Hello! and welcome to WikiProject Women in Red (WiR), whose objective is to turn red links into blue ones. Our project's scope is women's biographies and women's works, broadly construed. Did you know that, according to Humaniki, only 19.29% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women? Not impressed? Content gender gap is a form of systemic bias, and this is what WiR addresses. We invite you to participate, whenever you like, in whatever way suits you and your schedule. Women in Red warmly welcomes you!
Welcome to the Ideas Cafe where we serve up ideas for Women in Red's virtual editathons! The Ideas Cafe is our planning page, where your ideas become WiR events. Here, we discuss, organize, plan, and coordinate our activities. Please join the discussion here or on our project talkpage.
Quoting from Geographical bias on Wikipedia "there is a common trend towards more content related to the United States and Western Europe coupled with the scarcity of information about certain regions in the rest of the world" and also "A 2010 analysis of Wikipedia people edits revealed that Asia, as the most populous continent, was represented in only 16.67% of edits. Africa (6.35%) and South America (2.58%) were equally underrepresented. A 2011 study by OII found that 84 percent of articles tagged with a location were in Europe or North America, and that Antarctica had more entries than any African or South American nation. According to Adama Sanneh, the founder of the WikiAfrica Education initiative, as of 2021 there are more articles on the English Wikipedia about Paris than Africa." Therefore suggesting July as "Women in under represented geographies" month with us focusing on South America, Asia and Africa. CT55555 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had not seen that until now. CT55555 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A is for "A start"
This idea is discussed below in "A is for A start". Basically WiR runs through the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography alphabetically (by first name?) over time. It gained a lot of traction in 2019 and then lost momentum. If there is enthusiasm perhaps it should be revived. Victuallers, MrLinkinPark333, Rosiestep, Ipigott, Oronsay, SusunW, Lajmmoore, and anyone else following this thread, Is there interest in moving this up from suggestions and onto the schedule starting in July 2022? If so, was the idea to work on A in July, B in August, C in Sept etc? the redlist can be sorted by first name. Is that how the alphabetization go? I don't have an opinion either way, I was reviewing suggestions and thought maybe this idea is one that has ripened (or rotted). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For my own part, I am not really interested in covering people mentioned in the ODNB as I generally leave articles on English-speaking people to those who take a special interest, in this case no doubt those with strong attachments to the United Kingdom. Nearly all the biographies I create are about people from non English-speaking countries. I nevertheless think it might be useful to create a small subproject consisting of members of Women in Red who are interested in pursuing this cause. Rather than creating a new focus with month-by-month meetup pages, it would then be possible to draw attention to the subproject in our announcements or on our talk page and to post accounts of progress whenever appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I think I thought we were moving to working alphabetically (which can obviously include ODNB), and that @PamD: (some time ago) had made a suggested list of roughly, if you grouped letters together, what might be equal? I would be happy with a letter a month too (but that would then by 2+years ongoing). What do others think? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Ideas/Archive_7#Spreading_evenly? here (second time round!), as a way to move away from the Eurocentricity of "May Maries" and "July Julies" etc. I suggested we divvy up the alphabet into 12 chunks (or 24) and I produced a set of roughly-even divisions based on looking at 1921 births sorted by surname to see how the pages divided up. We could do the same for forenames - the alphabetical chunks would, at a guess, still be roughly the same size. It could be a sort of "background" editathon each month, a nudge to create something for one of these women even if none of the month's specific topics appeals. PamD 17:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of dividing the alphabet and working through it systematically in chunks; forename chunks for 12 months, surname chunks for 12 months, either or both. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love the idea, but I do want to speak up for possibly including the colonies like American and Australia that have comparable National Biographies. I've also been doing some cleanup on our redlist because there's quite a few names on the list that already have en.wp articles and they are showing up on the list due to duplicate Wikidata items. Would be good to have some more sets of eyes as the list is quite long. If you don't know how to merge Wikidata items or don't want to bother with Wikidata, just ping me and I can do it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The important bit was in the title, the nationality is definately not the objective. The idea would be to choose a random area of women. Maybe all the people whose first name begins with the first letter of their alphabet. Success would be measured by someone being able to say "I've just thought of a historic notable Nigerian whose name begins with an A. Do you know who it is?" ... and the reply would be "No, but I know that they have a Wiki article because we did every dead woman whose name begins with an "A" or "Alpha" (etc) in 2022... it doesnt matter if they are Nigerian, Gibraltarian or Ecuadorian... we did the lot". Victuallers (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a lovely idea; let's do it! Shall we go with given names or family names (or both)? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So thinking about this as an year long approach starting in July ... It sounds like people want to do a theme that takes letters as a theme, but the Wikidata lists used are those drawing from biographical dictionaries (& for several editors that will be non-western ones)? Is that right? This is a potential split for the months ... thoughts? I'd be in favour of including first and last names.
Aplhabet by month
A & B
C & D
E & F
G & H
I & J
K & L
M & N
O & P
Q & R
S & T
U, V, W
X, Y & Z
The only thing I wondered, was whether it made sense to start it in the middle of the year, rather than make it an annual challenge for next year? Lajmmoore (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, I like this a lot. Has someone created the "A" lists (first name; last name) yet? I'm curious how many names are on each. Thanks for setting this up! --Rosiestep (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, we didn't have separate Wikidata lists for letters, but just used exisiting lists? I feel like there's a real risk that some would be so large listeria would really struggle? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this; and all the WD lists have a toggle in the top bar for reordering the list alphabetically, chronologically, etc. Not perfect but a good place to start. (I use those toggles a lot, but maybe for some folks it'll be a handy new trick.) Penny Richards (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For our geofocus, I suggest the "Baltic states" (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) which have been receiving attention as a result of the Ukrainian crisis.--Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Green is trying to organize an editathon for July. If it comes together in the next few days, can we include a notice in our invite? SusunW (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW: Yes, of course. When the details are clear, you might like to draft something yourself. You could also include something on the main WiR page under Announcements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! We should know for sure by Wednesday or Thursday if it's a go and I'll advise. SusunW (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic States sounds like a sensible GeoFocus to me! Just tagging @CT55555: who had suggested (above) women from Asia, Africa and South America for this month. I wonder if that's a bit broad? They've also suggested refugees for August, which seems more focussed. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go with Baltic States for July. It would be good if we can settle on this and get started on the pages.--~~~ Oronsay (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic States for July sounds good. --!!!!
