User talk:SusunW/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

You asked about the DYK outcomes of 2015, it looked like this:

I have no idea where the outcomes will be held now, and how, feel free to use. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt I have no idea either. But we'll figure it out. SusunW (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I have input all the approvals, but have no idea how to even find the scheduled ones. Going to move the chart to the

Event template and maybe @Gerda Arendt and Yoninah: can help? SusunW (talk

) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The scheduled ones are here, a women will be pictured tomorrow, but I wonder if it will be part of the outcomes, - it's not a woman article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Asking more precisely: the "event" is limited in scope, while in 2015 we included everything related to women. Would an opera singer (created for /5 but to appear only now) be part of the outcome? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Any article on women or their works that runs in March or is created in March should be included, IMHO. SusunW (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott, Rosiestep, and Yoninah: and anyone else who might be watching and is interested. I *think* I got all the ones that are approved or scheduled on the list. I also have one where a review is pending and one where a review is needed. I don't have time to go through the entire list of nominations so if you know of any I missed, please add. Surely everyone can add their own nominations moving forward. Do we also want to add new articles which could be nominated -- like nomination needed? or just leave it to ones wherein the nomination has been done? SusunW (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks great,thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All due to you Gerda Arendt. I don't know how to create it, but I can certainly gnome in the background ;) SusunW (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I think March meetup page -"Celebrating Women's History Month"- can include all women's DYKs. Do you think that would work, or do you think that would be confusing? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rosiestep I put in the ones I could find. Everyone who has one out in nomination land that isn't on the list should just put it there. Gerda's list makes it easy to see which ones need to be reviewed. My only question is whether we want to put ones we'd like to nominate. For instance, I could do the Marquesa del Ter and/or Shimizu Shikin as "need nomination" but I have no hook ideas yet and I only have one QPQ. If someone else wants to nominate, they'd be on the list with the clock ticking. Not sure if we want to do that or not. SusunW (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sure. I think we should try it and see how it goes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I was also thinking... What if our meetup page was more inclusive? What if it included the month's editathon(s) stuff (just like it does now), plus all the DYKs for the month related to women, plus the metrics list? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep I wouldn't put the metrics there until the end of the month. If people have to input stuff in multiple places, I think they will get frustrated and not do it. There are already some who don't input their created articles in the editathon lists. But, if we do the metrics there then they are with the monthly record. I kinda like that idea. SusunW (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea came to me as the Metrics page is getting too big because of all the entries from all the months. Another option would be to archive each month. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep I like it and think it will be easier to find them than for them to be in the archive. But that's just me. SusunW (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just not thrilled with how the Metrics page is set up on our project page (and I can't see to get harej to make the changes I've requested... tabs across the top of the page). Over the weekend, when I worked on the metrics, I was thinking maybe the Metrics page would just have links for monthly metrics pages, such as:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/July 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/August 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/September 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/October 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/November 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/December 2015
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/January 2016
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2016

And include the links in the NavBox and include the Navbox at the bottom of each Metrics page. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rosiestep I hear you. Have never been thrilled with the way it takes you to a totally different page. SusunW (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/9
  where they could be listed. And lastly, why the interest in March 2015?

@Ipigott: The only interest in March 2015 that I know of is that last year's chart is where Gerda copied the chart from. This format is only for March, unless we decide we like it. I have mentioned in several of our conversations over the last six months that I asked Gerda for the table to keep up with them. I also relayed that she is willing to help but not be responsible solely for maintaining the list. You were the one that suggested we come up with a way to have others help with the nominations. So...I just combined the ideas in the list. Last year there were around 200 DYKs about women in March. It took a whole army of people following up on the reviews, approvals, etc. to stay on top of it. Gerda spearheaded it and followed up, like you do, well after the event to include all the nominations in the list and when they appeared on the page. She has said she cannot take on the responsibility this year. Since you have been maintaining the DYK after the event, I assumed you'd continue doing that. I don't want the responsibility though I will gladly help review DYK nominations. If we like this format, we can certainly keep it and going forward include all DYKs on women, or just those from the editathons or science women. Whatever you want. If not, its a March only thing. You've been the one maintaining the DYK section and it was not my intent to take it over or displace you, only make your job easier in the busiest month we have on women. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

SusunW Thanks for all the explanations. Now I am beginning to remember various bits and pieces of earlier discussions about DYKs and how we should fit them all in during WHM. In that context, your list seems to be a useful tool -- although it will take quite a lot of time to maintain it properly. I understand you will be doing it for the rest of the month. I certainly don't want to claim any kind of ownership on the various DYK listings but if you think they are useful, I can continue to maintain them in the traditional way. I think a direct link to the articles (rather than to the DYK templates) is useful for those (like me) who want to review them. So if you agree, I'll begin the usual list for Art+Feminism just on top of your own listing. As always, I'll include all the published DYKs under Showcase on the main page. Does that sound reasonable?--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: like Gerda, I cannot do it alone. I figure it will take a lot of us helping to keep the chart up to date. If everyone inputs their own nominations that will make it much easier. What if we move the template to the notes section after it appears and in the name section put the link. Would that make it easier than making a separate listing and they'd all be in one list? I am totally in favor of you maintaining the Showcase and gnoming you are so good at. As I said, just trying to make it an easier process without so much burden on one person. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rosiestep I think it is a great idea to try to remove some of the clutter from the main page. The lists are indeed getting longer and longer. Maybe we could have a separate nav box on Metrics and Showcase, otherwise the main nav box is likely to become increasingly cluttered. We could perhaps also include short summaries on the main page, detailing the number of articles/DYKs for each month. It is important for people to be able to see the degree of progress we have been achieving.--Ipigott (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Susun. You have been doing a fantastic job with the DYK listings. From the start, I have been including women's works and other articles closely concerned with women but I see you have been concentrating on the biographies of the women themselves. If you would like to include the others, we already have

La casa is already there, will take the others on board. Still don't know about the judge pictured in the law case, - first woman pictured on DYK March 2016, and surely brought it to the stats. (I confess that I am proud of the hook for a QAI member who left but whose GA nom was completed by a merciful soul.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I got them as far as scheduled. What do you think of new ones at the bottom,as they may likely late in being selected? (Last year we tried alpha.) What do you think of adding the WiR heart to those from the /8 ediathon, instead of the same names in a list on the same page? Will now write one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yay! @Ipigott and Gerda Arendt: That's perfect Ian and Gerda, It looks great. I just went through as quick as I could to get the list started before March 1, Ian. I may have missed more than just the articles you noted, as I have difficulty when I must scroll up and down a page and that approval queue has dates at the top and info at the bottom. I confess I have no idea about the law case and Justice Kagan. I am perfectly good with however it is organized. Just want it to be easy to follow for anyone and want to encourage others to input their own articles. How do we do that? SusunW (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. All these "outcomes ;) - Today's DYK went not only to that corner, but to the two DYK lists I keep for project opera and the project talk, DYK Germany, the WiR DYK, the general DYK list, my user page, the WiR DYK, - almost too much to ask others to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What if above the DYK section we put a statement, "if you nominate a file for DYK, please list it here"? Some won't but maybe some will. SusunW (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's asking too much of people to use the list. People rarely inform us of their DYK nominations but if they do so, it is usually when they add a new article to the outcomes. I usually only catch them when they appear in the Queue. I find it is far too difficult - and time-consuming - to wander through all the nominations.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's no extra work for me because I wander through the nominations for articles to review. Looking at the 35 I reviewed in 2016, they are more women than any other topic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Which is why I didn't wander through the nominations either. I only input the ones I knew about ;) But, that being said, it was helpful to know which ones needed reviews or had problems and then people could jump on them and try to get the on the front page during the month. Last year everyone just seemed to add their nominations. Or maybe it was just Gerda and I followed her lead? Maybe we just run with it and see if people input their articles. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it sufficient to catch them when they reach the queue. Maybe towards the end of the month, you could try to catch the remainder but it is a lot to expect on a day-to-day basis.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Kind of like Gerda, I scroll through the nominations looking for women. It's easier for me if they aren't part of the pool of nominations. Lots of push last year to nominate and get them approved. Hard to know how this year will shake out yet. If you focus on the queue @Ipigott: that will be great. I'll add ones I come across and Gerda will too. We'll see how it goes. SusunW (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll just put "for DYK" next to the name of the article on the outcomes list.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk

Thank you Doc! Will try to hop on any issues and address them. SusunW (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Doris Stevens you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doris Stevens for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just finishing up my research for this new article, and came across this newspaper clipping from Newspapers.com. As I don't have access to the whole article, I wonder if you would mind copying it onto my talk page? The link is: [1]. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you help with this one? It needs cleanup after being started. Should count towards this month's editathon!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I'm on it. SusunW (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit, I don't know if enough can be found for a DYK!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I just found a piece from a Chattanooga art gallery that has quite a bit of info. Who knew, Tennessee would have the answers? SusunW (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld I think you are good enough now for DYK. The museum article says images of her works are in PD, but I have no clue. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good Susun! Thereza Dillwyn Llewelyn also new and looks interesting! Some of the sources might not meet RS though♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld May be able to look at it later. Right now hip deep in other alligators. SusunW (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	You have been a huge help, not just in this article but in explaining how to make an article better. Thank you. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 23:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Antiqueight. I am still fairly new on WP myself and have had many great mentors who helped me along. We can make this platform welcoming if we choose ;). If ever you need help, I'm just a ping away. I'll try my best. SusunW (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have technically been here a while and have plenty edits, but til recently they were all maintenance - typos, vandalism etc. So - thank you - and for the tip about the fair use - I usually upload through commons and it won't accept fair use...So I never thought to look for it here. I can go back now and add images to several of the articles! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 00:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've technically been on here about 15 months. I mostly write articles. If I do gnoming, it is to put articles into WikiProjects or help with WiR tasks. I have little technical skill with WP, so I focus on what I do well, which is write articles about women. I enjoy the writing, but find that I learn as much from writing the articles as I impart. If I find some technical know-how in another article that makes it easier, I make note of it. But, as I said before, I have been lucky with mentors and if I don't know or can't find an answer, I have great people to ask. ;) SusunW (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks to you, I now have 5 articles with images (not all great ones) and anther 2 I should be able to add tomorrow. Though I'm nervous about which photo to use for Juanita Casey...the one with the zebra is excellent but is it biographical? What is interesting is that it can be so hard to find online photos of people who only died 9 years ago but I have a photo from 1884....Anyway - assuming I did it right you can check out Margaret Tynan, Janet McNeill, Sheila Wingfield, Louise Gavan Duffy and possibly, if it's allowed Nine Graces. Since the Nine Graces date from 1884 I can't currently find photos of the two women whose articles I have written...And now I must go to sleep! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 02:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Antiqueight Sleep well. The photos look great. If at any point someone finds free use, they can always replace fair use, but in my experience it doesn't happen often. As long as I can find a decent photo on deceased people, I try to use it. And yes, frustrating that some are impossible to find and others are simple. Some you think would be simple aren't. It's crazy. SusunW (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs