Talk:Q23875215
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — WikiProject Women in Red (Q23875215)
description: wikiproject to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “WikiProject Women in Red” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
Generic queries for organizations
This section is generated using {{TP organization}}
- List of organizations which have WikiProject Women in Red as parent organization (P749) (query)
- List of organizations of which WikiProject Women in Red is a subsidiary (P355) (query)
- Queries based on employer (P108)
- Queries based on member of (P463)
- See also: WikiProject Organizations
- See also EntitySchema for organizations: E98
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
A great confusion
[edit]I think this is an item which makes a great confusion. First of all because mixes different projects in different languages. These projects are not the same, are different entities, have different founders and foundation date, different logos. The only thing in common is they have the same topic: gender gap. I think we need to do something, because this way is chaotic. --Camelia (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Camelia.boban, I think you're right. On the Wikipedias, it's convenient to have the pages connected, but these are separate organizations. This system is a bit like saying that Wikimedia Deutschland is the same as Wikimedia UK, because they're both national affiliates. It's not really true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing These should be the gender gap projects, not the affiliates, as affiliates it's something even more (your example WMDE vs WMUK). But the item puts together projects of non affiliates groups with affiliates as UGs. In a previous work I needed to separate WikiDonne as project from WikiDonne as affiliate, an UG (and could even be another item, about WikiDonne as a Italian association/legal entity). Someone made them together, thinking was the same entity. --Camelia (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Something like this kind of association could be used in case of events/campaigns on some topic, same event organized in different languages. Because the object is the same, the structure and the rules are the same, most of all the period is the same. But projects (as well as the affiliates, however) are so different one over the other, they are not copies in other languages. Every of them (as every of the affiliates, and maybe sometimes the confusion comes from the fact that project and the UG has the same name) have the own particularity: the date when they started, who founded them, which is the logo and so many other parameters (how many editors participate, the activities, number if article written, as more of the times these projects keep metrics), way to do the things, to operate. --Camelia (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. We have to remind people that WikiProject Med Foundation (Q52661450) is not the same as WikiProject Medicine (Q4099686). And it is also true that w:en:WP:WikiProject Medicine is not really the same as w:it:Progetto:Medicina, even though both of them, plus 53 other past and present groups of editors, are linked at WikiProject Medicine (Q4099686).
- I think it is uncontroversial to split the affiliates away from the editors' groups. But what to do about the separate editors' groups? Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), is there a good answer for us? Is this part of the one-to-many linking problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- Something like this kind of association could be used in case of events/campaigns on some topic, same event organized in different languages. Because the object is the same, the structure and the rules are the same, most of all the period is the same. But projects (as well as the affiliates, however) are so different one over the other, they are not copies in other languages. Every of them (as every of the affiliates, and maybe sometimes the confusion comes from the fact that project and the UG has the same name) have the own particularity: the date when they started, who founded them, which is the logo and so many other parameters (how many editors participate, the activities, number if article written, as more of the times these projects keep metrics), way to do the things, to operate. --Camelia (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing These should be the gender gap projects, not the affiliates, as affiliates it's something even more (your example WMDE vs WMUK). But the item puts together projects of non affiliates groups with affiliates as UGs. In a previous work I needed to separate WikiDonne as project from WikiDonne as affiliate, an UG (and could even be another item, about WikiDonne as a Italian association/legal entity). Someone made them together, thinking was the same entity. --Camelia (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)