Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 1

@Rosiestep: Glad to have you back and glad it was a productive conference. SusunW (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: thank you! It was much more productive than I thought it could be. Kept thinking about the women who attended the conferences you and I have written about in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s; and what brought them to their conferences, and whom they met, and what the take-aways were. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Smiling. I have chipped away at 11 from the primer congress this month. Have decided I am going to go ahead and do fair use photos on those that I can find. When you have time to decompress, we can chat more. SusunW (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'd like to come up with a redlist (maybe cross-post it here and @ WP:Intertranswiki?) of notable women's congresses, and once we start the articles, we'll probably be adding a sea of bio redlinks. This assumes that the project's scope -- broadly construed -- includes women's conferences. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I have over 50 redlinks in just the two below:

• Primer Congreso Interamericano de Mujeres
• Inter-American Commission of Women

Then there are still redlinks here:

• Pan-American Conference of Women

Here's some I am aware that we need articles on:

• Primer Congreso Feminista Internacional Buenos Aires, Argentina 1910 (organized by Petrona Eyle)
• Primer Congreso Feminista Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico 1916 (organized by Salvador Alvarado)
• 1994 Convention of Belém do Pará (first ever resolution on violence against women came out of this meeting) SusunW (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

International Congress of Women really needs expanding, and where possible, the sections (annual events) need to be expanded or even have their own articles, for example, Women at the Hague, 1916.^[1] --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

So I did create the Women at the Hague article... couldn't let it sit there as a redlink when I had a perfectly fine PD book easily available to create the article. However, this has led to 13 new redlinks, some of which have entries on other language Wikipedias. Manana. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yay! I think it will be interesting to see how they all link together. It is as if they lead us. Primer Congreso led me to Carmen Sánchez de Bustamante Calvo de Lozada who led me to the Inter-American Commission (CIM) which led me to Esther Neira de Calvo which led me to Gumercinda Páez and back to the Primer Congreso. Ideally, I'd love to have all the women who have served on the Board of the CIM in the article, but I think it will be ambitious if we can just complete bios on the ones already there. SusunW (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HELP! If anyone can add to this stub Isabel Sánchez de Urdaneta, I would be thrilled. I can find no other sourcing except an Alexander street reference I cannot access here SusunW (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ran across Alice Garoute when working on the Primer Congress. Added a bunch of info to her bio. Lots of red links here. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

With the new name of this project, we need a new logo! Suggestions welcome here! :) (And, of course, any design geeks are especially welcome.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is at right but I'm terrible at logo design and such.... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We need to work together to brand the project. Let's concentrate on the project's scope -- content gender gap, broadly construed to include biographies and works -- when considering branding (name, colors, logo, etc.). That's what I got out of my marketing class while working on my MBA two decades ago; I think it still applies. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

When we started up WP:WikiProject Women writers, we opened up the question of color scheme and image on the talkpage. There were many suggestions and we narrowed it down to the look/feel it has now. So, what are your thoughts for this WikiProject? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I picture something more like the world (a globe) surrounded with the female gender symbol in like chain links which are red. Something that pointedly speaks to the project rather than a random red image? SusunW (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

And maybe rather than a globe, since it can only show the face that one is looking at, a split image wherein the two sides are joined by the red women symbols? Something like this, without the allegorical frou-frou on the perimeters where the outline of each side is the loop of a red female symbol "♀"? SusunW (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

John Donne nerd here; what about using a Werner projection as the base map shape? The purpose of the project is to be a safe space for women and allies and to work towards making the projects as a whole fit that description; Werner or Cordiform maps have been exploited by artists and poets for ages because they take the form of a slightly elongated heart. Solves for geographic bias and references the purpose! Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds: Never heard of such a thing, but I like it! SusunW (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a heart, I like it. -- KTC (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons has a few Werner images but I like this one best because of the colors and brightness. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the one I liked too, @Rosiestep:

How about this group of "women in red"?

? Although they're all now "blue" on Wikipedia (with rather nice biographies), they represent a wide span of interests. See who they all are here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would caution against using an image of living people. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I had a similar thought. People are who they are and often, have a reaction pro or con to notable people. SusunW (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right. I like the Werner heart-shaped globe too. And it will look good even in much smaller versions.--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus for the Werner projection, so I've gone ahead and set it as the project "logo". Harej (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: @Isarra: Do you have something like a Bug Report feature or best practice when a wikiproject needs to contact WikiProject X regarding a technical issue? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Just pinging us should work as long as there aren't too many pings on the same page, since echo isn't terribly bright and doesn't necessarily list all of them. Filing a phabricator task under the project 'wikiproject-x' should also get it to us, assuming we know how to use phabricator at least sort of between us. I know I still don't. -— Isarra ༆ 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Phabricator is the Wikimedia Foundation's software bug tracker; we use it for WikiProject X as well. It is at phabricator.wikimedia.org and you can log in with your Wikipedia account (on the login screen, click the "Login or Register, MediaWiki" button on the bottom). Then when filing a task, be sure to tag it with the "WikiProject-X" project. Or if you don't want to bother with any of that (which is fine), you can leave me a message on my talk page. Harej (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: @Rosiestep: I am trying to add Anette Abildgaard, Amalie Hagen and others (who are on the Danish wiki) but there appears to be no record of them on Wikidata. I have no idea how Wikidata picks up its info but the lack of info there should not be a barrier to inclusion of names in this project. I also find it pretty tedious to fill out all the slots required for additions to the list. Maybe the ill (Interlanguage link) or the emerging illm (Interlanguage link multi) could be used here too? Any other suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: Sorry to trouble you again but it is no longer possible to add missing names. The edit button has disappeared.--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: yup, the edit button for adding new articles has disappeared. @Ipigott: it doesn't pick it up; editors add it themselves to Wikidata (at least that's what I've always done if there wasn't already an entry). --Rosiestep (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: On Wikidata, I've only added names indirectly by indicating an article exists in the other language wikis. I've never gone in and added data from zero. I was under the impression that there were bots picking up data from the various language versions of Wikipedia, looking at the categories, boxes, persondata, etc. If we not only have to go through the already difficult business of adding missing names but also have to create new entries on Wikidata, then I think the list will be very slow to develop - and the tendency will be not to add any names that are not on Wikidata. (Maybe it would be easier just to create an English stub and provide the language links to Wikidata - but this would be defeating the object of the exercise and there would no longer be a red link.) In any case, I would not know what data to add to Wikidata, in what language, etc. This would require a few days training and experience. Sorry to be critical but this seems to me to be a serious problem for your project.--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I've just arrived back home from Mexico. I believe James is traveling today/tomorrow. I think we can catch up on these issues relatively quickly after we get unpacked and get a good night's sleep. Thanks for your patience. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Hope you now feel refreshed after returning home. You've been doing a great job and really rallying the troops with Women in Red. Unfortunately James is now away for a few days but he has at least added New articles which should help is along. Isarra, his recommended back-up, does not seem to be very active either. Maybe you can find someone else to fix the Missing articles edit problem. It should not be difficult. See my messages on this below.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rosiestep, Ipigott. Sorry for not responding sooner, but the "missing articles" feed is meant to be an automatically generated list based on Wikidata content. The initial list I generated just before the project launch was generated by hand, but I am also working on a bot to do it on a continuous basis. In the meantime, does the updated-by-hand requests section serve the needs of the project? Harej (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we can progress on that basis. I'm really looking forward to seeing how your bot performs. Please ping me when it becomes operational.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that WP:WW should be moved to a task force of this project?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Keilana would also be interested in making Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists a task force/sub project of this too??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: or leave them as daughter projects? Dunno. @Harej: see: WP:WikiProject Feminism ... can we add a Related Wikiprojects tab which would include things like this for now? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• WikiProject Women's History
• WikiProject Women scientists
• WikiProject Women artists
• WikiProject Women writers
• WikiProject Women of psychology

I think this project would really work best if you keep things centralised, covering all women-related articles. If they remain daughter projects this should still act as an umbrella for all of those projects and link everything together. I think one project and sub groups by topic like that is the best way to organize this though, all within one big project. What we really lack on wikipedia is coordination, and I think it's good to at least loosely tie everything together. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I like having women scientists and even maybe women's health as daughter projects - maybe not subprojects technically, but definitely daughter projects! @Harej: probably has a great idea for how to make these look good. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Having spent several months waist-deep in WikiProjects, my philosophy is essentially that there is no inherent problem with "subset" WikiProjects (e.g. Women Scientists, Women Writers) existing independently of "superset" WikiProjects (e.g. Women in Red, Biography). WikiProjects are not as much classification systems as they are voluntary associations of editors, and there are different strategies editors can take to organize work. For example, technically speaking, WikiProject Women Scientists is entirely within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia—the set of articles within WikiProject Women Scientists is (theoretically) contained entirely within the Science and Academia task force of WikiProject Biography. However, the Women Scientists project specifically motivates participants with the idea that Wikipedia is missing articles on notable, accomplished women—a strategy that appears to work, as the project currently has 11 active participants as of last directory update (better than most projects can say). I like the idea of the projects integrating and cross-referencing one another, but I don't think they should be made to merge if it's not necessary. (A project may voluntarily merge if it feels like it, of course.) As for the technical implementation, I will figure that out. Harej (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: @Rosiestep: I think it is premature to decide on the relationship between all the other WikiProjects on women and this one. In any case, I think each of the other projects has its own focus and acts as guide to progress in a given area. The other projects are not just concerned with red links but with the general improvement of articles, lists, featured content, etc. WP:Women writers is still very young and has been advancing exceptionally well. Only a small minority of new articles come from red links in other wikis. Most of them are created in Wikipedia for the very first time. Let's maintain it the way it is for now.--Ipigott (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, let's leave them alone and concentrate on getting this one situated. But I think the design team (@Harej:) is working on a tab for daughter projects (i.e. Women Writers), related projects (i.e. Women's History), and resource projects (i.e. Intertranswiki). --Rosiestep (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Me personally, it might just be me because I like the idea of centralized coordination and simplification, but honestly my feeling is that it would be best to simply have one big project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women, to move all of the ones like writers and scientists into task forces, and simply have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles and generate big lists of missing women within the scope of the project. Equally important is getting those stubs and start class entries on women up to B class and beyond, and I think having a centralized project you'd be more likely to attract that sort of thing, look at Susun for instance and intertranswiki. She's also been expanding existing articles on important bios which are vitally important. I'd rather see a Wp:Women function centrally in the same way that intertranswiki does and just dedicated to improving coverage of women in all fields. People like Rosie and myself can choose to plug away at the missing women articles with stubs, and others can choose to expand articles etc. I'd personally feel a lot happier that way if everything was centrally organized and you simply had the missing article pages running within WP:Women. As far as I can see, most of the niche projects have very little activity or interest and would function better as task forces of a main Women project. Personally I'm more excited by the idea of a broad, centralized WikiProject Women than I am one which simply focuses on missing links, when there's a MASSIVE amount of work needed on existing articles which cannot be ignored. The overall picture should be quality and quantity, and editors can then choose what they want to work on. Obviously the focus will always be on missing articles anyway, given the nature of Rosie and myself and a few others haha. Like Intertranswiki, I don't think it would be a good idea to create a massive bank of missing women bot generated. Yes, it would be good to have millions of missing articles listed, but not if they can't be started, and we have to be realistic. My feeling is that this would work better if you moved to WP:Women and had a monthly stub drive for missing women articles on the main page, perhaps sharing the women entries with the Intertranswiki project as they're more likely to be started that way. And then you could also have 10 women articles goal a month to expand, like the Argentine actresses for Intertranswiki etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: as long as we're dreaming, in my perfect world we'd have an assembly. Some creating redlinks; some creating stubs; some expanding stubs; some reviewing for class, DYK, GA and the like; some working on photos. There's always going to be cross-overs but sometimes some of the steps get missed simply because of time constraints, lack of expertise, or truthfully frustration. The goal as I understand it is not just about quality and quantity, but also visibility and that part is hard for me. I get really, really frustrated by the technology and find the promotion part stressful. SusunW (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I'm starting to get what you're saying, so that's scary... haha. If you want to reach out to the editing community and see about moving the idea forward, of course, go for it, amigo! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Where do you want me to propose it? For now I think Wp:Women could serve as an umbrella project, listing the current women projects within it with a task bar to tie them all together and to serve as the main missing articles on women vehicle. I'd use the main page of Wp:Women like the Intertranswiki one to drum up the most interest and be the place to launch a monthly missing article drive which can be reasonably achieved. Obviously you can create a big bank of missing articles if you like, but I think it's a waste of time creating hundreds of thousands of red links if you can't start them all. It has to be practical. Given time, perhaps the existing women topic projects will see the benefit of merging into the main one and operating as task forces, but that's not immediately important. The most important thing I think is a decent, active project dedicated to improving coverage of all women, and the biggest thing you could do on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: For a start, I'll create a Navbar after work like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Navigation. This will tie the daughter projects with WikiProject Women without converting them into the typical task force, which is what I thought you had been talking about. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that can go at the top right of the project page. I suggest an iconic woman project logo at the top of it, can you think of some suggestions? I'd favour a strong female figure like File:Elizabeth I in Parliament Robes.jpg or something! I think the best place to draw up banks of missing articles would be add Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles, and then have a few "rounds" like the IT project a month of select articles people can start. It might be time consuming though updating lists of articles started if Women writers exists as well as WP:Women, but I think creating a list of all women articles will be too much, unlike we keep it to what has been started by editors within the project or you get a bot to auto generate it from new pages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Following the thread on Rosie's talk page in which she suggested scaling the project to WP:Women, which I completely agree with, and the very positive words of Keilana I decided to set something initially up. I'd suggest merging this project and centering the activity on the main page of WP:Women to drum up the most activity. There will be a stub focus on missing women and a core article improvement highlight on that main page. Missing articles can then be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles. Given time I'd suggest merging the sub projects into task forces for convenient organization but leave them separate for now. I do think this is the most important thing you can do for women on wikipedia and I want the main page of it to function sort of as a portal for women, so I've begun listing featured and good articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't mention it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would go for a merge. "Women in red" is a catchy title and would make a nice subpage for the hoped-for 6.000 new articles. Can we have a little red icon, like the green GA icon, to stress that an article belongs in that group, for example in a DYK nom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My own strong feeling here is that a name change should be due to consensus and I don't see it at the moment. I've been quiet recently as I found the last name change very pointy and unpleasant. We should not repeat that. If we take the point that the problem (of content gender bias) is very large and we give it a name (WP:Women or WP:WIR) then we haven't changed the problem but we have just named it. Rosie and I proposed that we address start class biographies not because that is the whole of the problem but because it would be measurable with a wikidata query and it targets articles that the average teenager would see as useful to them. The content gender gap is measured by others looking at the 15% that are about women compared with the 85% about men. We could create thousands of stubs but a) we would be stopped and b) it would create articles that failed to satisfy the average reader. If we could create thousands of start articles then we would change the measure. "Moving the Needle" as Rosie says. Next year we could say yes it isnt fixed but it is being addressed and we have data to support the claim. Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

My 2cents for whatever it is worth. Since the project was launched, I have written over 25 start class articles and a couple of stubs. I don't say that for a pat on the back or anything like that, I say it to illustrate that we can indeed solve this gap. There are articles to be written. Call it what you like, organize it under whatever umbrella you like, but let's get to writing. I'd love some system that promotes an idea to an article to DYK or GA, but we have to write them first. Whatever format will get the most well-written articles completed in a welcoming environment, has my vote. SusunW (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Content means the most, true, but in the long term a general project might attract more contributors such as yourself and we need to maximise its potential. WP:Women would attract more contributors in the long term than Wp:Women in red long term I'm sure. "Women in red" is a little pedantic sounding too isn't it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the current name - like Gerda said, it's catchy! But SusunW's right, the point is what we get done, not what we call it. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really mind whatever name it is under, but that fact that it's organised somewhere helps with motivation. One risk with having a multitude of Wikiprojsects with similar topics is that they all depopulate. A better solution could be by running task forces under the umbrella of a larger WP. That way it's easier to attract new editors to your specific cause. This is pretty much the way WP:MED has been running and it's proven very successful.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very agreeable with incorporating WiR with Women. WiR should focus on being highly visible and very appealing to content writers; I think adding it to Women accomplishes this better than leaving it as a stand-alone WikiProject. Also... --Rosiestep (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1. I think readers and editors will find WiR more easily if it is part of the Women brand vs. stand-alone.
2. The scope of WiR doesn't diminish by joining the Women wikiproject.
3. Women in Red is catchy; no one is debating dropping the name.
4. To me, it's of no consequence if we refer to WiR as a subproject of Women, or a task force of Women, or a missing article drive. But I think for branding, if it incorporates under Women, it needs to have the look and feel of Women.
5. The Women mainpage design is pretty, but it isn't set in stone. We can give prominence to WiR.
6. As much as I support incorporating WiR with Women, I have to agree that before WiR goes through another rename or a move, we need consensus. So where do we go from here: (a) move under the Women umbrella, (b) stay put as a stand-alone WikiProject, (c) keep the convo going?

Some very intelligent points Rosie. For me personally, I want a project which encourages and supports me promoting core articles like Liz Taylor or Audrey Hepburn to GA/FA as much as creating ten stubs on Ecuadorian feminists. I think we also need to encourage people to get core articles on women which have hundreds of thousands of hits a year up to GA/FA status which Women in red naturally doesn't involve. So I think it would work better overall if you merged into Wp:Women, and a general women project would likely attract more overall interest. The main page of Wp:Women could host the banks of missing articles for the month and also highlight core articles needing urgent attention. There could even be a GA collaboration of the month to get a core article on a woman up to GA. No one editor would be obligated to do so though. Women in red could then function as a sub page and host the banks of missing articles, or it could simply be at Wp:Women/Missing articles. Think in the long term what would be best here. Personally I'd prefer to center the activity on a main Women project page and reduce all of the others to task forces to try to get more focus on the overall picture. I think the core principle we share here is "let's improve content on women in general", not only start thousands of missing articles but to nurture articles, particularly core ones, and just improve the quality of coverage of women overall. Systematic bias is evident not only in missing articles but existing articles, just how many stubs do we have an very notable female scholars and scientists for instance? Anyway, you know what I think, I urge the others to comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Move under the umbrella for all the reasons stated by @Rosiestep and Dr. Blofeld: SusunW (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd say move under the umbrella conceptually, but don't try to "force" things to be taskforces if they're already extant as wikiprojects. To many it will feel like some kind of demotion. There is no reason at all that WikiProject Women Scientists cannot simultaneously be a daughter project of both this one and WikiProject Science. The two parent projects can provide different shared resources (e.g. a review of an article from a primarily WP:BIAS perspective in one, vs. a review of appropriate use of scientific journal sources (which are often primary) in the other. And so on. If a topical project has become inactive, just merging it as a taskforce is probably best, though. For project talkpage tagging purposes, you can define "virtual" taskforces that just redirect to the pre-existing women-in-topic projects, if that seems genuinely useful. Short version: WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• 'Support umbrella. collaboration not competition. In the listing of new WIR articles, I would like to mention Scientist/Artist/Musician, with the header of a table suppling the link to the relevant parallel projects. Table sortable by those? Add creation date/GA date/FA date? - In short: have one table for new women-related articles for many purposes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to get the join project button to work, I click on it and nothing happens. If I add my name manually, I get a weird redlink and no way to add all the stuff that everyone else who joins has. Where is this template... or....? Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What browser are you using, do you have js turned off, what happens when you go to meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas and click the button to add an idea? Do you get a popup there? -— Isarra ༆ 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I figured out how to manually add the card to "join", but basically in Safari 6.2.7 on a Mac that's still running Mountain Lion, the "join wikiproject" button doesn't work either on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Members or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - in both cases, the cursor indicates there is a link present, but when you click on it, nothing happens. I also tried it using Firefox as a browser, same result Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. We'll see if we can figure out what's going on here. -— Isarra ༆ 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be disrespectful to the designer Harej, but i strongly suggest we drop the "card" joining system. If experienced editors like myself, Ipigott and Montana are having problems, the typical newbie who might potentially join certainly won't. Keep things manual and simple and a sign up list on the main page like the Intertranswiki project is best IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem with the sign list method is there's no real way to build on it. By itself it serves little more purpose than a symbolic list for those who want to put their name out there. Which is something, certainly, but we want more. A list you can't maintain well, with it you can't track activity, you can't make it track your projects for other potential use cases (we were thinking of a potential user dashboard as a possibility), you can't sign up for notifications. But I agree that the problems the current gadget is causing are problematic; if we can't get that working across platforms and the like, we may need to re-evaluate the entire approach. It needs to work for whoever regardless of browser or what they have in their personal js, it needs to not just silently fail ever, it needs a fallback for no js. -— Isarra ༆ 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it definitely makes it impossible for a newbie, the link does nothing and manually copying and pasting what everyone else does is incomprehensible unless - as I did - you go do some digging to answer the question, "WTF is this, anyway? You can sign up for notifications in other ways, and frankly, I'm not entirely sure I want my activity tracked in this fashion ... Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely an issue. There's bugs filed now. -— Isarra ༆ 18:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked before but never got an answer if the members of the project's pieces on women would be automatically pulled into the project. Is that what has happened? Because I now see a stream of articles, but they stop being numbered at 249 and then there are some that are unnumbered. I also see duplicate articles. What is causing the glitch? SusunW (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

We have to put in a bot request to feed articles to this project. I'll check and see how we made that happen when we started Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers. If you check the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics‎, you'll see that I cause the glitch and then fixed it after I transcluded from various women wikiproject lists. This was very labor intensive done by hand. I am not techno savvy enough to sort out how to get them added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics‎ doing it any other way. As you may be aware, the feeds for women artists, women writers, and women's history (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles) are a running list from the last 14 days so not a permanent record. @Victuallers: you and I talked about this in the weeks before we launched the project; and you gave examples about how articles were tracked in other large project which you coordinated... Gibraltarpedia, Monmouthpedia, etc.; do you have time to get this worked out here? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining @Rosiestep:. Totally beyond my ability to help with it, as I know zero about programming. I just need to know if I am supposed to stop manually inputting the ones I have created or continue doing it. If I can help create articles or review them, I will, programming is not my thing. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(1) Until the new articles get added to the Metrics list automatically, we need to keep adding them by hand. Someone can prune out the duplicates later. Don't know an easy fix for that avoiding duplicates, except for opting to add them to the list in alpha order rather than chron. (2) It's going to be about a month before WIGI data (Max Klein et al) gets posted, but then it'll update weekly. Note, though, that WIGI is based on Wikidata entries, not on Wikipedia entries. So if you create an article on Wikipedia, and there's no entry on Wikidata, WIGI won't account for it until the Wikidata entry gets created. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: All of that went right over my head except the pruning out duplicate part and continuing to post them. I will just keep doing what I am doing and if I need to change something, I will rely on someone to tell me what. I don't even understand why Wikipedia is separated into all these various segments that keep data from flowing between them, but I am also sure that I probably don't really want to know the technical explanations. People I am fascinated by, technology is only a tool for me and I am really not remotely interested in how it works as long as it makes my life easier. ;) SusunW (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a DYK for Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret J. Anderson and it occurred to me that no one ever answered @Gerda Arendt:'s question about whether we could get an icon for the project. It occurred to me when I was nominating Anderson that I had no way to designate that it was part of the project, so I just put WikiProject Women in Red on the comment line. So my question is multiples:

• Are we going to get an icon (Gerda's suggestion was a red version of the GA dot, but I'd rather have our Werner heart on a red background)?
• Are we tracking DYK nominations for the project?

• If yes, how are we supposed to be designating that they are part of the project?
• If no, why not?

• Are we tracking GA nominations and FA nominations? Same subquestions.

