This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Penny Richards (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 8 February 2011 (→Tips for New Misplaced Pages Contributors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:27, 8 February 2011 by Penny Richards (talk | contribs) (→Tips for New Misplaced Pages Contributors)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)WikiProject Women's History
Quick Menu (edit · changes)- Main · Discuss the Project
- Recognized content
- Members
- Resources
- Assessment
- Article Alerts
- Popular pages
- Templates
- Did You Know
- Featured Pictures
- In this month
- Quotes
- Ask a question
- Requested articles
- Taskforces
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Women's History and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
Getting Started
Want to help but don't know how? Got a technical question? Ask it here. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 02:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wrote up a blog post last night with more information on how to get started helping. If/when you write one, follow up here with a link. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Stub identification -- how?
I want to dive in identifying stub articles that need work. I can add the stub template to them, but should I be marking them here on WP:WMNHIST or something as well? How will we find them again? --Skud (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Current conversation below ("Stub templates and marking") and at the stub proposal is uncovering a myriad of issues around Misplaced Pages policy relative to officially-named stubs. I'm inclined to avoid the stub process altogether in favor of the assessment template User:Waacstats has suggested, which I think will be more useful for more purposes. If you'd like to set up a templates section in the above nav, start a basic assessment template, and start a discussion around that, it would be really handy. (We don't have to actually do any assessments yet, but placing the assessment template will allow us to generate a project page of entries which use that template.) As long as our assessment template has a "stub" rating somewhere, we can use it to mark entries that need work. Does that make sense? ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll modify what I just said. If someone could make a decision about the Banner templates below (fix them up aesthetically, modify the Banner to be an assessment template, etc) and then create them as separate templates linked from WP:WikiProject Women's History/Templates, that would be ideal. Once that's done, we'll need to: 1) create a backlinks page for all entries marked with that template; 2) modify the project's base page to explain how to use that assessment template for marking entries as within the scope of our project; 3) start a separate decision about the precise assessment criteria we want to use, overlapping where possible with the criteria for WP:BIO and similar projects. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Stub template creation and marking
I've applied for the stub {{women-hist-stub}} and the category Category:Women's history stubs. On 11 Feb 2011, if there are no objections, this can be created as a formal stub template and stub category, and then we can start marking articles appropriately.---Shane Landrum (cliotropic) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed the proposal on the stub project, I think you may be better off with something similar to WP:BIOG/A. It will allow you to rate articles on importance as well as the class and not just that it is a stub article. I can't find a page with a description of how a wikiproject goes about creating them and using them but hopefully it's fairly easy to work out otherwise see if another wikiproject which uses a similar template can help. Waacstats (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto WP:BIOG formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of WP:WMNHIST which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stubs risk deletion; nonstubs, not so much. And a way to see when women get too little coverage is vital. Assessments seem to be done by all of the WikiProjects already, so that tool or system seems widely available without having to use someone else's. Subsuming creates invisibility and lowers priority. I hope WikiProject Women's History goes forward. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- What I think I hear you saying is that we'll be better off with an assessment-style scale for quality and/or importance rather than simply an "is this a stub or not?" marking system. That makes sense. I wonder whether it makes sense to piggyback onto WP:BIOG formally-- some kind of joint task force on biographies of women, at least for the parts of WP:WMNHIST which are biography-related. Thoughts, anyone? ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Strongly agree. See my above replies to Skud (1 topic up) for next suggested steps: creating an assessment template out of the Banner template below. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Banner
Let's create a banner for members to add to their User pages and for the Talk pages of articles. In honor of Shane's Cliotropic, should we use a free image of Clio as part of the logo - check these out already in Wikimedia Commons Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
An attempt for the group to discuss Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 | Women's History Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
