Archive 12: August 2015 to January 2015

Asian Pacific American Women World Virtual Edit-a-thon

Dates: Friday-Sunday, 4 to 6 September 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual Sponsor: Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center "The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world." Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on). For more information and to RSVP: → click here← --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)

Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Harej (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Shall i post this Azita Raji on DYK?--Nvvchar. 02:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvvchar: Yes please. And thanks for pointing her out and contributing to the article. With her Indian-sounding name, I see she has been widely reported in the Indian press -- which probably explains how you first noticed her. A DYK would bring more attention to women in leadership. I hope you will continue to participate in the editathon.--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now added a sentence to the Indian context. I suggest the following for DYK nomination today. ... that Azita Raji, an Iranian American who was nominated for the post of Ambassador to Sweden in October 2014 was widely reported in the Indian press mistaking her Indian-sounding name?--Nvvchar. 01:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nvvchar: Yes, that sounds fine. I think it should be "Indian press" (lower case p). I've added a ref which should help with the DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I have posted it here Template:Did you know nominations/Azita RajiNvvchar. 08:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ipigott. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Neuroelectrics, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add created biographies to round 3 of Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Maybe we could just include a link to the Outcomes at Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/2. Although up to now I've written quite a number of biographies on women from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain and France, I have not in fact translated any of the articles from other wikis (in many cases there were none) but created them directly from the sources I found. Probably quite a few of those listed in the Outcomes have been translated from the other wikis but it would be quite a time-consuming task to through the whole list. (I've looked at quite a few of them, including some of those already in Round 3, but could find no evidence of translation.) For the time being, I would like to spend my time on creating new articles. Maybe after the editathon we could revisit if you think it's important?--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's articles I've started not on the list at Women in Red.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for your contributions. I think I've now added the others you created. Most people have added them directly to the list themselves. At the end of the editathon, it might be useful to check User:AlexNewArtBot/WomeninredSearchResult for pertinent additions that have not yet been listed. Looks as if the editathon is going quite well - over ten a day up to now.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I hadn't realised a list was being drawn up on the women page. I did look in early days and didn't see anything! Yes, it would be better to include a link at intertranswiki as 74 articles would be a lot to add to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kerstin Günther has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus You should know better than this. What are you playing at? Bloomberg and Spiegel indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Executive profile at Bloomberg indicates exactly nothing, unless you can argue that being included in this database is sufficient for notability somehow (for me it looks like sufficient to prove one is a mildly successful businessperson, but that's not enough for being in an encyclopedia). Spiegel link is broken for me, and my search of Spiegel for her name does not show me any good hits (but I do not speak German). I am afraid I'll have to disagree on this for now - please provide a more detailed analysis of how those and/or other sources are reliable at the AfD (which I'll ping you from in a minute). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kerstin Günther is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerstin Günther until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised at this. Maybe Rosiestep could look at the article and let me know whether the sources currently included really are unsuitable for documenting notability. If so, I'll look into the background in more detail with a view to expanding the article and including more references (as Piotrus suggests).--Ipigott (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source and add a bit to Budapester Zeitung, I'm on the case with Gunther.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few snippets. Thanks for supporting Kerstin Günther.--Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Bourse de Commerce (Paris) back to Bourse de commerce (Paris). The French WP has it as fr:Bourse de commerce de Paris, and so does Mérimée, CCI Paris - Île-de-France, who run the place, etc. If the name is given in French, I think it should have French capitalization. There may be an argument for naming it the Commodities Exchange (Paris), but I think even English sources tend to use the French form for the building, sort of like the Arch of Triumph. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom make changes of this kind unless there is a good reason. Here I used capitals because the lower case "Bourse de commerce" seems simply to be a generic title for all the bourses de commerce, such as those covered by the Législation belge. I would not have changed "Bourse de commerce de Paris" as it is specific to the bourse in question. You will note that the title of the French article is "Bourse de commerce de Paris" not just "Bourse de commerce". To keep both of us happy (and no doubt other language purists), may I suggest you move the article to Bourse de commerce de Paris which I think would be more specific anyway. (You may also be interested to note the capitalization of Bourse de Commerce Européenne, the European Commoditites Exchange.) If you want to use the style Bourse de X (city), then for this one it would be more appropriate to adopt the English usage found in several guidebook sights such as Time Out, Fodor's, and Lonely Planet.--Ipigott (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search shows the most common forms are the indefinite "une bourse de commerce" and the specific "la Bourse de commerce". The owners of the place call it la Bourse de commerce, not "la Bourse de commerce de Paris". The French WP has added "de Paris" to disambiguate it, where in English we would add "(Paris)". I would not strongly object to "Bourse de commerce de Paris", but that is not really its name. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth: You are one of the few editors on Wikipedia that I admire for well researched contributions in areas where I also have a deep interest. I always enjoy reading your articles, especially those in the general area of architecture and cultural heritage. If you prefer adopting French conventions here then I do not think it is worthwhile discussing it further. Please accept my apologies for wasting your valuable time. I will not bother you again on such minor considerations.--Ipigott (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As you mentioned it above, I looked into Arc de triomphe de l'Etoile and see that it is also commonly written "Arc de triomphe" (lower case T in triomphe) in French. Maybe the article Arc de Triomphe should be moved to Arc de triomphe to match the French article fr:Arc de triomphe de l'Étoile? (Don't take me too seriously - sometimes it's good to have a bit of fun!)--Ipigott (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that. I prefer "Arch de Triumph", but may be in a minority. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott. Here are some names which you may (or may not!!!) find worth a stub in connection with your women in leadership campaign:

• Bodil Nyboe Andersen, former Governor of the National Bank of Denmark
• Lise Kingo, former Novo Nordisk Vice President and newly appointed head of United Nations Global Compact (source)
• Lone Fønss Schrøder, former Senior Vice President of A. P. Møller-Mærsk and a board member of many large corporations
• Eva Steiness, founder of Zealand Pharma (source)
• Lisbeth Knudsen, CEO of Berlingske Media (and editor-in-chief of Berlingske)
• Beate W. Bentzen, Group COO of Rambøll (source)
• Britt Meelby Jensen, CEO of Zealand Pharma (Source)

I also wondered if some historic figures such as Ellen Marsvin should be added to the list to add a bit of variety?Ramblersen (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen: Thanks for these suggestions. I'll look into them all and let you know in due course.--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramblersen: Yes, all these do indeed seem to deserve inclusion in the EN wiki. I have added them to the list of red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in leadership. We are now preparing for an editathon on Women in Architecture. I see we haven't even started on Denmark yet. If you have any deserving candidates, please add them directly to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Women in architecture.--Ipigott (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my interested was piqued by the resent deletion discussion, I have reviewed the Category:German women in business. There are five biographies that I have concerns with regarding their notability; this time however I've decided to ask for your 2nd opinion before PROD/AFDing them. Hopefully you'll be able to rescue them by improving their content before I or someone else takes them deletion (I am fully supportive of improving our coverage of women, but notability is not gender dependent...). What are your thoughts on the following: Sylvia Ströher, Anni Schaad, Maria-Elisabeth Schaeffler, Madeleine Schickedanz and Sybill Storz? Can you see any in-depth, independent and reliable sources to warrant keeping any of them? Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: First of all, allow me to comment on your assertion that "notability is not gender dependent". Over the years, I have written literally hundreds of biographies on women. I am frequently surprised to see that some of the individuals I cover have for some reason been deleted from the encyclopaedia, although they are certainly notable. Furthermore, several of the more recent articles on women writers, women artists, etc., are only saved from deletion because of the reactions of other editors. That said, there are of course many cases when articles deserve to be deleted but these are seldom written by seasoned editors. But I am also surprised to see how many biographies of far less notable men somehow manage to survive. So while I agree that notability should not be gender dependent, there seems to have been definite bias against the inclusion of women in Wikipedia. We are trying to rectify this situation but I certainly do not think world-class business executives should be earmarked for deletion for lack of "in-depth" citations (whatever that may mean).

