Talk:The Women You Have Never Met

The page for organizing the contest is ready in the following link Check it and let us know your thoughts on the discussion page!

Editing rules

Anna Torres (WMAR): First of all, let me say how much I welcome any initiative designed to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia. But while I agree that articles about women should highlight the individuals' achievements in their own right and not simply as spouses, I think the rules as they are presented at the moment fail to take English-language practice into account. Many (if not most) articles about women from the English-speaking world identify them in English by the name most frequently used in the literature which usually coincides with the name by which they are generally known. Indeed, most biographies of married women (particularly those of historical importance) begin along the lines Alpha Beta (née Gamma)... If we were to follow your rules, the article might be listed as "Alpha Beta" but it would begin "Alpha Gamma". That does not appear to me to be a sensible way of presenting a biography. It also seems to me that the rules might have been translated from Spanish. Some might apply more directly to Spanish than to English, especially as Spanish has quite different naming conventions. I think this needs careful attention and a degree of revision for each of the languages you address. But I am certainly in favour of extending coverage of any initiative or contest on women's biographies to the other languages of the world. FloNight should be able to help with revising the rules for biographies in English. I would also suggest there could be close collaboration with EN WikiProject Women in Red where multilingual extensions for March have been under discussion for some time.--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ipigott.

First of all, sorry for my late response. I have been out for Christmas holidays with my family in Spain! Now I am back in the race! :)

Thank you so much for your recommendations. You are right! These group of 6 indicators/rules have been set by editors for the Spanish Wikipedia and have worked for the last two years of the contest. We believed we have increased not just de quantity but the quality of the es Wikipedia. But as you say, this group of indicators, might not work for other Wikipedias. That's where we need your help! I have followed your recommendations and contact FloNight, but would be so great to have you input too. I am going to add another section where to place different indicators for other languages as English, and would be great to have your ideas and opinions there.

Hope you are interested in participanting! Hugs--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that these need to be tweaked to reflect differences between English and Spanish as well as conventions on the English Wikipedia:

• I don't know if it's the same on eswiki, but on enwiki article introductions (leads) should summarise all the major points of an article. If a woman's marriage or partnership with their spouse is a notable aspect of their biography (and I can think of many examples of this), it should be mentioned in the lead.
• While I agree they shouldn't be introduced into the article body without good reason (e.g. "ABC was the first woman XYZ"), constructions like "women writers" are used extensively in enwiki's category structure and in project space. These shouldn't be removed because they're very useful for tracking gender disparities in our coverage of certain fields.
• Diminutives don't seem particularly relevant as they're much less common in English and should never appear in a biography anyway.
• Again, adding images of a spouse or male relative to a biography of a women could well be relevant if their relationship with that person is a notable part of their life.

At the same time, I can think of a few English-specific style issues that might be added, like avoiding the use of feminine versions of nouns (actress, comedienne, etc.), or encouraging singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun.

But as Ipigott says, a commendable initiative! Joe Roe (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joe Roe,

Thank you so much for you comments. Would be so great if you can add those english-specific style issues to the list in the main page? It is super useful all the comments you have added here :) Thanks you so much! Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Anna Torres (WMAR) Thanks for getting back to me on this. I'm certainly prepared to help you along. Just let me know exactly what you would like me to do.--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott,

Would be great if you can add your comments on the main page regarding the inclusion of the gender perspective while editing in the English Wikipedia!! Does it make sense to you?

Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have really experienced all the problems you mention for Spanish although I certainly agree that notable women should be presented in their own right, not simply as the wife of a notable male. Maybe SusunW would like to look through this and perhaps suggest a set of rules for the English wiki. She is a highly experienced researcher and is conversant with the problems of the naming conventions for women. In any case, it is probably better to have a woman's perspective on this.--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hello all. I work in both Spanish and English (as well as a gamut of other languages), though I only write articles in English as my written skill with language except English is poor. I would agree in the sense that in Hispanic cultures it is a boon on the one the one hand that women keep their own name. On the other hand, it can be an issue if they operate in a global sphere. For example on Emma Catalina Encinas Aguayo (en) (ECEA), it was by using my knowledge of differing naming conventions that I discovered her long affiliation with the PanAmerican organization. Her papers were indexed under Suarez, her husband's maiden surname. I think it is much more difficult to use "standard naming conventions" for women than the guidelines of WP provide. In my own work, I try to name the article whatever the majority of sources indicate. In the case of Emma Encinas, her original fame as a pilot almost always called her ECEA, thus I named the article that. But once I discovered her second career, primarily as Emma Gutiérrez Suárez, it became a dilemma as to what to call the article. Weighing the sources, I finally determined that the majority of sources, still leaned toward ECEA, so I named the article that (but in the lede put her other professional name.) The same for another Spanish woman Marquesa del Ter (en), whose given name was rarely ever used in any sources. Her title, as in the case of many other noblewomen, was the most often used appellation in sources.
• I would say that it is important to reflect who she was at any given time. Rather than applying some arbitrary "standard", follow the sources. If she was born Emma Catalina Francisca Guadalupe Encinas Aguayo say that. If her name changed when she married, say that. If she subsequently married again and changed her name, say that. (I wrote an article on a scientist who married 4 times and published articles under all of her varying surnames. Trying to call her one uniform name would have lost a great many of her publications). On the other hand, if she was Elizabeth Taylor and married 7 times, but never changed her name, the biography should call her Taylor.
• I never call a woman by her first name (it is too familiar, and infantilizing). Refer to her after introducing her full name, by a surname, unless it would be too confusing. For example on Carmelite Brewer Christie (en), she worked with her husband throughout her career. It was impossible to distinguish which Christie without using the first names. But, as a general rule, the woman should be referred to by her surname and the men in her life by their first names, i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton would be referred to as Clinton and her spouse as Bill, or the president. (The article, is not about the peripheral people in her life).
• It is very important to utilize redirects on "name-sames" particularly if they represent a significant name in the career. For example on ECEA, I made redirects for Emma Gutiérrez Suárez and Emma G. Suarez. Because if one only knew of her name from her work with the PanAmerican Round Tables, they might not tie her to the pilot.
• When looking for sources, I look under every possible combination of a name, for example, Emma Encinas, Emma Catalina Encinas, Emma Catalina Encinas Aguayo, Emma Catalina Encinas Aguayo de Gutiérrez Suárez, Emma de Gutiérrez Suárez, Emma G. Suárez, and of course, Mrs. or Doña Gutiérrez Suárez. One would be amazed at how many references one can actually find, because like it or not, women are often hidden behind the men in their lives.
• I hope these random thoughts explain the conventions I try to utilize and are useful. SusunW (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

SusunW, Ipigott, and Joe Roe This contest gives us a chance to make editors aware of issues that commonly occur on Wikipedia English in biographies of women. And this is a great opportunity to influence people to create articles with less gender bias. So far, we have identified

• issues around naming (which I agree is at the top of the list of issues to address.) Thank you SususW, for addressing some aspects of the problem and pointing out that women are often hidden behind the men in their lives.
• avoiding the use of feminine versions of nouns (actress, comedienne, etc.), or encouraging singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun.

If everyone agree, we'll add these two to the main page. We can continue to think of a few more. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sydney Poore/FloNight,

Ok for me! You can add it! What do the rest of you think about it?--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@FloNight: I agree comedienne should be avoided but I'm not so sure about actress (as it is in such common use) or for that matter, in some contexts ballerina or prima ballerina which is far more than a mere ballet dancer. Particularly in regard to awards, best actress is not the same as best actor. To take the example of Elizabeth Taylor, the article introduces her as an actress and businesswoman. Would it really be an improvement to say she is an actor and buisiness person? I'm afraid I could never bring myself to use "they" as a singular pronoun. If in doubt, I would say "he or she" or even "s/he" when referring to a Wikipedian of unknown gender. But I recognize that particularly in North America, "they" is increasingly used to avoid offence in connection with LGBT. --Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@FloNight and Ipigott: I'd be in favour of adding those to the list. Many style guides now advise against feminised occupations and titles so while it's *a* common usage, albeit not the most conservative one. To clarify I think the idea applies to situations where there is a generic, gender-neutral word and then a female version (which are more often than not back-formations from when women entered a traditionally male-dominated field), e.g. actor/actress, comedian/comedienne, Police Constable/Woman Police Constable; rather than where there are exclusive male and female versions, e.g. businessman/businesswoman, ballerino/ballerina. Actor vs. actress is a bit of a flashpoint[1], but we should at least respect the opinion of the person; I notice that en:Whoopi Goldberg describes her as an "actress" even though she has publicly stated that she dislikes the term and considers herself an actor.

@SusunW: I recently wrote a stub on en:Margarida Davina Andreatta and struggled to decide how to title the article and how to refer to in the text. Maybe it would be helpful to borrow in the other direction and incorporate some of the advice here, and your own experience, into an enwiki naming convention on Spanish and Portuguese names (if there isn't one already – I couldn't find one). Joe Roe (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My comments related to that one. In Portuguese, "official" surname is usually the last surname, i.e. in your example, sources refer to her as Andreatta. {{Portuguese name}} might be helpful. In Spanish tradition, on the other hand, the surname in Spanish is usually the first surname {{Spanish name}} However, in Latin America and the Caribbean, this is sometimes blurred depending on if the families are of Spanish or Portuguese heritage. A family of Spanish origin living in Brazil might use the Spanish double name system and one of Portuguese heritage living in Puerto Rico might use the Portuguese naming traditions. It's complicated, so I stick with the rule of following the sources. I always include the double surname somewhere, usually as the birth name, as it helps distinguish which person. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

To take Susun's example of Eliabeth Taylor, I personally prefer the current version introducing her as an actress and a businesswoman than saying she's an actor and a business person. If we develop rules for Spanish and Portuguese names, we should do the same for Russian and similar Slavic languages as the English conventions are quite different. But I think what we need here is advice on how to present women in their own right rather than emphasizing their role as wives, daughters, etc. If a woman is generally known by her married name, then I think the article should use it. I don't think anyone would want to change Marie Curie to Marie Skłodowska or perhaps Marie Skłodowski. Surely the name most commonly used is the rule of thumb for the EN wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am reminded of my recent interaction with the international women's pilot association. Two different correspondents were "highly offended" that WP did not call them by the "correct" title of aviatrix/aviatrice. Sometimes in attempting to be gender neutral, we draw the line too finely. Again, I don't think rules can apply, if someone calls themselves an actress, who am I to question that? I am also with Ian on the pronoun. Using a plural pronoun to stand for a singular person goes against my grain. I follow the sourcing. If sourcing says he, I say he; if it says she, I say she. If it uses they, I grit my teeth and use they. As for the Russian and Slavic, I usually ask Ian. I have found that some editors will change the name to reflect gender and others will change it to be neutral. Sometimes it is just necessary to include a section explaining the transliteration of the name, as it is given in multiple ways in multiple sources. Recently on a Chinese article, I had to consult with someone fluent in Chinese to confirm that Cheung Sui Fun was the same as Zhang Ruifen, the difference being Cantonese vs. Mandarin. With equal amount of sources I opted for the name she was known by in the U.S., Katherine Sui Fun Cheung. Another quirk I have discovered is that with Asian names, typically surname is first with given name last. If there are no English sources, I follow that pattern. In Russia and many former Russian countries surname is also first, but when translated into English it always follows English naming patterns. Why is that? One other note, women should be added back in to the lives of the men they interacted with. It is amazing how many men's biographies do not mention the significant women in their lives. Be it wives, daughters or mentors. It doesn't just happen with biographies, yesterday an editor corrected the history of a prestigious law school, which historically was a women's college. The founding of the school had been left out of the school history on WP with the article beginning when it became a coed institution. Women were part of history, our story has just been erased or conveniently left out. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

About the rules and implementation

Hi, looks like a great initiative and contest idea! I am currently working with various Indian language Wikipedia communities and doing research on the gender gap issue in Indian language Wikipedias. I would definitely like to join this initiative but just want to have a clearer vision of how the contest would work (ex. would there be a set rule for all international participants/organizations, or should each organizer develop rules as per local context?). To elaborate more, a few questions I have in mind...

1. What is the difference of this and a Women in Red Edit-a-thon (which we often do in March anyway) aside from the fact that this is a contest?
2. Is there a specific theme? Or can people just edit anything women-related in general?
3. Would there be a established rubric for grading? What is the length/standard that contestants should try to reach?
4. How would you register contest participants?
5. By stating the contest aims at "(i)mproving the quality of Wikipedia by incorporating the gender perspective in the edition," I am guessing editing existing articles (rather than creating a whole new page) may also be considered in this contest? Or is the contest for page-creation only?

I am really interested in holding the contest for Indian communities but would need more details before organizing and advertising. I know it's still Jan but time flies and I really want to make the most use of Jan and Feb to spread the words. :) Elisachang (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Elisachang,

Hope my response doesn't come too late! First of all, thanks for your message :)!

Let me go question by question

1. There aren't many differences. Women in Red is a role model project for the rest of the movement initiatives regarding gender. However even though the contest is about women we also encourage the participants to create and edit articles regarding women's movements or feminism paradigmas. As well, is a great excuse to set some rules to start including the gender perspective within the different Wikipedia. In this sense, reviewing articles is accepted as articles improved for the contest.
2. There is not a specific theme. However as we are involving many different countries we hope the contest to be a great opportunity to share and spread women's history within the different Wikipedias.
3. Yes will be. We are working on that :)
4. This meta page has been created to organize the contest in the following months. As happens in other activities as Wiki Loves Earth, per example, there is a main page and the pages per country to encourage the local participants. So, probably we will create the contest main page ready to be translate it by everyone interested.
5. You are right! Existing articles are more than welcome!

Hope my answers have helped you understand what it is about! And I have my fingers crossed to have you involved!

Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Anna Torres (WMAR),

Thank you for the response! Just wondering how the progress is going for the contest main page and the guidelines? We are all very excited to participate. Please let me know if you need any volunteer help :) Thank you and all the best! --Elisachang (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, here you can find the meta page Now you have to create the page in Wikipedia :) Let me know if the process is clear for you? Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyond the Encyclopedia

I would like to draw attention to the other Wikimedia projects that, unfortunately, also reflect lack of women's influence. I would like these added to your participants. I shall be bold. Maybe it should be another category than other?

I am a Wikisource person (an avid proofreder) and would really like to see more historical documents reflecting feminism especially but also to see more public domain women writers' and translators' work available on Wikisource. The Women Portal and Women authors Category shows what we have so far. There is quite alot. It would be good to use them in context as references in Wikipedia articles.

These documents and works could serve as inspiration for Wikipedia articles...

I would be very interested in creating a bibliography of relevant public domain writing that would serve to direct additions to Wikisource documents. Perhaps as part of, or linked, to the Portal Discussion page? The first step would be to see what is already referenced in Wikipedia but then it would be open to discussion of which works are most important.

Also needing attention are bias at Wikiquotes, Wikiversity and Wikibooks.

My experience is that these other projects are a lot less intimidating than Wikipedia. The content is less contentious. With Wikisource, there is no contention about content ready for proofreading. This enables newbies to learn editing skills before stepping into the fray with regards to content. It is a gentler introduction to Wikipedia-ing and worth promoting to get underrepresented groups into editing.

I would be very happy to help any newbies to Wikisource. I would appreciate encouragement in my Proofreaders' guide project,as in tolerance of its chaotic, but comprehensive content.

--Zoeannl (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

About gender indicators

This will POV? "Avoid using ...", "Avoid defining..."?--Shizhao (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Shizhao:. The draft version was written in Spanish Wikipedia. We -Spanish speakers- have "problems" with the nouns: in Spanish exists two words based in the gender (in example, for writers, we had escritor -male- and escritora -female-). We will remove the main indications from Spanish Wikipedia and Meta to be more clear with the contest idea. Regards Superzerocool (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unclear campaign wording

The introduction in the promotional banner is unclear - I think it should lead with a brief explanation of what on earth this thing is, rather than "we are working to make it [what?] a global initiative". I had to dig into the subsections of this page to figure out what it was about. At least some of the issues the project attempts to address appear to be specific to gendered languages - e.g. "It is not necessary to say "woman writer" when "writer" already includes gender." doesn't apply to English (although the author's sex may still be irrelevant unless there's a specific reason to raise the topic).

On a separate note: if "sexist patterns" represent the actual common use of language in a particular society, shouldn't Wikipedia accurately reproduce those patterns in articles on topics closely related to that society, just as it uses, say, British English spelling for British topics? I appreciate this may be a controversial viewpoint, but we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not change the world. GreenReaper (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GreenReaper. At the top of a page I follow, I read

We are working to make The woman you never meet a global initiative! If you are a chapter or user group's member and you are  
interested
in launching the woman editing contest from March 4th to April 9th, please add your organization in the following Meta-Wiki page.
                                                         —.     .    .

It's not clear which part of "The woman you never meet a global initiative" is the title of something. The linebreaks are odd. I guess that the "woman editing contest" is a contest involving articles about women, but that's not the first thing that comes to mind. "the following" must refer to a fourth line, which is barely visible. And when I followed the link, I found a page which is largely incomprehensible, e.g. "The gender gap is present in the edition, which in many cases reproduces sexist patterns", perhaps because it's been machine-translated from Spanish. Maproom (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear GreenReaper and Maproom!

Thank you for your comments! As you can image we are not english native speakers, so sorry in advance if the campaign didn't make sense to you! We are now working to change the banner for this: From March 4th to April 9th join the woman editing contest "The woman you never meet"! If you are a chapter or user group's member and you are interested, please add your organization in the following Meta-Wiki page. Thank you!

Does it make a better sense to you? Thanks in advance for all your help! --Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That does make more sense. Perhaps I'd use "the women you never meet" because we're presumably talking about more than one article, or maybe "met" rather than "meet" if we were talking about the past tense; but it sounds much improved now. GreenReaper (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see the "Doing" tags at first when I went to edit.

Jan sewi (talk)!

inappropriate use of User page?

I realise that this is all in good faith and that we have gender issues in Wikipedia, but why not approach people and organisations in this strange way? As per WP:NOBAN, I don't understand why this banner has appeared on my user page. I think a message on User Talk would be a more appropriate way to approach individuals. If the desire is to have chapters commit to the campaign, then surely contacting the chapters directly is the appropriate way to apporach them (there is a chapters mailing list, so one email does the job). I am a chapter member but that doesn't put me in a position to commit my chapter to any involvement. Kerry Raymond (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Finally, what does the "Woman You Never Meet" mean (has the meaning been lost in translation)? I am very much the woman you meet if you attend any Wikimedia Australia event in my part of the world. I do real-world training, organise meetups, etc. It seems to imply that women are or should be somehow out of sight, which is surely not what appears to be intended. Maybe we can work on the name. Kerry Raymond (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kerry! I see. We thought it could be a great initiative. But he have already ask to remove it! Sorry in advance!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole setup seems a bit confusing

A contest seems to me to imply competition when surely we want to encourage collaboration? E.g. a collective goal for X more new/expanded articles about women (or women-related things). Also I am a little bit unclear on the women vs feminism. They aren't the same thing. Similarly we appear to be confusing the goal of article content about women/feminism with the goal of increased participation of women. I am a women editor (proud to be one, etc) but my interests are Queensland history, geography and biography and I'm currently working on a set of 1700 articles about heritage-listed sites in Queensland. I have nothing against writing about women, of course not and of course I do from time to time, but it's not my "special topic" area and I get tired of people (many of them women!) assuming that I am or should be writing about women's topics; let's stop this stereotyping right here and now. If the goal is to get more women contributing, then we should be indifferent to the topics they write about. If the goal is to get more content about women, then we should be approaching contributors of all sexes to be part of it. It is equally stereotypical to assume men don't/won't/can't write about women. And, of course, we don't know in general the sex of contributors, many do not reveal it. I would suggest having one goal (and I don't really care which), not two. That leads to a clearer understanding of who to involve and how to structure the activities that will lead to the goal. It should also lead to a clearer communication plan - who do we want to reach and what do we want to say to them? Kerry Raymond (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi dear Kerry Raymond,

We have taken into consideration you comment. Thank you so much for pointing it out! If you check now the objetives we have kept two of the three that originally were written. As you say, there is not a clear and positive relation between editing about women and having more women become editors. As your case there are many women in the movement doing great job in different areas of expertise and more over, we want both, men and women to participate!

Thanks again!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please sort out the title?

This edit changed one instance to "The woman you never met", which I think is actually a better title if the intention is to cover history. (Otherwise, as mentioned above, it seems to mean that women should be invisible.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sminthopsis84,

After talking with so many english speakers they told us that a better name could be "The women you have never meet". Does it make sense to you too? :) Thank you for your comment! Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Grammatically "the women you have never met" is correct although "the women you never meet" is also grammatically correct but has a different meaning (the first means that you have not had the opportunity to encounter these women prior to this time, the second implies that you would not expect to encounter the women at any time), but neither seems to make sense here. Is the campaign name talking about creating articles about women you have never met? It is talking about engaging women as contributers that you have never met? Is it trying to play on the quote "There are no strangers here; Only friends you haven't yet met" in some way, implying that although we will not meet one another, we will work together as friends. If the goal was content creation about women that history has overlooked, maybe "The Women You Have Never Heard Of" would be the English expression. Kerry Raymond (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Kerry Raymond: the main contest idea is about create new articles, not engaging woman to create articles, so the English title could be "The Women You Have Never Heard Of". There is a misinterpretation from Spanish, because the original title is "La mujer que nunca conociste" and it was literally translated. Thanks! Superzerocool (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

With the narrowing of focus mentioned by Anna Torres, this would make more sense. Although "The Women You Should Have Heard About" might be more appropriate as it emphasises that these are notable women. I think the danger of "The Women You Have Never Heard Of" is that it might invite the sarcastic reply "because they aren't important". Kerry Raymond (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If they weren't important, there probably won't be reliable sources about them to write the articles. I'd avoid the use of the word "Should" as in the context of an editing drive it implies that the POV of the editor is relevant to whether you hear of them. GreenReaper (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that The Woman You Have Never Heard Of is a more appropriate translation because it means The Woman You Have Never Heard Of even if she has a lot of relevance and notability. --Jaluj (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Rules

I believe that is important to add something like these:

Try to declare your participation in the contest as soon as possible. Surprises within the last days in the form of many suddenly inserted articles will not be accepted. Do not stake out different unwritten articles like stubs with templates "In use" or "Working". If it look like the author seem to switch to other articles all the time will not be accepted. Articles written during the contest but inserted into table after its end will not be accepted. That kind of behavior generates stress, tension or irritation.

What do you think?

--Jaluj (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jaluj,

Thanks for pointing this out! This page is not about the rules of the contest - we are working on this right now- but to know how many chapter and user groups might be interested in organizing the contest. Of course, we agree with your comment that we are taking into considerations! Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Logo?

Is there a logo for this campaign? If so, I'd like to add it to our meetup page. Thanks, --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

We are sending the logo asap! Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi here is the logo--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

double site but not double updated?

Hi everyone, I saw just now this site. Before today I knew only this site (2018!). Most of the information is duplicated. What shall we do? I don´t like to work on two nearly identic sites/places. Iva (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)