Hello all, I started an event for the Alphabet Run, but it needs more lists adding (would you have some suggestions @SusunW?), copy editing, an image choosing, and perhaps not being green? I'm a bit busy the rest of this week, but I would like to do the Mass Messaging on Monday 27th! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear there is support for Baltic States and suggest we go ahead with it. Surprised to see no responses on Awards. I thought that perhaps with assistance from MrLinkinPark333 we could narrow it down to a few of the more important awards where there are still a number of red links, perhaps specifying "Awards for science". But we could also take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of "Climate" now that we are embarking on the third quarter.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum commont on lists of womens names beginning with A. Creating such a redlist would be tricky and huge! The resulting list would be daunting. The idea was that you find someone at random OR you/me/they take your/their favourite redlist and sort it into name order. You may get "Aanne Singh" first or "Aaadlady, Rocio" first. So if you pick the list of women plumbers... then Can you target to do all the African and Asian women plumbers whose name begins with A? At the end of the month we should be able to hypothetically look at Wikipedia and see small areas where we have done "every" women in red. How may people "get this".? If you guys don't understand it then we are going to have great difficulty with the rest. Victuallers (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it "get it" Victuallers. But it seems like the amount of organization needed to pull off a focused attack on a specific list is something WiR lacks. That, combined with the fractured system for creating redlists, I think, makes your goal unattainable. Also, once we finish all the current African women master plumbers who's name starts with A, there certainly will be more that come along. Could such a goal ever be reached? Even if we were trying to cover just dead African women master plumbers, more notable candidates would turn up over time. We, as a group, seem to be deciding at the last minute what we will do in the upcoming month. Even this thread has about 4 topics. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll step back on this. I think its not caught enough to make it work anyway. Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see an A-Z challenge firming up. We need to clarify whether we're talking first names or surnames/sortkeys, or "whichever you like". (Or one, one year, and the other, another time?) And dividing that way produces pretty uneven chunks (10% of a UK university catalogue records start with "B", or did in my years-ago card-catalogue early career!). But I don't suppose it matters. Good idea anyway - people can pick the national biography of their choice, or anything else, and go for "A-B" or whatever. (Much better than our previous Eurocentric "May Maries" etc). PamD 09:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support @PamD - I thought it easier for others to just go with A-B, rather than divide the letters further (though I know it's not super precise). I think on the page, I went for first, middle, last, to give people choice, and to include naming conventions where a last name might appear to be a first name to editors unaware of differences in naming conventions (I started a page for Chit Po and some very kind editors rescued me from the mess I made of Burmese naming).
@Victuallers thanks for your comments too, like others said, its hard for everyone to agree on what dictionary to work from, as we all have our own priorities/skills - the positive from this (I hope) is that it will point people to the biographical dictionaries as a source! What I'll do is highlight which Dictionary lists we have that are short, so people can choose to focus on them. The Dictionary of African Biography should be complete-able for example - 12 names, although sourcing might need some deep diving. Hope this sounds like a good compromise Lajmmoore (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have ok-ed the Alphabet Run. Can't ok Baltic States (creator) or invitation (contributor). Perhaps Lajmmoore can help?--Oronsay (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I've now got Mass messenger permission, so can help with the send out. @Rosiestep: would it be OK to arrange a time for you to show me what to do via screen share? I'm thinking I can share my screen and you could talk me through the steps? Lajmmoore (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Let me know when you'd like for us to meet. Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to apply for endorsement.--Oronsay (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good news. A few years back I suggested that I should perhaps apply for permission too but as there didn't seem to be much support, I thought I should leave it to the administrators. It looks to me, by the way, that Lajmmoore is increasingly gaining the skills necessary to become an administrator herself.--Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I can only assume that I didn't notice your suggestion a few years back, but if you still have time+inclination, I'd be VERY happy to support your request at MassMessenger and/or RfA! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, Rosie, but let's first see how things proceed with mass messaging over the next few months. As for RfA, after working for many years as an administrator for EU research in areas similar to those covered by Wikipedia, I decided long ago that I would prefer not to take on administrative tasks here. In any case, I seldom need such privileges for what I do and in the rare cases I need assistance, I know I can always call on you.--Ipigott (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore: Don't underestimate your strengths, especially your helpfulness. Think about it.--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refugees, as per User:CT5555's suggestions Lajmmoore (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (also its five fives, but I watch this page anyway and still caught this.) CT55555 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, again on the theme of who might be under represeted: Immigrant, refugee, and stateless women, and women from non recognised states. (e.g. Tibet, Rohnigya) CT55555 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up, Lajmmoore. We've now covered most of the world but not yet the United States and Canada. I had originally suggested that we could possibly address certain areas of North America -- or even specific states or provinces -- in 2022. We could, for example, devote each quarter to one of the five geographic regions: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest and West. That would bring us into the first quarter of 2023. We could then tackle Canada. Perhaps we could give special attention to indigenous and minority communities. Any interest in this approach?--Ipigott (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this approach is done, it'd also make sense IMO to do territories as a section. They rarely get any focus and like the Caribbean gets lost in Latin America and the Caribbean, territories get lost in the US or Pacific focus. SusunW (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I know Maile66 had previously mentioned Guam on the WiR page. Somewhere in our archives would be a list of teachers from the USVI who had schools named after them. I'll try to search for it. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SusunW, Maile66, Ipigott I like the idea in principle, I think my only concern is that we'll be investing a lot more time on North America than we have for the other continents - but I'm not clear whether this is still part of the continental challenge, or has evolved into a new initiative? Would two months each for the US regions & territories work? Or two months for the regions, then one month each for Canada and Overseas territories? or do people prefer the 3 month time period? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore, December ends the Continental Challenge! The original brainstorming session of the Challenge is in the 2019 archives under "August Brainstorming". I think we have succeeded, but I think my prediction of Oceania having the highest count will depend on December:) Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm US territories - why not just "Territories"? UK has a handful (all interesting places) and I suspect many countries would have them... NZ has lots of islands I believe. Victuallers (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First quarter 2022 and beyond
