Wikipedia talk:WikiWomen's History Month/2015/Outcomes

DYK table

Can't we keep to a simpler format as we did in 2014. Tables are OK when you have an established list but they require expertise and time to edit on a daily basis.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Revert to what you like. I will try a table in my sandbox and believe that it is easier to read, and only slightly more difficult to edit, - doesn't require expertise, only the ability to copy ;) - I would go by DYK appearance, which makes numbering easy, and provides sort by alpha if wanted. I would also include images, and nominations that are not yet reviewed. One goal should be to show them all in March, while last year we had several in April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't a talk page here yesterday, so I asked my questions here Wikipedia talk:WikiWomen's History Month#2015 Outcomes Can anyone help with answers? SusunW (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

For us newbs to these tables, could someone explain what the "DYK no." signifies? The fact that there are duplicate numbers is confusing. Also is "No." in left column just a simple numbering scheme for all table entries or does it refer to approved DYKs vs nominated DYKs? Or?Alafarge (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "DYK no."? "DYK day" means the day in March, no need to repeat the word March on all occurances, I think. The first mentioning of the day has a link to the DYK archive of that day (sometimes the hook appeared already the day before, the day is day of archiving after the showing on the Main page). If there is no date, the hook is approved and waiting to be chosen for a day. If it says "nom" (nomination), the hook still needs a review, reached by clicking on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean "DYK day" and my confusion stems from the fact that though we're barely at March 7th yet, it's showing DYK day up to 9.Alafarge (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alafarge: The set-up people put them in queues days before they actually run. I usually get a notice that it will be running several days before it actually does. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That queue is here, with an index of which set will be shown at what time when. Subject to changes of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the explanations. I'm so impressed that we've already topped 100 new articles for WHM 2015. And I'm happy that my first-ever DYK appeared this month, in honor of WHM. Alafarge (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

New articles and DYK / or DYK

Should the same article appear in both sections? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an expert and still have tons of unanswered questions about these lists ... Wikipedia talk:WikiWomen's History Month#2015 Outcomes but I have listed articles I created in March and submitted in DYK to both categories. Not all articles written are nominated for DYK, but for those who are, seemed to me they fit both categories. If they should be deleted from articles because they are in DYK, feel free. SusunW (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sant'Ambrogio della Massima?

Read a DYK to day about this convent. Template:Did you know nominations/Sant'Ambrogio della Massima. It has a somewhat scandalous history, but was established for and by women. Was not included in the DYK lists and I don't know if that was by design or unintentional. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and include it, - no censoring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Like done SusunW (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation/Surname pages

I'd like to encourage people making new pages about individuals to add those people to appropriate disambiguation pages, especially those for "XXX (surname)", e.g. "Smith (surname)". This helps keep pages from being orphans and creates a finding aid—I suspect it's pretty common for people to search on just a last name when they can't quite remember a first name.Alafarge (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Alison Bechdel featured photo

Where does this go? because it definitely needs to be included in outcomes! Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alison Bechdel SusunW (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: where does this go? It should be on the list, but I didn't know where to put featured photos. SusunW (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Susan. I think it should go in a new section up at the top of Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/2015/Images. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I added a section. There were no Featured Images included in our stats, but I found this link Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March-2015 and added all the ones that appeared to be of women. SusunW (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)