I don't think I should be the only one to judge the notability of articles in which I have played no previous part but as I happen to be compiling a List of women in leadership, I'll look more carefully at the names you mention. It takes quite a bit of time to research each one and add pertinent references but I have now looked at Sylvia Ströher. My first reaction is that if Forbes lists her as one of the richest women in Germany and even in the world (and explains why), she deserves a place in Wikipedia. I see, however, that over the past 15 years, she and her family have also been covered in the German and world press. There is certainly room for the article to be expanded but in the meantime I have included a citation from Der Spiegel. Even if you don't read German, you should be able to get the gist of journal articles like this one by using Google translate or some other machine-translation facility.--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anni Schaad seems notable too, both as a businesswoman and an artist. In addition to the books listed in the citations, you will find many more references from Google books here. Surely you don't expect the inclusion of more of these when they more or less cover the same details.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Maria-Elisabeth Schaeffler, I agree that it was difficult to access some of the sources for the English article. I have updated one or two and provided additional links. She is clearly notable.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Madeleine Schickedanz has recently been extensively covered in the German press in connection with her court case but even if her company declared bankruptcy, she is still a notable figure.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The article on Sybill Storz was indeed pretty skimpy. I have now added a couple of third-party references which cover her "in depth". I hope you will now remove the tags from these five and allow me to proceed with other work in hand. In connection with Kerstin Günther, if you use Google translate, you will see that the articles from Die Ziet, Spiegel and Die Welt all provide substantial background on her. The reason I did not specifically answer your question was that I thought it had been amply covered in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kerstin_Günther. But as I can see you want to play everything by the book, I'll go back in and answer it there. I just hope you don't expect me to go into the talk pages of the other five articles with lengthy explanations.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that notability is not geneder dependent, I was generalizing. I am actually quite familiar and quite interested in this topic; you may also find [1] interesting, through not directly relevant to the discussion we are having here. I appreciate your comments and additions to the cited articles. As we have many more serious problems, and as I am sympathetic to the topic of gender and systemic bias, I'll not pursue them further - I think we can both spend our time more productively elsewhere. I'd, however, encourage you to read my Signpost Op-Ed from April this year, which explains why I think we need to be more active in deleting certain articles. Or, at least, in ensuring that they clearly show notability of their subjects. See also my reply to our dear doctor below. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles are notable and just need expansion. Given the measly state of most Polish articles Piotrus, you of all people should sympathize with that. Shall I start going through the Polish articles, tagging the poor entries for notability? How about Bolesław the Forgotten? A semi legendary figure with one source, if it's that. Mostly all original research. Shall I tag? I thought you were better than this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Since you know he is notable, it would be WP:POINTless (as far as {{notability}}, you may be right about {{original research}}, and if you think this is the case, do go on and tag the article as such). As to why I am doing this, I assume you are failiar with my op-ed in the Signpost. To my own dismay, I find myself spending more time reviewing articles and nominating them for deletion then creating them. I find it sad, too, but I believe if we don't stem the tide of spam, advertisement and vanity entries, in few years Wikipedia may have 10 million articles, and a quarter or more of them will be Yellow Pages or vanity biographies. We need to enforce notability criteria, or we will be swamped. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Glad to see our exchanges have been productive. I have removed the tags from the six articles under discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you could I would appreciate it if you could take a look at and review my noms at TAFI. Some of them needs more input. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: I'm afraid I was not familiar with TAFI and had some trouble finding out what it was. I finally found Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement but could not find a list of nominations. Seems to me this should be included in the links bar at the top. Anyway, with help from Google, I found here some articles you seem to have nominated for improvement but these are dated 10 September. Perhaps you could direct me to the most recent list and provide me with links to the pages where I can provide support. I would also be interested to hear what kind of improvements are expected. Are you just aiming for basic expansion or are you going for GA or more? It would perhaps help if you could just give me the names of the articles which you think need support.--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, [2] is the correct attribution. The study is currently in peer review; has been in it for half a year; sigh. The speed of peer review is... lacking. The study has a meta wiki page at meta:Research:Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index, and me and Max tried to document our research process extensively on it's talk. You are welcome to advertise the study to any wikiprojects and other fora or colleges you'd like. Any feedback is appreciated, through I'd suggest that it has the best chance of being noticed (as in - not forgotten, and incorporated into any future draft) if posted on the meta's page talk (which I'll review if a new draft is asked for by the reviewers). Finally, Max made several blogs on this topic, see [3], and I think he had a Wikimania talk on this recently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks. As it's under peer review, for now I've just posted it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Research. In my opinion, the study deserves to be rapidly reviewed and, if possible, published in appropriate journals. My main concern with the study is that (unless I missed something) it lacks quantative data on the number of articles actually considered under each category. Another weakness is reliance on Wikidata. As you must know, a considerable portion of articles are not yet documented on Wikidata. Those that are often appear more or less by accident because they happen to have info boxes, are tagged with authority control or appear in more than one language. Unfortunately there is still no efficient prompting mechanism for recording basic info on Wikidata for new articles although there have been repeated attempts to get rid of "persondata". Please keep me informed on the article's progress.--Ipigott (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Please keep me informed as well. You may know that I met with Max in July to discuss the work, and I've referred to it in my Featured Speaker presentations at Wikimania 2015 (Mexico City) and WikiConference USA 2015 (Washington D.C.). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a subcategory of Category:Women architects don't forget to remove the parent category. it's probably easier to do it at the same time, rather than hope someone else follows you up. All the best! Sionk (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message earlier - I've been flouncing in and out all day. But you've got it - everything looks fine now. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Antoinette. Just what I needed before going to bed. But you are really the one to deserve my appreciation for the work you've been doing on all those creative, almost forgotten women.--Ipigott (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Geraldshields11: Thanks for keeping me informed of your plans. Cyberspace could be taking on a completely new connotation! I think your idea has potential for media coverage of Wikipedia but it is of course quite unrealistic as a method of preservation. Maybe you should specifically try to attract interest from wide-circulation newspapers and magazines and from internationally popular web media. Even if the project is not supported, media coverage from now on could be useful for encouraging new interest from around the globe. I think you should also look into costing. Maybe money could be saved by a less ambitious approach. Some of the funding could be specifically earmarked for raising interest in science and technology on Wikipedia. I strongly object to your mentioning Islamic State in the proposal. Wikipedia is inclusive. If we start mentioning Islamic State here, we could go on to mention any number of other organizations as threats in other proposals. I suggest you remove it from the proposal before it comes to the attention of the media.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ipigott I responded on the idea lab/project talk page. Thank you. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ipigott Thank you for the support. I appreciate it. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Olga Ravn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Ravn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. valereee (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this in some detail but further support would be welcome. I've also added a snippet to the article with an English-language source which might be more meaningful than all the Danish citations.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but I must confess that I'm not much on architecture generally. I did consider writing an article or two, but honestly don't feel that I understand the subject well enough to write a decent one. Not to worry, though - there will be other edit-a-thons and I shall hopefully have a chance to participate in those.

I'm not really a Ser Amantio - I'm a lyric tenor, and even on a good day I wouldn't want to tackle Rinuccio. (I could probably do him justice, with some training, but would at best be relegated to a career of Handel and Mozart, with maybe the odd Rossini thrown in.) But the character name has always appealed to me, and so I decided to take the plunge and change my username when I had the chance. I used to be AlbertHerring, way back when...but that was long years ago. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've gotten me mixed up with someone - I did have a couple of accounts prior to this one (User:Boccherini's Guitar comes to mind...and there was the one that created Dead Man Walking), but I'm not a Dutch speaker. French and rudimentary Italian, yes, but that's as far as I go without the aid of Google. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Soup of the Gods" - non è vero?--Ipigott (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one - looking it over it appears I used it more than I remembered. Guess I've been around here longer than I thought. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Florence Yoch

added links pointing to Orange County and Pasadena

Helle Juul

added a link pointing to Charlottenborg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your hard work and effort in organizing editathons and invitations for the women project. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, much appreciated - but I have had a lot of help from several others including Rosiestep and SusunW. I'm glad we were able to make so much progress with female architects from around the world.--Ipigott (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a bit more on Martha Levisman for DYK, there's a few hits in google books but usually scraps in Spanish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May have to wait until tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added quite a bit but there are several red links. Maybe they should simply be "blackened" unless you think they are important.--Ipigott (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Thanks for that. Amazing how many red links we turn up isn't it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are a great organizer, Ian, handling so many of the event's details, plus invitation, thank you notes, and so on. Your efforts are very appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree! Well deserved. My little bits of behind the scenes gnoming work pale by comparison. Thank you so much, Ian! SusunW (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, just wait a few days hours though before mentioning the next one ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/NYAS has already been planned, one of the weakest areas I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have conveyed your feelings about this to Rosiestep and others but there's a bunch of at least half a dozen keen contributors who want to go ahead with a three-week virtual event. If it's a weak sector, then it needs attention. I haven't sent out any invitations yet.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a weak sector. I actually had women scientists lined up at the Intertranswiki project for next month anyway, they're still hidden at the moment. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no chance of starting the editathon a few days earlier is there? It's just I have books coming later in the month so might be busy with that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Glad to see you're so keen to participate. We've already moved the "official" start date forward to 8 November but I expect people will start to contribute even earlier, as they did for the architects. So feel free to begin as soon as you wish. You mentioned a tie-up with WP:Intertranswiki. Perhaps you could select some red links for the Stub Focus in November?--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did you move the date forward, was it your idea? I think it's a good idea but I don't know why we don't just make a given month "Women's Science", Women's Sport" month etc and have an editathon within it but people can still continue throughout the month on the theme. Perhaps that would take the edge out of it I don't know, I'll try to contribute a few articles but it will be earlier in the month as I have a load of books coming later on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Rosiestep who suggested it should run for a full three weeks so that the American contributors could also make use of the Thanksgiving holiday. I think it was Pharos who suggested we should also start work before the physical editathon on 22 November. For the time being, the "editathon" label seems to be working wonders and also allows us to associated our work with other initiatives. While we don't get many newbies working remotely, one or two of those from the physical editathons seem to become valuable contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, especially as I consider Women in Science to be one of the most poorly developed areas for women on here, though neither you nor me celebrate Thanksgiving! Oh to be American ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have something similar in Denmark, "Mortens aften" (see St. Martin's Day#Denmark) when we all eat roast duck rather than turkey. And in Luxembourg we also have the All Saints and All Souls holiday on 31 October/1 November.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really? I wish we had it. It's like a second Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Thanksgiving is WAY better than Christmas. Not remotely about commercialism. It is all about the food and family and friends. It takes me 3 days to get ready and thankfully (in the spirit of the holiday) I don't have to clean after the cooking. There can be no greater treat for me than my breakfast of stuffing the following day (though many would argue it's all about the breakfast of pumpkin or pecan pie). SusunW (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I really like about this project is that from time to time it allows us to reminisce about the wonderful times we have spent in other countries. In the five years I lived in Montreal, Canada (1968-72), the Action de Grâce (or Thanksgiving festival) was observed with the same enthusiasm as the US event (despite the rather dismissive Wikipedia interpretation of fr:Action de grâce (Canada) on the French wiki). I will also always remember two wonderful Thanksgiving evenings when I was invited to participate in family celebrations in La Jolla, California during lengthy business trips (sometime in the late 1970s or 1980s).--Ipigott (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would be a nice addition to your talkpage. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←

Ian: I noticed your comment on Katherine Cutler Ficken's page about use of her first name. On the question of using birth vs married surnames for women, Wikipedia's policies and usages don't seem especially clear or consistent. I have gone back and forth on this, but lately have been leaning towards using the birth surname during that part of the career when she would have been known and listed in historical documents under this name. I tend not to use first names at all except to avoid potential confusion, and in Ficken's case chose to do so only to avoid confusion with her father, with whom she worked for many years and who is referenced several times in the first part of the article. I chose Katherine in the earlier grafs as she was not actually Ficken at this point in her life, and it feels like I am erasing part of her history to reference her by her later name. If you know of any Wikipedia resources that are useful on this question, please point me to them.Alafarge (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the birth surname for the period before marriage but I know many editors feel there should be consistency throughout the article. (In this particular case, I appreciate the difficulty, given the fact that Katherine Cutler was the name she used professionally.) Use of the first name does not seem very encyclopaedic. I'm afraid I don't know of any clearly specified rules on the matter. Perhaps SusunW who is good at names can offer some suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alafarge and Ipigott: I rarely use a woman's first name. It seems overly familiar and has historically often been used to designate only personal rather than professional criteria. My general rule is to use the maiden name until marriage if there was a name change. (In the case of many hispanic women whose names do not change, I merely note that sometimes they are known with de Spouse affixed). In the event that a discussion occurs with a spouse or parent of the same name, I refer to the other party by their first name, so that my subject is seen in the light of a professional at all times. For example, in the case of Sue Bailey Thurman, she was Thurman and her spouse became Howard. (You will remember you asked me about this on her file, Ian ;). ) In the case of Ruth Rivera Marín, she was Rivera and her father was Diego, etc. If I do not know when the name change occurred, I typically use maiden name until completion of the section discussing schooling, unless sources are clear that the subject worked prior to marriage. In the case of Muriel Stott, the entire discussion of her career was with her maiden name, as she appeared to stop working after her marriage. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I have the same aversion to using women's first names, for the same reason. I like your tack of reserving first names for family and friends. Thanks to both of you for helpful thoughts on this subject.Alafarge (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I did do a little research on Jewish women in religion and added a few redlinks to the Women in Religion list. I'm not sure how many more I can come up with; personally, I don't feel like working on non-Orthodox Jewish feminists. Thank you for the heads-up about Women in Science. I'll try to help out during the editathon. Best, Yoninah (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A nonfree image was included in Wikipedia:Meetup/Women in Red/4/invitation, which you created, was posted to dozens of talk pages, thereby violating WP:NFCC, since nonfree images may not be posted to talk pages. I have asked for assistance in removing the violations. This is a pro forma notification. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely indicative of the inhospitable climate of WikiPedia. Instead of "hey, did you realize?", take it to ANI. SMDH. Frankly, it is disgusting to me. No wonder editors don't stick around. SusunW (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the message is very unfortunate, however, the reason it was taken to ANI was simply to get ideas from experienced people about what should be done. A notification is then compulsory. Normally when someone is notified as above it means there is a claim that the editor needs to be reined in, but that was not the intention as can be seen at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a no brainer what had to be done though wasn't it? Hullaballo knew it would have to be removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply an oversight. I appreciate the trouble other editors have taken to remove the image from the invitations and announcements. Next time I try to give institutions recognition by using their logos, I'll carefully check the copyright first.--Ipigott (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not double-checking. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to apologize. I had sent it out to the other WikiProjects a few days ago and no one noticed there either.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate!7&6=thirteen Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smallbones. Honoured to be among the few you have congratulated.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this article based on German and Russian translations of web refrences. I have taken her birth date and place of birth from the German Wikipedia page as no other source could provide this information. Please check if the translated versions I have used are in order. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've tidied it up a bit.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Can I now post it on DYK?--Nvvchar. 03:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your contributions to the Women in Red edit-a-thon this month have been nothing short of stellar so far! Keilana (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, Keilana and I really appreciate it. But I am only one of a bunch of editors who have been actively contributing to the exercise. Just look at the stats on User:AlexNewArtBot/WomenScientistsSearchResult.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you some thoughts, as requested. I have a slight concern that my emails are not getting through the ether at present, and if you don't find anything from me in your inbox, would you leave a note on my WP talk page, please? Ever thine, Tim riley talk 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I was trying to email to you:

I've looked, and I must say there is a huge imbalance between the proportions of the Life and the Music sections. But the GA criteria do not require comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the subject: the criterion reads 'it addresses the main aspects of the topic – note: this requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.' On that basis I think it could possibly be a runner for GA, and I'd be willing to review it if nobody else snaps it up first. But it wouldn't take much work to get it from a possible to a probable GA: my tip for beefing up the Music section would be to get rid of the "Selected works" section – selected by whom, and on what basis? – and to turn its contents into prose within the Music section. You could then have a sub-section on the symphonies with a line or two on each of them (see my recent attempts chez Vaughan Williams, if I may be so immodest); another on the tone poems; another on vocal music etc. Doing this would bring the Music section up to a respectable weight at the same time as getting rid of a fairly arbitrary list of somebody's favourites. One could do this in a few hours, pillaging the Grove article [to which I was trying to email you a link]. Tim riley talk 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Excellent advice. I was intending to expand on the music section but it's good to have a clearly defined objective. I'll have it completed by the end of the week.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! I don't think my remarks, above, disqualify me from reviewing the text ultimately put up for GAN, and I'll be in the queue to review it if no other editor bags it first. Tim riley talk 17:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go dream

Thank you for what you do about the composer, - listening to a broadcast about him, En saga by different conductors, now piano op. 41 with Glenn Gould. Sang the two motets today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, I will continue to contribute to WP. Thank you for the words of encouragement... Snazzywiki (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks a lot for assessing some of my newly created articles. Can you please let me know the criteria applied to mark them as start - especially the ones like Triplicane Big Mosque and Zion Church, Tharangambadi have references for all the lines and has ample contents. Thanks a lot in advance.Ssriram mt (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssriram mt: I've looked at these two again and agree they are in C Class. I'll make the change. In future, if you are confident about the C status, you can make the assessment yourself. It's always better not leave the class and importance slots empty. My problem is that I try to look quickly through all the new articles on architecture every day and sometimes don't have time to go through them carefully enough. I note for example that Triplicane Big Mosque still needs some copy editing. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ipigott! Looks like the Rhonda Patrick article ended up being deleted. You can check out the AfD page for Spartaz summary, or, if you think you might have some salient points to add, maybe you'd join my appeal to Spartaz to reconsider! Thanks for some of the points you made on the AfD. Snazzywiki (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snazzywiki for bringing this to my attention. I find the decision to delete this article very surprising given the strong arguments by 10 editors to keep it and what I consider to be rather biased justifications to delete it by only six editors. Maybe Rosiestep and Keilana can also look at the discussion and provide support for reconsideration.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst AFD decisions I've seen in recent years. It wreaks of BLP worry. At worst it would be no consensus. It should be restarted and clearly shown to be acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Thincat's response to your comment? Non-admins are definitely permitted (and encouraged) to participate at DRV; the only difference is that admins can see the deleted content and you can't. This doesn't hugely matter with something deleted after a discussion (you'd have trouble at a DRV for something that was speedy-deleted), since you can offer solid comments on what was said at discussion, what was said elsewhere, etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes am rather pleased to be commenting without being able to see the article - it gives focus to the fact that it is the AFD discussion, not the article, which is being reviewed. Sometimes (Nyttend gives the clearest example) you do need to see the article. If some people at AFD were possibly making factually incorrect statements about the article you need to assess this. Differences of opinion, in my view, should just be accepted. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I took part in the discussion, it looks to me as if those still in favour of deleting the article are becoming more and more entrenched in their original arguments. I don't know how long this will continue but it still seems very strange to me that the article was deleted when so many seasoned editors felt it should be kept.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in religion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here← --Rosiestep (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rosiestep for making the invitation more attractive with the pretty candle and sending it out to so many people. If you are interested, I have been keeping a list of those who have received invitations.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like it. I was hoping the image would draw notice to the words. And as candles/fire/light are a part of many religions, I thought it was a good symbol. Glad you're keeping a list; much needed. Eventually, we might try to do something with all the data (who was invited to what? which invitees actually participated? who wasn't invited but participated?). Maybe develop a participants' survey. Something to think about for 2016. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I've tried to maintain all the individual lists in alphabetical order, so it shouldn't be difficult to compile a table. Maybe it would be more diplomatic simply to avoid mentioning those who were invited but did not participate (we know who they are). There are in fact quite a few early members of WiR who have never been very active. There are also quite a number who attended the physical editathons (or who helped to arrange them) but only created a single article before disappearing. I was wondering if WiR could not open up a special section for listing and assisting new members, maybe with some kind of reward for further participation and encouragement in writing new articles. Our hit rate in retaining newbies is dismally low.--Ipigott (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very nice candle!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks and glad you like it! Hope others do, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first invitation I kept, praise! I would still appreciate a shorter one, perhaps linking to the details somewhere on the project. We are volunteers, with little time, sometimes not healthy, sometimes busy with something like Sibelius (the number of missing, stubby and unreferenced articles on his compositions is heart-breaking, but people spend time arguing about an infobox for him which would hurt nobody but is refused with almost religious fervor). - I am also planning to translate the article on a peace bell. - I will do what I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I am delighted that you liked it well enough to keep it! You may well be a bellweather so it's important for us to give some real thought into the design of WiR's future invitations.

@Gerda Arendt: I am really jealous of the success Rosie has had with the invitation. After suffering your previous reverts, I did not dare to invite you again this time but Rosie succeeded. You may have a point on reducing the size -- some people's user pages seem to be full of our invitations and thank-you notes. I must say, though, we have enjoyed considerable success in building up the number of people contributing to articles about women. And you must have seen that we are planning to cover music early next year. As for Sibelius, I'm glad you've recently started to contribute although it is a bit late in the day for his anniversary. When I was covering Nielsen (who I felt needed special support from me as he was a Dane), I spent months and months enhancing the individual articles on his compositions before working on the main biography. With Sibelius, as he is ten times more famous, I thought I could rely on assistance -- both with the compositions and the biography -- but apart from the excellent work by Sgvrfjs on a couple of tone poems and on the list of works, there is not much to show (except perhaps for extensive coverage of an unpublished eighth symphony). As you have probably noticed, I decided instead to devote more of my time to general support for Women in Red where we are enjoying unexpected success. Good luck with your German translation of Bonshō. We need bells (as well as candles) for Christmas.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, nice chimes ;) - You could do something easy, I think: copy some of the bio to the articles. Softlavender mentioned the Fifth: it has a sad one-line lead. After today's birthday (to be celebrated with music), I will do a bit more: on Tuesday there should be no more red link in the navbox, and articles in it have at least one source. We have three compositions for DYK, one reviewed. - I mentioned the birthday on classical music where they are busy to change guidelines to prevent a footnote explaining BWV (actually: they change the guideline and if you complain say the discussion is ongoing), and on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Yes, it's certainly good to have Voces intimae lined up for the 8th on top of the TFA. The others can follow as they mature. Maybe you are also singing something by Sibelius with your choir? The remaining red links in the nav box take up more space than they deserve. I'll see if I can help with a little blue tinting.--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voces needs a review, also Cassazione, - never sang Sibelius, sorry ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the Finlandia Hymn? It's great for choirs. Voces is already "good to go".--Ipigott (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not much nationalism in my German church choirs ;) - We will sing a work by a Swedish composer, though. - I added 2 blue links, his own Requiem (first written for a political killer) and a protest composition, - all interesting for the bio also, I think, - I find it tough to stop and go to the next, but you are right to not serve them all on the birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: no more red links in the navbox, two hooks in prep, one pictured, - to take a break I will join now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ausgezeichnet, Gerda! Oder soll ich sagen "utmärkt!". Sibelius würde wirklich stolz sein, wenn er wüsste, dass es immer noch Deutsche gibt, die ihn so begeistert unterstützen. I'm still trying to get the biography up to GA. Still 48 hours to go!-- Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are busy and apologize for asking, but can you check this? I think I am good, but am not really confident about it. I originally interpreted that she had founded the only indigenous order in Croatia, but then I have another source that seems to indicate in Rijeka, so I limited it to that Archdiocese. I am also not sure about the links. The only Sisters of the Sacred heart on here seems to be tied to France and a Franciscan order. Hers says it was modeled after a Capuchin Italian friar. I have no clue what any of that is, so I tried to link it as best I could. Thank you for your help, your expertise is always appreciated. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. I'll look at it later today.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is fine as it is. There certainly ought to be a Wikipedia article on Sisters of the Sacred Heart as there have been several communities with that name. There is always great confusion about the names and nationalities of people born in this region which changed hands between Italy, Austria and Croatia.--Ipigott (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there would surely be an article on the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, but even on the Italian page, which totally surprised me, Kozulić's article linked to an order in Michoacán, Mexico, if I recall. I am positive that was not the first of the order. I didn't understand the difference between Capuchin and Franciscan, but thought maybe it was like the Anglicans and Catholics—of the same roots but one more liberal (in the case of the Anglicans that would be the child and in the case of the other, the Franciscans)? In any case it seemed an important enough distinction not to tie Kozulić to the article that is on here about the French order. Yes, not so confusing when you recognize the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire (I must always remind myself how new a "country" Italy actually is). I loved the article Charles01 found. Explains why they went to Trieste and apparently she did not go ther alone, the whole family went. Collaboration is so much fun :) SusunW (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if the traslations from Dutch references are properly used in this article. Thanks.Nvvchar. 08:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this up a bit. Interesting article.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I set up Category:Centralized-plan churches in Italy, but I think there is more that can be done for this category, topic, etc. It has architectural and dogmatic implications. I hope the term is more apt (my prior category had been "Centralized churches in Italy", but in retrospect, that seems vague. I modeled it on octagonal churches in Italy category. I do not know if both these should be along the lines of "Centralized-plan church buildings in Italy"?Rococo1700 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rococo1700, for consulting me on this. I'm afraid I cannot help you very much but Ser Amantio di Nicolao who is an expert on categories may have some advice.--Ipigott (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday!

Jean Sibelius
{{Jean Sibelius}}

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from me too, you ended up doing more than you expected, I'm sure. --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely done, Ipigott, Gerda, and others for your labors on the Sibelius pages in anticipation for the Sibelius 150! I'm so pleased with the improvements that have been made across a number of articles. While there is always more to do, it's satisfying to see Sib finally get the attention he deserves! Hooray for your efforts! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!I just restored your efforts on Tapiola, - please add there, it's one of only two works linked from the Main page. We had two yesterday, and many more to come, Andante Festivo to begin the next year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inner voices

Did you know that Jean Sibelius described his string quartet Voces intimae as the "kind of thing that brings a smile to your lips at the hour of death"?

The stats were impressive on the birthday: 20999 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Yes indeed, surprisingly good. It did even better in page views than Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius). And we'll probably have many more hits today thanks to your Voces intimae (Sibelius) with its image.--Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that yesterday's stats were due to interest from outside Wikipedia which the GA served well! The pictured Snöfrid had twice as many hits as the average Bach cantata, and the quirky one mentioning James Bond even more ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jean Sibelius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you'd consider writing up a few sentences regarding our use of invitation and thank you templates for the women in architecture and women in science events? I think it would be good to add that component to the article which @Megalibrarygirl: is drafting. Suggestions would be: the process behind creating them, distributing them, timeline (how many days before seems best? how many days after the event?), how to select who gets them, and so on. If any part of what you write can be directly quoted, please be specific. If you agree to do this, would you please email it to her? Thanks for considering this request. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: In a nutshell, I think this has been an evolving exercise. I initially simply followed Rosie's suggestion that the invitations should be based on earlier invitations to editathons and that they should be sent to relevant WikiProjects and members of WiR. With each new set of invitations, I tried to include those who had participated in earlier exercises as well as active members of other relevant WikiProjects. I always tried to identify which members of the projects were still active. In selecting which other WikiProjects to invite, I first assessed how active they were by looking at the number of visits to their main pages and talk pages. I only sent invitations to those which were still pretty active. While it is relatively easy to identify editors who have created new articles (with the help of AlexBot), it is much more difficult to monitor those who have made improvements to existing articles. I have nevertheless been able to identify a few of them by checking the individual contributions of those who signed up as participants of each event. The lists up to Women in Science are here. I have not made an analysis of how many of those invited actually contributed or of how many new participants joined in without an invitation. There do however seem to be a number of editors who have consistently contributed to our editathons without signing up as participants or without becoming members of Wir. As for the thank-you notes, I have tried to send them out to all those I identified as participants. In regard to timing, for the earlier events, I think I sent out most of the invitations a couple of weeks before the start but more recently (as suggested by Dr. Blofeld), I first sent out invitations to the other WikiProjects a week or so in advance and then sent them out to individuals just a day or two beforehand. If you need more information or if you find it difficult to interpret the lists, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: I forget to include the list of those who were invited to join Women in Science. I don't know how useful this will be, but I'll also try to put together a crude list of all our editathon participants, indicating which ones they contributed to.--Ipigott (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: I've compiled the overall list which shows we have had 139 participants (up to Women in Science). Only 20 participated in more than one editathon. (All subject to revision, of course.)--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep, Ipigott, and Pharos:, I'll add the info to the article which I'm editing now. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Sorry to keep sending bits and pieces but I've just updated the Women in Science invitations showing which of those invited actually participated. Of the 34 associated with WiR, 21 participated and of the 24 from Women scientists, 6 participated. Many more came in of course, possibly through the invitations posted on the talk pages of 11 WikiProjects as well as from the physical editathon in New York. I think that just about ties things up from my side for the time being. If I can help you out with anything else, just let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott:, you've been a super big help. I really appreciate it. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to put my name down for things, but I will always try to contribute an article or two towards them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In your spare time, when you have nothing else to do, can you check this one? The Dutch site is totally mum on her war record, but I found two newspaper articles and a book (though you cannot access the book pages about her). [4] I picked out the few bits from the book in Dutch I found, but as usual, I don't speak any of the languages I translate. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied it up a bit but don't know which passages you had difficulty with. The English article is a great improvement on the Dutch. The book you mention is in English so there should be no problem.--Ipigott (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest issue was the various "denominations" which I see you corrected. It baffles me why there are so many and what the differences between them are. I also wondered if the Dutch book said anything about her war record. Seems so strange that all of that is only in sources related to Israel, but they are RS and clearly mention both her and VPRO, so I think there is no chance that it is a different woman. Thank you as always. You are a tremendous help. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two items in religion and history which always baffle the English-speaking world. One is the development of protestantism in the Netherlands, the other is the reasoning behind the 19th-century wars in Schleswig-Holstein. Don't try to understand either. There is absolutely no logic behind them. As for the sources you mention from Israel, they are certainly simply related to the fact that Bruining taught Hebrew. Until the establishment of the State of Israel, Hebrew was taught principally in relation to the scriptures. The Israelis are extremely interested in anything to do with the history of the language. From the early 20th century, it was developed into a modern language in Israel. Linguists were brought in to develop a comprehensive new vocabulary based on ancient roots. Now it is indeed spoken as a living language, replacing the Yiddish spoken by many of the post-war immigrants. Since the origins of modern Hebrew in the early 20th-century, there have been enormous developments. There is little in the English Wikipedia on all this but the vocabulary developments are fairly well documented here.--Ipigott (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw my name in your comment on Dr. Blofeld's page. Yes, I'm very involved at DYK, and I'd be happy to nominate anything you think is appropriate. (I also have a lot of back reviews on file to use as QPQs.) Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Thanks for getting back to me. Laurence Tubiana was very important for me as it was she, more than anyone else, who was really responsible for the unexpectedly successful outcome of the COP21 meeting in Paris thanks to all her preparatory work and her organization of the meeting. If you can spare a few minutes, perhaps could read through the article and see if you could suggest a more appropriate hook. As she is a woman (and all those at the centre of the top table on the third photo are men) she hardly received any of the credit due. And while we are in touch, I would really like to thank you for the dozens of DYKs you have promoted recently in connection with Women in Red, especially around Human Rights Day on 10 December. You have being doing a great job helping to promote the project and the role of the women we cover in different fields of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest.
The origin of the statistics of women participation is quite odd. I'm a member of Wikimedia España, in fact I'm the Secretary this year. We asked for a grant and we started collecting data about what we had done. One of our main lines of action is diversity, not only gender gap but also language diversity (eight languages with a Wikipedia are native to Spain) and projects diversity (expanding from Wikipedia and Commons to Wikidata, Wikisource etc). We have a member of the Board devoted to that. So we have diversity oriented activities.
In addition we have a lot of GLAM activities. And during the discussion about the grant the question of gender gap in GLAM activities popped up because our target of female participants was low (20%). I asked the GLAM team member about the real percentage of women in GLAM activities: it was 80%. In fact some editorial activities in museums are done 100% by women. Our initial goal of 20% was the perception that institutions had about their own gender gap, so to say.
We try to contact university people and Universitat Politècnica de València is one of the universities we contact more often. The Escuela Superior de Arquitectura is one of the colleges in UPV. We are very interested in both architecture and in gender gap activities. Our member of the Board in charge of diversity 19Tarrestnom65 is very interested in your writing to her about this matters. She speaks perfect Spanish and Catalan, but very little English. B25es (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B25es for your explanations. I see that 19Tarrestnom65 has developed an interesting page of red links on Spanish women broken down into various categories. Maybe Megalibrarygirl could draw on it for our own lists of red links. Then maybe we can embark on writing articles on some of them together? Our next editathon is on music - so please feel free to provide us with the names of interesting female Spanish singers and musicians we need to cover in the English Wikipedia. You can add them to our list of red links on Women in music or simply post a few here. I'm sure it won't be long before we return to GLAM activities. I worked in the sector for many years, coordinating IT research and development activities for European libraries, museums and archives. We'll keep you posted. I'm also interested in language diversity. I speak Castilian Spanish but can read the other Latin variants without too much difficulty. (Absolutely no knowledge of Basque though.) It now looks as if it may not be too long before Catalan becomes a national language. (Interestingly, it is also spoken in parts of Sardinia.) Keep in touch!--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the list. I think the existence of more redlinks is important. Showing visually how much there is to work on helps people editing wiki see that the issue of diversity gaps are real. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @B25es. It is nice to learn about the activities at Wikimedia España. There seems to be some overlap with your work and that of WP:Women in Red, as well as meta:WikiWomen's User Group (I'm a co-founder) and meta:Wikimujeres. One of the goals of Women in Red is to replicate our work into other languages and I'm keen on making this happen in 2016. I'd be happy to skype with you and your team regarding our work to see how we could better collaborate, or perhaps we could schedule some time in Berlin in April if you will be attending WikiCon. (Thank you, Ian, for reaching out.) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I'm not too sure how keen you are to follow up on these international contacts at the moment. I made some suggestions on the WiR talk page under "Maintenance work" but with everyone pinging you, perhaps you didn't see them.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to it, Ian, as yes, many pings and I'm at a hotel and the internet connection is slow, so I missed the "Maintenance work" one but will read it now. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for always championing my work. You make me feel very proud and happy. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm... Belgian waffles. Great! Thanks very much. Just what I need early on a Sunday morning.--Ipigott (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jean Sibelius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Handel has an infobox for more than a year, and no fancruft or other problems arrived? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ipigott. Hope the holiday is treating you well. I am at work on my En saga expansion but am having trouble uncovering sources for the premiere in June 2003 of the En saga septet arrangement. You seem like a talented sleuth, and so I was hopeful you might be able to find an original source we could cite. Here's some information:

In June 2003, Gregory Barrett (on clarinet)—joined by six musicians from the Lahti Symphony Orchestra—premiered the En saga septet at the Musikverein in Vienna to considerable fanfare: The Austrian-Finnish Friendship Society sponsored the world premiere (a nod to the fact that Sibelius' earliest sketches on En saga date to his Vienna years), while the Finnish Embassy gave a gala reception after the concert.