My reasoning behind this was that whether we like it or not, most of Wikipedia's biographies are on people from the United States. For this reason, if we are to reduce the gender gap we need to improve our coverage of U.S. women in all the occupations and interests we cover. By specifying geographic areas, we should be able to encourage contributors to look more carefully into women from their own region or from states, cities and communities in which they have a special interest. Each of the three months per quarter could emphasize the need to cover different aspects, for example historical figures, indigenous and minority communities, and current leadership. (These can of course be refined later, with suitable redlists based on state-by-state analysis, etc.) In my opinion, a quarter for each geographical region would therefore not be excessive but maybe two months per region would be sufficient for those who feel American coverage does not require too much additional effort. In any case, if we can agree that in January we should cover the territories and in February and March, Canada, we could always decide later how exactly we handle the United States -- if at all.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that focusing on regions of the US would be difficult and I'm not sure how effective so my vote would be for the US event to include all states, and as a separate event, the territories (mentioned above). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure if I understand what you are suggesting, Rosie. Do you mean we should specify a selection of states for each quarter? If so, how should they be grouped?--Ipigott (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the regional map included in this section and thinking that for me, it would be hard to focus on a region. For someone else, that might be easy. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One month each for US territories, Canada and the whole of the US seems sensible to me, to avoid contributing to US-centric bias. Could be one last “quarterly” contest, but with a focus each month? Innisfree987 (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, I am tapping out of the geofocus "contests" once the Continental Challenge ends Dec 31st. It was a good experiment and I think it showed that quarterly editathons can have sustained interest and cut down on administration. My opinion is that we should continue with our established Annual initiatives (Black History, Art+Feminism, Pride, STEM, etc.) but WiR should do quarterly events, rather than changing everything up every month. I don't think that narrow geofocus editathons will gain traction among our members. I don't see a reason to have multiple new events each month. There just isn't enough return on time invested, especially geofocus. Quality over quantity. Just one editor's opinion. I am happy to continue helping with the invite and pages. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WomenArtistUpdates: Let me just start by saying how much I have appreciated all your excellent work on the continental contests. You've been able to keep us fully informed of progress, have awarded prizes and barnstars to participants and have kept tallies of overall results. Great work!
Bur on future planning, I'm a bit surprised that you bring up "time investment" in connection with our month-by-month planning? When I was doing all this myself, it took me about an hour each month. All I really needed assistance with was additional sets of red links. From time to time Rosiestep would come up with new topics and innovative ideas for presentation and Megalibrarygirl would check things through for errors or shortcomings. Personally, I think monthly priorities make everything so much more interesting, keeping hundreds of our members and page viewers aware of our dynamism. If there is a preference for quarter-by-quarter not just for geofocus but for everything else, then I would of course agree with the consensus. As for the "traction", I have found from reviewing and assessment that many of the new biographies created each month coincide with our priorities but do not appear on our event listings as apparently some of our most active contributors find it too much of a hassle to find the event number, etc., preferring instead just to specify WIR on the talk page. (It's actually quite astonishing how many biographies carry just the basic WIR tag or the tag specifying the year.) Even so, it seems to me listings of 225 writers, 90 scientists and even 68 indigenous women are pretty significant results. If those who have been working on new events pages are finding it too constraining, I would be only too happy handle them myself once again. I always found them interesting to work on, choosing illustrations, finding relevant contacts, alerting other wikiprojects, etc., but I must say I would not be able to replicate the impressive artwork and barnstars from WomenArtistUpdates. There also seems to be a case for one-day events, as Victuallers was able to show with Ada Lovelace successes. Maybe we could introduce more of these in 2022. In any case, before we abandon our month-by-month priorities, I think we should seek wider reactions, not only here but on the WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I interupt my work on Mary Earle today. A biog that is inspired by our "deaths in 2021" subject next month, however she also scores under my contributions to the Oceania theme where I have just been made an "Honorary Aussie" for my work. Oh and she was born in Scotand so she also scores a point for 55th WIR editathon at Edinborough University last Friday. When I was working as a teacher I would say "write about an engineer", but the students were more interested when I said "write about a woman engineer but she must not be alive or someone who was born in the UK or the US"... Just saying. Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WiR has hundreds of participants and I think that offering variety has contributed to that. Because we showcase some of the new articles created during each month, our Twitter account has >10K followers. So before we make any major changes to our programming format, let's request feedback on our WiR talkpage. We could do so now, and include a notice in the December MassMessage that there's still time to comment. In fact -switching now to my MBA hat- I think requesting feedback on an annual basis is a great idea. Thank you, Ipigott! That said, WomenArtistUpdates, it is a lot of work to plan/prepare for the next month and thank you for what you and others have been doing! As part of seeking feedback on our WIR talkpage, we could include a "help wanted" appeal for coordinators. And Victuallers, bravo on being made an "Honorary Aussie" for your WiR work!! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep: I think it might indeed be a good idea to discuss this on our main talk page, maybe in a week or two, unless there are further signs of support for our existing approach here. We also have a new proposal that geofocus for the first three months should be devoted to the U.S. territories (January), Canada (February), and the whole of the United States (March). Any reactions on that?--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep, WomenArtistUpdates, Innisfree987, SusunW, Megalibrarygirl: It looks pretty clear to me that unless anyone objects, we should go ahead with Women in business and geofocus on the territories in January. But we still need to sort out whether we should continue month-by-month priorities for the remainder of 2022 or just establish more general topics on a quarterly basis as earlier suggested. It would be useful to have more reactions here. Not sure who else to ping on this. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I suggest further discussions on these items should be on the main WiR talk page under "Plans for 2022".--Ipigott (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that we tend to focus on the same areas over and over and I am wondering if we just did a straight alphabetical list of countries each month, if that would get more coverage of women worldwide. So for example "A" would have lists from: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, American Samoa, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, and Azerbaijan; "B" would have Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso and Burundi; and so forth. SusunW (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW: That would be interesting. The geofocus would be filled for almost 2 years before the list would be repeated :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We did "I" a while back. Nice idea to do all 26 but ... Some letters don't have any or many countries: see List of sovereign states. Three for F and for J, only one O, one Q, no W or X, one Y, two Zs. PamD 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking that this might be a unique way of covering geofocus for January 2021 – December 2022. Over the course of 24 months, we would cover countries at the rate of one letter per month, except for December 2022 when we would include X+Y+Z. Some letters have very few options, e.g. countries starting with the letter Q, while other letters have a lot of countries. But over the course of 24 months, this would even out. Some considerations:
I don't see why not to include Historical states, as it'd flesh out the possibilites. I think we'd have to see which countries would fall under May / November first before deciding to keep/skipping over. Omitting US/UK doesn't seem right as it won't be worldwide. Whether it's a year long/two year long geofocus, the Us would be near the end of the list. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about developing this idea for the 12 months of 2021, carefully selecting countries for each month, not just one letter but perhaps two or sometimes three at a time. On the basis of the experience we gain from our June 2020 geofocus on reducing gender imbalance, we could compile a list of "deserving" countries for the whole year. Looking further ahead, in 2022, we might consider doing something along these lines for deserving cities or federal states, maybe even picking some from the English-speaking countries.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having two or more letters per month seems good as some letters are limited like PamD said i.e O/Q. Expanding on your idea, maybe in each editathon there could be a focus list of countries per letter while not excluding the other countries. It'd give a heads up to editors to know that these countries need a bump in articles. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geofocus by latitude
How about a by-latitude split? Countries between perhaps equator and Tropic of Cancer, then Capricorn; countries of latitute from Tropic of Cancer north to x, then north of x, similarly for south. Or some such - sweeping across all the continents. Need to adjust the bands to make very roughly similar sizes, and perhaps accept that some countries are in more than one zone - a pity that the List of sovereign states mentioned above doesn't have a field for coordinates! PamD
I really enjoyed the Arab World one last year though, and liked its intersection with Islam particularly, so wondered if maybe something like women from Buddhist countries, or similar might work?