- If you want an image of Clio, muse of history, why not the painting by Artemisia Gentileschi? She was a painter at a time when women were rarely accepted as such. And the image probably "reads" better. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- * I love the Gentileschi image, though I'm also aware that repeated use of images will place a larger load on the Misplaced Pages servers. Still, let's go with it; we can always change it later if the image becomes a problem. I'll work on creating a "Templates" section in the project nav bar and put some well-tweaked versions of these in it. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- See above discussions 1 and 2 topics up. I love the idea of a banner, and I think we'll be better off to use a banner template with assessment features built in. Feel free to pitch in on that as appropriate. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
and switching to another icon available for Clio - for a userbox (somebody needs to work on color choices!),
| This user is a member of the WikiProject Women's History |  |
Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Template created
OK, I've created a template: Template:WikiProject_WMNHIST ... It's now included above, and you can include it similarly on the talk page of any women's history article. It should appropriately populate relevant categories, I hope! I'm going to experiment with it now. --Skud (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- To follow up... I've now added this to a few articles and it looks like it's working OK. I guess the next step is to plough through the epic list of articles on the project page and add it to each one. To do that, the steps are: 1) visit the article page, 2) click through to "Discussion", 3) Add a line that says "WikiProject Women's History" surrounded by two curly brackets. For example look at Talk:Helen Mayo. --Skud (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that, Skud. Experienced Wikipedians who want to help: can you add some template documentation about how the quality scale works, so non-Misplaced Pages-experienced contributors will understand that not everything has to be automatically graded as a C? Ideally, I think we'd place the template on pages first with a default "unassessed" marker for quality and importance, and then agree on our assessment criteria, then make an auto-generated list of items that need assessing and items in each quality-scale category. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 04:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to do that yet. We can use the default quality scale, as many other projects do: In fact I'm going to copy that over to our own assessment page right now. If/when we need something more specific to our needs, we can deal with it then. --Skud (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clear instructions, Skud. I'm fairly new to this (I'm one of those not-young-not-male contributors that are supposed to be so rare!), so I especially appreciate it. Going through the "epic list" right now, and deleting them from the project page once they have the banner (as suggested). It's pretty easy to work in batches, get a rhythm going... Penny Richards (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
- Penny, thanks for your help; I just saw some of your work in the revision history. This is exactly the sort of small, steady contribution that we need to make the project a success. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 06:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't there be advantages to having the default be "unassessed"? Wouldn't that enable you then to generate a list of unassessed articles within the project, so that an individual or task force could see what needed looking at? If the default is a "C," then you don't know whether this was an automatic rating, or whether the article in fact been judged as needing some work. An alternative would be to have the default be "Start" class, which likewise doesn't imply that it's been actively evaluated. Cynwolfe 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just in case others here were as blindsided as I was, there's maintenance going on that's causing templates to go wacky — wrong alignment, no box outlines, that kind of thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cynwolfe, the default *is* unassessed. If you just type {{WikiProject Women's History}} it'll show up in Category:Unassessed Women's History articles automatically, and then we can go through and do a set of assessments in due course. (Of course if you have an opinion on an article's quality already, feel free to note it. But it's not required.) --Skud (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Tips for New Misplaced Pages Contributors
Are you new to Misplaced Pages? Got a tip to help other people out as they learn? Post it here. (Step-by-step examples, like Skud's description of how to use our project's talkpage template, are especially helpful to many.) ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 06:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Watching pages you care about
You can keep track of what people are doing on the main WP:WMNHIST project page (or this talk page) by marking the "Watch this page" checkbox on any page you edit. Then, you can just check your personal watchlist to find out what's happened recently on the pages you care about. ---Shane Landrum (cliotropic | talk | contribs) 06:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Alphabetizing
I'm trying to alphabetize lists wherever possible, to avoid duplications. Penny Richards (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
Names
I'm finding that a lot of entries that turn up red on the epic list actually do exist, under a different version of the name. I suppose this is always an issue, but especially so for women's names. Just a heads up to check the usual variations before putting anyone under the list of entries that need to be started. Penny Richards (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Penny Richards
Categories: