keep it in my user space, there is somehow an understanding that I do not want others to join. And I am usually happier to get some help than not :) But just do as works best for you.
4-6 countries... ok... there is a bit of confusion here :) Let me explain.
A project called Wiki Loves Women was just started this week. It is a project of content liberation. More explanation on m:Wiki Loves Women. We got some approved funding from Institut Goethe to run this project in 4 countries (not yet fully decided). But many months ago, Wikimedia Foundation also told us it would support 2 countries (we have a phone call due next week to talk about that again to see if they are still on the same page). In this project, Wikipedians in Residence will get in contact with Public Institutions or Civil Society Organisations in their countries and will identify already existing content about african women (pictures, texts, records, videos, stats) and will negotiate with those organisations so that all this content may be uploaded in Wikimedia projects.
Since the project was approved just before Christmas, we wondered how we express our happiness about this news :) And since the project was due to start basically mid january, we thought it cool to organize a little writing contest about african women. It has four benefits in our opinion.
But the writing contest is not limited to any country. It is about african women. Continent wide.
Anthere ( talk) 18:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikicology, do you think you could note the effort being made here and hold off on future hasty deletions?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Since it appears that article alerts do not include notices of Redirects for Deletion I would like to bring the following discussion to your attention in regards to the redirect Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm. Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Please don't forget WP:DYK during Women's History Month, March 1-31, 2016. The 2016 theme (in the United States) is “Working to Form a More Perfect Union: Honoring Women in Public Service and Government”. — Maile ( talk) 15:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the status of wp:WikiProject Women in Technology? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
GLAM editathon #2 on Montana Women's history coming up: WP:GLAM/Montana history. Can someone post the info in the appropriate spot? Montanabw (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
Meetup/February 2016}}
; feel free to rename if you want to make it more descriptive. Also, is that where you wanted it? --
Rosiestep (
talk)
05:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Invitation | |
---|---|
Black Women's History online edit-a-thon ![]()
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, i have been recently adding projects to American librarians and just wondering if i should add the women project or if there is a more specific one, maybe Women scientists? thanks. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I know editors are not supposed to refer to subjects of articles by their first name. But when referring to women what last name should be used - maiden or married? See: Diane_Rehm#Personal_life. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but my own take is that the person should be referred to throughout by their best-known last name wherever possible; it is usually informal style to use first names, or refers to people of "inferior" status (children, servants. etc.). Also, to switch names in the middle of the article confuses the reader. There are always WP:IAR exceptions, of course (such as referring to a parent and child, sometimes use of first names is unavoidable). I also think that women being called by their first name when similarly-situated men are called by their last names is another of the many ways women are treated as somehow "less" -- in this case, by being addressed akin to a manner used to address children.
This is regarding the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding deletion debate. Please note, I am so weary of this article that I no longer care personally whether it is deleted or not. However, I do think this is a potential example of the systematic bias against women in Wikipedia, so would appreciate if you could take a look. If the article survives I will gladly persist in trying to get it into mainspace.
Everybody who has voted in the debate so far have been male and I can't help but think that if the subject was male they would be taken more seriously. To me this is a borderline case of notability and I'm convinced there are others out there who would have sympathy with me. I may be wrong; this may not have anything to do with sexism, but I wanted to flag it up here in case I have a point. Again, I have lost interest in the article and am defending it more as a point of principle. Neilho ( talk) 10:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Stub class AfD here: Miss_Monaco. Montanabw (talk)|GO THUNDER! 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move that may interest people here at Talk:Taharrush jamai#Requested move 1 February 2016. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you all know about this event? They specifically mentioned your project. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There are 2 AfD's I noticed that I think could use some fresh eyes. They are: Carri Leigh Goodwin and Monica Plank. Both are part of educational assignments. It's super late here for me, and I haven't run references yet, but both cases involve the US military and tragedy. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 05:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Wisconsin Women Making History. If anyone is interested in this as a source. — Maile ( talk) 17:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Sisterhood Is Global Institute was on NewPages. I added some quickly found links so it would not be up for deletion. However, maybe someone here knows of this institute and can add a little content and sourcing. — Maile ( talk) 20:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi WP:WOMEN contributors, the following article popped up on my Google News results because of the "Wikipedia" keyword: [6] - it contains the line "I jumped onto the computer to see who this Elvie Hill was. With no Wikipedia reference to her, I was astounded that this lady was so unknown today if the quality of her couture had been so highly regarded,” - I figure this WikiProject may be able to help! -- Chuq (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I'm going to add her name to Wikiproject Women in Red's Art+Feminism relinks for Women's History Month. SusunW ( talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)