Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

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

Scope

• The problems we’re trying to solve:

• Systemic bias towards women’s biographies;
• … and their works -- broadly construed -- such as books, paintings, etc.
• … across all languages

• Off-topic:

• Editor gender gap

What is it?

• WikiProject Women in Red, a community-led project, was launched this week.
• It is intended as a parent project for other projects in all languages whose scope covers women and their works, such as WikiProject Women Writers.
• WikiProject Women in Red is a collaborative space across languages to track all things related to content gender gap.

• creation of new articles, Featured Articles, Good Articles, DYK articles
• events
• news articles
• scholarly publications
• metrics
• hackathon challenges

• WikiProject Women in Red is a container project with links for blogs, conferences, contests, discussions (Wikipedia; Wikimedia), editathons, Inspire grantees’ projects, mailing-lists, meet-ups, newspaper articles, scholarly articles, social media campaigns, workshops, etc.

Wikidata will be used to manage the project because of its size and scope.

• We hope to collaborate with international festival organizers (example: Litquake).
• A global community-run project:
• In addition to needing editors to write the articles, several key volunteer positions have been identified: Data Coordinator; Promotions/Events Coordinator; Lead Coordinators for each language.
• We hope to establish a teaming arrangement with the Wiki Education Foundation as we believe university students are important to this endeavor. We would like to build on the education outreach efforts described by user:Kruusamägi (Wikimania submission: Possibilities for university cooperation: Estonian example) “Every academic year more than 500 articles on Estonian Wikipedia are created as part of local cooperation with universities.”
• We will seek out the expertise of WikiProject X, a project dedicated to improving WikiProjects, in order to create an appealing work space.
• Work together with the Chapters
• Build on Wikimedia’s “Address the gender gap/FAQ“
• Consider the creation of a Wikimedia User Group

Automated metrics report

Rosiestep and I met at the Wikimedia Diversity Conference last week to discuss the technical needs of WikiProject Women in Red. As a result, I am happy to announce that WikiProject X is fast-tracking a long outstanding task to automate the Women in Red metrics report. The strategy we came up with: number of in-scope articles will be determined based on an article's membership in Category:Women and its subcategories. For newly created articles, there will be a daily report (akin to the current new article bot) that recommends articles to be added to categories. (Think slow trickle—as opposed to a big deluge with a monthly report.) As articles are added to categories they are automatically removed; false positives can be removed by hand. The outcome of this should be that we get a sense of how many articles are being created about women, including going back before the founding of WikiProject Women in Red. I've wanted to work on this for months, but we had to wait on an overhaul of Reports Bot's code before we could get started on this. Big thanks to The Earwig who will be working on this. Harej (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Harej and The Earwig:. This seems like a very sensible way of going forward. It's rather like the initiative taken by Edgars2007 who has developed a bot to assign "female" on Wikidata to all articles with one of the subcategories under Category:Women by occupation. Will you simply be listing the new articles on the Metrics section of the main WiR page or will you also be interfacing with Wikidata? I'm not sure what you mean by "As articles are added to categories they are automatically removed". Removed from where? It's very useful for us to be able to identify new articles as many of them need attention although we should of course avoid duplicates. If you are not adding entries to Wikidata, would it be possible to list those new articles which need a Wikidata entry as it seems to be all important to ensure Maximilianklein and his friends can assess progress there? Now that we have the Russian gadgets, it's much easier for us to make basic Wikidata additions for new articles. Please keep us posted of the first results of your new approach.--Ipigott (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, the new article list would be a list posted to the WikiProject, probably under "Metrics." Articles will be automatically removed once it is determined they count as in scope for the project, i.e., they are articles about women or their works. The list would exist for the purpose of helping populate the categories, but if having a list of new pages is valuable in and of itself, they could be not automatically removed. I think it would be good to facilitate quick additions to Wikidata as well. Harej (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Harej: It looks as if we are making good progress on several fronts. The "Gender by language" results from WHGI are now being automatically updated every week, giving us the number of new EN women's biographies compared to the total number for men and women as well as the new overall percentage of women's biographies. I wonder if you could keep track of all this, perhaps automatically updating the data in the main WiR introduction. I have recently been doing it manually. I also welcome the possibility of keeping a record of the list of new articles on a month by month basis. One of the disadvantages with Wikidata appears to be the lack of "history" or archives of earlier results. The alternative would be to continue monitoring the results manually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Harej: Can you give us an update on June metrics? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Harej and The Earwig: I'm not sure if you're getting my pings, so I'll copy this over to your talkpage as well. As it's 21 July, we need to review our June metrics. Is the list ready? If there's a problem, can you tell us, e.g. should I be working on the July metrics myself? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-redding and starting to see red

Hi all, I'm just getting super frustrated with AfD. While today they closed another AfD keeping a pornstar bio, we have a Pakistani university department head Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen, an international development worker and TED fellow [1], and the first muslim woman pilot in India [2], all up for AfD and not necessarily doing well. I am getting seriously ticked and the next time I hear an OTHERSTUFF argument, I think I am going to scream. Is there any place where this can be worked on? Every time that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts is updated, there are more PRODs and AFDs than I've ever seen in any other wikiproject where I subscribe to alerts. It's ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I might be completely missing it, but how do you subscribe to alerts?? I have access to a lot of resources and would love to participate in more AFDs because of that, but I rarely remember to check the alerts. (Sorry it's off topic...) Keilana (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Keilana, just watchlist the page. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This re-reading is very discouraging to me as I try to fight the systemic bias by creating more woman articles via the themes at WiR. Hey Keilana Watchlist this page to see the current woman project AFD's. [3] What can we do about all the re-redding going on? Anyone? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw I have been super frustrated with AfD for a long time. It is ridiculous, as you say, and I find it to be an extremely hostile environment. Stating that GNG is not what it is, that creative doesn't say what it says, that local and regional coverage are forbidden, that length and not depth is the definition of substantial seems to be enough for the lemmings to evidence the Asch effect. I know of no way to fix it, as many of the "experts" are just a lot louder than anyone else. If one says follow the guidelines as they are, the doomsday predictions begin as do the accusations that one is asking for special accommodation. Someone once said that individual projects can create their own guidelines. That would be the only possibility I see that would work. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fouetté! Now to do some serious googling... :) Keilana (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well gang, the fat is in the fire now: Dueling RfCs at Wikipedia_talk:Notability one is mine and the other ... is part of the problem. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) TO wit: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You all know I spend a lot of time on AfD. (though recently, I've been busy with life stuff). AfD is seriously broken. There are a lot of angry people basically intimidating other editors and like SusunW said, they are just "a lot louder." I would love to see something change. I just don't know what to do. I'll check out the RfC, Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Could one of you leave a link here to the two rfcs? I do not know what to do either Megalibrarygirl. Everyday I look at the article alert list which grows longer and longer by the day. I have an editor harassing me following me around, I am getting threatening emails, people are filing and threatening to file bogus SPIs against me. I am going to hold off writing anymore articles to see if people will leave me alone then. The following is creepy. I really enjoy writing articles to help the project, but it may not be worth it, if more woman articles are deleted every day than we can write to replace them. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I did, just above, they are both at WT:NOTABILITY. Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm new here, though I've been a bit active through GGTF. I understand that it must be really frustrating to see biographies of porn actors kept while academics get tossed, but shouldn't this be addressed at the level of WP:NACADEMICS or other topic-specific guidelines?

