Hi. Can we have a place where we can create a list of 1) Redlinks for articles that need to be created and 2) Link articles that need cleanup? MontOther (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We have been super informal about running our worklist(s) so I'm not sure I'm the best person to ask. I'd say that linking to other worklists can't hurt though! Keilana|Parlez ici16:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Great work on starting this group. So happy to see this happening. We started a worklist, inspired by WP Women Scientists, if you scroll down on the main WP Artists page you'll see a section called "How you can help." Seems to come in handy - we also promote it when we can to people on social media :) Missvain (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Scope and bot request
For WikiProject Women artists we set up a bot request to automatically add the project banner to article talk pages. If we want to do the same thing, there are instructions at User talk:AnomieBOT under 'WikiProjectTagger run'. We can basically pick the categories (perhaps Category:Women writers and most of its subcategories) and let the bot do the work. Is the scope of this project just biographies of women writers? Should works by women writers be included as well? gobonobo+c15:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think since we'd only be adding this project's banner to talk pages, that we only need permission from this project's members. Unless we'd be somehow modifying the project banners for WikiProject Biography or Literature, I don't think we need their permission to proceed (though they might have useful input). gobonobo+c17:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to add or strike categories from this list:
Good job on a great list! I'm in awe to think these women writers are finally going to have a WikiProject of their own (pausing, taking a deep breath, recognizing the importance of the moment). Let's do them proud! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. As for the categories, look good to me. I hope the bot won't be confused and put the same tag three times on one article if it is in multiple or non-diffusing categories. Also, I discovered that there are "short story writer" categories as well as those for novelists and poets. Personally, yes, I think works could be included too, but not sure if the bot can figure that out unless they are flagged in some fashion. Montanabw(talk)16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. I think this was just a misunderstanding as we failed to update the project's scope after making a decision here on the talk page. gobonobo+c05:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd be OK adding the literature category now, if we're going to do a bot request. FWIW, WikiProject Horse racing has something upwards of 9,000 articles tagged, so I'm not really fretting about the numbers, the more we can automate, the better. Montanabw(talk)16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Not sure if you saw the above comment from Montanabw. You had previously mentioned not including the literature categories. I think we have consensus for the categories that are listed so far. Let me know and I can add the subcategories from Category:Literature by women as well. gobonobo+c01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm cool with whatever the consensus decides. When it was first mentioned, I felt we had our hands full with just the bios, but now that we're a couple of weeks into the project, I'm feeling less overwhelmed, so, yup, let's include the lit cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've had bloggers on my mind, so (eventually) we'll need a category, Category:Women bloggers, when someone has the time and inclination... hmm... maybe an AWB project that would interest @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:? Plus:
I've moved this conversation into a new section. Let's consider the viability of the redlinked cats in the future, but not as part of the initial bot-enabling request. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I created a userbox (photo of J. K. Rowling) and an invitation (image of Mary Wollstonecraft). The banner header currently has a photo of Maya Angelou. With a background in business, I recognize that multiple images won't work in branding a project. We need to choose one. That one image will be used in four places: the project infobox, the userbox, the invitation, and the banner header. I think the image could change from time to time and it will be fun to make the change as the project grows and ages. Regarding color background for the invitation and userbox, I spent a lot of time playing around with different colors, but in the end chose white, as in, a blank sheet of paper.
My recommendation for branding the start-up is J. K. Rowling or Mary Wollstonecraft or Mary Shelley. Enid Blyton holding a book has some merit. Most any woman writer with an FA biography would be fine. What are your thoughts/suggestions? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally I like the Mary Shelley image as it looks more "classical", I'd use that on all things, including tags and project boxes.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no necessity to use the same image throughout - the project infobox image could be duplicated on the talk page banner, though it needs to look good at a smaller size. But for the userbox, a different image might be suitable due to the small size of usefboxen... the current image that's in there now (Mary Shelley) is pretty, but it won't work in a userbox because it is too monochromatic - gold on gold, doesn't jump out at you. I frankly think it's too monochromatic for the infobox too, but that's my take as a person who has done some graphic design. I favor a "classical" image, as it was so much harder for women to get credit for their work back in the day, and I have long believed that we modern folks stand on the shoulders of giants, but that's JMO. I also don't think we should use an image of a living person for this, for any number of drama-inspiring reasons; better to use someone who is deceased. I am not particularly fond of any of the above images, save maybe the Mayr Wollstonecraft one (which I do like for having great contrast), and maybe the Sappho one, because I don't think they look very good at small sizes. What about a photo of someone from the early 20th century? Montanabw(talk)16:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't really give a shit either way, I hate userboxes. And I hate infoboxes.. :-) Actually I think you're right that the Wollstonecraft one is better because of the contrast and also has the classical look. And it would honor Wadewitz of course.. I say Wollstonecraft.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Hello WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hello WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
I'm coming around to your idea of using the same image across all - the Mary Wollstonecroft image really works well. I definitely think it needs to be in the userbox (the JK Rowling one is too busy and it's a living person. That said, Virginia Woolf is also kind of fun. But perhaps keep a beige background for whatever is chosen, the lavender is kind of bleech and the white is no fun... I like the warm color of old parchiment feeling of a beige-family shade. Montanabw(talk)04:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
(They are seeing a method to my madness). Invitation color options:
Invitation to the project/background color options
Hello WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hello WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hello WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
I suggest we create as extensive a missing article bank as we possibly can. It would be good to access a lot of women's biographical dictionaries indexes, like that Argentine one Rosie and to list missing entries!♦ Dr. Blofeld14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There are 26 FAs about women writers, which is quite respectable. I don't know how to update the table on the project page, but it would be nice to reflect the work that's been done in the area. Stats are here. Victoria (tk) 21:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't list them by hand, that's an endless chore. Find the bot operator and ask her/him to help. (Sometimes the bots only run once every week or month or such...) Montanabw(talk)23:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
We already have a reasonable List of women writers and several more specialized lists under Category:Lists of women writers. It would be useful to have listings by country and/or language too. Any suggestions as to how best this could be handled? As far as I can see, all we have at the moment in the way of country-based listings is List of Korean female writers but this is merely a list of names with very little information.
I think we need to address both the user community (i.e. lists providing summary information on each writer) and lists for Wikipedia editors, maybe based on those already covered by lists or categories for the various countries or languages. For instance for Danish there are a number of categories here which could be used as a basis for a List of Female writers from Denmark.
Sooner or later we should also try to put together a world list of organizations specializing in support of female writers.
Apart from creating new articles, there is also important work to be done on improving existing articles (expanding stubs, working towards GA/FA for the more important biographies, etc.). The project could perhaps create listings of priorities in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't know if any good ideas to swipe, but may want to see how we did the "to do" list at WP:EQUINE - I didn't create it, but I kind of like the syntax that transcludes the list from a separate page onto the project page. Also has different types of tasks. It possibly could be collapsed or something too. Just me, but I know if a project page is too long or daunting, I tend to not be as excited to help as I could be - probably because my personal style is to look for bite size chunks that I can at least start on as a solo person (collaborators always welcome, of course). WP:QAI also has some ideas, though maintaining the chart has wound up being mostly the job of one person because the rest of us are either lazy or overwhelmed by the syntax Montanabw(talk)22:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
i appreciate the clean layout of WP:EQUINE in general, and I really like "the syntax that transcludes the list from a separate page onto the project page". It would be nice to incorporate that feature at this WP. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of the women writers articles will be tagged with this project, and they may be more appropriate for our project instead. for Ursula K. LeGuin i removed womens history, but for James Tiptree, Jr. i kept history. thats my gut feeling. anyone else have a guideline for this, or ideas? i will probably mostly leave the history project intact unless its obviously too soon. I dont know how much i will participate yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Luckily, it's a project's own guidelines that determine, so WMNWRITE and WMNHIST can be aligned "cousins" or "siblings" but one doesn't have to follow the other. Montanabw(talk)22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Articles created
Currently, the new articles list unsorted -- not alpha, not by country, not by genre. I think it should be sorted, either by country (to match up with the project's missing articles list) or alpha. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
but I added this project to the CleanupWorklistBot/Master list in this edit, so the template on the project page should be working within a week, unless that edit is reverted for some reason. Cheers! —PC-XT+01:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted quite a few instances, but there are many more. I would've thought AB would tag woman writer bios only, seeing that we already have novels, poetry, and books WikiProjects. If it tags all articles on novels, poems, and books by women writers, we'll quickly have an unmanageably large hodgepodge project. If the bot is going to tag any more articles, I hope it sticks to bios... INeverCry17:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
When I looked at the lead on the project page, it mentioned bios only. Now I see the project scope includes all books/novels written by women, and probably poems (I haven't checked into that, but it follows). Another project with an overly large number of pages is too much for me. Bios only would've been great. Sorry about the reverts... INeverCry18:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: The categories that the bot was asked to tag are listed in the collapsible box headed "Categories within the scope of this WikiProject", at #Bot request above. As you note, there are several for works; since they are explicitly listed there, I'm pretty sure that they are intentional. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion INeverCry. The scope has now been updated on the project page. While I've restored the banners to those talk pages, I for one would be open to revisiting the project's scope. Including works does make for a large WikiProject, but I think good arguments for their inclusion exist as well. gobonobo+c05:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It would be possible to have task-forces on writers, novels, poetry. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 13:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
Recommended resource
Let me highly recommend Reader's Guide to Women's Studies (1997) edited by Eleanor Amico. It's massive, with 730pp of books on 500+ major topics & people that are evaluated by experts. You can browse it online at Amazon -- and they have several copies for sale under $12. Rjensen (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, there are still slots available for free access to two of the databases offered by Past Masters, including the Women Writer's Collection. If you meet the criteria you can sign up at WP:Past Masters. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Review of Importance Guidelines
Hey All, I outlined the importance guidelines in the section for Assessing importance. Please make sure that we review and modify that outline based on the general consensus. I used the assessment guidelines that I had been running with, Sadads (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. I'll put together another review proposal on this page once we've sorted through some additional cats. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)