The other idea I had would be to focus on women, based on a sea/ocean area e.g. Women from the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, etc. which might get some really interesting cross-overs? (Sorry if these have been done before, I'm still new!) (Lajmmoore (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Geofocus by language
Not sure if this has been done before (a quick archive search didn't mention it, but I wondered about a focus on countries with lower rates of English speaking? This article gives some details based on a couple of different metrics. Countries it lists include: Iran, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, El Salvador, Oman, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Angola, Kuwait, Cameroon, Libya, Iraq and Laos. It also includes China (as rate of speaking is very low, even if reading and writing is pretty high). Gives an interesting spread of places. There's probably a better place to get statistics from than that article. Cheers (Lajmmoore (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hi All, I wondered whether a geofocus one month could be on "historical countries that no longer exist"? (I'm not sure that's the best way to describe what I mean!)
It's not something I know very much about, but I've noticed places like Kingdom of SaxonyKingdom of PrussiaAustria-Hungary come up on redlists. I don't know whether its a theme people have done before, or what might be possible in terms of lists, etc.
I found this List of former sovereign states and there's others too. All the places that are no longer recognised would maybe be too big, so there would be a question about period or geography maybe too? Equally, sorry if its been brought up before! (Lajmmoore (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
MarioGom Thanks v much! I must have just missed it! Gonna have a poke around in the page now though! Thanks (Lajmmoore (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Politicians USA in November
Not really sure if this is the right place for this. US Election Day is November 3 and it's one of the biggest elections of modern history. I do a lot of work around women in politics in the US and I'd love to see a geofocus on it, especially since we will see more women coming and going from national and state politics after the election results, and we might have our first female Vice President. I think it would be a great opportunity to improve coverage about women in American politics past and present. Thanks for your consideration. Missvain (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aotearoa New Zealand
Happy New Year everyone! A few years ago (in September 2017, to be exact!) WiR ran a geo-focus on New Zealand, which produced 120 articles on New Zealand women. It was awesome to be a focus for the project! Since then, the editing community in NZ has become a bit more organised and cohesive and one of our group, DrThneed, has created a number of redlists of New Zealand women (which have been added to the WiR redlist index) which several editors are working with. We have also started holding in-person and remote editathons and editor meet-ups, including editathons on topics related to women (one on Maori women weavers is coming up this week). We're wondering if there is an opportunity in 2021 to have a WiR geo-focus on New Zealand women again, and we could back it up with some in-person editathons too and really make some inroads into our lists - and also potentially attract some new editors here. Any thoughts? MurielMary (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MurielMary, I'd be happy to support this idea! Would it be useful to coincide it with when the three-month geofocus gets to the region? (I can't remember when that's meant to be) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all! Just putting a vote here for another month-long focus on gender imbalance per country, like we did in 2020. The countries have altered slightly, which is interesting, and I found it fun to do! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countries along some of the world's longest rivers?
Hello! Has countries along rivers been done before? I was trying to think of a different idea for a future Geofocus, and wonder about by river e.g. for the Amazon river, it would be Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guyana. Some are more varied than others, e.g. the Yangtze flows with China, but we could always choose rivers that visit multiple countries instead? Or not make an issue of one river in one country? Would love to hear what people think!
UK collaboration with WikiUK and the CARE Internationl charity
Women in Red and Wikimedia UK were approached by an International Charity to collaborate on an event around International Womens Day. @Lajmmoore: and Victuallers have been most involved from here in discussion. The focus is in the UK (their choice) and there is planned a high profile in-person event in London but the other parts are virtual. The idea is to get new people to sign-up for four editathons that will be based around the "nations" of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. WikimediaUK have volunteered to provide trainers but support from experienced wiki editors/trainers would be very useful. Following up on the new people to invite them to get more involved would be very valuable. Help with a landing page would be useful. Victuallers (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CARE logo (in German)
More news - Care International normally hold a march on 8 March in London #March4Women. This year they have cancelled it and replaced it with a partnership with Wikimedia & Women in Red and CARE’s unseen, unheard and unrepresented women. Their plan is here. CARE plan to film UK celebrities talking about the work of Women in Red this week. There will be an event at the Houses of Parliament where MPs will be invited to share the name of women who should have articles. At the event there will be a gallery of notable women. A series of editathons will follow. CARE will be featuring WIR and giving us equal billing. @Lajmmoore:, WikimediaUK are involved. It is hoped to invite the 45,000 people on CARE's mailing list to join WIR (if we ge 0.1% then that would be great). The women I have identified for the gallery are here and please add or delete and ping me. CARE are trying to source open licenced images for us. I will list some of the women they have identified below. Victuallers (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This event has been postponed by the partner, CARE International. In off-wiki consultation with @Lajmmoore and Victuallers, decision was made to remmove the event from the WiR March calendar. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A is for "A start"
Just before we started Women in Red I completed (after work of lots of others) in writing a biography of every woman in the Dictionary of National Biography. This meant that any (UK related) women who was recognised as notable before about 1900 was in Wikipedia. Obviously the DNB did not stop there and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography took over. That has LOTS more women - so what to do? I set out to do every women in the ODNB whose first name began with an A. I think I have made quite a dent in it. Look here or here. My suggestion is that we have a go at picking off all the women whose name begins with A (or alpha if she is ancient Greek) in any country. Our progress will demonstrate the size of the problem of doing all ~26 letters- Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: Would this just be ODNB related or any woman whose first name starts with name? For the ODNB list, there are currently just over 100 A first named women left (not bad). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark33: I was proposing women whose name begins with A (or alpha if she is ancient Greek) in any country. I imagined that we might be able to finish the UK and start on other countries. A demonstration of the fact that writing wiki biogs for women in just one country for just one letter is a large task. I see some arguing that the 83% blokes on wiki is because women are prevented from having wikiarticles because of notability rules or lack of written sources. These are problems, BUT they are not stopping us from adding thousands of more articles to fix the gap. Oh and thanks for your work and for noticing its just over 100 - do you have a more accurate list? Cheers Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers: Didn't get the above ping so I just saw it now. I only counted the people starting with A in the above ODNB link you mentioned. I can't confirm whether it is 100+ or not (since I don't write articles on ODNB people). Starting with A (in general) would be nice as it reminds me of the Countries starting with I contest we did last year. Also provides 2 years of contest material if we did one letter per month (see @SusunW:'s idea below) :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Has any further progress (i.e., beyond 'A') been made? I'd be interested to help, and to help spread the word. If nothing else, could a list be made of women in the dictionary who don't have articles? I'm not sure if I have access, but it looks like access is free (?), or I can see if institutions I know hold subscriptions. = paul2520 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul2520:@MrLinkinPark333:@Ipigott: - still ticking away at the "A"s in this list. The good thing is that they are all notable and we have a source. Just noting that this idea (which has slept here for some time) is appealing to some .... how do we make this happen? I would intend that we just DO every woman in the defined category, not for a month .... but until it is done. Victuallers (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victuallers:@Paul2520:@MrLinkinPark333:: Thank you all for contributing to the As on this list. I agree with Roger that it's something that we could try to keep up until we complete one letter at a time. As for me, as you probably know I spend most of my time trying to put women from non English-speaking countries on the map. It seems to me that there are enough English speakers around to deal with notable people from the UK. If you want to make it more permanent and encourage others to participate, why not but together something for the main WiR talk page, perhaps describing the scale of the problem, progress to date and the reliability of the ODNB. I see there are still several hundred names to be covered and that many of those blue-linked point to disamb pages. We could also include a short item in our announcements and include a link on our invitation for March. It might be useful to prepare a new WiR page describing the problem and including a list of all the A names still to be covered. We could then invite contributors to add their names to the ones they change to blue. It could even be made into a kind of competition. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping this might make its way into our programme. This has waited a long time so no rush. The problem is that its present core is about Brits, but I would point to the achievement (before we launched Women in Red) that saw every woman who was in the ODNB of Edwardian times was also in Wikipedia, every one. However could we do "A" Woman in red for every dead Brit, every brit who died more than 70 years ago, another group might do "A" woman in red for Australian Philatelic Society Fellows and another for "A" women in the South African Dictionary of Biography. Small islands but it would illustrate how many are missing if by working hard we can only do one letter, but also an "A List", an area of victory. Victuallers (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger:A yes from me, As it's creative, And, ergo, I'm supportive. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: Why not first of all see what kind of support you can get in the UK itself, not just for women but also for men? That would be the logical place to start. We could also try to identify which members of WiR are specifically interested in covering historic women in the ODNB and put something together with them. As I have suggested, we could put something on the main WiR talk page. I'll see what I can do over the next day or two if you don't feel up to it yourself. I've already mentioned this under Mar 2022 above. (cc Rosiestep --Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like fun. As an Aussie, I'm not sure about the Australian Philatelic Society, but I'd be glad to start with the two As remaining in red in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also, as someone whose real life surname starts with R, I'm not sure I want to wait until bios for women from A to Q have been completed. One letter per month is far more appealing to me. Just my 5 cents worth.--Oronsay (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is gathering traction. @Ipigott: surprised at the suggestion to include men. I think I have been working for about eight years to make sure that of all the notable people in the UK then if you are (historically) "a woman from history" then you are guarenteed to be in Wikipedia. We are a long way off being able to say that about blokes. To be able to say that we have done every (ie dead) woman in the ADB and in the ODNB and in the SABiog and the NZNationalBiog if their name begins with an A (or alpha etc) would be a small but IMO very significant stepping stone. Imagine if all the red lists started at "B". Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers: I certainly wasn't suggesting WiR should also cover men. I simply thought that if Wikimedia UK were to be involved, they might not like to be forced to cover women only. I haven't really examined the ODNB in any detail and don't know how many men still need Wikipedia biographies. The priority is obviously to try to improve the stats on women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have monthly editathons now running in Edinburgh which are mainly in person. Ewan is one of the Wikimedians in Residence and they are very successful - They are badged as WiR - great!. A similar series is starting in Swansea. Last month they did nurses and this month business people. They want to be a "women in red" event. I will see if we can harmonise subjects. This is for info only I guess but is there a good place to log in-house events ? Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. I see WiR is getting mentioned by name in French! Femmes Rouge WikipediaVictuallers (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Victuallers - I think it would be great to include in-person Women in Red events in our list here: [[Template:Women in Red]]. To that end, I just added a line for in-person events in the 2018 section. Please add whatever events you're aware of... and 2017 events, too. After you get the ball rolling, we should mention it on the main WiR talkpage so that others know to do so, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update - still running. The next one is on August 16th at Edinburgh Uni Library. Victuallers (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are now Virtual and running about every week hosted by the Women in Red intern - next one is on June 13th 2020. Victuallers (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems cool, Victuallers, and we haven't touched this focus area before; did you reply to her? Maybe we could start an email convo with a few of us? Hey, Megalibrarygirl, I looked over the website, and wondered how easy it might be to create a redlist for this focus area, "femininity, girlhood, and the aesthetics of cute within twentieth-century video games, computing, and electronic toys"? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could try to create a redlist based on the Femicom collection. Will start. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I invited her to post here. I'm not sure how big the museum is and we would need her or one of us to take the lead. Its not a subject I know anything about - but I can see that its an important area. Big thanks to MLG - do feel free to tweet her. Victuallers (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trading article ideas
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in trading names of women with others who are interested in creating articles on specific topics. For example, I have many names of American women who have won prizes or been inducted into hall of fames. That way, our lists on Wikipedia and our personal lists could hopefully be reduced and we get to work on articles that are in our interests that we might not have come across already. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in adding lists that others have created (such as yours) into the Women in Red redlist collection. Let me know if this interests you? This is because it is my hope that Women in Red is as well known for its redlists as for its created articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Thanks for taking the iniative, MrLinkinPark333! I hope everyone feels comfortable adding to our lists, but if you don't, ping me. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Filling out lists
A suggestion of something a little different, maybe? We have a whole lot of lists that are partially filled out with articles - various women's halls of fame, for instance, or the list of National Heritage Fellowship recipients. Many of the by-year lists of Guggenheim Fellows as well. What about a month where we pick one or two of these lists and look at filling in all the redlinks? That would give us a nice filled-out list at the end of the month. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Funnily, I was thinking of creating a list of Guggenheim Fellows names as the recipents are automatically notable as per WP:NACADEMIC Criteria #2. That'd help boost up the percentage without worrying about notability :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: In that case, I think the National Heritage Fellows would be easier to complete as the Guggenheim Fellows does not have a lot of info on each recipient, just the notability. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Yep, that's why I didn't press on having them done first, because there is so many of them :/ However, I'm making a different list of names that are presumed notable based on individual criterias instead. ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While looking through NY Times Notable Deaths 2019 I noticed a couple of women with redirects. I was wondering if there were many women who wouldn't appear on any redlist, but would need an article written. Maybe some were AfD merges but times have changed. Perhaps we can come up with some criteria for creating a new (short?) list of potential articles from these redirects. StrayBolt (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I'm late to your message but I'd be interested in a Britannica Online based one. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still keep banging away at the ODNB. One of the successes we had 5 years ago was to add every woman from the DNB. (The DNB was "the" UK biography book in the UK c. 1910.). Doing the Ency. Brittanica in date order might mean that we have a measure of success if we could do say every (woman) born before year x. Victuallers (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Compiling a list of biographies of the most significant women
I'm not too sure how much enthusiasm there is about this but as a result of the "Vital articles" discussions on the WIR talk page, I suggested it might be a good idea to draw up a list of biographies of the Fifty most significant women on Wikipedia. This could later lead to a Balanced list of Wikipedia's most significant people which would list 100 names, 50 women and 50 men. The general idea would be to show that we believe the contributions of women to our world are just as important as those of men. If there is any support on this, we could start working fairly soon on selection criteria and which areas of interest should be covered.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long history on wikipedia of drawing up 'balanced' lists of articles of different types and they almost always seem to end up generating more heat than light. I strongly encourage you to either (a) find a balanced list produced by an independent party outside of wikiepdia and import it as a table or (b) focus on improving the quality and quantity of the articles in traditionally underrepresented areas. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuartyeates - Those are great insights. Using independent sources would decrease the heat.
@Ipigott - I like your strategy to start with a Top 50 WikiWomen. Perhaps consider posting this discussion to Women In Green to see if they have any ideas on how to weigh the articles. Maybe we could have a contest to beef up the 50 profiles before attempting the second part of the strategy, the balanced list. @One issue with the word "balanced" is that the top 50 may exclude minoirties (ex People of Color, LGBTQA, etc). I suggest a tweak to the title. For example, List of Wikipedia's Top 50 Most InfluentialWomen and Men. The word Prominent might be a good option too. The term women and men would encompass trans-women and trans-men, so that should be good.
Getting People of Color on the list would be another issue that I am interesting in solving. Perhaps a List of Wikipedia's Top 50 Most Popular Women of Color profiles. The parameters could be daily/weekly/monthly/yearly page views.
TheTypingKat: I certainly agree with the above comments on the difficulties of compiling balanced Wikipedia lists. What might work is an article which goes no further than to list what appear to be good reliable sources and related reviews of the pertinent literature, in other words a kind of bibliography of the world's most famous women. I don't think lists of actual names in article space would be accepted but it might be useful, in connection with Women in Green, to establish a list of highly prominent women who do not yet have articles in the GA or FA categories.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly editathon on the word vision for 2020
Hello. I was wondering if one of the monthly edithathons this year could be on vision. The reason why I suggest this year is because of 20/20 vision. I was thinking of using Vision as multiple ideas together:
people who work in vision related fields like opticians or optometrists.
people who have vision difficulties or who have lost their vision
women who work with people that have lost their vision or have vision difficulties
Names (by month, e.g. April Aprils) (by holiday, e.g. Christmas Holly) (by mammals) etc.
Since we've been doing May Mays, I was wondering if we could do women with the name April in April and women with the name June in June. This could also apply to middle names as well. I was thinking maybe these could be added for 2021, so we could have the name themes from April, May and June. Let me know what you think! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm too early for this, but what about Jan January? We can also do women with names such as Jane, Janet, Jenny, Jennifer, etc. What do you think?Corachow (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The names themes seem popular and I wondered about Christmassy names for December? Ivy, Holly, Carol, etc. (Lajmmoore (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@WomensArtistUpdates: Great point! To be honest I'd forgotten Christmas was to do with religion when I mentioned it - but I 100% get that it's not very inclusive. Thanks for bringing it up! (Lajmmoore (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Eponymous Women & Animals
Hi All, I was tidying my sandbox, and I found this list I started, women who have mammals named after them. I'm not sure if it's a theme that has been done already, but I wondered whether it might be fun for 2021? The sandbox list was based on this book, which I manually searched for women from. There's also a version for Reptiles, one for Birds, for amphibians and one for Odonata. I don't think all the women were notable from the mammals book, but some definitely were. I don't mind making lists, if a) people think it would be useful and b) people could give me some tips? Lajmmoore (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wives, mothers, etc.