Peter ^Isotalo 19:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo thanks for weighing in. Actually, that is a huge part of the problem. It is NOT required that someone meet individual notability requirements if they meet GNG. If one has 10 articles in RS over time documenting that the person has been noted as a person of interest, it doesn't matter if they have done anything to satisfy the requirements of a specific field. Many people are not single-faceted and trying to box them into a specific field is like ignoring their other notable contributions. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, part of the problem is that the gang at AfD seems to take the individual notability requirements (SNGs) as a mandate forgetting that WP:N is the policy and everything else is just a rough consensus. The other problem is that there are so many topic-specific guidelines, but many are simply a small paragraph that has been expanded on at a totally different set of pages that discuss "Outcomes" and these "outcomes" are treated like policy-- though they are not. Just to take another example, ambassadors are not deemed inherently notable, but winners of certain named beauty pageants are... seems odd, particularly when the deletionists argue that there is too much fancruft and fret that somehow we will break the WP servers... I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the comparison between beauty pageant winners and ambassadors might be a strong argument to go on if you'd want to expand the notability criteria for, say, academics or politicians. Overall, I'm inclined to believe that the addition of a general clause/reminder/caveat/etc. of systemic bias to the notability guidelines might not really make much of a difference. I'm really somewhat of a deletionist myself, but if we've decided that fairly non-notable porn actors are worth keeping, there's a good reason to be equally generous in the inclusion of other categories of people.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter, you pretty much got it in one—the system is totally messed up if a pornstar can get her own article but not an ambassador. And, of course, when this is mentioned, how DOES one counter the stupid "oh that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument." (Sighing, grumbling...). Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with all comments in this thread but also have no idea how to help, sorry! :( 06:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Jane (talk)

Well Jane, certainly reviewing articles put up for deletion and trying to save the ones that are salvagable is a good start! Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I too am very frustrated with the AfD process and the evidence of systemic bias therein. In the most egregious instance concerning a page I wrote, the AfD blurb made mention of BLP and the need for at least one reference, when in fact the person in question had been dead for over a century and there were seven references at the time of the AfD nomination. My issue, though, is how to usefully and properly invoke systemic bias when addressing individual page nominations? What would one write in an argument against a specific AfD that amounted to anything more than an exchange of charges ("You're biased" "I am not")? I can see the value of such a policy in assessing the AfD nomination pattern of specific editors, however. So I would rather advocate for changes in the AfD process. A few suggestions off the top of my head:

• Two individuals have to sign on to an AfD before it gets into the week-long queue that will inevitably waste a bunch of people's time. That allows for at least one reality check on crap nominations like the one I mentioned above.
• Some kind of a QPQ such as exists for "Did You Know...?" nominations. I've noticed that I hestitate to put forward DYKs because of the extra work of the QPQ, and some similar sort of disincentive to moving forwards lightly might be helpful in retarding trigger-happy AfDers. (Alternatively: a weekly nomination cap?)
• Editors with a pattern of foolish, untenable, biased, or otherwise rogue AfD nominations should have the power to AfD summarily removed. I have no idea how this would work, and I admit to very little experience with back-end processes here so I won't be surprised if someone can show that all of these ideas are unworkable or otherwise problematic. Meanwhile, I appreciate all the thought people are putting into this, since it's such an important issue. Alafarge (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant

IPiggott. The fine stats will be ruined They are deleting all fouetté a created arrives Please help stop. Ask DGG. He would not let them delete one of the he said. Perfect great article. Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zpeopleheart: Can you be more specific about the articles nominated for deletion. We can then contribute to the discussions. As far as I can see, for the June editathons Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant created four new articles on entertainers, six on Jewish women and five on scientists. I cannot see any have yet been deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The lady just above. Carol Smallwood and lines that she did for scientific and art for the drive Zpeopleheart (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly help out with Carol Smallwood.--Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very surprised to discover that ThePlatypusofDoom suspects Fouetté of being a sockpuppet of User:Carriearchdale who has not contributed to Wikipedia for over a year. I believe Rosiestep met Fouetté recently in Italy or Germany. Perhaps Keilana has also been in touch with her? I'm not sure how this can be sorted out. Any suggestions, anyone?--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is a (now blocked) sockpuppet of a previously community banned user. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Exhausted_and_Fed_up --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I met @Nattes à chat and LaMèreVeille: at Wikimania, not Fouette. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I was confusing all those exotic names. Then we'll just have to live with the blockage I suppose.--Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is ok IPiggott a hello kitty lady says the full on ARBCOM case case will be filed soon. Than all the disruptive named and IP person will be included as parties in the ARBCOM Zpeopleheart (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've requested undeletion of Fouette's 4 deleted articles. Two speedies were stopped. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I can handle the two astronomers (one may be a keep), but the articles Valeria Lynch Lee and Carol Smallwood need adopting if they are to remain. Thanks. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification. User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet [4] and has been banned. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC).

I'm working on Valeria Lynch Lee. Got lots of hits in historical newspapers. She founded one of the first African-American public radio stations in the country. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Fouetté was never beeAlthough it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary the panda ₯’n banned, That is just simply not true. At this moment she is indeft blocked pending the outcome of her ARBCOM case. I hear it is taking longer since she was not allowed to use her talk page to collect and organize her diffs which is her right. I myself have read over the anis and the SPI report'. Bbb23 even commented on the SPI. No one could really be confirmed to be a sock puppet of the user they said, because that is user was stale for more than a year, and could not even be compared to to provide any evidence. I have corresponded with Ffouette, and all I can say is that her main stalker/hounder has apparently placed a retired sign on their account. Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Update Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant found not to be related. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale. I see a reference to an Arbcom case, but I do not see an open case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The block log says something else though. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is really getting hilarious, the lengths people will go to try to smear an editor. Yes Lemon girl that is what Fouette's block log says right now. That is why this is having to be sorted by ARBCOM. The admin who made the mistake in blocking Fouetté is stated sock of banned user Carriearchdale, now lemon girl since you are good at quoting block logs, bring us a diff here than says Carriearchdale was ever banned or de facto community banned as I saw someone say so where. Please let me see a diff that says Carrie was ever banned. Also as Spilbrick wrote above with the diff Fouetté was shown not to have any evidence in the SPI. @Spilbrick from what I understand the ARBCOM may not totally appear online to to at least one editor being found guilty of outing. I guess there are privacy issues and stuff. Not too sure about that part. Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of an Arbcom case, but now that I look, there was indeed a community imposed block on Carriearchdale. See this. And till we get any updates otherwise from Arbcom, Fouette remains a sock of Carriearchdale. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the beautiful things about Women in Red is that it has never been plagued with the negativity that surrounds other projects and Wikipedia in general. Posting information on blocked editors or lifted blocks from editors can be viewed as "need to know information" but this is not the place to argue whether or not those bans were properly placed. Please take the discussion to your own talk pages or to whatever body handles community disputes. Unless the discussion involves article creation, it has no place on the project talk page. SusunW (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Gee Lemon girl, you are proving me right and that you are wrong with your provided diff. Here is a quote from the original closer of that Carrie person's indefinite block, not ban. Although it is uncommon to go from a short block to indefinite, it's clear by the discussion, proof provided, and User:Carriearchdale's own behaviour both in this thread, and elsewhere during this discussion that such a block is necessary the panda ₯’. Diff please miss lemon girl. Put up or shut up, please pardon my French. Zpeopleheart (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I see Zpeopleheart that you were blocked for 6 months previously. That explains a lot. I will urge you to collaborate with users rather than being disruptive. Anyway I don't want to comment on this topic anymore as it is not worth my time. And this is not the correct venue anyway. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring my talk page posting that was apparently refactored by another editor, or on the agf side it might just have disappeared on it own. Regardless, I am finished discussing this particular topic in this venue. For the record @Rosiestep, I attempted to archive this topic twice out of respect for your post above, but all I got was threatened plus my comments were removed.

"Wow Lemon girl, after I closed out and archived this thread in respect of Rosiestep 's request, you found it necessary to re-open the thread to make more convos about your inability to correctly read, and report truthfully what the logs say. That can be considered disruptive editing on your part. Oh, and btw where is the diff miss lemon? Of course you could not find one because that Carrie person was never banned. Zpeopleheart (talk) 6:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)"

I am done here. Zpeopleheart (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As our 1 Year Anniversary approaches...

July 18th will be Women in Red's 1 Year Anniversary. I think it'll be important to pause and reflect on all we've done. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• We have certainly achieved a great deal over our first year but I have a sneaking feeling the project's initial attraction is beginning to wear off. In June, for example, despite three well-defined editathons, many of our participants contributed articles on topics other than our priorities for the month. If the Wikidata figures can be trusted, our recent performance has also diminished, with only 19.49% of all the new biographies in early July specifically addressing women. Similarly, after 11 days on our Women in Halls of Fame editathon, we have only 41 new articles, far fewer than one could have expected at this juncture. My suggestion is therefore that we should try to come up with new incentives for participation, perhaps on the basis of a competitive approach along the lines of what Dr. Blofeld implemented for the coverage of Wales. We could also return to some of our more popular themes (writers, artists, scientists, leaders) and also provide more specific support for articles on sports. If the metrics problems can be resolved, our more active members (myself included) will be able to spend more time on content building and less on background support. I also suggest we introduce language or geographic areas as a basis for new editathons. We could start the ball rolling with women's biographies from the French, German and Italian wikis with red link lists from Wikidata and could also try to collaborate with those who have been developing coverage of women in Africa, India, or in the Arabic or Farsi languages. Specific geographical collaboration on women with wikis in other languages could possibly provide a new basis for extending WiR internationally. And last but not least, should we not specifically ask our participants for their suggestions too, perhaps in the form of a mini questionnaire? We could possibly also develop lists of participants by sector of interest as many participate only in editathons addressing one area (e.g. science or writing or music) but not in other areas. I look forward to comments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would certainly be willing to do a trial contest perhaps in the autumn sometime, covering both women in red and green but that would depend on WM funding and the support and participation of people here. I mentioned a contest idea a week or two ago and I got the impression that most people here don't like anything competitive. I would run it more as an editathon with prizes, rather than a competition if there was the support, and reward editors who produce and improve the most content with books about women that they want, which in turn would future benefit the project.. Penny Richards I know has a positive view of the Dragon contest and would like to see something run for women, but others need to show their support for it too, which seems to be lacking at the moment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the "prizes" could also come as virtual awards such as "Most active WiR content builder" or "WiR destubber of the month" (possibly by sector of interest). Credit could also be given to participation in improvement of existing articles up to DYK status and editors could be invited to participate in a list of most popular articles by page views. I think the barnstars for participation are also worthwhile but these now need to be refined, perhaps covering sectors of interest in general rather than just individual editathons. We could also support excellence in image creation or improvement.--Ipigott (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of something to perk it up a bit without an actual "contest", but just make people know that if they work hard they'll be rewarded for it with books of their choice. I know Kirill Lokshin said that WM would be interested in funding books for something like this. What I would suggest is to apply for an annual grant, divide it into 12 months, and reward people each month for hard work. I do think it's worth doing a "contest" as a trial with a good prize though to see if we can attract more editors to producing content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just an observation. It is summer holidays for many. I know I was gone the entire month of June and only created 1 article. Even this month, I am playing catch up with many real life projects impacting my production ability. I'm not sure diminished participation is due to lack of newness or disinterest, as it may just be the time of year. SusunW (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, summer holidays are probably a factor. Besides travel and summer jobs and kids off school to distract regular editors, some may not have access to their usual hardware or online resources, when away from campus libraries or between academic appointments. (My laptop is in the shop because summer's the best time for that; I'm typing this on a desktop I'm not fond of, that doesn't know all my usual passwords, so I'm limited for editing.) I would be more surprised if there was no dip during July and August.Penny Richards (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What's been said matches up with my perception: it's summer in North America and many of us are busy with other things. Over the long term, I think we'll see June, July, August, and December be our slower months. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I too have been much less active because of summer, so I agree it's too early to worry about a dip. I can't believe WiR is only a year old -- it's such a strong community, I feel as if I've known you all for much longer! And having access through WiR to all your ideas and knowledge and helpfulness has itself felt like a reward. Not to mention an antidote to the darker aspects of Wikipedia... Alafarge (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Access to college library resources for improving articles about women

Hi WiR,

Just a heads up that Hunter College would like to help with the improvement of biographies of women on Wikipedia by giving an experienced Wikipedian remote access to its college library resources (databases, ebooks, etc.).

The arrangement is through the Wikipedia Visiting Scholars program, which connects educational institutions and Wikipedians to improve public knowledge in a topic area of mutual interest. The page for the Hunter College position is Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars/Participating institutions/Hunter College and the application is a Google Form here. (sorry for the cross-post with WikiProject Women) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Many more WiR articles deleted

After the problems with Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, I have just noticed that all the articles created for WiR by Arcituno have now been deleted. They include the following: Entertainment: Noemi Lapzeon, Janette Rauch, Elena Ballesteros, Natalie Langer, Francesca Antoniotti, Daphné Bürki, Géraldine Lapalus, Cláudia Cruz, Xiomara Fortuna, Emilia Krakowska, Annett Renneberg, Jessica Zahedi, Ulrike C. Tscharre, Angela Roy, Christine Neubauer, Astrid M. Fünderich, Sophie Hilbrand, Louisa Thomas, Marie Joussaye, Jana Nagyová, Maria Gładkowska, Johanna Gastdorf, Gabriele Metzger, Sibylle Weischenberg, Petra Nadolny, Sabine Thiesler, Dorota Pomykała, Charlotte Vanhove, Paula Conrad, Gabriella Andreini, Antje Hagen, Verena Grendelmeier, Margot Werner, Ursula Hinrichs, Ellen Schwiers, Ingeborg Wellmann, Viveca Serlachius, Johanna König, Maria Becker, Marta Husemann, Olga Gzovskaïa, Amalie Haizinger, Stella Hohenfels, Louise Dumont, Tilly Wedekind, Grete Diercks, Amalie Haizinger and probably a few more. There are also several from the other June editathons. The stats in my thank-you notes will have to be revised. I don't understand why WiR attracts problem cases.--Ipigott (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, I would not recommend revising the stats in the thank-you notes. They were based on a moment in time, and we know things can change thereafter, a little, or a lot; e.g. your time, my friend, is precious... use it for other things. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Just as a note, this is not the only sockpuppet of that user. User:Sudowoodoo participated in the Art History Challenge and there will probably be similar fall-out. I agree however that the articles need to be checked, because the fact that this specific user created the article doesn't imply the notability is nihil. Jane (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems these were deleted (from a random sample) with the rationale "(Mass deletion of pages added by Arcituno)". I don't think that is an acceptable reason; perhaps the deleting admin, User:DragonflySixtyseven would kindly expand on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh %£%%£££ ! I'd spotted one and just reversed it as there was no rationale offered by @DragonflySixtyseven:. "Mass deletion" is what was done .... its patently not a reason. I will ask as well about the rationale and how many people were involved in the discussion. Lets AGF that it isnt arbitrary. Victuallers (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Mass deletion of pages added by Arcituno" is in fact an acceptable reason, because Arcituno was a sockpuppet of the banned user.... I believe it was Slowking4, but I could be wrong about that particular detail. I quite realize how annoying it is, and if any of those articles were substantially written by other users, I can restore them. I've written some allegories which might help explain why the deletion is done. DS (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a Catch-22. If all of these were copyvios, or if they were created by a banned user with a reputation for copyvio (I'm thinking of the still-open 700+ article mess made by the ItsLassieTime sock drawer), I can see the need for uncritical mass deletion. But if they were essentially salvagable articles, then the sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing or whatever crime was committed by the creator, and especially if there were other users who were involved working on them, then a bit of care should be taken. Perhaps the trick would be to create the equivalent of CCI for "problem users" where the articles they created could perhaps also be moved into Draft: space (perhaps by a bot) for editors to review and "clear" just as is done for Copyvio stuff. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel pretty frustrated about all these deletions. Practically every day in June, I reviewed all the new articles created under the four editathons of the month, Entertainers, LGBTQ, Jewish Women and Scientists. Arcituno created 43 biographies on Entertainers, 1 on LGBTQ, 2 on Scientists and 7 on other WiR areas of interest. I read them all, sometimes making edits, mainly on categories, CE, etc., and I added several of the names to Wikidata (although I think most were already there triggered by articles in other languages). Though usually quite short, the articles provided excellent summaries of the essentials about each person and were always well referenced. Many of them were drawn from our lists of red links, frequently those listed in the Wikidata list. The new articles were often based on coverage in other languages. I now see that not only have the articles been deleted but all my own edits have completely disappeared too. If I try to recreate a biography, I am warned that it should not resemble the article that has been deleted - which makes it impossible to cover these people on Wikipedia without entering into discussions with the deleting editor. (I think most people would like to avoid any risk of being associated with a serious problem and so move to something fresh.) During the same period, Fouetté created 4 articles on Entertainers, 6 on Jewish Women and 5 on Scientists. These were generally longer than those by Arcituno, were well written and well sourced. Many of them were also inspired by articles in other languages. I see from here that of the 35 articles (mainly biographies of women) created by Fouetté between 27 April and 10 July, 14 have been deleted. I expect within a few days, all the others will be deleted too, like all but 3 of the 97 created by Arcituno listed here. The lesson of all this seems to be not to review/edit/list new articles by the most enthusiastic newcomers as they are likely to be unauthorized from the start. And there seems to be no easy way to restore any of the excellent information the articles contained. There are two or three other names of competent new editors I have been following. I am just waiting for them to be caught and punished too. I have been aware of a few cases of sock puppetry over the years but none in which so many high quality articles have been deleted. Great pity for all those notable women who had been included in our encyclopaedia for a few days but are now no longer likely to reappear... --Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Your claim is not supported by the page you linked to. "Mass deletion of pages created by a sockpuppet" (or even "Mass deletion of per WP:CSD#G5") may be an acceptable justification, but that is not what was said. Other editors are not supposed to have to guess the real reason for a deletion. I also note that G5 applies only to articles "that have no substantial edits by others". This does not appear, from others' comemnts, to be the case here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I did google a few names above and found very little content on some of them except social media and self promotion. I'm sure a lot of them were salvagable and should be restarted, but it may have been correct to delete at least some of them of weak notability. Somebody like fr:Daphné Bürki though should never have been deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Some were indeed deleted in the normal way on lack of notability grounds. I contributed myself to a few AfD discussions. There were nevertheless a considerable number about notable women based on Wikipedia articles in other languages, encouraged by the WiR lists of red links. I nevertheless find it astonishing that virtually the entire contribution of Arcituno was deleted, with little or no warning or discussion. I quickly looked through each one and can assure you that on the basis of the sources, most were fully acceptable. One of the reasons I looked carefully into each one was to establish which particular editathon was being addressed. I must say I was amazed by the number of new articles Arcituno was able to produce in such a short time. If he or she is indeed a sock of Slowking4, I'm still not sure what the original crime was. The quality of Slowking4's articles seems to have been consistently fully in line with Wikipedia criteria. The original problem seems to have had something to do with images rather than article content. But maybe we shouldn't question the wisdom of the experts. It nevertheless seems a shame that people so keen to contribute are simply banned outright.--Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

While I absolutely agree to G5 for editors banned for anything resembling a content reason, I'm generally willing to reverse G5 deletions upon review for editors that were banned for reasons unrelated to content. The trouble with applying the allegories in this case is we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. Regardless of how horrible an editor's crimes were that got them blocked, we never delete material from before the block on their original account (unless there were content issues involved), so clearly the problem isn't that certain editors are so heinous that we don't want the name of Wikipedia associated with their work. And when an editor is blocked for non-content issues and sockpuppets in a way that isn't obvious for a while, usually they're either Wiki-addicts who don't want to stop contributing, trying to prove that they weren't that bad after all, or (as the allegory mentions) trying to prove that Wikipedia really needs their content. (There are other cases, like personal grudges, but I suspect those tend to become obvious a lot sooner than the other reasons.) In those cases, does Wikipedia really need to delete content that helps build the encyclopedia just so banned editors can't claim some philosophical victory over us, or brag offsite about how Wikipedia needs them? I get that it's supposed to prevent those editors from coming back, but I suspect the banned editors also think we're cutting off our nose to spite our face, so I'm not sure it even works to do that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

There appears to be a consensus that in this case Wikipedia (and this project) lost some good content.... and some editors, in very good standing, have had their work deleted too. Like Ipigott, and several others, I have been actively reviewing WiR articles. They have not just been waved thro' to our project. I would like to suggest that we ask @DragonflySixtyseven: to undelete the articles and put them where we can easily review them (draft:space?) so that they can be moved into main space, left to fester, or deleted. I would ask DragonflySixtyseven if s/he has any suspicions about the content of these articles as I couldn't find any reason to disown them? Do we have a working party? Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Victuallers: I'll help if we can get drafts. Hard to know what was even there, as Ian said, without having drafts. I am pretty sure if @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: can find time from their real world obligations, they will also help. SusunW (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will help. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If SusunW picks any of these up, we can expect far more comprehensive coverage than before. Furthermore, she is unlikely to begin biographies unless she is first certain of the person's notability and can put together a number of recognized sources. Many of the deleted articles were stubs, containing only essential details. I wouldn't mind participating either, but I would first like to have an assurance that the articles will not be once again deleted, either for lack of notability (like many of Fouetté's) or simply because they were among Arcituno's creations. The recent silence of DragonflySixtyseven in this discussion gives me the feeling that he or she feels it is more important to keep them out of Wikipedia than offer any kind of support to revival. As Rosiestep is an administrator, she should be able at least to see what the articles looked like before deletion and draw on the sources used. But perhaps that kind of behaviour will be frowned upon by all the administrators who have been involved in our deletions and we certainly don't want to be involved in further conflicts. In my opinion, unless we can have a clear understanding that our project will not be constantly attacked by deletion addicts who give us virtually no opportunity to comment on speedy deletions, we would do better to forget the past completely and move on. If ever entertainers and Jewish women reappear on our agenda, we can then examine where the new priorities lie. In any case, as Dr. Blofeld has pointed out, several of the articles probably lacked real notability anyway - so not all of them require attention. Strangely, I see that a number of the deleted articles have led to Wikidata additions. It looks as if the absence of articles on Wikipedia does not lead to names being subsequently deleted from Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to source any drafts, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motives to me; I'm just really busy (and taking time off from several other tasks right now). I don't like deleting valid articles, but it can be necessary. If 'arcituno' is willing to lie about who he is relative to his other accounts, can we 100% trust that his translations are valid? And I'm willing to restore articles for which there's sufficient non-arcituno content. DS (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Olga Gzovskaïa should probably be a redirect anyway. There is an article on English WP called Olga Gzovskaya, which needs work. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: has agreed to undelete some and I see that above we have now undeleted over a dozen above. All the ones I looked at were OK. As nearly always, new articles need some tidying but these don't require deletion. I'm willing to undelete a batch by Arcituno as they are at least very good drafts of stuff that we want. I havn'[[]]t found out what s/he has meant to have done but I see no reason to punish the articles involved. The mass deletion has caused a lot of extra work as many of these had cross-wiki links, wiki data and normal wiki links which have sometimes been lost. So if a WiR editor wants to list some articles below then I will undelete. Victuallers (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Rescue squadron idea

