Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 130

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 125

←

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Archive 135

This notice was left on my talkpage. However, I believe it was misplaced and belongs here as it's a WiR template:

Template:WIR-184 (and all other wrapper templates) has been nominated for merging with Template:WIR. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Rosiestep (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps they have a point. I fear that my personal enthusiasm for finding women who tick multiple editathon boxes may be at least partly to blame here, as many of my WiR creations have multiple talk page banners (but I have corrected the editor who claimed that an article could have "dozens" of our banners!)

Maybe we would be better with a single template which could take a parameter for the editathon numbers, so that it/they would be displayed in the same way as "working group" subdivisions are displayed in other project banners . I note that despite all the loving care we put into choice of our icon for each template, they are now often invisible because they are usually included within the WikiProject banner shell which minimises the display of each WikiProject's banner and hides the icon.

Clearly we need to have a WiR banner on talk pages for all our articles, as a means to raise awareness of our project and encourage other editors to join us, as well as for tracking our articles so that we are alerte to PRODs and AfDs and can respond appropriately. Perhaps we should discuss options here briefly first, rather than clutter the TfD with our brainstorming, but of course the discussion at TfD will be closed after a week from yesterday, so we don't have long. PamD 06:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that there was a similar discussion a couple of years ago at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#Template:WIR-23 where various editors were unsympathetic to our editathon-specific templates. (It's mentioned in a note in the current discussion, just thought I'd highlight it). PamD 07:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

But I'm confused now about what the function of the banners is in relation to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts. Today there are three articles listed there as newly at AfD, one of which is not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts (ah, but I see she's got a WikiProject Women's Sport banner, so perhaps she's in a separate Article Alert which I don't watchlist), and none of which seem to have any WiR banners. So how is the selection made for those "Article alert" lists? PamD 07:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Those banners populate Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages which is used by Article Alerts. Any banner can do that, so it's not a concern for anything here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb I thought so, but am puzzled by the most recent 4 articles in the WiR Article Alerts, none of which have a WiR project banner! How do Barbara Majeski, Neeru Yadav, Camila Valle and Olamide Toyin Adebayo get listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts? PamD 18:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's because deletion process is handled with some special sauce (it brings those from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women). These aren't in WIR... but if they were deleted, they could fall within the remit of WIR. So they're listed, as as sort of preventive measure. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 39#WP:AALERTS subscription tweak. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb Thanks, I think I understand. PamD 19:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• My view is that the people initiating these debates are significantly more disruptive than the banners (in part because I don’t think the banners are at all). Instinctively I’d hate to lose this history, and especially the logos, but I suppose in all honesty we can just keep those on the editathon pages without strictly requiring them to be the talk pages. Right? Does anyone use the talk page banners as a mechanism to go review articles later? Is that even possible? Innisfree987 (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

• I for one make constant use of the talk page tags, especially in connection with DYKs where I am able to list pertinent articles on the corresponding DYK listing on the meetup page mentioned. It is also useful for me to have precise info about the WiR event when I am reviewing new contributions (particular those of new members) or assessing existing articles. I would nevertheless suggest we discontinue listing more than one WiR event on the same talk page. One listing should be sufficient to show that the article was created as a result of a WiR editathon. I can understand why some reviewers find many WiR items irritating; in some cases they add the "collapse" parameter to prevent displays of long talk page listings. If we can agree to this approach, I believe we should be able to maintain WiR tags for each event.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: I hope you're not manually doing those DYK lists... see WP:RECOG (examples Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Did you know or even your very own Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/DYK. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Headbomb: As you pojnt out, the actual DYK listings appear automatically on the main WIR page (or on corresponding pages of most related wikiprojects on women) but as far as I know until now there has been no provision for sorting by individual event. I pick up listings on all articles about women from the DYK prep queues and initially make sure they are adequately assessed. If they have been prepared by members with whom I have had recent contacts, I am then able to offer further support. I don't think our automatic recognition features are designed to handle these tasks. Please correct me if I have failed to recognize their potential.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I’m still not clear on why the list on the event page isn’t sufficient for this purpose? Innisfree987 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: What do you mean? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That the list of DYKs at any given time is very short and so is the number of events, so if you wanted to know what event a new DYK came from, it’s not hard to find out. Essentially, is this overengineered. (I didn’t have an opinion when this discussion began but now kinda think I would find it easier to just have one universal tag. I’d be happy not to need to retrieve and affix the right label, would be easier to just know the permanent one.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing many things here. Each event already have their unique (and permanent) tags. Having one universal tag would mean losing which event things came from.

As for being 'overengineered' this is a solution that scale with the number of edit-a-thons and with time. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/151 is over 3 years old. Using WP:RECOG will indefinitely update the DYK list for their 300 or so articles, no manual maintenance require. I'm sure the WIR coordinators have something better to do than crawl ~250 events over the span of 8+ years to maintain old lists for accuracy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It only means losing the tag on the article; the event pages maintain the lists of what was created. And my understanding is that the DYKs are listed for entries created in recent events, not that the event pages are updated if an article is improved and submitted to DYK separately years later. So it’s not even close to 250 events. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh it's super simple (assuming these don't get merged). For example, for {{WIR-12}}, just put

{{User:JL-Bot/Project content
|template = WIR-12
|content-did-you-know-articles
|sorting=date-default
|date-order=decreasing
|dates
|noheading
}}

in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/12#Did You Know features, and it'll automatically generate a DYK blurb list for all WIR-12 tagged pages (updated weekly). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Headbomb for the quick response. Yes, that's certainly a useful feature for actual WIR listings and it looks to me as if it should become part of the basic preparations of our event meetup pages. I'll add it to those for July. Unfortunately, it won't pick up the preparatory work which I'll continue to handle manually.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Headbomb: Don't know what I'm doing wrong but I tried to add it to WIR-251 but without success. Maybe it only picks up new listings or perhaps I should just have left it there until there was an update? How about WIR-275 and WIR-276? Will these work?--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see you've modified this to updated weekly. That's probably not sufficient for those who would like to see their articles listed on the day they appeared on DYK. Any possibility of daily or even 12-hour updates?--Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose you can ask for quicker updates at User talk:JL-Bot, but I wouldn't hold my hopes up. Keep in mind that this runs across many lists. These lists don't change very often either. Like across ALL of WIR, last week you had +4 DYK. I don't see that going daily would add much here. You can always add things manually, the bot will simply overwrite whatever you put on the next update if there's a mismatch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  The last update cycle was this morning btw, so you should see results next Sunday. You can always ask at User talk:JL-Bot to have a one-off run for the new lists if you don't want to wait a week to see the results. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If the specific editathon banners are useful for future work, then it doesn't make sense to say that only one project banner will appear on the talk page of any one article: how would you prioritise, for example when there is a Geofocus and a topical editathon and someone is in the intersection of the two (possibly also an A-Z choice, though I can see that doesn't really matter for future work). For the minority of cases, like Wanda Szuman, where we have more than one project banner, I wonder whether someone could create a banner shell, on the same lines as the WIkiProject Banner Shell, which would render multiple WiR templates in a more compact format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs)

• @Headbomb and Ipigott: Would the latest proposal (by MSGJ at 08:37 today) do the trick? It looks absolutely fine, but I know nothing about the function of the banners beyond the way that they appear on the talk page. PamD 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The look is fine, the functionality is not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

PamD: I bow to the expertise of Headbomb on this. As I have already said, I think we should be wary of "bloating" talk page wikiproject displays with more than one link to our editathons. Over the years, there have been various attempts to reduce the number of wikiproject listings as some contributors feel they can diminish access to the talk page discussions. I know you like to mention two or more WIR events which coincide with your new articles but perhaps you could just mention the main one and then state on the meetup page listings that you have also included the article on other meetup pages (e.g. "also WIR-888 and WIR-999").--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott But if it is useful, for technical purposes, to have a banner specifying which editathon is relevant, rather than a generic WiR banner, then surely each editathon should be included? If it wouldn't matter if Wanda Szuman only had a banner for one of her 4 editathons (say 270, CEE countries, but not 268 Disability or 269 Education, never mind 267 UVW) then why do we need editathon-specific banners? I actually don't understand this. Either we need project-specific banners, for more than just the visual message on the talk page, or we don't.

I think the proposed look is great, but it's obviously unacceptable if it wrecks workflows: I just don't know enough about these workflows!

@Headbomb Could MSGJ's proposal be tweaked, or your workflow tweaked without massive disruption, so that his example would have the functionality needed? PamD 10:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"why do we need editathon-specific banners" because each edit-a-thon are set up to have their own banners and track things independently. The workflow could be reworked, of course, but that would come with significant gnashing of teeth and backporting to 250+ events, the creation of edit-a-thon specific tracking categories, a truly massive maintenance nightmare, the loss of semi-automated various functionalities and documentation updates and so on. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb So if an article is within more than one editathon, is it important for them to have a banner for each one? Or, can we devise some sort of banner shell which will wrap two or more of our banners and produce a single-box output like MSGJ's proposal?

I'm beginning to wonder if I should just take my bat home and not bother creating WiR articles, having enjoyed the challenge recently of creating those for women who fit into the intersection of two or more editathons. Maybe I should just go away and sort out the geography of the new Unitary Area of Westmorland and Furness. PamD 11:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And I didn't mean to do any more editing today, having important irritating forms to complete in an attempt to buy and sell houses (when was septic tank last emptied, accreditation of installer of solar panels, etc). I really must log out of WP for the day. PamD 11:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• I see that it is now being proposed that special new categories should be added to all talk pages specifying WiR editathons. This would take months and months of editing time which would be better spent on reducing the gender gap!--Ipigott (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion here is fruitful, but -in case it isn't evident- the "Templates for discussion" editors will make a decision about Women in Red talkpage templates ("Merge", "Oppose", "Delete", etc.) based on input at the WiR template's entry on the "Templates for discussion" page. (They aren't monitoring who said what here.) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that it would be useful for contributors to participate directly at the WiR template's entry. Up to now, most appear to be in favour of merging all the individual items into the main WikiProject Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've made what I believe is a reasonable proposal, though my technical knowledge is limited. Any refinement or improvement would be helpful. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cl3phact0, for all the useful suggestions you have been making. While there might well be a sensible solution based on the ideas put forward by MSGJ, it seems to me the initial conclusion to the present discussion should be to oppose the merge and consult Women in Red and related experts on how to develop a solution acceptable to all interested parties. Your ongoing involvement would be greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: Yes, that seems abundantly clear. Deleting or rendering mute/useless 282 (and counting...) sub-banners (or whatever they're properly called) doesn't make sense. The more time I spend on this (time that could've been spent elsewhere – like finishing DYK review for Patricia Davies article or the XYZ articles I had hoped to get published in the context of WIR-271), the clearer this becomes. What's the best course of action? This is all above my head. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Happy to contribute in any way I am able. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have come over from the TfD page to clarify the merger proposal, as it appears to not have been clear enough to the participants. The changes due to this proposal are summarised as follows:

1. Talk pages with multiple WIR banners currently will see have a single banner display all information. Here is what that means. This reduces banner blindness and gets rid of redundancy like "please assume good faith..." which appear multiple times, even though the message conveyed remains the same.
2. Talk pages with single WIR banner will see no visible difference (because there is no redundancy that could be eliminated).
3. When inside banner shell, the WikiProject's name, and event names will continue to be visible and clickable. Here is what that means. Like the 50,000 challenge event of WPUSA, each event of WIR will continue to be seen. On expanding by clicking [show] button, the message shown will be the same as proposed in #1 above.
4. Each event will be connected to categories like Category:Articles created or improved during WikiProject United States' 50,000 Challenge. This will not need any manual effort, it will be applied automatically via the template.
5. Automated processes such as WP:AALERTS & WP:RECOG will continue to run seamlessly using these categories, with no difference to be felt. Categories are more user-friendly to view (due to sortkeys) than checking for transclusions of a template (which is unordered). Categories also better supported by the API and tools like petscan:.
6. If any WikiProject opts-in (most do), automated categories can also be created of WIR articles, on the basis of article quality as given in the banner shell, as per the global article quality RfC.

If there is any clarification required, please let me know. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, CX Zoom for bringing the discussion to the WIR community. I trust that you will find more knowledgeable folks than myself here!

In the interest of clarity (for those who've not followed the discussion), the proposal as made states:

==== Template:WIR ====

• Template:WIR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WIR-184 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WIR-188 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WIR-194 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• etc.
• Category:Wrapper templates for WikiProject Women in Red - list here

Propose merging all wrapper templates with Template:WIR.

All these wrapper templates should be consolidated into one single template. For example on Talk:2016 New York State Assembly 65th district special election the WikiProject Women in Red banner is duplicated. While we're here, can we also rename Template:WIR to the clearer and more standard name Template:WikiProject Women in Red?

(Etc.)

[NB: In the same thread, there is also a second suggestion/proposal to rename the main {{WIR}} template.]

I do hope that the best solution can be found and agreed. It does seem from the above discussion that there are concerns. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"will continue to run seamlessly using these categories, with no difference to be felt" this is incorrect. There are no such categories, and no such scheme exists or have been proposed. Additionally, this is a suite of templates, and {{WIR}} behaves very differently than {{WIR 2018}}, which behaves very differently than {{WIR-00-2017}}, which behaves very differently than {{WIR-222}}. This isn't a merge, it's an usurpation of a project's autonomy to do business in a way they best see fit and have used for years for years now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are making this seem so complicated as if creating categories require interface-admin permission. It doesn't. "no such scheme exists or have been proposed": It has already been, at the TfD page. "behaves very differently": It does not, each template is a wrapper of {{WIR}}, which does not have any behavioural switch in its code, except different messaging & images, which is why merging has been proposed, not outright deletion. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

When you say: except different messaging & images, I think you may be identifying one of the many concerns with this proposal. The messaging and images are, I believe, one of the (multiple) purposes of the system as is. Please correct me if I'm mistaken (though I certainly use the wrappers in this manner). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Messaging consolidation example is shown above, see #1. Multiple images can be shown, for example, WPUSA 50,000 challenge uses File:WikiProject United States logo and 50k logo.png. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear CX Zoom, I can see you are a competent contributor to technical issues but what I do not understand is why you wish to encourage us to make any changes to a system which has worked perfectly for the past eight years. Just because the approach used by Women in Red is not implemented more widely should not be a reason for upsetting a successful and attractive means of encouraging wide participation. Do you realize that this approach has led to over 200,000 new articles about women since 2015 and has encouraged several hundred contributors to become participants? Instead of trying to change our approach for undefined reasons of conformity, with your technical skills you may be able to encourage other wikiprojects to adopt the same scheme, maybe starting with Wikipedia:WikiProject India which is going from strength to strength.--Ipigott (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Tbf, that number is 45,931 (including project pages, etc.). Of course that too is a big deal, and I commend WIR contributors for this achievement. However, it is not just about conformity., its about too many banners on a page, causing banner blindness. There is constant work going on to merge similar banners and delete useless ones (for example, recent merger of {{vital article}}). Many talk pages have multiple WIR banners, which needs not to be that way. I have seen a page with as many as 5 WIR banners on it, they can be consolidated together as I exhibit in #1 above. For the pages with a single banner, as I said above, there would be no functional or visible difference, it'll all be the same. For, WP:IND, I'm always ready to discuss improvements, and would appreciate a discussion at the project talk page, or my talk page. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I echo your thoughts Ipigott. My response to those who are !voting do this because other projects do it this way is that we do things differently. That has led to us being one of the most active and productive projects on WP. When other projects have faded away, we have not. I am not convinced by arguments for uniformity nor arguments of banner blindness/bloat that this is anything more than Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, as absolutely no proof has been provided that this has been or is an issue to the functionality of WP as a whole. I would state from my own experience, that when an editor who has had nothing to do with creating or improving an article I have spent a lot of time working on comes along and collapses the talk page banners, I find it frustrating, because I cannot see at a glance what projects it is of interest to. I am also not likely to do anything about it, because my time is better spent on article creation. This seems like a non-problem which a small group of editors is trying to make into an issue. That's my 2 cents, which is worth diddly, and I am not likely to participate more in the discussion. I have articles to write and reviews to answer. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I cited the Wikipedia article and it has links to several research articles fwiw. As for collapsed banners, we are working on it to become more visible than it currently is, find a sneak peek at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are speaking of the article on banner blindness, none of the research there is focused on an analysis of Wikipedia or specifically Women in Red that I can tell. Thus, it doesn't convince me that this is an issue on the site or that it is problematic for the functionality of the encyclopedia. Problems with other websites do not necessarily equate to our platform. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just made a post at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_23#Template:WIR to suggest a solution, but I don't know whether it's a practical possibility or just wishful thinking. PamD 18:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Susun, just one point to bear in mind. In your own project space, you are free to organise things as you see fit. But article talk pages are shared by the whole community and many other projects, so your activities need to fit within established talk page conventions, one of which is "one banner per project", which is what we are trying to address here. The "we do things differently" attitude is not really valid in a shared resource, where space is a limited commodity. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

MSGJ: I realize you are very enthusiastic in regard to "one banner per project". While this might have been under discussion by a limited number of interested contributors, it has not yet been included in Wikipedia:Banner standardisation which, as far as I can see, serves as the basic guideline. You should also bear in mind that under this query, Women in Red is the most active wikiproject. (As you appear to be a technical expert, perhaps you can rerun the query to see if it gives the same result today.)--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

My view on the original proposal to "Merge" (which actually means "Delete", if I now understand correctly) the c. 300 wrappers should be clear to anyone who has been following this discussion (I oppose).
What may have been lost in the cacophonous din is an idea that I would now like to put forward formally: Place the WIR wrapper templates outside of the banner shell as per these examples: Talk:Maria_Cristina_Didero, Talk:Najla El Zein, or Talk:Marva Griffin. The logic here is that they serve another purpose beyond the regular mono-use Wikiproject banners (which simply indicate that the article is of interest to such-and-such Wikiproject). The wrappers are different – they are intended to mark articles that were created or improved in the context of specific edit-a-thons or other "special" events related to the WIR project (also allowing for all manner of uses by the community as well). In my view, this means that they are more akin to the {{ArtAndFeminism article|2019}} banner used in this case, or the {{DYK talk}} banner here. Am I missing something?
In deference to those who are gunning for the "total merge/delete" scenario: If, for the relatively small number of articles that use more than one of these wrappers, they could be somehow consolidated into one banner (along the lines of MSGJ example in TfD merge proposal thread – but without deleting them all) while still maintaining all of the functionality that justifies their existence, then that could possibly be an improvement. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you still don't actually get it. Because what you said at TfD page is also what all of us are saying. No one is saying delete there. They will be redirected or turned to wrappers. The last paragraph is impossible to achieve without a merge, or a sitewide javascript hack (which is very undesirable). —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I may or may not "get it", but it seems to me that "gone" means "gone". Please explain from a neutral point of view in terms that a technical lay-person can understand. Also, your thoughts on my second paragraph above (which is the intended subject of this break-out discussion)? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to set up a query (along these lines) to determine how many instances there currently are of ex-banner shell placement of the event related WIR templates? I have come across the practice fairly often (which is what first gave me the idea this might even be standard practice). It would be interesting to know if it is indeed widely used. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry, writing queries is beyond my abilies. Although you can ask at WP:Request a query where editors more knowledgeable in SQL may assist you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Approximately 2,235 articles with multiple WIR banners it looks like. I can see some appeal in grouping together the various WIR templates, but I would strongly oppose putting WIR templates outside of the main banner shell, which is primarily for WikiProjects, in the name of containing talk page clutter. If anything to me ideally that {{ArtAndFeminism article|2019}} banner should be inside the shell. DYK is not a WikiProject, so is a bit different though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

How do people fell about the articles assessed on the Banner shell intro, such as Talk:Estibaliz Urresola Solaguren or Talk:Maria Mies. The WiR does not fare too badly but the mini pics are not too easy to identify on several others. Perhaps it's all part of the campaign to reduce the "size" of wikiprojects on talk pages. Does anyone know whether this is a result of a discussion?--Ipigott (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why this was implemented, but I find all those screaming colors very off-putting. Honestly, it's very hard to look at all of those colors and icons to find the relevant wikiprojects, which as a writer, I often go to for help in finding sources or meanings. I think it probably doesn't occur to whoever decided to make these changes that these might be harder to look at or that people would find difficulty in identifying the information in that jumble of brightness. I now just see spots of color in blackness, much like I was staring at the sun. Ugh! For me, this makes the talk page pretty unusable. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently many of the same group of people who want to implement a change to WiR banners decided this color scheme was a good idea. I am going to have to walk away from my computer, as I am still seeing spots. SusunW (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made this thread: Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Why are all banners white when collapsed instead of the usual beige? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this link. I was curious where the redesign was being discussed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

On looking at recent edits in connection with Template talk:WikiProject banner shell, it seems very strange to me that such a small group of technical experts should be able to implement such drastic changes without discussing proposals with the wider community. On this basis, they seem to be able to implement whatever they consider best for the thousands and thousands of editors striving to improve Wikipedia. What would be the procedure for restoring the old displays?--Ipigott (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I just went there and asked them if they would stop the deployment and check with the broader community and disability experts. For me, it isn't a I don't like it issue, it actually triggered the vertigo issues I experience when looking at a television or computer screen. I doubt it will make any difference, but I tried. It seems that they can act without any consultation, which seems just wrong. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

An update for those who may be impacted. I could not persuade them to stop the deployment. I did get them to agree to work on an opt out option and they did do a manual fix so that my (and only mine) view is back to the previous one. If anyone else is having an issue, they might be willing to do the same process. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to see, Susun, that you are able to work with the old display. I'm not so happy to see that everyone else has been pushed into the new one. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.--Ipigott (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that they solved my problem quickly and accept that they hadn't intended to cause harm. But, it is still disturbing to me that there is clear consensus from less than 10 editors that no consultation was needed with the wider community, before implementing such a huge change. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm relieved to know I'm not the only one who has been surprised by the banner changes, and puzzled by how the decision was discussed/approved without there seeming to have been any announcement of such a major design change. Personally, I'm also finding it hard to read the templates that have the revised colorization. A discussion about the changes has been opened at WikiProject Accessibility; if you're having difficulty reading/using the colorized templates, you may want to comment there. The original poster included a helpful link to "How project banners should look," which is apparently where the discussion re: colorization changes has been happening; so, you may want to also take a look at that discussion/weigh in there, - 47thPennVols (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good to see the banners are now shaded beige.--Ipigott (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• An RfC has been started about the banner change: Template_talk:WikiProject_banner_shell#RFC_on_WikiProject_Banner_shell_redesign Silverseren^C 18:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link to the RFC! - 47thPennVols (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Draft:Maxine Mimms notable?
• Draft:Flora Warren Seymour abandoned draft deleted in 2018. I would be happy to have some help with it. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Maxine Mimms is definitely notable; a few minutes looking found plenty of good material, including this entry on HistoryLink and the sources it cites. Suriname0 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I added some cites and moved it to article space. TJMSmith (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also moved Flora Warren Seymour to article space. There are many reviews in JSTOR. TJMSmith (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems the "collapse everything" crew have struck again. My screen now has shifted everything to the left. There is now some bullet point list and there is no article table of content. I also can't just go to the top of the page to search, I have to find a search icon. How is this helpful for editors or even readers? All sorts of extra clicking and searching is now required to find out whether the thing you are looking for it in the bullet list on the left, or the tools list on the right, or no where anymore. IMHO, time would be better spent fixing our horrible search engine than constantly changing the way it looks and causing confusion for editors. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And in the middle of typing it went back to as before, except all my text went from 100% to 80% This is crazy. Just seems to me some kind of site-wide notice would be required. You know a simple, "we're testing out a new view, which might be disruptive and impact your work". But I guess not. o.0 Sheesh... SusunW (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello SusunW. Perhaps it temporarily switched to the new Vector 2022 skin. If it happens again, there are instructions for changing it back to the old skin here: WP:Vector_2022. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