Something I've noticed more and more in recent years as I've done my research: more biographical dictionaries are beginning to incorporate separate articles on the wives and mothers of notable men, focusing on their achievements rather than those of their husbands and sons. Usually these are women who were previously featured as addenda in their husbands'/sons' articles. I think it could be an interesting theme to develop...maybe for Mother's Day next May? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mother's Day isn't the same day in every country, most notably it's in March (or very occasionally April) in the UK. It's also March in many European and Middle Eastern countries. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about "July Julies" etc leads me to a couple of thoughts:
These themes bias towards women with names based on European languages (as do the Holly/Noel etc themes). Perhaps we should spread our work around by dividing redlinked women into a-z chunks by given name ("Aaa-Ada" etc, perhaps 24 or 36?) and offering one chunk a month? Or by surname (instead, or following) ?
Perhaps have a "born in the month" every month of the year, then the next year a "died in", and repeat, alternating years?
Given the current interest in this initiative (around 575 articles added by 29 August), it might be interesting to change the targets for the coming months. For October, we might for example call for articles on women from 31 predefined countries, one for each day of the month. We could list the countries beforehand, drawing on our redlists (but perhaps leaving out those without at least 20 redlinks). We could allow a maximum of three days for each country, e.g. 1 to 3 October: Albania, 2 to 4 October: Algeria, 3 to 5 October: Angola, 4 to 6 October: Argentina, etc. Participants could list their articles both under the countries and under their own user names, giving a clearer view of achievements. Then in November, we could do something similar with occupations. Would this be worthwhile or should we just continue using the August/September model? Personally, I think variations might attract additional interest. Other suggestions for variations would of course be welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear there's been lots of interest, Ipigott. My thoughts: I like the idea of variations on topics each month (either nationality or occupation), but I'd be wary of making it too complicated for participants. I usually have to do some preparatory research before creating an article (which may take several days depending on how busy I am), and I don't want to have to try to remember whether I can submit an article about an Algerian woman on October 4th or an Argentinian woman on October 6th. On the other hand, I might be open to having broader weekly themes: during week 1, we write about women from western European countries, then for week 2 we write about women from Middle Eastern countries (or it could be women scientists or artists, etc.). Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of feel I should recuse myself from giving suggestions, as both this month and next my real world life is impacting my editing time. That being said, I like the idea of variations, but agree with Alanna the Brave that it needs to be simple to follow or we will end up discouraging editing. Congrats on the success. 575 articles is awesome! SusunW (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I think having a broad area of occupations/countries would work better (in my personal case). Maybe have special awards that says, for example Wikipedian who created the most (specific occupation) this month, or the most articles from (specific country, area). That way if people want the special awards, they can go for it while keeping the broad range of coverage for others who just want the 5, 10, 15 articles etc. barnstars. This monthly imitative helped me clear through some articles that I wanted to do, but didn't get around to start/finish them :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a relative newcomer to WiR I feel that the new monthly initiative is a great place to record and celebrate all the WiR articles written in a given month, i.e. from the monthly meetups and the #1day1woman ongoing. I find that most of my articles end up in #1day1woman as I don't want to hold them up waiting for a specific meetup to come along. My preference is that the whole recording system not become over-complicated. Oronsay (talk) 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thirty-ish contributions only accidentally in the list, it was work I was doing anyway, but this stretch got done quicker with this extra motivation. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments so far. I can see the simplicity of the current approach is appealing. It therefore looks as if any variations should be "additional extras" rather than a complete revamp. Let's see how we do in September.--Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I echo those who suggest we keep it simple. There are many contributions to the #1day1woman page which are currently also eligible for the Monthly Achievement Initiative, meaning articles from any country and any occupation. Requiring articles fit a certain geographical or occupational category during a short window of time will limit participation in the initiative, and might be discouraging to our membership base who will see it as more of a competition. If the initiative is all about increasing participation and increasing metrics, I'd vote to not change the current model. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott I'm not very creative in brainstorming ways to get people to participate, but I do want to help you keep the work load at something you can handle. If that means wikignoming a lot, that's fine. Just keep me posted. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you review my submission, I was getting negative feedback about submitting Jenny L. Davis, a linguist and social activist because she is 'merely' an assistant professor who speaks a indigenous tongue and is attempting to revive it. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Book Ideas
We are wrapping up an edited book, Wikipedia and Academic Libraries, which is schedule for publication in September, 2021. There are other edited volumes about Wikipedia, including Levering Wikipedia and Wikipedia@20. My co-editors and I were pondering, "What will the next book be?" And, based on the submissions for our book (almost 2 years ago) we suggest that someone consider editing a book about all the activity related to Art+Feminism. Bridges2Information (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Idea: Ancient women (probably not a great title)
I wondered whether this might be a nice theme for later this year or next? The redlist got fixed recently and its got a really good geographic spread and all the women lived prior to 400 CE. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue a draft
This list of declined drafts just came to my attention. Many won’t ever be notable but we could undertake a concert effort to find and bring up to standard the ones that have potential? Might identify some new contributors this way too, altho sadly in many cases we’ll be months behind the original submitter. But perhaps worth a shot, and a change of pace for style of editathon? Innisfree987 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, I've added: Works in progress (Stubs, Drafts, AfCs, AfDs,…) to a few of the monthly events. They usually were more targeted, but also were trying to leverage off of existing work. It would be useful to have an ranking estimate of ending up with a successful article, perhaps by using some machine learning tool like Quicksilver or even simpler measures like: current article size, unique (website) refs, (particular) failed reviews, or Google (news?) results. Having some comment from WiR reviews, perhaps with likelihood of success, might reduce duplicate effort. I wonder how many new contributors don't come back after a rejected submission? StrayBolt (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Women and the sea? I'm not sure if that's been done before? It could include naval officers, sailors, sportspeople, then scientists, etc. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1962 (60th anniversary): Uganda, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago are all granted independence from Great Britain. Could it be worth having a month focussed on those places? Or is that too British Empire focussed?
30 April 2022: 70th anniversary of Anne Frank’s diary being published, 1952 - a focus on women connected to the Holocaust, perhaps?
