![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
As a result of OnBeyondZebrax's article on Women in music, we are discussing the possibility of having an editathon in January or February on women in music (possibly concentrating on composers and instrumentalists) (see User talk:OnBeyondZebrax). My preferred dates would be 10 to 31 January as we will need February to prepare for the March Women's History Month. We hope to have feedback from Pharos, Tim riley, Victuallers and anyone else with ideas.-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To Keilana and you, Susun, I think it is very important to maintain Black History for February but I must say very many of the biographies from the recent editathons have had a direct relationship with education. The other problem I have with "Education" at the moment is that 90% of the red links come from the USA. Music on the other hand is universal. I think we have time in January to address it. May I ask for feedback here from Rosiestep, Keilana, Victuallers, Dr. Blofeld, Megalibrarygirl, Missvain, Pigsonthewing, SusunW, Alafarge, Big Iron, Nvvchar, Gobonobo, 97198 and any others who would like to respond.-- Ipigott ( talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just got an AfD notice on a new page I put up for scientist Elizabeth A. Wood. Not sure why since she seemed to me to pass notability just fine. Not least, there is a science writing award given out in her honor. Would appreciate folks weighing in on what is needed to deal with the AfD notice. Alafarge ( talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
These articles created by User:Neelix are at AfD as part of ... let us just say, the mass deletion or attempted deletion of things he has created. The majority of the articles (and the only ones I have listed here) are about women.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
I made a template, a start;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | |
Women in Red |
Hi everyone! A few days ago, I began a Good Article review of Sherry Thomas, a critically acclaimed Chinese-American romance writer. Unfortunately, the GA nominator ( Plange) has not been active on Wikipedia for the last few months, and she has not responded to the requests for revisions at the GA review. Is there somebody at this Wikiproject who is willing to work on the article to bring it to GA status? I certainly wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to bring this article to GA status. I am also posting this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
We're seeing a lot of nominations of women scientists and architects over at DYK – so much that it's getting hard to build a prep set without 2 or 3 hooks about women! I'd just like to point out, though, that most of the hooks are emphasizing that the woman in question is the "first" in her country or profession. This may be true, but it starts sounding very repetitive, and we can't run more than one such hook in a prep set. Thanks to User:Maile66 for going through the approved hooks and suggesting more interesting angles. I would like to urge everyone who submits a DYK to please look for an interesting angle or aspect of the subject or her work, aside from being the "first", so we can ensure variety in the prep sets. Thank you, Yoninah ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to be working on Women in Science articles this Sunday, please consider signing in as virtual participant at the New York event: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Rosiestep: I cannot find the editing page for the box titled "Events at Women in Red". The edit button (E) simply goes to "#REDIRECT Template:Navbox". -- Ipigott ( talk) 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav}}
? --
Rosiestep (
talk)
15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all of you ! I just created Bariza Ghezelani (a rescued of an AfD on French WP), but I am a French contributor, and I don't know enough which categories and portails/projects are to be choosen. So if you could have a look on the page, check it and improve it with categories and so on, it would be great ! Thanks, -- La femme de menage ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Judy Ho Another new article on scientists list proposed for deletion *sigh* SusunW ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Rhonda Patrick Another new scientist proposed for deletion and worse, marked as a potential hoax. Seriously SMDH. SusunW ( talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sabrina Gschwandtner new artist article. Nominated within hours of its creation by a new editor. SusunW ( talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I spoke with @ Masssly and Maximilianklein and Frances this morning regarding their IEG-funded Wikipedia Gender Indicators project (WIGI). A big thank you to them for the research and design work on WIGI, which, in a nutshell, uses Wikidata data to present statistics about Wikipedia's women's biographies. Please take a look at the website -- this is a beta version -- hover over data points, review the graphs, and provide feedback. Their IEG grant will run out soon so our feedback could be a valuable component in determining whether or not to renew the grant. There are more eyes on this WiR talkpage than the IEG page; this discussion can be linked to the grant's page. (15.89%? That's the percentage of women's biographies on the English language Wikipedia per WIGI, effective yesterday.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Masssly and Maximilianklein To clarify... We'll leave our comments about WIGI Beta on this talkpage as it gets a lot of eyes. Please watchlist it. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This page about a Syrian women has disputed neutrality. The editor who put disputed neutrality on the page says:
"But if it is indeed a biography, then by definition, neutrality is disputed until significant contributions to it are made by other editors."
Link to see the full discussion .... I'm confused! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, another one who would likely merit an article. I can add it to my backlog, but I'm already overstuffed as it is with bios to write. I came across this woman in my research and given the entry for her at Encyclopedia Virginia, I'm actually surprised that she doesn't have an article since she seems to have been a major player in the civil rights era, at least in Virginia.
I don't like to throw around the term "obviously notable" but she seems to be obviously notable per coverage like this, this, this, and especially this. Here's some other sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]
I figured that I'd mention this here in case one of you could write the article faster than I could. If that's the case, then hopefully the above sources can help. I didn't want to post this request here and then make you guys do all the research too! Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 16:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
)
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{Subst:Qla}}}}
Hi! The editor of Luciana Zogbi recently reached out to me for help on their new article. Seriousbrain is a new editor and I'd like to help them out. I found some sources in English, but I suspect there are more in other languages (I found one in Polish, for example). If any of you have the time to do a search, esp in other languages, that would be super. I've asked Seriousbrain to provide more sources, too. Also, does anyone know the notability criteria surrounding Youtube hits? I've seen that brought up on AfD, too. Thanks in advance, you awesome Wikipedians! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but I was going to see if anyone was interested in editing the article for Sharifa Alkhateeb. I came across her via my work at the LVA and it looks like the article needs some TLC. I'm going to try to get around to it, but it might not be for a few days at least and I'm concerned that there may be some closeparaphrasing or copyvio there. It's just setting off my Spidey senses a little.
Other than that, would anyone be interested in seeing if Eleanor Gladys Copenhaver/ Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson would pass notability guidelines? She was a leader with the YWCA and was somewhat influential in Virginia.Most sources like this one mention her in relation to her husband, Sherwood Anderson, but maybe she's independently notable? The Dictionary of Virginia Biography also has a lengthy biography on her as well, although it isn't online. I can help provide a copy of the entry material for anyone, if they want. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's write an article for the WP:SIGNPOST about the Women scientist edit-a-thon in the Special Reports section. The SP EB is supportive of this; let's do it. Readers would be interested in who organised it, where and when it was hosted, how many people turned up, what sort of people they were (volunteers? academics? librarians?), which areas were worked on; perhaps a list of articles created. Plus photos (NYAS event) if available and there are no privacy issues. Also think about explaining how it was organised, whether there were roadblocks to overcome, who best to approach, how best to advertise it, etc., so that other people can derive some guidance and ideas on how to organise something like this themselves. A "lessons learned" type look back at the event (if applicable); pitfalls to avoid, as well as things that made it a success. If Wikipedia wants to attract more editors to participate in these types of events, there needs to be more coverage. We not only delivered >300 articles, but a socialized experience, and others might find that very appealing. Adding @ Lhariton, Alexisclements, and Pharos: who may not have this page watchlisted. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I was working on some categories and I found out that the category for Women photographers by nationality was deleted. Do you think we should make a case for reinstating it since we're looking at doing a Photography editathon later? Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This section to the concierge bell in the infobox of our current event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4. I figure there will be editors who will be looking for assistance and won't know where to turn. I think it would be a good idea to include this concierge bell feature in every event's infobox. Sure, this will require us to answer questions now and again, but I think we're up for it. If you're familiar with the WP:Teahouse, this "Concierge Service" is meant to be like it. If you don't like the idea, we can always scrap it! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Dr. Blofeld, and Keilana: Thoughts on the concierge bell/service wording here vs. here? Reword it? Where else should we put the bell? Would a different image convey the intent better? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, this is old (disscusion), but I think, that {{ Clickable button 2}} would be fine. For example such one: . Which opens a new section here. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, just letting you know that a page for a roller derby team is up for AfD, San Diego Derby Dolls. This would fall under the project banner since roller derby teams are almost always female - I don't think I've ever heard of a team that isn't. The same person who nominated the team page for AfD also nominated its founder as well, Bonnie D.Stroir, so it's likely that they'll try to AfD her as well. I'm not familiar with sports so I don't know if either would pass, but I figured I'd give you all a head's up on this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's take a look at our invitation and hear your thoughts on it. This is a link to the current edit-a-thon's invitation page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/5/invitation. Please weigh in on the invitation's size, shape, wording, bolding, italics, and whatever else. Thank you for your feedback!
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion - Please join us! | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() | |
World Virtual Edit-a-thon Women in Religion 5 to 15 December 2015 |
---|
I've got another person for you guys, only I'm not entirely sure that she passes. The person in question is Sarah Ann Brock, also known by the pseudonym "Virginia Madison" and also referred to occasionally as Sallie Brock Putnam. Encyclopedia Virginia has covered her and her most well-known book has been republished with a 20-something page foreword through the University of Nebraska Press, although I'm uncertain if that would qualify as an independent source. It's been listed here as a source, if that counts for anything. I did find this mention in a University of Illinois Press analytical bibliography. Other than that, here's what I've found: West Virginia History, extensively sourced in this Oxford University Press book.
Basically, there's enough to where I think she's likely notable but not enough to where I really feel firmly comfortable. I haven't checked the academic databases yet, so there may be more through there. She's not as exciting as the other woman I've recommended earlier, but Brock is interesting from a historical perspective. What do you all think? I'm sort of on the border with this. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application Dear WiR: First, applying for this scholarship is similar to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or to assume anyone knows anything about you which isn't noted in your application. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants. So do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. Second, I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why has no one joined this project since September?-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I manually invoked the update. The list should be updated. Why it was not covered by the automatic runs, I don't know. Also, I now have the membership lists updating every 5 minutes (was running every 30 before). Harej ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have added edit buttons by each profile, and have checked each edit link and it works. You can see it in action on the members list. This is a quick fix; we are also working on a longer term solution that will allow signing up by hand while also reaping the benefits of the existing system (such as keeping the list up to date as people become active/inactive). Thank you all for your feedback. Harej ( talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I have just been reading the excellent Signpost article " Whither Wikidata" by Andreas Kolbe on a host of problems associated with Wikidata. As many of us are constantly being urged to include key biographical details in boxes so that they can be included in Wikidata, I think it would be useful for you all to read about the associated risks. I am particularly concerned that once the data reach Wikidata, although they may be tagged as coming from Wikipedia, there is no longer any clear reference to sources. While I do not usually add boxes to the articles I create myself, I frequently check those in articles created by others. Over the past couple of months, I would guess that I have corrected 20 or 30 errors in the boxes included in our biographies. Many result from people simply copying boxes from one article to another without checking that all the fields have been corrected. At worst, the result can be that one person's name is substituted for another's, or one nationality for another, but there are also frequently errors in the dates of birth and death (sometimes just typos) or in the occupations, places of study, etc. Once data from a box is automatically picked up by bots for Wikidata, it becomes public domain and can be used freely by Google, Microsoft and anyone else. There are cases where even the most blatant errors remain without detection. It seems to me there should be additional safeguards both to protect the sourcing and to allow editors to double-check the information transferred and correct any mistakes (but that would no doubt require substantial reprogramming and reorganization). Anyway, even if you don't have time to read Kolbe's article from beginning to end, please have a quick look at the introduction. And in future, please make sure all the information in your boxes is correct.-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Charles Matthews has done a lot of great work on wikidata.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to drop a recommendation from my Virginia Women list. The woman is Thelma Brumfield Dunn, a pathologist and medical researcher. She wrote The Unseen Fight Against Cancer, which was published in the 70s and is still used as a reference. Searching is unsurprisingly slow for her because she was pre-Internet (and let's be honest, there's a bias in coverage of women everywhere), but here's what I've found: Entry in this book, review in American Scientist. She seems to be widely considered an authority from what I can see. You might have to play around with her name to find everything, but here's what I found in a quick glance. I'm not overly familiar with where to search for medical related matter, so others may be able to find more. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
As a result of OnBeyondZebrax's article on Women in music, we are discussing the possibility of having an editathon in January or February on women in music (possibly concentrating on composers and instrumentalists) (see User talk:OnBeyondZebrax). My preferred dates would be 10 to 31 January as we will need February to prepare for the March Women's History Month. We hope to have feedback from Pharos, Tim riley, Victuallers and anyone else with ideas.-- Ipigott ( talk) 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To Keilana and you, Susun, I think it is very important to maintain Black History for February but I must say very many of the biographies from the recent editathons have had a direct relationship with education. The other problem I have with "Education" at the moment is that 90% of the red links come from the USA. Music on the other hand is universal. I think we have time in January to address it. May I ask for feedback here from Rosiestep, Keilana, Victuallers, Dr. Blofeld, Megalibrarygirl, Missvain, Pigsonthewing, SusunW, Alafarge, Big Iron, Nvvchar, Gobonobo, 97198 and any others who would like to respond.-- Ipigott ( talk) 20:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just got an AfD notice on a new page I put up for scientist Elizabeth A. Wood. Not sure why since she seemed to me to pass notability just fine. Not least, there is a science writing award given out in her honor. Would appreciate folks weighing in on what is needed to deal with the AfD notice. Alafarge ( talk) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
These articles created by User:Neelix are at AfD as part of ... let us just say, the mass deletion or attempted deletion of things he has created. The majority of the articles (and the only ones I have listed here) are about women.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
I made a template, a start;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | |
Women in Red |
Hi everyone! A few days ago, I began a Good Article review of Sherry Thomas, a critically acclaimed Chinese-American romance writer. Unfortunately, the GA nominator ( Plange) has not been active on Wikipedia for the last few months, and she has not responded to the requests for revisions at the GA review. Is there somebody at this Wikiproject who is willing to work on the article to bring it to GA status? I certainly wouldn't want to lose the opportunity to bring this article to GA status. I am also posting this message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
We're seeing a lot of nominations of women scientists and architects over at DYK – so much that it's getting hard to build a prep set without 2 or 3 hooks about women! I'd just like to point out, though, that most of the hooks are emphasizing that the woman in question is the "first" in her country or profession. This may be true, but it starts sounding very repetitive, and we can't run more than one such hook in a prep set. Thanks to User:Maile66 for going through the approved hooks and suggesting more interesting angles. I would like to urge everyone who submits a DYK to please look for an interesting angle or aspect of the subject or her work, aside from being the "first", so we can ensure variety in the prep sets. Thank you, Yoninah ( talk) 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to be working on Women in Science articles this Sunday, please consider signing in as virtual participant at the New York event: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Rosiestep: I cannot find the editing page for the box titled "Events at Women in Red". The edit button (E) simply goes to "#REDIRECT Template:Navbox". -- Ipigott ( talk) 14:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Nav}}
? --
Rosiestep (
talk)
15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all of you ! I just created Bariza Ghezelani (a rescued of an AfD on French WP), but I am a French contributor, and I don't know enough which categories and portails/projects are to be choosen. So if you could have a look on the page, check it and improve it with categories and so on, it would be great ! Thanks, -- La femme de menage ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Judy Ho Another new article on scientists list proposed for deletion *sigh* SusunW ( talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Rhonda Patrick Another new scientist proposed for deletion and worse, marked as a potential hoax. Seriously SMDH. SusunW ( talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sabrina Gschwandtner new artist article. Nominated within hours of its creation by a new editor. SusunW ( talk) 01:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I spoke with @ Masssly and Maximilianklein and Frances this morning regarding their IEG-funded Wikipedia Gender Indicators project (WIGI). A big thank you to them for the research and design work on WIGI, which, in a nutshell, uses Wikidata data to present statistics about Wikipedia's women's biographies. Please take a look at the website -- this is a beta version -- hover over data points, review the graphs, and provide feedback. Their IEG grant will run out soon so our feedback could be a valuable component in determining whether or not to renew the grant. There are more eyes on this WiR talkpage than the IEG page; this discussion can be linked to the grant's page. (15.89%? That's the percentage of women's biographies on the English language Wikipedia per WIGI, effective yesterday.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Masssly and Maximilianklein To clarify... We'll leave our comments about WIGI Beta on this talkpage as it gets a lot of eyes. Please watchlist it. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This page about a Syrian women has disputed neutrality. The editor who put disputed neutrality on the page says:
"But if it is indeed a biography, then by definition, neutrality is disputed until significant contributions to it are made by other editors."
Link to see the full discussion .... I'm confused! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, another one who would likely merit an article. I can add it to my backlog, but I'm already overstuffed as it is with bios to write. I came across this woman in my research and given the entry for her at Encyclopedia Virginia, I'm actually surprised that she doesn't have an article since she seems to have been a major player in the civil rights era, at least in Virginia.
I don't like to throw around the term "obviously notable" but she seems to be obviously notable per coverage like this, this, this, and especially this. Here's some other sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]
I figured that I'd mention this here in case one of you could write the article faster than I could. If that's the case, then hopefully the above sources can help. I didn't want to post this request here and then make you guys do all the research too! Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 16:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
)
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{Subst:Qla}}}}
Hi! The editor of Luciana Zogbi recently reached out to me for help on their new article. Seriousbrain is a new editor and I'd like to help them out. I found some sources in English, but I suspect there are more in other languages (I found one in Polish, for example). If any of you have the time to do a search, esp in other languages, that would be super. I've asked Seriousbrain to provide more sources, too. Also, does anyone know the notability criteria surrounding Youtube hits? I've seen that brought up on AfD, too. Thanks in advance, you awesome Wikipedians! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not sure what happened to my last post, but I was going to see if anyone was interested in editing the article for Sharifa Alkhateeb. I came across her via my work at the LVA and it looks like the article needs some TLC. I'm going to try to get around to it, but it might not be for a few days at least and I'm concerned that there may be some closeparaphrasing or copyvio there. It's just setting off my Spidey senses a little.
Other than that, would anyone be interested in seeing if Eleanor Gladys Copenhaver/ Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson would pass notability guidelines? She was a leader with the YWCA and was somewhat influential in Virginia.Most sources like this one mention her in relation to her husband, Sherwood Anderson, but maybe she's independently notable? The Dictionary of Virginia Biography also has a lengthy biography on her as well, although it isn't online. I can help provide a copy of the entry material for anyone, if they want. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 14:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Let's write an article for the WP:SIGNPOST about the Women scientist edit-a-thon in the Special Reports section. The SP EB is supportive of this; let's do it. Readers would be interested in who organised it, where and when it was hosted, how many people turned up, what sort of people they were (volunteers? academics? librarians?), which areas were worked on; perhaps a list of articles created. Plus photos (NYAS event) if available and there are no privacy issues. Also think about explaining how it was organised, whether there were roadblocks to overcome, who best to approach, how best to advertise it, etc., so that other people can derive some guidance and ideas on how to organise something like this themselves. A "lessons learned" type look back at the event (if applicable); pitfalls to avoid, as well as things that made it a success. If Wikipedia wants to attract more editors to participate in these types of events, there needs to be more coverage. We not only delivered >300 articles, but a socialized experience, and others might find that very appealing. Adding @ Lhariton, Alexisclements, and Pharos: who may not have this page watchlisted. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I was working on some categories and I found out that the category for Women photographers by nationality was deleted. Do you think we should make a case for reinstating it since we're looking at doing a Photography editathon later? Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This section to the concierge bell in the infobox of our current event: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4. I figure there will be editors who will be looking for assistance and won't know where to turn. I think it would be a good idea to include this concierge bell feature in every event's infobox. Sure, this will require us to answer questions now and again, but I think we're up for it. If you're familiar with the WP:Teahouse, this "Concierge Service" is meant to be like it. If you don't like the idea, we can always scrap it! -- Rosiestep ( talk) 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Ipigott, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Dr. Blofeld, and Keilana: Thoughts on the concierge bell/service wording here vs. here? Reword it? Where else should we put the bell? Would a different image convey the intent better? -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, this is old (disscusion), but I think, that {{ Clickable button 2}} would be fine. For example such one: . Which opens a new section here. -- Edgars2007 ( talk/ contribs) 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, just letting you know that a page for a roller derby team is up for AfD, San Diego Derby Dolls. This would fall under the project banner since roller derby teams are almost always female - I don't think I've ever heard of a team that isn't. The same person who nominated the team page for AfD also nominated its founder as well, Bonnie D.Stroir, so it's likely that they'll try to AfD her as well. I'm not familiar with sports so I don't know if either would pass, but I figured I'd give you all a head's up on this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's take a look at our invitation and hear your thoughts on it. This is a link to the current edit-a-thon's invitation page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/5/invitation. Please weigh in on the invitation's size, shape, wording, bolding, italics, and whatever else. Thank you for your feedback!
You are invited! Join us remotely! | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion - Please join us! | |
---|---|
![]() |
![]()
|
![]() | |
World Virtual Edit-a-thon Women in Religion 5 to 15 December 2015 |
---|
I've got another person for you guys, only I'm not entirely sure that she passes. The person in question is Sarah Ann Brock, also known by the pseudonym "Virginia Madison" and also referred to occasionally as Sallie Brock Putnam. Encyclopedia Virginia has covered her and her most well-known book has been republished with a 20-something page foreword through the University of Nebraska Press, although I'm uncertain if that would qualify as an independent source. It's been listed here as a source, if that counts for anything. I did find this mention in a University of Illinois Press analytical bibliography. Other than that, here's what I've found: West Virginia History, extensively sourced in this Oxford University Press book.
Basically, there's enough to where I think she's likely notable but not enough to where I really feel firmly comfortable. I haven't checked the academic databases yet, so there may be more through there. She's not as exciting as the other woman I've recommended earlier, but Brock is interesting from a historical perspective. What do you all think? I'm sort of on the border with this. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 13:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Scholarship applications for Wikimania 2016 are being accepted 5 Dec 2015 - 9 Jan 2016. Please consider applying! To learn more about Wikimania 2016 scholarships, please visit: https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Scholarships To apply for a scholarship, fill out the application form on: https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply -- Rosiestep ( talk) 05:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Re: Recommendations regarding the Wikimania scholarship application Dear WiR: First, applying for this scholarship is similar to the GMAT's Analytical Writing Assessment. This is no time to be sloppy or to assume anyone knows anything about you which isn't noted in your application. Be clear and be thorough in each section. This is about differentiating yourself from the X number of other applicants. So do a great job in explaining: 'why you?'. Second, I became a Wikipedian in 2007, but didn't apply for a Wikimania scholarship (and thankfully I received it) until 2015 because I suffered from Impostor syndrome. I thank AdaCamp and my wiki friends for helping me deal with this demon. Do not let IS silence you. Get over it. You are deserving. Apply! (P.S. As a member of the Wikimania 2016 Scholarship Committee, I will recuse myself from reviewing those scholarship applications where I would have a personal bias.) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 15:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Why has no one joined this project since September?-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I manually invoked the update. The list should be updated. Why it was not covered by the automatic runs, I don't know. Also, I now have the membership lists updating every 5 minutes (was running every 30 before). Harej ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have added edit buttons by each profile, and have checked each edit link and it works. You can see it in action on the members list. This is a quick fix; we are also working on a longer term solution that will allow signing up by hand while also reaping the benefits of the existing system (such as keeping the list up to date as people become active/inactive). Thank you all for your feedback. Harej ( talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I have just been reading the excellent Signpost article " Whither Wikidata" by Andreas Kolbe on a host of problems associated with Wikidata. As many of us are constantly being urged to include key biographical details in boxes so that they can be included in Wikidata, I think it would be useful for you all to read about the associated risks. I am particularly concerned that once the data reach Wikidata, although they may be tagged as coming from Wikipedia, there is no longer any clear reference to sources. While I do not usually add boxes to the articles I create myself, I frequently check those in articles created by others. Over the past couple of months, I would guess that I have corrected 20 or 30 errors in the boxes included in our biographies. Many result from people simply copying boxes from one article to another without checking that all the fields have been corrected. At worst, the result can be that one person's name is substituted for another's, or one nationality for another, but there are also frequently errors in the dates of birth and death (sometimes just typos) or in the occupations, places of study, etc. Once data from a box is automatically picked up by bots for Wikidata, it becomes public domain and can be used freely by Google, Microsoft and anyone else. There are cases where even the most blatant errors remain without detection. It seems to me there should be additional safeguards both to protect the sourcing and to allow editors to double-check the information transferred and correct any mistakes (but that would no doubt require substantial reprogramming and reorganization). Anyway, even if you don't have time to read Kolbe's article from beginning to end, please have a quick look at the introduction. And in future, please make sure all the information in your boxes is correct.-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Charles Matthews has done a lot of great work on wikidata.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, wanted to drop a recommendation from my Virginia Women list. The woman is Thelma Brumfield Dunn, a pathologist and medical researcher. She wrote The Unseen Fight Against Cancer, which was published in the 70s and is still used as a reference. Searching is unsurprisingly slow for her because she was pre-Internet (and let's be honest, there's a bias in coverage of women everywhere), but here's what I've found: Entry in this book, review in American Scientist. She seems to be widely considered an authority from what I can see. You might have to play around with her name to find everything, but here's what I found in a quick glance. I'm not overly familiar with where to search for medical related matter, so others may be able to find more. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 16:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)