@Harej: I'm pinging you because I suppose that you have to answer the technical part of can it be done? And @Rosiestep and Victuallers: to see if you already addressed this. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur with questions. My internal marking is a red w followed by a number but I'll take any icon. I also simply mentioned the project so far in nominations (2). #3 coming but hardly enough material for DYK. I have GA priorities with dates, DYK? - In Intertranswiki, I note DYK nominations - inviting! - and then link to the archive. GA and FA could be shown by the icons. - A DYK nom for next Sunday's cantata is open, btw ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff to work on. I got to get to bed, but let me say for a start... We should track the DYKs for sure. Maybe link the nom, too, so that additional editors can assist with remarks posed by a reviewer. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello all - wanted to run an idea past the folks here, see if it's within the scope of the project. I'm the Wikimedian in Residence for Museums Galleries Scotland, working across the Scottish museums sector. I've got an event coming up on August 7, at the Glasgow School of Art, where I'm training new editors, and then they'll be adding & expanding articles on women from the GSoA Honour Roll. They're currently doing a good deal of preparation to ensure that the individuals about whom they'll be writing meet standards of notability, and that suitable sources will be used, and I'll be adding the article hit list to the event page over the next week. I've run events like this in the past and I've come across the occasional problem with new stubs by new editors being pounced upon (and in one case deleted) when they probably would have been fine with a wee hand from a more experienced editor. I generally pop in and add / advise participants to add the {{New user article}} tag to the talk page, which helps - but I wonder if anyone from the project might be able to help support this event remotely, fixing issues which might otherwise disadvantage the articles? I'd like to give them the best possible chance at Wikilife. Lirazelf (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Patrol them IMMEDIATELY so that the NPP trolls don't spot them. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! This event has been postponed but I'll bear that in mind for the rescheduled date - thank you! Lirazelf (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed Google doodle references in a large number of articles. For some reason they seem to be overrepresented in articles about women, while they never make it into the articles about men on account of being trivia. I don't think it's due weight to mention this in the legacy section about Ella Fitzgerald, Ada Lovelace etc. etc. It might be notable on some less known individuals where the doodle contributed significantly to their reputation, but this seems to me a case of WP:systemic bias. Men (such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci) are regarded as being too important, while women featured in a "doodle" should have this regarded as being on par with being the first programmer in the world or one of the highest regarded singers of the 20th century.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Harriet_Tubman#Google_doodle_as_an_important_part_of_her_legacy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Agnes Martin. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed...Modernist (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• How many people have been so singled out. The acknowledgment here is totally appropriate...Modernist(talk) 12:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman is one of the most important figures of the American Civil War. She rescued scores of people through the underground railroad and there are movies about her, a number of biographies, and she is generally regarded as an American icon. Being part of a "doodle" is not a significant part of her legacy.

Agnes Martin is one of the most famous artists of the 20th century, the doodle is insignificant in relation to her lifetime achievements.

That we aren't even having this discussion about male artists, scientists etc. is very telling to me. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and now there is talk about putting Harriet Tubman's image on a ten dollar bill replacing Alexander Hamilton; it does not hurt her in any way either; although I do prefer changing the twenty dollar bill and Andrew Jackson...Modernist (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF These women are significant in their own right. A "doodle" is NOT creating her notability. The doodle is notable because of her and is trivial. Her significance is not increased by it, nor decreased by it and thus it should be eliminated. IMO, it would only be significant for those subjects who were obscure before a doodle. SusunW (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

These links are to 14 day rolling lists. I mined them for article names. Later, I removed dups as the lists had overlaps, and we had added names by hand to the Metrics section. Very, very tedious. And this doesn't capture all the newly created bios, i.e. from other women wikiprojects. It's 2015, folks; how do we automate this? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's history/New articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers#Articles recently created - New article search results (past 14 days)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists#New articles created - New article search results (past 14 days)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists#Articles recently created - New article search results (past 14 days)

These projects use User:AlexNewArtBot and a new feed could be set up for this project that encompasses all of these categories and more. The trick is setting up the rules in a way that it captures everything you want without too many false positives. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My very non-technology based response...are we trying to count new articles on women or new articles on women created in WikiProjects? It is an important distinction, as the bot Gobonobo mentioned is using wikiproject data. However, I see lots of articles that just show Wikiproject Biography. So, my question would be, if we are interested in tracking all women articles, wouldn't we come closer by using categories? We are still going to miss a whole bunch, as I just looked at [[Category:Women]] and realized that for example, [[Category:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame]] doesn't tie there which means that articles like this one Joy Culbreath would not show up no matter how the list was programmed. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: Yup, we need to get it set up for this project after defining the rules as clearly as possible. Do you have a feel on what the rules might be for a scope of this size: women's bios and women's works (broadly construed)? @SusunW: the former. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep A word of explanation I looked at Culbreath because this student editor is working on articles for the Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame, thus 99% of the articles she creates are on women. And I'd venture that most of them do not fall into any category to search. But, in answer to your immediate question, if we are doing it via categories (which apparently need a massive clean up which is not not our scope), I plugged in actresses (as it is a woman field without woman in the name) and hit on [[Category:Women by occupation]] which has a ton more entries than just women. Another one that doesn't have the word woman in it is [[Category:Feminists]] which references one to [[Category:Women's rights activists]] but I don't know if entering one or the other would pull articles or if you'd need to pull both. Seems like looking for a needle in a haystack approach to me. Is there a way to run a bot across the categories and pull any topic that mentions women, miss (as in miss USA, Miss America, Miss World, etc), female) so that we could look at the results? Once we have defined which categories, we would then need to tell it not to pull any articles that have duplicate categories on our list, but defining which categories is the first step, IMO. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No ruleset will be perfect... there will be over-reach, under-reach, false-positives, etc. But as a start, I suggest reviewing the four rulessets associated with the pages I mention above, and then start drawing up our own list. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I've set up a preliminary ruleset at User:AlexNewArtBot/Womeninred, borrowing liberally from the one for Women's History. Once InceptionBot runs, it will start the new feed. I'm sure it will need to be tweaked/expanded to meet our needs. If you change anything, you can check for errors and test how it would work on individual pages here. @SusunW: The rules should make the feed include any articles placed in categories that have "women" or "female" in them. I also included subcategories from Category:Women by occupation that don't use either of those words. gobonobo ^{+ c} 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @Gobonobo:! Let's see what it pulls in. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay! And then I have another question, I noticed on the list for July that popped up for some reason when I was scrolling on the page that there are red links on the list. Does that mean that some of the articles have already been deleted? If so, it occurs to me that when I see a deletion post it notifies Wikiprojects. Are we getting notified? If not why not? SusunW (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Yes, those have already been deleted. If you click on the red-linked article, it should have a pink box that'll explain when and why the article was deleted. Notification of deletions happens separately through Wikipedia:Article alerts and requires that a WikiProject template is already on the talk page for the article. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: That's what I was afraid of. But also points to something I wondered about. I am not the least bit "programmer inclined", but I am logical. If we can pull newly created articles via bot, can we not also have it put in a queue "newly created articles without a Wikiproject"? As long as it wasn't hundreds of articles per day, I'd be willing to go through them and slap a Wikiproject or two on them so that we at least have a chance to review proposed deletions. SusunW (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'm not sure how to go about that. English Wikipedia gets over 800 new articles every day and I think most of them are not placed in WikiProjects. Further, there are oodles of articles that have been around for a while but don't have talk pages and are not part of any WikiProject. I usually tag articles manually, copying and pasting text like from the box below and adding/removing projects as needed. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=start|listas=}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women artists|class=start}}
{{WikiProject Women scientists|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's Health|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|class=start|importance=mid}}
}}

@Gobonobo:I do something similar I also have on my list WikiProject Social Work and WikiProject Education just because so many of my activists fall into those categories as well. And I love that you have a box. I think it would be great to have that box posted as a reminder to people to create the Project pages.SusunW (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we really need to contemplate asking for whatever is the wiki appropriate acronym for a review of documentation standards. I am truly frustrated by the extremely poor manner in which the current guidelines are applied and unfairly penalize women and minorities. I think that if we are ever going to increase the number of articles on women, we need to address this. It is hard to create articles if there are no sources. It is even harder to create articles if the sources one finds, though reliable sources are rejected on technicalities. The file on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqulyn Longacre makes my point perfectly:

1. Her state deemed her notable when they awarded her with Women's Hall of Fame (why do we get to question their determination? Do we who do not live there and have no idea of her impact have a better ability to evaluate her than those who actually worked with her?)
2. There are multiple documents that discuss her service to her state, though none is specifically about her. This is a recurring problem. On my file on the first woman engineer in Guatemala I had 6 documents that mentioned that fact. None were about her: one was about engineering, one was about her university, one was an article for Woman's Day, one was an article about firsts for the country, but the point is numerous sources confirmed her notability. However, the person who questioned her notability made the same argument as this nominator, in that there was not one single document with substantive coverage. Reminds me of yet another file on a woman who created 20 libraries in rural Argentina. Each article confirmed she was the driving force behind the library being built but none of the articles was specifically about her. Am I mistaken to believe that multiple mentions by multiple sources over time are substantive?
3. Is Wiki supposed to be about people who are famous or people who are notable? Because I cannot grasp how someone who played any sport for a season or 1 Olympic meet is more notable than say the woman who designed and implemented Indianapois' desegregation policy. However, the argument was made that she was not nationally important, and that her work on the school board was an appointed position and not an elected one. I cannot see how being a key figure in developing health care programs for women is not only notable, but why that would even be questioned.
4. And my last question is why are there checklists and templates and verifications for creating articles, promoting DYK, etc. but no checklist or template or verification for marking an article for deletion. Anyone can mark one, at any time, for any reason. Why is that and why is that acceptable? SusunW (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's just women Susun, wiki is full of assholes who wouldn't know notability to save their lives. It is a major problem overall, not just for women. As long as wiki is an open resource it is vulnerable to idiots. It doesn't matter if they're nationally famous, they just have to have coverage in reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. BlofeldSo can we fix it? Is it worth even trying to do? Or do we just keep beating our heads against a wall and then burning out from the tedium? How would we even go about it? SusunW (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's sort of like wanting to stop evil in the world. We can't change humanity. Wikipedia will always attract lazy, busybody types who rather than bother expanding an article want to delete things. Sadly it's just the way it is. Fortunately there is an AFD process so at least some of the wrongful deletions can be spotted. But I'm sure there's a few rogue admins on here who go about deleting things without telling anybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Aymatth2 feels pretty strongly on the subject too and is frequently having to deal with those sorts of deletions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld I spoke with Ritchie333 about this very kind of thing just a few days ago. I am not just interested in the deletion thing. The notability issue comes up in the creation of articles, approving them for DYK, all over the place. I really truly want to try to change the policy. (And you know by now that I really do want to stop evil in the world) I don't know how to start the process or even what to do, but if we do nothing, this just continues endlessly.I don't want to throw out the rules or admit questionable evidence, but I truly think that the way the guidelines are being applied are extremely prejudicial. Or are you saying it isn't worth it because it won't happen even if we try? SusunW (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• A few random comments:
  • I do not think there is a deliberate bias against articles about women or minorities, more a lack of interest in such articles by the well-off young techie males who make up a large proportion of the editors, compounded by the difficulty of women or minorities achieving recognition in many fields due to systemic bias in the world as a whole. The rather combative culture in Wikipedia may not help either, since it may turn off the type of editor most likely to write about these subjects.
  • The notability standards are well-documented, and basically say that a subject is notable, so may have an article, if several independent sources discuss it in some depth. That is nothing to do with importance, so a woman who has achieved a lot but has not been discussed much may not qualify for an article, while one who has not done much but has had plenty of coverage would qualify. A subject is notable if and only if it has been noted and discussed. I think this is reasonable, since it gives an objective measure. "Important" is too vague.
  • An individual project can override the general standard, saying a person is notable if they are a monarch, tenured professor, won an Oscar, whatever, even if they has not received much coverage. Typically these project standards refer to achieving a fairly high level in a given profession.
  • Anyone can launch an AfD, and they often give the wrong reasons. Two common ones are "the article does not prove notability" and "the subject does not meet a project standard". In fact, all that is needed is evidence of notability in external sources, and a subject does not have to meet a project standard if they meet the general notability guideline.
  • Monitoring the AfD queue and doing rescue jobs on dud nominations is one approach to combating bad nominations. It is tedious though.
  • I would like to the process to change so there is some sort of sanction against editors who repeatedly make bad nominations. I suggested that a few months ago, but after a massive debate it was clear there would be no consensus for the change. The process seems to be frozen.
  • There are a lot of editors who like complaining about other people's work, and there always will be

This is not very helpful. To avoid frustration, I only start articles where a reasonable amount of information can be pulled together from independent sources available online. There are masses of topics that can easily be started within those constraints. I avoid the ones that seem important but do not have the sources available. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree with almost every point that you made except #2 and it is the one that bites women and minorities most often. Significant coverage is not adequately defined. If I can find 20 single line mentions that prove someone has done something remarkable to change the world that is just as significant as a a full page article in my book. More so infact as multiple sources (as long as they weren't mirrors) thought it was notable enough to provide space for it.
• I should never have gone to that debate page. It is exactly what I mean. My one year anniversary is coming up and I have been tempted to just walk away more times than not in the last few weeks. I have written probably close to 250 articles or more and improved a bunch more than that. But, the welcome on here is awful. People treat each other poorly. Thank goodness my first experience was with Montanabw, Gerda and Rosie, who took me in and helped me. The ego and arrogance on that "discussion????" clearly shows there is no real interest in fixing the problems and only a really tough-skinned newbie would be able to get a word in edgewise for all the posturing. I'm way too old for that. I thank you for your honesty Aymatth2 it won't be fixed. That is clear. SusunW (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." I take that to mean enough to support a reasonable article, maybe a paragraph or two. It is hard to work out a better way to define it. Yes, the ego and arrogance... The rules for all institutions tend to become rigid and sacred over time, like the US Constitution. With luck, they can still sustain a viable structure. I am pessimistic about shifting the Wikipedia culture to a more open and supportive one. Some of the hostility to newcomers is understandable. There are constant efforts to use Wikipedia for advertising or to push points of view and there is a steady flood of vandalism by bored teenagers. Try helping with Wikipedia:Huggle for a few hours! But there is a huge amount of really good and valuable content in Wikipedia, ranging from high-profile politicians to obscure insects. I like researching and writing, generally in uncontroversial areas. I treat Wikipedia as an interesting hobby, possibly of some use, harmless anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: I would be a total loss at Huggle. "You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies" stops me right off the bat. I don't understand Wiki policies at all. They make no logical sense. I don't get what any of the acronyms people throw out all the time even are. I have no clue what a sock puppet or a meat puppet or an RCF (is that even correct?) or an AFD is and I don't think I want to. I cannot even find policies when I want them. Let me search google and I can find you a needle in a haystack. I am a really good researcher, but trying to find something policy related or with actual instructions for Wikipedia is impossible. I too like researching and writing, but I also want an atmosphere that promotes growth. Some days it is just too tedious to deal with Wikipedia. SusunW (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I have a family commitment tonight and cannot respond in depth other than to say I empathize with all my heart. On those days when it is too tedious for me, I don't edit. But for me at least, I've always come back to editing, moving on to the next article. The only way I think I've survived is by not taking any of this too seriously, reminding myself, I'm doing this in my spare time as a volunteer. I'll be back late tonight or tomorrow. Know you and your work are appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

With a leader more interested in socializing with world leaders and raising his British political and social standing than building an encyclopedia, our website stands little chance of being one which promotes growth. There's serious deficiencies in the way the project is run, but there's no use in sitting around moaning about it, as frustrating as it can be at times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: you make me smile. I'm not one who usually moans, I am a bleeding heart who jumps in and tries to change the world. I guess in this instance that has to be just one article at a time because the beast is not able to be reined in. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

And I'm back to this because I have been mulling it for days (okay months). In his great wisdom, @Aymatth2: said "An individual project can override the general standard, saying a person is notable if ... whatever" so if we do a formal merge as @Dr. Blofeld: proposed with WikiProject Women, it would seem logical to me that we could create a "rule" (eyeroll, because WP needs more acronyms and policy) that covers our sourcing issue. But in addition, we could create a single WikiProject Women template to put on the talk page which would maybe not solve, but make it easier to avoid the issue Gobonobo and I were discussing about files with no project being assigned. If its a woman, put it on there. No need to figure out what projects. (And if we create the template for WikiProject Women can we please leave off the "importance=?" tag. I find it highly offensive. It is as if one is notable, but not really. Priority (high, medium, or low) would be much better wording.) SusunW (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with much of this. I recommend, though, that we table further discussion until we sort out if WiR is going to merge with Women as the sourcing and notability issues pertain to both projects. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks! SMcCandlish articulated in a few words what I struggle to say repeatedly: one cannot equate "depth of coverage with length of it". SusunW (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The only time in history I've ever been noted for brevity, ha ha.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Like SusunW (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please consider contributing redlinks from your curated sandbox lists which apply to Montana here: Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History. Note, this event at the end of the month is closed to outside editors, so this post is just a call for redlinks. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Montana women, I like it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I need a show of hands. Long term I think the best thing would be to center the activity from missing articles here on the main WP:Women page and also allow others to work on quality like GAs etc. I think it would be best to merge this into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles and the pros of doing so outweigh the cons in the long term. We can then have a general project for main discussion rather than here. Especially as there is significant interest from people like Susun in working on GAs, which this wouldn't include because it's purely a missing article project.