Thanks! Also, I don't know if you know, but The Oceanides is a FAN. Any comments you might have, I would appreciate. :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather tied up at the moment but will look into this when I have time. Glad to see you are back on En Saga again.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgvrfjs: I've found Gregory Barrett at NIU and Barrettø's cv. Can't find anything on the Finnish reception.

On The Oceanides, as you mentioned me as one of the editors, I don't think I can contribute to the review. I see there are a number of problems with the images. I ran into the same problems with Nielsen. Although copyright is much more relaxed in Finland, it might be useful for you to look through the FAC archive.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this and this.--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I see here that Peter Frankland apparently contacted Barrett about it. Read the blog.--Ipigott (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized I forgot (!) to respond to this message; so sorry for my rudeness! Thanks a ton, Ipigott, for your research assistance on this topic. A couple of these sources I had not yet had. En saga is certainly coming along and may turn out, in my opinion, to be even better than The Oceanides (certainly, there is more to write about with respect to En saga, especially programmatic interpretations by others). Happy editing! :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year 2016
	Looking forward to working with you in 2016! Rosiestep (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year 2016
	Wishing you a very prosperous and happy twenty sixteen, and our continued collaboration on special Wikiprojects.Nvvchar. 04:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your support and wishes, for incredible work namely on Nielsen and Sibelius (2 more compositions in prep), and the women, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Happy New Year to you. If you have time can you give this a read, just reviewed and passed it but I think it could use another copyedit by somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Touched it up a bit. @Rodw: A seating capacity of around 900 is mentioned in the lead but there is nothing in the body of the text. A reference to this is also needed. Interesting article. Pity there are no illustrations of the interiors.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 900 seat + ref to architecture section. They have a no photography rule at performances - but I might try & get myself on a tour & take some pics then.— Rod ^talk 10:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Memoriam (Sibelius) is now on the Main page. A source says that it was played also at the funeral of the composer, - include if worth mentioning. Breaking of the ice to come tomorrow, Andante festivo appeared on New Year's Day, but then nothing until more are expanded ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the invite. I've added a few dozen new red links. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know why the sentence in the 2nd bullet point wraps into a second line? I can't figure it out. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Never mind. On my work computer, there's no wrapping issue. Must be some odd setting on my Mac. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ice breaking
a political statement, DYK?