MrsSnoozyTurtle thanks! I have no clue. They made changes several months ago moving the tools to the right and squishing the text in the middle. I didn't opt to change to the old skin and eventually got used to it. What happened today was completely different. No menu on the right at all and the text butting up against the far left side of my screen. Anyway, it's back to where it was and I was able to save what I was typing. I get that techie type people want to make changes, but I wish they would give us warnings and make changes that are helpful, i.e. fix our search engine. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Monobook, tried, true, and still good as new. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

hi SusunW darn that sounds frustrating! my first thought was the same as MrsSnoozyTurtle - is it fixed now? otherwise I'd suggest reverting the edit that made the personal code change discussed in the other thread in case that had unintended consequences. hope this doesn't interrupt the writing too much! Mujinga (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mujinga hadn't thought of that. It seems to be okay now, but if it happens again I'll ask the admin who made the fix if there were code changes. I think you may be on to something because no one else seems to have experienced the issues I was having. SusunW (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've been experiencing more trouble, SusunW. I wonder if we could find someone capable of monitoring your experiences and finding out how to correct things. You really shouldn't have to cope with such enormous difficulties when you are trying to edit.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It does seem odd Ipigott that they are all happening now. I've been on here nearly a decade and haven't experienced any thing close to the number of changes to the visual presentation as have occurred recently. That's my kryptonite so to speak. SusunW (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're using the new skin, there's a little button in the bottom right corner of your screen that adjusts the margins between two settings, a narrow one and one that uses the whole width of your window. Maybe you hit that button? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks David Eppstein but I don't think so. Both times I was in the editing window, just typing. Not saving, not scrolling, not reading, just writing. I don't see anything at the bottom of the page except what I am typing and below that the edit summary bar. I think it is probable as Mujinga said it had to do with something the technical people did while testing a page as when they fixed my problem the other day, they wrote a code in somebody's sandbox and pasted it into something in my profile. Perhaps they tweaked it and then undid it? I don't know. (Clearly technology on here is not my thing.) Trust me when I say if what I saw is rolled out, I think there will be huge protest. Text right up against the left side of the page without a margin, no way to get to the top or bottom of a page without scrolling, table of content in a bullet icon at the top left (where the top key is hidden – what's the use of that if you already have to scroll to the top to find it?), and no search bar, just a magnifying glass icon at the very top right. The visual problems all that scrolling caused were almost as bad as the screaming colors. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It sounds a little bit like you might have been seeing the raw HTML version of the page without any style sheet (CSS) applied. This sometimes happens to me when my internet connection is poor and my browser fails to load the style sheet for some website. But I can't explain why it might flip back and forth like you saw. pburka (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Wanted to post here that I started Draft:Day Al-Mohamed based on the disability list. I thought there were multiple sources but they all seem to say the same things sometimes with the same wording like they're taken from the same place. Would sources about her projects be useful if they mention her? Any advice? SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Working, give me a sec. No one else snipe me on the sources! :P Silverseren^C 01:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I found through a cursory search, likely more out there. I should note that some sources from her childhood used "De Al-Mohamed" as the spelling, apparently.

She's defying definitions (Page 2)

Doing it all despite disability (Page 2)

Near-blind student beats odds, becomes athlete

Short film on Civil War accepted to festival

Judge: Bills discriminate against blind

There's A Job Opening in ACB's National Office

Day Al-Mohamed says people with disabilities 'can tell you what we need, you just need to listen'

Lawyer Spotlight: Day Al-Mohamed

I hope these help, SomeoneDreaming. Silverseren^C 01:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Those are super helpful, thank you! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Would someone who is tech-savvy please take a look at this note: meta:User talk:Rosiestep#BBC 100 Women? I'm not sure what if anything needs to happen subsequently. P.S. the editor who wrote the note is unable to edit EN-WP, ergo why they wrote on Meta. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note that your correspondent, Slowking4, is listed at WP:LTA and banned from here as a long-term abuser for sockpuppetry and low-quality article creation. That's why they are unable to edit your talk page here. We have lost a lot of stubs on women that were created by sockpuppets of Slowking4 and then deleted when they were found out through WP:CSD#G5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have added meta to the original link so it points to the right talk page. TSventon (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Women has today reached a total of 100,030 articles, almost two-thirds of which are in Start Class or higher. The project was created on 27 July 2015 by Dr. Blofeld in an attempt to offer a forum for all wikiprojects associated with women as well as to cover women too recent for inclusion in WikiProject Women's History. It is useful for participants in Women in Red, in particular as under Article alerts it displays lists of articles for deletion, DYKs, etc. Congratulations to all who have made this project such a success.--Ipigott (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Would someone from this WIR take a look at Naomi Lebowitz and assess it? It's newly created and was moved to the mainspace by its creator. The subject seems notable per WP:CREATIVE, but it the article is pretty dense in terms of content and might need some streamlining in addition to some formatting cleanup. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Marchjuly, for bringing this to our attention. Looks to me like an informative, well prepared biography. Happy to report that the creator, JayDivine, is now a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In our editathons, we ask editors to share results on social media with the #wikiwomeninred hashtag. It's my understanding that screen readers have difficult with all-lowercase hashtags like this. For future events, can we change it to #wikiWomenInRed? This will continue to match the all-lowercase version, but should be more accessible to users of screen readers. pburka (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea, makes it easier to read in general in my opinion (no opinion on the first "w" though). -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Section heading was previously "Our early banners - have "they" merged them already?"!

Apropos of our 8th anniversary I looked at Christine Williams (nutritionist), probably my first WiR creation, and found on Talk:Christine Williams (nutritionist) that there are two WiR banners both displaying just as "Women in Red" ({{WIR-4}} and {{WIR-SCI 2015}}). I checked Talk:Lynne Biddulph for a more recent one, and hers are appearing OK, two banners within the shell. Have our earlier banners been merged already in some way so that they don't display anything editathon-specific? PamD 07:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I tried moving those banners inside the banner shell, and suddenly the editathon text appears! (Duplicated - that may be a problem specific to that editathon?) So any of our banners which are outside the banner shell may now not be displaying their editathon? Will check a few more examples. PamD 07:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Odd, but reassuring: Talk:Avid Larizadeh Duggan is OK for {{WIR-2}} outside the shell, as well as some later ones I've checked: Talk:Tina Lavender, Talk:May Mukle. So perhaps it's just WIR-4 that has a problem? Will look at some other articles from that editathon. PamD 07:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Grace Medes and Talk:Diane Grob Schmidt (first and last in the WIR-4 list) both display the banner, outside the shell, with no specific editathon text. Seems to be a problem with the banner? PamD 07:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

PamD: The templates on Christine Williams are duplicates, both pointing to the same editathon. I've deleted one of them.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, looking at the history, I added {{WIR-SCI 2015}} in April 2017 and Rich Farmbrough added {{WIR-4}} 9 days later. PamD 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But that still doesn't explain why the WIR-4 banner, when outside the shell, doesn't specify an editathon. PamD 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit by MSGJ... I really wish people would stop messing with our banners without asking us. Anyway, it should work now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: The WIR edit-a-thon banners have not been merged (they are here). The proposal seems to have led to the conclusion that this should not be done without further discussion and consensus (see comments from isaacl at the end of the thread) – although the proposal itself has yet to be closed/archived. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank fuck. This has been a great source of strife and stress for the past 2-3 weeks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

How does one actually close these things out formally? I would do it myself if I knew how – though as someone who has participated (perhaps more than my fair share), that may not be appropriate. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's now officially closed with "no consensus".

For what it's worth, I do still feel that the points raised re: how the wrapper banners might be consolidated into one banner does seem worth further exploration – of course, not merging them into one mega-WIR template that conflates ~300 --> 1 (and upsets a great number of established practices). I don't know if this is technically feasible, but I do see these banners as fundamentally different from "normal" wikiproject banners (as they are event specific rather than simply indications that an article is of interest to project x, y, z, plus its rating and importance).

If this is accepted, then they are more akin to {{ArtAndFeminism article}}, {{DYK talk}}, {{ITN talk}}, {{WPEUR10k}}; and to a degree, informational templates like {{Translated}}, {{GOCE}}; or even "flag" templates such as {{Connected contributor}}.

Whether they should be included inside of the banner shell or used outside of it is a different matter (though the fact the the above example are generally used outside was the starting point of my curiosity about and exploration of this question). Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Good to see this has been settled before our anniversary celebrations.--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• So, just for my clarification. When we're creating new Talk pages for new Women in Red bios, or updating existing Talk pages for bios we've improved, do we place the Women in Red template inside or outside of the banner shell? - 47thPennVols (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the WikiProject templates (e.g. {{WikiProject Women}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, or {{WIR}}) go inside the WikiProject banner shell, and templates for specific events (e.g. {{WIR-275}} or {{WIR-SCI 2015}}) go outside. pburka (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think all WIR banners are now expected to go inside the banner shell, to save space: they display quite neatly, with their logo, albeit reduced in size. PamD 20:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not clear to me. The usage I've been advocating (though there are clearly others who would prefer everything inside the shell) is along the lines described by pburka. If there is a hard and fast "rule" somewhere that states clearly otherwise, I haven't found it. In the interest of avoiding future unwanted merger proposals or other undesirable "fixes", perhaps it makes sense to improve anything in this system that's not working and codify that which is as accepted best practice (both of which are slightly above my current skill-level, though I'm happy to lend a hand). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS: Agree that the display inside the banner is better now that it features the logo. I'm over the aesthetic hurdle on that point. It's more about the difference between the different types of banners (specific event/info vs. normal wikiproject, per examples above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is why I asked for clarification. If an editor like me, who has been working on Women in Red bios for several years doesn't know whether to place the Women in Red template inside or outside of the banner shell, how are the new editors we're trying to recruit to the project supposed to figure it out? This needs to become a standardized procedure (sooner, rather than later, in my humble opinion). - 47thPennVols (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I used to place them outside the shell; I now think that we'll upset fewer people if we go with the flow and put them inside the shell, where they occupy less space on the talk page. And we are a WikiProject, just a rather different one. PamD 21:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree that upsetting people should be avoided (certainly not my intent), nor should anything of this nature be imposed without careful consideration of consequences and establishment of general consensus. Clarification of practice is what I'm hoping to help define. I still maintain that there are meaningful differences between normal wikiproject banners (of which the {{WIR}} probably is) and the "event", "informational", and "flag" banners highlighted above. It's not so cut-n-dry as in/out if this is the case. I would say that there is a good argument for both putting the main WIR banner inside the shell (possibly adding rating and importance, per other wikiprojects) and putting the event banners (possibly consolidated) outside of it – as they are different animals. I also understand the point that the "merge" folks were trying to make, which is why I keep circling back on the "consolidation without merger" idea. If all of these things can be achieved, then I'd think it would be easier to get consensus (and indeed, full support from some of the folks who were angling for the "merge" option) without upsetting anyone. It would also help establish a system that would ensure preservation of the event specific wrapper templates, stand unchallenged for some time to come, and also be clearly communicated to new editors. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  I fully agree with PamD. For the record, I maintain that WIR event banners are clearly project banners, and should go inside the banner shell. I have never seen a single argument for them being outside the banner shell that isn't purely soapbox. I will continue to move such banners into the shell one by one as I come across them until there is a high-level (i.e. beyond this project) concensus that that shouldn't happen. Even banners such as the vital ones now go within the shell. This project having multiple banners is already not something done by most WikiProjects. I try not to think about how much discussion already goes into behind-the-scenes discussions like this that takes effort away from editing articles, which is why I'm stopping myself making this response longer and spending time citing other discussions. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Reply to 47thPennVols: In my experience, some contributors prefer the banners to be outside the banner shell so that the full text can be read while others prefer to have them inside. From a technical point of view it really doesn't matter although I think there is an increasing tendency to put them inside. There are similar problems with the banners on Article creation where some contributors choose to maintain the original assessment even in cases where the article has been significantly improved. I really don't think it would be useful to become involved in another long discussion about this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

To note, isaacl's comments should not carry more weight than others simply because they happened to be the last to post before the discussion was closed. The closer's actual summary is at the top of that discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a draft going for Frances Widdowson. She was fired from her position after making some controversial statements. Any help by those familiar with editing sensitive topics would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you now that it won't pass WP:NACADEMIC so you'd have to aim for WP:GNG but the draft currently frames her notability as being because she complained about being fired, which isn't going to fly. Unless there's anything more to her, I suggest putting your effort into something else. Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'll also need to be really good with WP:FRINGE to handle this one. Better to drop this for now, I think. If she manages to spin this out into a book-writing career I suppose she might eventually be notable as an author (but the fringe concerns will remain). -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

She might pass WP:AUTHOR; Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry has multiple published book reviews, as does another book by someone with the same name (maybe the same person?), Going up into the Next Class: Women and Elementary Teacher Training, 1840–1914. But whether you can get an article on her to stick, and whether you should, might be two different things. It would be inappropriate to have an article that does not discuss the recent controversy, but WP:BLP makes it tricky to cover negative material about living people. Often it's easier to leave that stone unturned and find other subjects to write about. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is enough out there about her work to justify an article. I’ll try to tread lightly on the controversy. Thriley (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Passing AUTHOR requires a body of work; if it's just one book, write an article on the book. Kingsif (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This draft I just declined was written by a blocked editor, so it's unlikely to be resubmitted. Any takers? I'm not confident she's notable, but it doesn't seem too unlikely. Draft:Kerry Davis (boxer). -- asilvering (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As a notable sportsperson who in theory should take a GB quota place at the Olympics, someone else will probably be creating the article sooner or later, and I agree with the decline reason on SIGCOV at the moment. So I'm neutral on whether it needs adopting at the moment. Kingsif (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Trying to post a bio of a Black woman that has tons of citations (especially compared to men in her field ;) ), but it is awaiting review after revision. Apologies if this is inappropriate use of this project - just trying to get her out of limbo. Please point me in the right direction - Gratefully, Petepetey

JinJa Birkenbeuel

Petepetey (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In general, for convincing new page patrollers that a topic is notable, "tons of citations" are not helpful. You would be better off reducing the footnotes to a smaller number, focusing on the high-quality ones: footnotes to published works that are independent of the subject and cover her in-depth. That also means curating the metadata in the footnotes to make it clear that they are published works (not just someone's social media account) and that they directly cover the subject. For instance, in the version of the draft I looked at, the first footnote is MacAulay, Jessica (April 7, 2023). "Muse by Clio". This might count as an in-depth reliable source about the subject, but could easily be mistaken by a hurried reviewer as someone's blog. Better formatting might be MacAulay, Jessica (April 7, 2023). "2 Minutes With ... JinJa Birkenbeuel, CEO at Birk Creative". Muse by Clio. That way the title makes clear that it is about Birkenbeuel and the bluelinked work makes clear that it is a reliable publication. It still might not be counted for much, though, because it is an interview, and those are often not seen as insufficiently independent. The second footnote, in "Ad Age", is unhelpful; Ad Age is reliable but the mention of Birkenbeuel has no depth. The third and fourth, from Fast Company, are interviews again. And the fifth, the "Hello Illinois" link, should definitely be removed, because it is a promotion by Birkenbeuel for her business, cannot be used as an independent source about Birkenbeuel, and its promotional nature is going to cause reviewers to lose interest in promoting the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive feedback. I will follow your advice and revise and resubmit. Question: Once it is resubmitted for review can any editor who works on the queue OK it or does it have to be the original editor who reviewed it? Thanks @David Eppstein Petepetey (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can approve it. Note that approval does not mean permanent inclusion in the encyclopedia; any other editor can challenge any article and put it up for deletion. In a field like advertising, it is especially important to write the article in a way that appears neutral and factual and not as advertising for the subject, because that is something reviewers are likely to notice and disapprove of. Be very wary of promotional phrasing like "recognized for her creative excellence" whose factual basis is more like merely being a judge on a contest celebrating the "creative excellence" of other people, because that sort of thing is very likely to trigger both non-approval and deletion attempts. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Another word of advice: install this script, and remove anything in the article that shows up as unreliable. I guarantee you that the first thing any reviewer is going to do with an article that has THAT many footnotes is check if there are garbage ones. Ones highlighted by this script will really stand out. If you can't find reliable sources for the info, you should probably pull it. Note that only obvious unreliable sources will show up with that script, so use it to help you, rather than assuming anything it picks up is definitely bad and anything it doesn't is definitely good. If you have other sources on there that seem equally "legit" as the ones it's highlighting as unreliable, you should consider whether they ought to go, too.

I junked a section that would only hurt the article in reviewers' eyes (list of non-notable recognition - wp cares about stuff like pulitzers, not comparatively minor awards, so this looks like source/importance-padding). There are still a lot of unhelpful footnotes in the article, so my advice, like David Eppstein's, is to reduce them as much as you can to just the "good ones". For example, you can lose four unhelpful footnotes by removing the "personal life" section. It's very brief, so I don't think it harms the article to cut that. (If you're extremely attached to it, you can always add it back in once it's gone through review.) You can lose another bunch by footnoting her artist page on Apple music rather than each individual song. What you're trying to avoid here is the impression that you're doing a WP:REFBOMB, trying to make her seem more notable than she is by adding way too many citations. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Mostly I write and edit pages about women, but I stumbled across this male mathematician from the early 1900s who was notable for directing the doctoral dissertations of 18 women over 40 years, including the first known African American woman to earn a doctorate in mathematics: Aubrey E. Landry. I enjoyed making him a page as a thank you to his memory. It's a remarkable record at a time when there were precious few women professors anywhere. Most of them went on to college or university teaching posts, and joined the American Mathematical Association. This doesn't even count the women who earned doctorates in statistics, physics, etc. when he was just a member of their dissertation committees (I may gather that data and create a future section of his page).

The big thing about being a director is that many men wouldn't do it, so women could languish and leave the profession. He wasn't just a facilitator, he was a change agent. BUT I argue against myself when I think "Hmmm, I don't want the Women in Red project to be full of guys just because they were allies. Allyship seems like the bare minimum, even in those fraught days. And I don't want to contribute to 'Woman gets prize, so man who helped her gets just as much applause.'" Also, there were women doing what he did at the same time. I don't want to slight them because he was such a quasi-unicorn. Thoughts? Fortunaa (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

What a strange thing to see... a Memramcook native. I'm trying to find how you found that's where he was from and who his parents were, but my best right now is This index of articles from a local defunct newspaper called fr:L'Évangéline. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortunaa, pre-Women in Red, in February 2015, I wrote Salvador Alvarado, a Mexican army general and military governor of Yucatán. I tagged it with the WikiProject Feminism because he not only freed the Maya from servitude, but passed laws that freed women from legal obligation to serve their spouses, passed legislation to make domestic work fall under labor protection laws and anti-vice laws that protected sex workers, expanded education, and organized the first feminist congress in Mexico. I thought surely someone would untag it, but the Project tag is still there. Had WIR existed, I would have tagged it with a WIR banner. SusunW (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW I'll try both and see what happens. Users are welcomed to take them down. Good point. Fortunaa (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortunaa I should also note that I always put a WiR banner on LGBTIQ+ articles I write in June, regardless of gender and it's never been an issue. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb It was on Ancestry.com, and it connected to birth records not just for him but for relatives. I hope that's authoritative enough... I'm still learning. Fortunaa (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortunaa: Although I have great respect for Susun's views, I would not use WIR for men but I have frequently used WP Feminism when appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott, I didn't put WIR on it, just feminism and women's history. They can remove those categories if they don't agree... and thank you for all the good things you've done for my newbie biographies! I'm just learning how to do all of this. You have been great, so generous with your time. Fortunaa (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fortunaa Ancestry.com needs to be used with great care as a source; there is a ton of user-generated garbage information on the site. If you are citing official birth records as a source, that should be stated in the footnote; in that case, you could simply add "Ancestry.com" in the "via" field (rather than as the actual source). Cielquiparle (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, I'll do that, citing the official document... thank you. Fortunaa (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, earlier this month I proposed posting a DYK hook about a female footballer every day of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup (20 July to 20 August). It didn't get a big response, but what little was positive. Since there is an appropriate sports edit-a-thon this month, I wondered if anyone here would be interested in contributing. Working on articles for the players at the World Cup would be great, and at the moment, reviewing the current DYK noms would be helpful. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, yesterday passed away an Oscar-winning filmmaker Sue Marx - maybe someone will be inspired to create a stub about her? GiantBroccoli (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Started by Thriley and expanded by me and Rigg. Wyliepedia @ 07:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantBroccoli (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Couple of redirects made, and added to Marx (surname). PamD 08:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Added more links to her from existing articles, for good measure. GiantBroccoli (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have had a draft article for Sharon McMahon (Civics podcaster/Instagrammer) open for several months now without review. Wondering if anyone here could take a look and either approve or provide feedback? Should meet notability guidelines; I have several news sources, etc. Apologies if this is not the right forum/method to ask for review, this would be my first new article published to Wikipedia so I'm pretty naive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sharon_McMahon Aelon51 (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I created a page for Patricia Davies (cryptographer) recently and am trying, very inexpertly, to nominate it for DYK. Apparently I need to do something else to complete the nomination process but I am unsure what that is or how to do it. I think I need to complete this within a day or two. Could a kind soul help me by effecting whatever it is that needs doing? I can come up with alternate hooks if required but do not know how to do the bold linking to article thing. Balance person (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic story!

I'm no expert, although I've done a few successful DYK nominations. It looks as if you've done the bold linking correctly. It may be preferable to include the actual article title in the hook, something like this:

* ... that '''[[Patricia Davies (cryptographer)|Patricia Davies]]''' and '''[[Jean Argles]]''', two sisters who signed the Official Secrets Act as World War II codebreakers, did not find out about each other's top secret work until the 1960s?

You may also consider adding a link for the Official Secrets Act (or the Official Secrets Act of 1939).

Also, the Mirror may not be WP:RELIABLE (if someone could please confirm). Is there a better reference?

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

PS: The nomination template page is shown on Talk:Patricia Davies (cryptographer), so I think you are already good vis-à-vis the seven day window (again, if someone could please confirm). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, should be fine. I've offered @Balance person more help if needed, as I did with Carol Van Strum last year. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! I always find these sorts of things inscrutable. Balance person (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been sorted out. It might be of interest to those involved to see that you also recently created the article on Jean Argles, although it might be too late for "official" inclusion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It's "too late" by only one day, so the DYK folks might make an exception. Always worth a go. That said, the hook as written encompasses both sisters, so if it gets published, both articles will be seen. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Balance person, you can nominate five articles for DYK before you have to start reviewing nominations yourself, see WP:DYKCRIT. Therefore if you make a double nomination that uses another of the five article allowance. TSventon (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As far as I can remember, of the pages I created... Carol Van Strum was nominated by Michael Turnbull, Gerlin Bean by SusunW, so I have only nominated The Pinwill Sisters so far. Not sure if the recent nomination will count as double as I was slightly out on the timing. But even so, I have a couple in hand so far before I have to do anything scary! Balance person (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless you specifically nominated both Owtram sisters articles individually, in my view, it would be illogical for the nomination to be counted twice (a rare two-fer that actually is just that). In any case, it appears to me that you are under the 5 article DYK QPQ threshold. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added the DYK review to Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Davies (cryptographer). It would be appreciated if someone with DYK experience could have a look to make sure all's well. Thank you, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Balance person: There's now a translation of Patricia Davies article on Ukrainian Wikipedia (just in case you missed it). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Patricia Davies is featured on DYK today! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cl3phact0: Good article. We now look forward to many more DYKs from you. Just let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Yay! Balance person (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Balance person, I should have credited you. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem at all. You help so many people Ipigott and I am very grateful you are there! Balance person (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Good to see this has triggered several responses on the anniversary page. Hope there will be more.--Ipigott (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

By noon GMT on 20 July, 30 editors had contributed to our anniversary page. I've included a list of participants on the meetup talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I just made an article for M.G. Lord. Might be of interest to editors with all the Barbie fever going around. Best, Thriley (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Added to Lord (surname). Do we know what the M and G stand for, or whether it's a pseudonym? Worldcat doesn't mention any other version of the name. Interesting! PamD 09:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I couldn’t find what MG stands for either! Thank you for your help. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, on Happy 8th Anniversary Women in Red--2023, 19 July created sandbox draft 'My Body No Choice'.

1) Though my draft article is not dependent on this broadwayworld ref still wish to know whether that one can be counted as RS to mention where the events took place?

2) Whether My Body No Choice is okay as an independent stub or be merged in the article Arena Stage or Molly Smith ?

3) Confirming info in Arena Stage#Production history is in appropriate Style and place.

4) Help in confirming various playwright's names conform to WP BLP and naming policies.

5) Last but not least requesting Copy edit help @ My Body No Choice.

Bookku (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

1. I don't see any reason why the bylined Broadway World article can't be used. In fact I'm curious why you're concerned about it.

2. I think it's ok as a standalone page. It received coverage in multiple RS.

3. Was it actually an Arena Stage production? Arena is based in D.C. but MBNC was staged in Arizona.

pburka (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. US topics are not my usual sphere of writing so wished to confirm. From Guardian and WaPo articles my impression was show is staged by Arena in Washington along with other places by other agencies. But as I said I would need help from others to avoid mistakes. Bookku (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see: the Arizona staging was part of a tour. I think the article should explicitly say that it was commissioned and produced by Arena, if that's accurate. pburka (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pburka many thanks for valuable inputs, I shall keep your points in mind while updating the article further.

Meanwhile at humanities reference desk I have requested help in matching one of the monologue mentioned in the Guardian with the (US) playwrights / monologues. If anyone has any info about the same will be helpful.

Thanks. Bookku (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)