Support As proposed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I'd rather track one project than a half-dozen. Missing articles, GA articles and so on all should be tasks of the "mother" project. Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support agreed. I am finding it difficult since the pages don't seem connected to even find all the parts of Women in Red. Don't know how to explain that, but if I want to add a new article, I have to look for a different page than the page I was just on to tell it that I finished a red link. Seems odd. One place where all projects can help each other seems logical to me. Doesn't mean you have to give up your focus, just that there are more hands, eyes, and brains to help, IMO. SusunW (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Could Women in Red be a task force, as Composers is a task force of Classical music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but (a) move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red, and (b) per Gerda, refer to WiR as a Task Force of Women. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I think it is a good idea to have one project. --Roxyuru (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dr. Blofeld, I feel really uncomfortable with how WikiProject Women was formed. Women in Red (then XX) was started at Wikimania by women editors and editors who are involved with the other women's projects. There was then an active discussion at Rosiestep's talk page about setting up a megaproject for all of the women's projects. You raised objections to the cards used for the member list there and opposed all the "automation and technical designing". Then, without input from other involved parties, you started setting up the new project the way you wanted. Instead of collaborating and incorporating ideas from other people, I see uncivil edit summaries there from you: "looks crap now without the images. Good one Rosie" "at least write something nice in prose instead of the ugly bulleted list" "people can read, best for Get involved also to be written in decent prose". While WP:WOMEN is prime real estate and it does make sense to have a central hub for the women's projects, I don't want anything to do with a toxic environment that is usurping the efforts of others. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gobonobo, Rosie and myself are on the best of terms and are in good contact off wiki. We very rarely disagree on something, and I can count anything negative I've directed towards her in nearly ten years here on one hand. Accusing me of encouraging a "toxic environment" is just ridiculous, and quite uninformed of the relationship I actually have with her. I've actually been very supportive of what she's doing and have encouraged a way forward to the benefit of the project. Yes, I've been fairly aggressive with this, but that's because I care and want to maximize the potential of what Rosie envisages on here. This proposal is actually a way to encourage general collaboration and a positive environment like we now have at WP:Intertranswiki, and a central place where we can put missing articles and articles needing improvement up on the board without having to shift through lots of sub project pages. Already there have been some achievements as a result of the WP:Women page, and we now have a GA challenge to produce a good article for each Latin country. Is that creating a toxic environment or actually a positive one for collaboration? There were some minor disagreements with design, and I regret making those edit summaries which I said at the very last moment in the day when I was feeling tired and irritable, but I think we've managed to find a compromise and the page looks better for it. To accuse me of usurping the effort of others is wrong in many ways and it is your hostile attitude displayed here which creates just what you profess to detest. The whole point of merging is to avoid having to check lots of different talk pages and project pages for convenience above everything. I'm certainly not trying to "usurp" the efforts of others or what was started at wikimania. I'm doing this because I want to maximise editorial interest and participation and know what will work better in the long term, and that's to have a central project which is highly organized like the Military and Medicine projects, which are among the best on wikipedia, one where we can have some editors working on missing articles and others on GA/FA all in one place. It really is best to keep things simple and functional. I wasn't the only person who found the card system disagreeable. We all share the same goal here, that's the most important thing, so let's not forget that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Gobonobo I truly would not like to lose you in this project. Your insight and skill fill a gap we need. I am hoping you and Dr. Blofeld can find a way forward, because even if the merge doesn't happen, he is a member of both projects. I can tell you in my experience of working with him that he is what in my neck of the woods we would call "crusty." (Dr. B, I hope you do not take offense at anything I am saying) By that I mean that his exterior is gruff and sometimes even offputting, but underneath he is a marshmallow. He has come to my defense several times when someone unjustly attacked and he has been tireless in helping me improve articles. But I also know that on issues he and I absolutely disagree upon I have been able to speak my mind, we can agree to disagree, and there is no bad blood. I too have expressed concerns to Rosie about creating a supportive environment and not following the same old same old project designs that haven't worked for women in the past. Bottom line to that is that if we wish to pursue "automation and technical designing" I see no reason why we cannot continue down that path. SusunW (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm only gruff with people who treat me as Gobonobo does, but unfortunately there's many like that on wikipedia! I am a mirror in how I treat people Susun.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This just gave me some valuable insight to my situation with DYK. I shall need to learn to "cover the mirror" before going there again. I really do hope you both can find a way forward. Both of you have very valuable and differing skills to offer the project. I personally would not like to see either of you withdraw. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: Dr. Blofeld apologised to me regarding his comments, I accepted his apology, and all is well between him and me.

@Dr. Blofeld: and @Gobonobo: I am so very hopeful you two can find a way forward. I wish I were more eloquent and could say some magic words here; my apologies for brevity. Just know my hope is heartfelt. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that Dr. Blofeld apologized to you Rosiestep. I have much respect for his nigh-unparalleled content contributions and recognize that he is a powerful ally to his friends. After the gender gap task force was derailed by a vocal group of men's rights activists last year, I think extra care needs to be taken to ensure that processes related to the gender gap projects are transparent, consensual, and include input from involved editors. I suppose my biggest concern is the talk of demoting all of the women's projects to taskforces of WikiProject Women, especially when these projects haven't even been made aware of its existence at this point. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure which is the best solution, but I liked the way the page is set up as it is so far, so I'm not sure there needs to be a change. But I'm not interested in working on GA, I'm more into adding references and getting articles started. (I'm not confident enough in my writing skills for GA). I like there being a central hub very much, though. It helps me a lot as a clean up person to find things that I need since it's all under the tabs. BTW... I know this may be offtopic, but I think there really needs to be a project to highlight Arab women who are feminists and women from India who are also active as feminists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support a reasonable compromise position, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles taskforce but retain the "Women in Red" name as a subtitle or something; it's catchy, so should be kept, but is too wink-wink-nudge-nudge, insider jargon to be useful as the page title. If there have historically been some collaboration problems, the best way to resolve them is to swell the number of project participants with a merger and dilute the individual personal influence any one editor might be having. It's not reasonable to break apart the extant WiR group, which as pointed out has its own history, as well as a specific focus. Not everyone interested in WiR's highly specific mission intends to be deeply involved in WP:WOMEN's more general and broad one. As with most taskforces, it's fine for it to have its own participants lists (and I don't want to get projectspam from WP:WOMEN, only from WP:WIR, even if WP:WOMEN also wants to count me as a participant; the "card" signup system is useful). Centralization of wikiprojects and taskforces is for convenience and logical structure, not for power hierarchy. PS: Agree with SusunW that this needs more centralization even within WiR; it's both a WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP issue; keep it procedurally simple.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  The reason though SMc is largely for the convenience of a central project discussion and organization. If we moved it to a taskforce we'd still have another talk page and some confusion over where to post or edit. We currently have 14 different women project talk pages. Not necessary. I guess Women in Red could still exist as a taskforce as suggested by Rosie, but I'd suggest we redirect its talk page into the main WP:Women one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  Aye. that would be probably be entirely practical, but I wouldn't make a sticking point of it, if the extant WiR participants don't want it that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have carefully followed the emergence of these two projects over the past few weeks and have also taken an active interest in all the other WikiProjects on women for a number of years, including the recently established WP:Women writers which has led to the creation of over 1,300 new articles since the beginning of the year. While I am fully in favour of having an umbrella project addressing all the spheres of women's activities, I think it may be premature at this stage to concentrate too much effort on WikiProject Women as is could well diminish interest in all the other WikiProjects. Women in Red, in particular, should be given time to demonstrate the usefulness of an automated approach to building up lists of missing articles on the EN Wikipedia based on Wikipedia articles in other languages. We have not yet seen how this performs in practice but I am informed it will soon be operational. Let's give Harej and his Wikimedia friends a chance to develop and test their bot over the next few weeks. In the meantime, the existing links between the projects will facilitate important ongoing work. I therefore suggest we should return to this discussion after a reasonable running in period for both Women and Women in Red. In the meantime, WP:Women—which has already provided a badly needed centralized focus on the need to undertake further work on the creation and improvement of articles on women—can evolve under its own steam, addressing important new spheres of interest such as Women in leadership.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's important to merge as soon as possible while it's still early doors to minimise wasting hard work and effort. I think the time and effort would be best put into something which can represent all women on wikipedia and in which editors can choose to create missing articles or produce quality ones to GA/FA in a centralized project. The missing article bank can still be generated within the WP:Women project. I'm thinking in the long term and how something like the Military project functions. Perhaps the least time would be wasted if we simply moved this to a task force of WP:Women. I wouldn't object to that so long as the talk page is redirected to WP:Women, but I think long term we'd be better off fully merging.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this merge seems to be premature. But agree to a merge into a taskforce named Women in Red at WikiProject Women since there are reasons for the merger in the long run. I don't support having one large main WikiProject Women without task forces. Having more projects or task forces gives more women a chance to shine in their area of interest or do things a bit differently. Although there are reasons for a merger, this merger feels a bit like it's minimizing the work product of editors by including them in one big project. We need to be sensitive to the need to support more people interested in projects run by or about women instead of pushing them into one big project. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing a project without taskforces, in fact that's what I would propose and encourage in the long term. I don't think the others should all be separate projects, but we'll get to that eventually and look at the projects which are inactive first. But with this it's purely a missing article project, so I'm not sure why that can't be a part of WP:Women.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Creating article about women that are missing is a an important and separate metric, and if some women prefer to focus on that area of ending the gender gap, then it needs to be fully supported and not buried in a complicated page where it is hard to see that metric. I'm concerned that minimizing the broad range of ideas that people come up with to end the gender gap can limit enthusiasm for starting new initiatives. The invitation to join a general project about women is less appealing to me, then a project to remove the redlinks or the Women in Red. It is a much stronger message. I think that you need to be aware that your interest in efficiency could curb the enthusiasm that is attracting people to these women related WikiProjects. Because there is general support for moving it to WikiProject Women, I'm not opposing, but we are risking making this idea a mundane idea instead of great marketing tool to bring more editors and content. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree w. analysis above. We need to make space for some creativity and fun to lighten things up a bit with respect to the Gender Gap. Flexibility and a spirit of experimentation is needed here. If our existing rule-set and conventions were resulting in a friendly, happy place we would know this by now.--Djembayz (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The two arguably best-organized and most effective wikiprojects on the system are organized rather differently. WP:MILHIST appears to be monolithic, while WP:MED has many task forces, most or all of which have their own talk pages. Yet both seem to get the work done. Wikiprojects are primarily one thing: self-selecting groups of users. I have an intuitive sense that WP:MILHIST is the way it is because of the nature of the topic: The military is a strict top-down hierarchy, and many editors who focus on MILHIST articles are naturally current or ex-military, and comfortable with that kind of structure. By contrast, different biological fields are independent of one another to a large degree; even the ICN / ICBN can't agree with the ICZN on how to do biological nomenclature. I think "women" as a topic is much more like "biology" than "military history". It would make sense for the women writers project, too, to be a task force of this one, but the talk page needs of such a project/taskforce may be very different from one on women in general, or on other subtopics, like women in science, women in the performing arts, women in politics, etc. I don't see why missing women articles, in general, is a very distinct-needs kind of conversation from women as topics, in general. But while the community may have an interest in categorically shuffling WiR around in the wikiproject structure, I'm skeptical it has one in whether their talk pages should merge; that should be up to the editors who make up WiR's talk page. So, one should not condition WiR's potential merger as a task force upon also merging the talk pages (though I'm in favor of both).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• oppose i find rearranging the deckchairs, to be a waste of time. but then given the long history of disruption of efforts to address systemic bias, i take all my organizing off wiki, so i suppose that is an "i don't give a damn." Duckduckstop (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, so there seems to be consensus to move this to a task force of WP:Women. Let's do it then. The project function will remain unchanged for the time being, but it will just operate under Wp:Women. I|'d prefer Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles taskforce as the name though. I doubt many will agree with that though so whatever..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) Tons of interesting viewpoints here and I don't think we're done with them. I've pinged all the WiR members regarding this Formal Merge Proposal. I recommend we wait a week in case some members are busy in RL or if some members want to make multiple comments. (b) If the decision is merge, I'm partial for moving it here: WP:WikiProject Women/Women in Red task force. One reason is that it would fit neatly into a possible future naming convention pattern, i.e. WP:WikiProject Women/Women writers task force. Some might say that editors may be confused as to what a "Women in Red task force" is about, and to that I would say to them, "click the link and check it out"! Name changes are disconcerting. I (and others?) have become fond of the WiR name and feel uncomfortable letting it go. We've already been through one name change and it was very painful. "Missing articles taskforce" seems cold and uninviting... illogocial, maybe... but I'm only part Vulcan. (c) A friendly reminder: if the decision is merge, it will have to be done by @Harej:'s WP:WikiProject X team because of the backend programming. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll give it one week then, no worries, and yes, I see your point about it seeming "cold and uninviting" as just missing articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose More tone-deaf behavior towards women. A "Task force on women in red" sounds like a euphemism for the vice squad, or a humorous reference to men who frequent the red light district. An attractive new design, an enthusiastic new group of people to work on something, and guess what happens ... Intentional or not, this website just never miss a chance to make women feel unwelcome here, does it? --Djembayz (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz Wow, you had a different perspective! That's not what I thought of... I thought the name referred to Red Hat Society or maybe that song, Lady in Red. I didn't see the name as bias, but sort of playful ownership of the issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, I like the WikiProject Women in Red name, for the same reasons as you. Even though a few of the historical women likely to show up in these lists would view being called a "woman in red" a truly unpardonable insult, this usage goes far enough back that none of them will to show up in person here to object :) It's adding "Task Force" that changes it to something that could be construed as much less playful. Clearly the term "task force" must sound quite different to people who don't see very many examples of its official use in military and government contexts. --Djembayz (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz: I hadn't thought about that so thank you for speaking up. We don't have to refer to it as a task force and we don't have to include the words "task force" in the subpage name. We could refer to different groupings within Women as "departments" or "work groups" or something else (thoughts?). I looked at WP:TASKFORCE for inspiration but I didn't have time/inclination to follow all the links. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Women's groups traditionally have called themselves Council or League. Would either of those terms work? SusunW (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Or we could simply call in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Missing articles. I know what I'd prefer..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: yes they did, didn't they! Let's go back to our history books... goodness knows we've written enough articles about historical international women's groups/conferences/etc. that we should be able to sort this out in a way which makes us smile! Scanning through Pan-American Conference of Women, I spotted the word Union. So 3 new suggestions: WP:WikiProject Women/Union of Women in Red or WP:WikiProject Women/Council of Women in Red or WP:WikiProject Women/League of Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I'm good with whatever, but if those are the choices, I like League. Sounds kind of "justicy" and isn't that what we're trying to do? Give justice to those who hold up half of the sky? SusunW (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:, thanks for reply! Having the freedom to wear red is liberating, so hope you can devise a somewhat less law-enforcement or public nuisance sounding sort of name than "task force". It can take a bit of trial and error to get terminology which works for large and disparate groups. If something whimsical like "WikiProject Women in Red" makes it more fun, and it helps get more participants to get something new off the ground for a while, why not try it? Merging can wait for such time as the momentum dies down, to make it possible for a larger group to find the existing efforts. --Djembayz (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I get your point now, @Djembayz, @User:Rosiestep! Yes, task force does sound a tad bit "unfun" while "Women in Red" sounds cool to me. It sounds like something that's fun to be a part of. I don't know why there is a technical discussion because technicalities only interest me when they make things work better and as far as I can see everything was working in a neat way so far... Please, I'm not trying to be critical of anyone's projects... but maybe there is room for Women in Red and also for a Women/Missing articles @Dr. Blofeld? Some editors might be more drawn to one group or the other. I know there is probably fear of duplication, but... there are so many amazing women out there needing articles and stubs to be worked on that it almost seems impossible to duplicate sometimes. Maybe there is a way to coordinate two different projects? I don't know because I'm only interested in technicalities that don't get articles deleted! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl you echo my thoughts in a lot of ways. (The name makes me think of the song and a dear, dear friend who died shortly after I last saw her dancing in a beautiful red dress. It reminds me of her never give up spirit.) Technical stuff only interests me if it makes our work easier and if it helps us add women and keeps women from being deleted. I am very, very thankful for those with technical skills. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Support I was as far as I know the first one to point out the benefit of having a task force instead of an independent WikiProject. Frankly there is quite a bit of discussion on this page and WP:Women that isn't specific to either project page and while the focus is different many discussions will benefit from a single central project page. WP:Women is as stated prime real estate and I think we will get more views as a task force there than here. I have personal experience of creating WikiProjects that are too small for long-term survival, and for that reason I support the move. As for the name I like it and do not agree with Djembayz, and I believe the name should live on as a task-force. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Let me also add that while WP:MED has a number of talk pages for its taskforces most of the real discussion occurs on the main WT:MED page, and I really think this is what makes WP:MED strong. Even if a certain post is intended for a taskforce it will be seen by others who might be able to weigh in or get involved. The more people that see posts relating to WiR the more help we get and the more new editors we attract. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's Day6 and I've been thinking about a new name and a new image if we close this proposal as Merge tomorrow. (a) I like Susun's suggestion of "League" rather than "task force"... "League of Women in Red" has a nice ring to it IMO. (b) I think the current logo is beautiful... I love the colors... I love that it's a map... I love the heart. But, I haven't felt a connection to it in relationship to this project. So I've looked around, found this one, and I'm suggesting it as a replacement... Woman in Red heart? Even as a 50px, the 2 symbols (heart; woman) are easily discerned. I like it! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Rosiestep I like it. Easily discerned but not a specific woman. Specific goals under a broad umbrella which I hope will give us a larger field for collaboration and for building a true support network. SusunW (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I like it too. But it is of course a specific woman, the 18th century Danish salonist Kamma Rahbek. She became famous for her gatherings of key creators during the Danish Golden Age. I'm sure she would be happy to know she is continuing her creative work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Like SusunW (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support In the light of the positive comments on a merger by nearly all those involved, I too would like to lend my support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Need for clearer definitions

I hope it's in order to open a new section here. I have done so as I think there may be some confusion as to what a merger would entail, especially in regard to the mandate of a task force rather than a WikiProject for Women in Red if the merger takes place. Although Women in Red is in its infancy, it seems to me that it has set out to do far more than simply to cover "red links on women". The original idea seemed to be to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia with an emphasis on drawing on existing articles in other languages. As a result, technical editors from Wikimedia proposed an automated approach based on developing a bot which would list red-linked articles by analysing data from Wikidata. This approach seemed to be welcomed by Rosiestep and others who attended the Wikimedia conference in Mexico. Unfortunately, Harej who intended to develop the bot has not yet had time to produce results but has expressed interest in extending the approach not only to the EN Wikipedia but also to other languages. There has also been discussion of providing additional information to facilitate identification of the languages of initial coverage, data which would assist in identifying field of interest (for categorization, etc.) and other support tools. I have therefore begun to wonder whether this aspect would perhaps be better covered by means of a project within Wikimedia itself, given the slant of the above discussion which appears to be focusing on the creation on missing articles on women in the English Wikipedia. Alternatively, there could be two separate "task forces" within WP:Women, one concerned more generally with priorities on the creation of new articles on women and works by women on the EN Wikipedia, the other on automatically identifying artiles from othe language versions of Wikipedia which are missing in English. I must say I am also rather confused about how WP:Women intends to address all the other WikiProjects on women. Will these all become task forces too?

So could we first have clearer definitions of the scope of all the WikiProjects concerned: the new Women project itself, then Women in Red in general, Women in Red via Wikidata/Wikimedia, and the future roles of the other WikiProjects addressing women in the areas of writing, art, history, science, feminism, sport, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject XX was @Victuallers: idea. He envisioned a talk at Wikimania 2015 on content gender gap and announcing a WikiProject during the talk which would work on the issue. During the proposal submission stage early this year, I teamed up with Roger to work on the talk. During our skype calls over the last several months, we envisioned that the first half of our talk would address the content gender gap problem (missing articles) and the second half of the talk would provide a plan of how to "move the needle" from 15% women's bios to some larger, unnamed number. What we ended up with is covered in detail in the slide file attached here. It includes not only our ideas, but those of @Dr. Blofeld:, @Gerda Arendt:, @Harej:, @Ipigott:, @Maximilianklein:, @Nvvchar:, @SusunW: (see Acknowledgements on slide 26) as well as countless others. We envisioned WikiProject XX to start during Wikimania on the en-Wikipedia, and to eventually be replicated in every language Wikipedia. How other language Wikipedias choose to do this will be up to them. The English language WikiProject XX (now Women in Red... WiR) seeks to add new women's biographies and articles about women's works to the English language Wikipedia. There may already be an entry on Wikidata, or not; there may already be an entry on another language Wikipedia, or not. To assist with this endeavor, Harej added a Wikidata feed of articles. But this, obviously, does not cover all possible notable women with missing articles on the en-Wikipedia. Surly there are notable women with no entry on any Wikimedia platform (not on Wikidata, not in any language Wikipedia, not in Commons, etc.). WiR wants to be cognizant of all the missing notable women (and their works), and then create articles about them in every language and have a Wikidata entry as well.

WikiProject Women, also in its infancy, has a broader scope. (a) It is an umbrella over all content related to women. (b) Whether a particular WikiProject becomes a subproject of WikiProject Women is open to future debate. Daughter WikiProjects, such as WP:WikiProject Women writers, are linked to WikiProject Women which should help readers/editors find niche areas. (c) There are many missing areas of focus -- leaders, entertainers, etc. -- which may naturally evolve as stand-alone WikiProjects, or they may become focus areas (task force, working group... or another name) within Women. (d) Missing content (the scope of WikiProject WiR). (e) Improving content (such as GA and FA focus). (f) Track events and media related to the Project's scope.

During Wikimania 2015, three of us (@Keilana:, @FloNight: and I) founded a User Group, a Wikimedia designation, which, in time, will provide additional resources towards the Scopes mentioned above.

Together, members will have to figure out how to organize WiR and Women. And together, if we need to shift the organization from one way to another, we will do so. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Like Beautiful explanation @Rosiestep: I think it makes it very clear what the focus is and the differences between the two groups. Now we just have to figure out how to do it. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for providing details of the development of Women in Red. I think it was needed in order to provide all interested editors with background on the issues involved. Perhaps it would be sensible to see whether all agree that all aspects of the WikiProject (whether in EN Wikipedia or partly in Wikimedia) should now be absorbed by WikiProject Women as a task force.--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving day

The consensus of our membership is to merge WiR with Women. We have agreed to move here, WP:Women/Women in Red.

• @Harej: I'll start with a thank you...

1. Because of the back-end programming associated with WiR, we need to rely on you to actually do the move please.
2. Change the logo to this: Love Heart KammaRahbek.SVG.
3. Retain our talkpage, membership list, etc.
4. How do you propose to deal with redirects?

• Members: are you aware of any bots, etc. whom we should notify about this move? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I will work on renaming the project. In the meantime, I recommend deferring the move by about a day. The WikiProject Directory is currently being updated, and this process takes about a day to complete. I don't know how the bot will behave if we rename the project while it is doing that, so I don't want to risk anything. Other than that, looking forward to carrying out the move. Harej (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input folks. Yes let's move to WP:Women/Women in Red, avoid "taskforce" or "group" on the end I think, and explanatory summary at beginning that it's essentially a Missing article project should suffice, so as people don't think it's about fashion or something sleazier ;-). We can then begin drawing up a formal directory at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Missing article directory. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This draft, Draft:Cara_Ellison, was abandoned by Morwen (talk · contribs) after she abandoned Wikipedia because of its rampant sexism, homophobia and transphobia. (She wrote a few articles about it in the press). It's got notes and could be resubmitted if anyone was interested... Ogress _smash! 18:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was rejected for no good reason I can see (a ton of cites about her apparently are not sufficient), but there are definitely articles directly interviewing her out there. I did a little work on the page, but I have not included http://gamechurch.com/we-dont-necessarily-need-religion-an-interview-with-cara-ellison/ or any of the other articles that might super underline she has WP importance. Ogress _smash! 19:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

it is close to the line, but never go to AfC; always find a nice wikimedian to move it when ready in sandbox. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"rampant sexism, homophobia and transphobia." Mmm, sounds like a sock of Evergreen!....♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As per today's Signpost article, "In order to establish healthier habits and traditions, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to actively cultivate a climate of respect. Culture, Raymond Williams would be quick to point out, is derived from cultivation." Are we cultivating a constructive, respectful atmosphere here? --Djembayz (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm repeating what she said. Second, I've been an editor since 2004. Third, if you don't think there's a culture of hostility to women and minority groups at Wikipedia, I don't know where you've been hiding, but I'm very unclear how you ended up on Women in Red, which is about systemic bias. What, there's a huge bias in coverage and treatment of women, but not of actual women? Ogress _smash! 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* Can we please develop a space where we respect each other's differences? SusunW (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, why not? That space already exists over at Meta, in the Grants namespace, at places like Community Health and the Inspire Campaign, as they are in a position to implement Friendly Space Expectations. Perhaps something similar could be tried here ... --Djembayz (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I ported the grantmaking friendly space expectations to English Wikipedia as an essay, Wikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space. We can, at the very least, recommend that people read it and keep it in mind. Harej (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should add the friendly space essay to our mainpage, just don't know where. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)