20 June: World Refugee Day - a theme on refugees??
26 September: International Day of Languages - perhaps we could have a focus on translating pages?
27 September: 200 years ago the French orientalist Jean-François Champollion announced that he had succeeded in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs on the Rosetta Stone, 1822 & November 4: 100 years since the British archaeologist Howard Carter discovered the tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun, 1922. ? maybe a focus on Egypt and Egyptologists?
There's others things too, like 25 years since death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in September?
Thanks,Lajmmoore, for all these interesting ideas. In connection with Champollion and the Rosetta Stone, we could also focus on linguists, especially those concerned with ancient or minority languages. As for Anna Frank, the original Dutch version was published as Het Achterhuis on 25 June 1947. I believe editions in German and French appeared before the English versions which were published in the United States and Britain in 1952 - so take your pick. Commemorations of Anna Frank have traditionally been held in connection with her birthday, 12 June 1929, especially in 2019 for her 90th anniversary.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott Linguists sound like a great idea for September - I suspect we have a list for them already? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should develop a crowd-sourced list. We have plenty of time to do so. I know lots of women have been involved in documenting the American Indian languages and I believe some have contributed to the indigenous languages of Oceania.--Ipigott (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas submitted by Instagram followers for 2022
Hello all! I asked the people who follow our instagram channel what themes they might like to sea us look at in the coming year, and their ideas were:
Women at war/resistance
Women in medicine
Women in agriculture
Women in historic preservation (I think some noises about curators/museums have been made before?)
An editathon to encourage submissions to the Main PageIn the news feature, given concerns raised repeatedly (which I share) about systemic bias in what ends up featured there. I will note that the Recent Deaths feature of ITN tend to get as much as 10x the traffic as DYKs, in my experience. So omission of women there is consequential. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Writers, scholars and critics (etc!) of languages other than English. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about notable women get deleted because they are poorly written, and yet could be easy to improve. It took me about 30 minutes to improve Leslie Segar from one line and one citation to a start class article. Sadly, that's because people who nominated AfD's don't follow WP:BEFORE but still, this is an area where we could have strong impact. I wonder if there is anyway to improve the efforts to rescue currently poor articles about notable women? CT55555 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, CT55555. It seems to me that the situation with AfDs has been steadily improving. In addition to those displayed on Women in Red, there are extensive lists on WikiProject Women and WikiProject Women's History. Perhaps these could be included as links on the main Women in Red page. Maybe there'll be other suggestions here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that WP Women is already mentioned but I have now added WP Women's History which is widely used. Hope this helps. I am particularly suspicious of articles which have been deleted after appearing earlier at AfD but have now been recreated and retagged despite substantial improvement. There appears to be an unreasonable tendency to tag them for AfD without proper examination of the improvements made, especially the additional sourcing. Many deserve to be kept and should not have been deleted in the first place if adequate searches for notability had been carried out.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Combined with the clear lack of WP:BEFORE, too many are rushed to delete without even the most simple of online searches, never mind basic improvements. The actual spirit of AfD policy, which clearly directed people towards improvement as the first priority, is not being followed. CT55555 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm new - What is AfD? I know that Women in Green have a banner that can be placed on the talk page so that the article doesn't get deleted. It talks about the article being added in good faith and some other things that make it less likely to get deleted. Does WiR have something like this? If not, that would be a good solution. I would be happy to imporove one line articles if there is a list somewhere? TheTypingKat (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest a contest for focusing on Black women, Indigenous women, Latina and Latinx women, women with disabilities, and queer women. I didn't see these suggested anywhere else. If it has been, I would appreciate being pointed in the right place. TheTypingKat (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TheTypingKat these are all great suggestions! there's an annual focus on indigenous women in August, that I think is in the table further up the page and we're doing pride this month! There's usually an annual focus on black women in February, to tie with Black history Month in USA then. The easiest way to see all the previous themes is if you go to an event page (any of this months) and scroll right to the bottom there's a template box, if you pick expand where it says 2014-2021, that opens up layers that list all the different themes. We last had a month devoted to disability in July 2020 & last did a focus on Hispanic and Latina women in September 2017 - although they would have also been included in the continental editathons we did 2020/21. Please propose a theme for next month, or others later in the year? If you go to the top of the page and add a proposal for one of the months, people usually say if they're in favour or not! Cheers, Lajmmoore (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas page administration
Common tasks for each event. This list is incomplete. Please add to it
identify sponsors and/or WikiProject hosts
create list of potential participants, including active editors from the area(s) to be covered
create editathon banner
create/find editathon icon
develop the WiR redlist, find related redlink lists
create meetup page, completing sections on
"Add these to articles" (stub templates, applicable categories, useful lists)
"Add these to article talkpages" (WikiProject banners, editathon banner for the event)
create the invite
distribute the invite
develop social media campaign (FB, Twitter)
We haven't been doing this but it would be great if we had a social media volunteer
add Authority Control if missing to all the articles created during the event
double-check each article for categories
double-check each article for talkpage banners
create the thank you and/or barnstar
develop a list of contributors (overlaps to some degree with registered participants)
distribute the thank you and/or barnstar after the event to the contributors
create Wikidata entry if none exists
Checklist for updates of virtual meetups
This section is purely administrative. It is not about the ongoing discussions of topics.
WiR generally has a variety of monthly, quarterly and annual events. WiR also sends out an “invitation” to its registered participants notifying them of those events. This is an effort to list tasks associated with the admirative tasks of updating and adding pages. We will be maintaining this list to assist with Quality Assurance. This is a working document and should be maintained to reflect current bast practices. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basic overview of tasks using March 2021 as a guide
Each month there will be new events and ongoing events
Step 1 – Add each new event, by next available number, to Template:Women in Red. It will be a redlink. (topic needs to be expanded).
Step 2 – Using the Step 1 redlink, create a new event pages. The easiest way to do this is by either copying from the previous year’s similar event (like "Black History Month" in February) or referring to an event page from the current month, or a combination of the two.
Step 3 – Create a new "Talkpage banner templates" to coincide with every new event. These are the tags editors put on the article talk pages whether it's a new or improved article (example Template:WIR-193). Note, editors are welcome to add multiple talkpage templates to an article talkpage if it meets the criteria, e.g. an African woman artist would qualify for templates #186 and #192.
Step 4 – Update the template "Template:Women in Red navigation" to include the new events. Click on the "edit source", scroll down to "group4 = Events" and add events.