I've decided to try and focus on AfDs to KEEP from going red: User_talk:Montanabw#First_ever_AfD_alert_of_the_day. Could we consider creating a subpage off WIR to have an "article rescue squadron" to try and salvage notable articles? Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. One thing I've discovered from these sock deletions is that if other editors contribute to building the content of an article, it is less likely to be deleted. But there seem to be quite a bunch of editors who monitor what we are doing and are more than ready to tag articles with AfD before anyone has had a chance to look at them properly. Some WikiProjects seem to have a gadget for listing AfDs and other articles tagged for notability, etc. Perhaps we could use the same approach.--Ipigott (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you are basing your efforts on WP Women alerts. Could this be extended to cover all the other women projects? Many of our new articles are on scientists, artists and writers who are not often included in WP Women.--Ipigott (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be glad to help periodically, but drama avoidance is high on my list of whether or not I participate. SusunW (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I am totally in, Montanabw. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that to avoid too much drama, those of us who peruse the lists need to kind of thin them out to focus on the most important; I might weigh in on an AfD about a beauty queen or Bollywood star, but those aren't a "hill to die on." At my own talk page I am going to start listing one or two that may pop up. My hope is that prompt action on the most suitable targets will avoid the toxic debates that characterize AfD right now. But where could such a project set up a "home base?" Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a home base on Women in Red. Participants could post the deletion candidates they consider worthy of attention, with a few words explaining their reasoning. It's certainly not worthwhile for all of us to examine the cases for supporting minor beauty queens or pop singers but there are many really notable women whose biographies are being deleted. Let's concentrate on them. Can't we make this a feature of our main WiR page? It certainly seems to be worthwhile. We could also list deletions which appear to require revisiting.--Ipigott (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Suzanne S. Welsh

I have been working on finding moire sourcing to this article on Welsh. I am trying to save it because it is currently at AFD. If anyone has a free moment, I need more help to find more sources and hopefully save the article from deletion. The lady seems quite notable to me, we just need to find a few more sources and references. Thanks, Zpeopleheart (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zpeopleheart: I sympathize with your feelings but I have not been able to find much in the way of reliable sources. It looks to me that local press archives would be useful but I do not have access. Thanks also for all the work you have been doing on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. The admin moved this to draft. Check out the new version. I look forward to hearing any constructive ideas or suggestions. I did get the couple book references put in. Thanks again all! Zpeopleheart (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Contests

Planning a North African contest/editathon for October, prize money $1000-1500. If interested in contributing on African women and reducing systematic bias please sign up in the participants section at the bottom as there may be prizes for books on African women for participating which will further help this project ;-)!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

United Nations!

Michelle Bachelet, Executive Director of UN Women

I am over the moon to tell you about an editathon being run by the UN on 12 August in "Egypt, four Arab countries, and New York", and how we fit in. They've asked for nothing more from us than to keep doing what we're doing and provide a list of our articles accumulated during a 1 month period, which I'll take to mean from 12 July through 12 August 2016. The focus is twofold: increase the number of articles; and editing existing articles. Just our cup of tea: Women in Red; Women in Green. The UN has some targeted areas of interest but we are free to contribute anything else which suits us:

• Artists
• Writers
• Women’s organizations
• NGOs
• Celebrities
• Academics
• Researchers
• Libraries

Keep doing what you're doing, my friends. Watch for me to get a meetup page created where we'll document our work, and let's show the UN the power of us! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've created the meetup page for United Nations Empower Women. Please spruce it with your talents. And can someone please create {{WIR-UN 2016}}? If someone wants to create the invitation, I'd appreciate it, or I will by the weekend. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Great news! Where is the like button on this thing!? Jane (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How very, very cool Rosiestep. This is awesome! Buster7 could we link your women artist's page? SusunW (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, SusunW, I would be honored to be even a small part of this wonderful effort. Buster Seven Talk 04:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Buster7 and SusunW: Hmm. You know, I can't remember any paintings by women artists being featured since Rosa Bonheur, which was a bit ago now. We've gotten a LOT of stuff from the Google Art Project, and there's a number of museums happy to offer downloads of their collections - the Met Museum, the National Gallery of Art, and various others. We don't want to flood Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but I'd say one or two paintings a day wouldn't be amiss.

Quick guide:

• At least 1500px on the shortest side (unless there's a strong reason why it isn't, like, the painting is postage-stamp size or something)
• It needs to be a good reproduction. (anything from a museum site or the Google Art Project should be fine in this regard)
• Nothing fair use.

I think that's all you really need to know for paintings. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: If you're in contact with them, could you ask them if they'd release some of their photos of Bertha Lutz and the other four women delegates that signed the United NAtions charter? Particularly this one Ask them for at least 1500px on the shortest side; that'll let it pass through featured pictures and get onto the main page. Higher resolution is better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding May Hachem93. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden the list in question of Buster7's are all WPA artists and their works are for the various U.S. Post offices. Thus, the works themselves belong to the federal government. Many of them also have works in museums, like Marianne Appel who has works in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Beulah Bettersworth whose painting hung in the White House and is part of the Smithsonian collection, Ethel V. Ashton has works at the Woodemere. Finding photos of them??? As you know, not my forte. Here's Buster's link and what we have been working on User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists SusunW (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep I have no idea, I am sorry, how to create the template you want. I already used it on Beulah Bettersworth and Verona Burkhard, but it is showing in Red. If you can either tell me how to do it, or maybe someone else can, that'd be great. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

SusunW No worries. I just created it: Template:WIR-UN 2016. Also, linking to the page on meta: m:Wikipedia and UN Women Project. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

you ROCK Rosiestep SusunW (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing...

This page is on my watchlist and every time it pops up that song goes through my head. Have you no sense of decency at long last? freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the good work though. freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month

We will hold Wikipedia Asian Month on this November and wish to collaborate with Women in Red folks to improve the women articles in Asia. We will send you a postcard from one of the Asian communities if you create four articles that fit the quality criteria. --AddisWang (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AddisWang Definitely willing to participate. We had been talking about doing women in food and drink and collaborating with other projects to include chefs of various regions. If you know of any notable chefs we could write about, that would help our plan. I have no doubt @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: as well as others will be glad to support your efforts as well. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@AddisWang, Rosiestep, and SusunW:, I will do some digging for Asian chefs, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we stick with "Women in Food and Drink" as one of our editathons as so many of us are jazzed about working on it; and let's a second event, Asian Women. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds cool! Both "Women in Food and Drink" of Asia and just general Asian Month articles are fine with the Wikipedia Asian Month. Looking forward to work with you!--AddisWang (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Theatre

How about a month on Women in Theatre? I think it's a topic broad enough to have a lot of interest, and there's loads of history we can look into going back centuries. WP:OPERA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre might well collaborate on drawing up lists, if asked. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly opposed, but we just finished Women in Entertainment, which included this subset. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there can be an advantage to a more focused set. I mean, I think Women in Entertainment tended to go more 20th and 21st century; we could go back a bit more Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense. I like 19th century women a lot and would be glad to work on them. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps 19th-century Women is the better topic, then? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread after being overwhelmed with visitors over the past couple of weeks. I certainly support the idea of Women in Theatre and think the clear focus will help with coverage. Maybe we could devote a couple of weeks to it later in the year. To clarify the live acting aspect, we could call it Women on Stage. As suggested, it should include actresses, opera singers and associated players. Perhaps Adam Cuerden could help us to extend our red lists.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hallie Jackson

Hi, just to alert you that some content has been removed from the Hallie Jackson article which you recently improved. I'm not sure whether the information was correct or the sources reliable but you may want to restore it if appropriate. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Zpeopleheart! Certes (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Automated metrics report ready for feedback

Hello! Sorry for the delay in getting this stuff all set up, but we're now ready for feedback on the new metrics report. I'll give a quick overview.

Right now, you can view a live demo at User:Reports bot/WiRMetricsTest.

• Every day, the bot will add newly created articles about women to the corresponding month subpage.
• Feel free to add any articles the bot misses. It will update the counters for you. You are also free to continue leaving notes and other formatting in the entries; the bot won't mess with any of that.
• The bot alphabetizes the lists, fixes duplicates, and removes redlinks whenever pages are deleted.
• There's a bit of a caveat if you need to remove an entry the bot added for some reason. If you just remove it, the bot might add it back the next day. Instead, you can <!-- comment it out -->.

On the main metrics page, you'll see a few new things. The monthly counts on the sidebar and the chart are automatically updated with Lua magic. The page also transcludes the current month's page list without needing human intervention.

At the moment, it finds these articles using Wikidata (specifically, all articles that have the sex or gender property set to "female"). However, this can be changed, and I suspect you'll want to track additional properties. When changed, the bot will retroactively add articles to old months.

To be clear, the bot doesn't edit the main metrics page at all, so you're free to rearrange things however you want. It creates new month subpages using a template that you are able to customize.

Please let me know what you think. (Ping: Harej, Rosiestep, Ipigott)

— Earwig ^talk 20:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig I really, really like the list, but I think I do not like that it comes directly from Wikidata. For example, I created Patricia Ann McGee on the 26th. She has no entry in VIAF nor ISNI, so the bot that creates Wikidata entries on new articles didn't migrate anything to Wikidata. I have tried to manually create Wikidata items in the past and it is unintelligible to me. I do not see her on your list. So are you saying that if we do not create a Wikidata entry, articles will not show on the list unless we manually add them? If we manually add them and a Wikidata entry is later created, will the list automatically switch to updates on the Wikidata entry or no? Sorry, but I am not very technical and am afraid I will create some sort of problem with keeping the metrics up to date. SusunW (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig I LOVE IT. So, if I understand you correctly, we can add an article by hand in a given month, e.g. January 2016, and the bot-thing will automatically update the list for January 2016. And we can add articles in the July 2016 list, and the bot will account for it only once, e.g. if it gets a Wikidata entry, it won't be counted twice. And we don't have to add it to the July 2016 list as the bot thing will magically find it, either through Wikidata or through some other search mechanism. Do I understand all of this correctly, or where am I unclear? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@SusunW: Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by the list automatically switching to updates on the Wikidata entry, can you rephrase that? To be clear, if an article is manually added somewhere and its Wikidata entry is later created, the bot won't add it to the list a second time. Anyway, I agree that this is a valid concern. Wikidata entries often take a while to appear in any case. Fortunately, we can add other data sources to the bot. I think monitoring categories makes sense, the difficulty is just in finding good categories to follow. Harej's original suggestion to me was all subcats of Category:Women, but this diffuses really far and weirdly; for example, it contains Category:Men's Softball World Championship. I think the several "Women by X" categories might be sufficient, so I'll look into it.

@Rosiestep: Yes, everything you said is correct. — Earwig ^talk 02:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble even with the more limited categories. The sad fact is that Wikipedia's category structure is a bit of a mess. For example, Murder of Robert Eric Wone would be tracked, which is clearly out of scope; this is by Category:Women → Category:Women by country → Category:Violence against women by country → Category:Violence against women in the United States → Category:Sexual assaults in the United States. So I'm having trouble refining this. — Earwig ^talk 04:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

These are the stats we have tracked by hand:

• 2015

• 18-31 Jul: 1,002
• Aug: 1,854
• Sep: 1,590
• Oct: 1,989
• Nov: 1,787
• Dec: 1,473

• 2016

• Jan: 1,430
• Feb: 2,320
• Mar: 2,342
• Apr: 1,649
• May: 1,955

These are Earwig's stats:

• 2015

• Jul: 1,502
• Aug: 1,993
• Sep: 1,641
• Oct: 1,926
• Nov: 1,785
• Dec: 1,443

• 2016

• Jan: 1,826
• Feb: 2,874
• Mar: 2,699
• Apr: 2,457
• May: 2,520
• Jun: 1,273

IMO, we can stop tracking by hand and rely on Earwig effective now. Any reason why we shouldn't, e.g. am I missing something? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that the numbers on my end are a bit low, since they don't include articles from the manual metrics that will be picked up once the bot goes live. — Earwig ^talk 04:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Earwig I think I understand, after Rosiestep's recap. I only have to add someone if they don't have a VIAF/ISNI entry and it won't create a duplicate. Manually adding to the list will be much easier than trying to add them to Wikidata and mucking it up. Totally thrilled to not have to manually input more than a few here and there. Thank you so much for this! SusunW (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Earwig: This is a really good start and seems to reflect very closely the figures captured by Maximilianklein in his page on Gender by Language. I'm glad to see you list all new articles in alpha order and that your figures substantially exceed those we have been able to compile manually. The actual number of new women's biographies is interesting but at the moment only provides half the picture as in WiR what we are really interested in is the overall improvement in the figures for women's biographies in regard to the total number of EN biographies. Maybe you could follow more closely Max's approach and also include the comparative figures and percentages for women's biographies as a proportion of the total number of biographies. (For the past few weeks, I have been including these in the introduction to our main WiR page.) While earlier in the year we managed to maintain a significant improvement in these percentages, they have recently dropped, the latest falling to just over 18%. Such a low figure will unfortunately not lead to any real improvement in the proportion of women's vs. men's biographies. We are now (for the past two weeks) at 16.37% with 226,220 women's biographies compared 1,382,156 on men. Maybe you could also include the total number of biographies on your graph so that we can more easily see which months have been most successful for WiR.