Thanks for your musical invitation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at this and was inspired with an idea regarding improvement of our record-keeping for event invitees and contributers, and wanted your thoughts about this. Basically, I'd like us to keep 2 lists for each event: whom we invited and who contributed; this is separate from the list of participants who sign up on each event's page. We could place these lists on each event's talkpage, or maybe augment this page? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: Yes, this would be a sensible thing to do. Then we actually need three or even four lists (or maybe columns/categories in the same list): active members, individuals invited, participants registered, actual contributors. I had been hoping someone would suggest a more comprehensive approach to our invitations scenario. I've also maintained lists of those invited to the last two editathons: see User:Ipigott/Women in Science editathon invitations and User:Ipigott/Women in Religion editathon invitations and have kept a list of those who have actually participated in all our editathons at user:Ipigott/Women in Red editathon participants. You may be interested in some of the other WiR lists on my user pages at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Ipigott/. I have a feeling that many of the registered members of WiR never create new articles in connection with our editathons (indeed a few do not appear to be very active on anything!) while several others who are not members are among our most active contributors (see user:Ipigott/Women in Red editathon participants). Maybe after this round we should contact some of them specifically on whether they would like to be listed for future WiR invitations and communications?--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an automated way to send out invitations: WP:MMS.
• You're right, there are 4 editor lists per event. Though earlier, I vacillated on whether we should store an event's lists on the event's talkpage, vs. tracking all lists on a single "participants" page, in the end, I think each event's talkpage should contain its lists. That said, I think it should also contain the "invitation", the "thank you", and the event's comments from the "Ideas Cafe" page. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosiestep: Thanks for informing me about WP:MMS. It's not clear what the lists should look like. Do you have any samples? I suppose we could create a core list but many of the invitations to our editathons are sent out to new potential participants each time. Perhaps we could work together on a method of compiling lists for the future.
• I think we need to develop a fairly straightforward way of centralizing these lists. I would prefer to post them on a central site on participation covering all our editathons. We could also provide links to the pertinent sections from the main pages of each editathon where we could also summarize the essentials.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is an example of the list format needed to use WP:MMS: Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosiestep: Thanks. That looks pretty straightforward. I'll start compiling a list of our regular contributors along these lines so that we can at least partly automate the invitations for our future rounds. The most time-consuming part of the exercise each time is however identifying active article creators in the particular area we are addressing. In addition to the editors I know, I try to find people who have been major contributors over the past couple of months. Unfortunately, most of the historical contributors to each sector seem to have lost interest in Wikipedia over the past two or three years while many of the newcomers do not generally seem to take an active interest in the corresponding wikiprojects. Like you, I use AlexBot as a guide and also try to see which wikiprojects have a reasonable level of activity. I was wondering whether we could add something on our thank you notes requesting people to add their names to our evolving participation lists. We could suggest they they ask to be notified about all our future editathons or only those in certain main areas of interest (which they should specify). If we are going to stick with Project X, we could perhaps get the project to provide an option on the main WiR page for notifications (of editathons and similar events) by sector of interest. Harej might have some suggestions as to how this could be organized. The whole business of administering the editathons actually takes a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately, while I once spent nearly all my time on article creation and improvement, I now find that most of my time on Wikipedia is spent on administrative support. I see that SusunW and Megalibrarygirl seem to be spending quite a lot of time on tasks of this kind too. Perhaps they will also have suggestions on how to improve the organization of these scenarios.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ipigott and Rosiestep: Should be back to normal in 2 more days around my place, but I have managed to squeeze in a few articles. Ian, it seems to me that there are a bunch of people who don't want to be part of a formal structure and that is probably how it will continue. Maybe that's the goal--to have the responsibility be on someone other than them. I like the idea of them being able to say they want to be part of future events, but that still leaves the onus on the project to notify them. It's kind of like tracking. I put the tagging page information on every sign-up sheet, but then I check every article made. Few actually have put the banner page suggestions on the articles created. Even fewer have added their creations to the matrix. So the question becomes are we not communicating well or is it just a choice being made to participate only in certain ways? I have no answers, just observations. SusunW (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ipigott and Rosiestep: I enjoy some of the admin stuff. It makes me feel helpful and like I'm part of a community. That's important to me, I've found. :) SusunW's observations are interesting. Maybe we could do a survey to find out why people do what they do? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for your interesting comments. I think most people who don't tag their talk pages as we suggest are simply unaware of WiR or have never read our editathon pages. I have been having a discussion with Rosie on her talk page about this. So I don't really think it is our failure to communicate -- it's just that on subjects like music where we always get lots of new articles every day, many of them would have been created irrespective of our events. But maybe some of the authors can be encouraged to join us in creating more and better biographies of women and more articles about women's works. The WiR templates on their talk pages should help to spread awareness. I have also been sending editathon invitations to some of the more productive editors on music.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian, @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl: I agree; the 4 of us are spending quite a bit of time on administration/leadership vs. editing. I think the end justifies the means by virtue of all the articles created since WiR's inception. I think some of the processes will take less time as we adapt templates, etc., and as we recruit more people to take on some of the administrative roles within WiR. I also don't think it's a failure to communicate. Rather, I think some people don't want to deal with adding categories, while others do. Some don't want to add talkpage banners, and others do. Some don't want to add articles onto the WiR Metrics page; others do. Some want to formally join WiR; others don't. My first few years on Wikipedia, I was a profuse article creator, but I did not want to bother with talkpage banners, and I didn't add a lot of cats; I didn't join projects, and I didn't write on user talkpages. And look at me now (smiley face). --Rosiestep (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly Rosiestep I do think its a combination in how people choose to participate for the most part. I also agree that if we keep asking for things we either don't want to do or things we do need, that eventually someone will show up to deal with them. As we learn how to best do things, some of the tasks take a lot less time, but some, as we grow, take more. It's always a decision on how much involvement we want to have. For the most part, I enjoy it, so I do it. ;) SusunW (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @SusunW: often, I think we are cut of the same cloth. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosiestep me too. SusunW (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosiestep and SusunW: Great to see so much agreement on my talk page with such extensive sharing of the same cloth for all the banners. It all contributes to a bright start to a new day. Like you Rosie, I was also far less concerned with talk pages and categories in the early days but am now increasingly concerned that they should be widely used. For some reason, Susun seemed to grasp their importance from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've just created Music of Remembrance to resolve a redlink in Mina F. Miller. It's clearly not a woman's music bio, but in a sense contributes to the WiR edit-a-thon. I'll let you decide whether and how you would like to mention it in the WiR records. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mirokado, it certainly qualifies for inclusion. Our coverage of women in music is certainly not limited to biographies. We also hope to improve coverage of their works and related accomplishments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appears right and correct to me now. Sorry for the non-response, but I can't look at things while I'm at the office. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks. There was no rush and in any case I certainly don't expect you to respond at a moment's notice. The funny thing is, I cannot detect any changes.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources on this opera singer. Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: There is this but it contains several references to other sources. It has in fact been compiled by @Nancypolk1:, the creator of the article, who should of course have included her sources in the Wikipedia article. I thought the whole thing might be a hoax but have also found this. There is also a photo here. Several other sources can be found by searching for Amalie Carneri which appears to have been her usual stage name.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great detective work Ian! Love the photo. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There must be lots more in those news clippings but there's nothing on line. Perhaps Nancypolk1 will expand the article or reveal what they contain.--Ipigott (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope Nancypolk1 does come through with more, however, I've seen a lot of new editors become quickly discouraged. Anyhow, I seem to have discovered a few new (to me) awesome editors. Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: Glad to have run in to you too. You might be interested in the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any more sources on her, that would be great. I find lots of publicity, but few articles from here. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I suppose you've seen the Italian wiki article (I've provided a link)? It has some useful lists but not much in the way of sources apart from the external links. There's also this and there's a PDF here (but I know you don't like them.--Ipigott (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Italian article but it didn't have much in the way of sources. I love PDF's my problem is that I cannot plug them into a translator. Without being able to do that, since I am language challenged, I cannot glean them for data. I also try to avoid the person's own web page, as it will surely end up with red flags to the deletionist crowd. Let me see what I can glean from the PDF, if anything. Thank you :) SusunW (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I often find that a person's home page gives clues to further searches. You can translate chunks of PDF documents using Google translate.--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep adding excess, barely related images to it. They do nothing to help the reader. A single image showing the region where she was born is dubious enough, but you'd not add a photograph of London or map of northern England for John Lennon's early life, so I don't see why she should be any different. You state southwestern Mauritania, and people can click the region or cities should they wish. Looks better without the images IMO. I'd remove the regional locator map too myself, but just one image I guess is OK. I'll try to review this tonight.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article to give people an impression of where she was brought up. If you click on Mederdra there's nothing. I though it was important to give people an idea of the place. I know Africa quite well but not many people do. Up to you now. Thanks for helping to improve the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop now and make breakfast. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has come out with a new documentary that's get a lot of traction called Trapped about the slow denial of women's rights over their own bodies which especially effects the poor and women of color. Creating an article for this documentary for Black History month could be one possibility. Just an idea! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Barnstar of thanks
	Thank you, Ian, for creating and sending out the WiR invitations and thank yous for each event, plus compiling potential and actual participant lists. You are appreciated! Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rosie, but I'm just trying to keep the ball rolling. The real satisfaction comes from our successes. Have you seen Women in Red was mentioned in Time?--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't get the ping for this reply to me. Don't know why the system doesn't work the way it should. No; I wasn't aware of that article. This is amazing... Women in Red in Time! @FloNight: thank you for mentioning WiR, and congratulations on your Time interview. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at the thank you note options and give me feedback? Also, I'd be glad to deliver them once we have a list drawn up of participants (hopefully with differentiation for barnstar as previously discussed); just let me know? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: They both look fine to me but I'm not sure whether the second one really looks sufficiently like a barnstar for people to recognize its significance. Perhaps we could make it clearer by including a special heading, e.g. "A barnstar for your active participation", on something along those lines. I can start drawing up the list of participants tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ipigott! Just thought I'd stop in and say hello, see what you're up to. I recently started (wasting time) by expanding the Leevi madetoja biography stub, at User:Sgvrfjs/Madetoja bio. I've kind of lost steam on En saga and The Oceanides FAC. Hope all is well! Sgvrfjs (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgvrfjs: Madetoja is coming along very well. I look forward to seeing it on the main space. Let me know when you move it. As for me, I've been spending most of my time this month helping with the online editathon on Women in Music which finishes on Sunday. The only other major interest at the moment is improving articles on Greenland, starting with the capital Nuuk. I'm sorry your FA on the Oceanides is taking so long. Perhaps I can rally some interest in its support.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for the proposed rally! I have learned a lot, especially that even if I thought The Oceanides was FA quality, indeed it is not! Anyway, I'm pretty disappointed with the Madetoja images available to us, and so I wanted to load up this one (http://itsenaisyys100.fi/persons/leevi-madetoja/): large, clear, and dashing! Haha. But, as usual, I'm a fool when it comes to images and how to load them up properly. I can't tell if this is something we can use since the date says 1930 and I cannot find information on the date of death of the apparent photographer, Atelier Strindberg. Any thoughts? Good luck with Nuuk! Nice to see you've made it back to things Danish. :) Sgvrfjs (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]