To return to SusunW's concern about the difficulty of adding articles to Wikidata, you can install the gadget recommended by Edgars2007. I installed it myself and have been adding my own new articles and many others to Wikidata without any trouble. The gadget improves your Wikipedia page interface and allows you to add your current document to Wikidata without ever leaving Wikipedia or the article on which you are working. I really think you should try it out. It makes life much easier.

What is still missing, is a means of adding articles on works created by women to the list as these are not coded female on Wikidata. Any ideas? Maybe these should be listed separately anyway.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Ipigott, my idea for that is to select for Wikidata entries that have a author/creator property assigned, where the value of that property is a woman. For example: Silent Spring, Q591623 on Wikidata, has the statement "author: Rachel Carson", and Rachel Carson (Q100948) has "sex or gender: female." Does that sound workable? Harej (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Harej: That sounds like a very reasonable approach. Do you think it would be useful to maintain two lists, one for biographies and one for works? It might make assessments of the proportion of new biographies on women easier to monitor while a separate list on works would also show independently the effort devoted to coverage of the books, paintings, music, etc., created by women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott! I never saw that gadget link. I added it. Woe is me that we are coding these as female rather than woman, but I guess one would have to fix the whole database to fix that. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

So, Earwig, where do we go from here? We'd like to migrate (merge?) your metrics lists into our archives. And do we just keep adding articles for July into our current list, and you'll do the archiving in early August? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Featured pictures progress report

Category of Featured Pictures	Number of women-related images before WIR (does not count images replaced as part of WIR)	Number of women-related images after WIR	Percent increase	Notes
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Artists and writers	25	32	22%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Business	0	0	NAN	Very unpopulated category: Has 5 items in it
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment	35	43	19%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Military	2	2	0%	May be a good choice for an editathon
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Political	10	17	41%	Includes two portraits of men by Frances Benjamin Johnston
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures	0	0	NAN	A small category. May be another good editathon topic, though
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Royalty and Nobility	21	21	0%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Science_and_engineering	8	15	47%
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Sport	14	14	0%	Another good editathon category.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Traditional dress	4	4	0%	A small category
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others	10	10	0%	Count presumes one of the mounted police is female - hard to tell in helmets and bulky jackets

There's going to be an increase in "Science and engineering", "Sport", "Artists and writers", and "Others" soon (given a few FPCs that are obviously passing), but this is the stats as of today. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bravo! This is great! Am so enjoying your pictures! SusunW (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I should probably note Chris Woodrich is also doing a lot of stuff, especially on women in Indonesian film. It's just he doesn't document it on here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Might be worth noting that we have several paintings by women artists featured as well, including works by Anna Palm de Rosa, Anna Petersen, Anna Ancher, Anna Elizabeth Klumpke, Laura Knight, Elisabeth Jerichau-Baumann, Sarah Goodridge, etc. Not many of these were featured all that recently, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Teresa Andrés Zamora

• @Adam and Chris - A bit off-topic but worthy of mention nonetheless is that on the far side of a Featured Pictures prospect, you will find this photo of Teresa Andrés Zamora. It certainly is a candidate for Worst Quality Picture Ever, IMO. Do we have a page where we can keep a list of awful quality images used in women's biographies so that someone can work on improving them? I guess this falls under Women in Green. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we do. It can be quite hard to replace some of these images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Women state legislators

Hi-I can help with articles about women who served in state legislators. Recently, I started an article about LaVon Crosby who served in the Nebraska Legislature. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Women in halls of fame categories

There is an important discussion going on here in connection with the proposed deletion of Category:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame. Rosiestep in particular might be able to recommend how we go forward if the categories are really prohibited by Wikipedia rules.--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, the policy concerns I raised were with WP:OCAWARD and WP:DEFINING. Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Good week for women's biographies

I'm glad to say that the recent stats show that 27.55% of the new EN biographies in the last week of July were on women, one of our best weeks ever despite the summer holidays. (Maybe this results from the number of "female" biographies added to Wikidata rather than the actual number of new articles created.) Overall though, we're still at 16.37%, as we have been for the past three weeks. The overall automatic metrics report for July reflects this with only 771 articles for the month of July. But now we have ample opportunities for expansion with our UN and Polar editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott Whatever the reason the numbers went up, it's a good thing. I suspect the overall is still flat because of deletionists, but if we continue to focus on well-documented new articles, those numbers should eventually rise. (By the by, I added a Greenlander to the indigenous group who looks interesting and may have Danish sources). SusunW (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Heads up, all: one of Keilana's articles is now under the gun: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_L._Mitchell. Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I found lots of sources Montanabw but they need to be incorporated into the article. I'll try to get back to it, but have an appointment. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

For now, list them at the AfD and perhaps also on the article's talk page. That way, if someone else has time, they can help add them in too. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman, RIP

Kevin Gorman, age 24,[5], passed away a couple of weeks ago. He was a strong supporter of gender equality, anti-harassment initiatives, and focused on women philosophers, among other areas. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Philosophers just now using his redlist. I knew Kevin and considered him a friend. We met in 2014 at UC Berkeley during an editathon, and then at various wikiconferences. He was bright, articulate, opinionated, looking out for the common "good". Perhaps some of you knew him, or were aware of his work, too. RIP, Kevin. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing Rosiestep and for continuing his legacy by using his redlist. RIP, Kevin. SusunW (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I corresponded with him briefly about some mutual interests beyond Wikipedia back in November, when he signed up for some subscriptions I coordinate at The Wikipedia Library. He was a lovely young man from my understanding, and while he had a long list of health issues, he didn't seem like he was expecting to be gone so soon. I'll be glad to work on an article from his redlist, in his memory. RIP, Kevin.Penny Richards (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)