Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Contests


 * This is a main page for brainstorming contests. I would greatly appreciate input by others, particularly women editors, so together we can come up with designs which benefit a range of causes and are highly tuned to appeal to the maximum number of people. Anybody interested is also welcome to propose their own contest/challenges/ideas in sections below and ask for input.

The main brainstorming and development work for women contests will be started here. Discussions to be held here on contests and potential ideas.

A contest about US women with a grant from Wikimedia DC

 * WMDC have raised $1250 I believe to launch a contest for the whole of the US, covering all 50 states and Puerto Rico and Guam. We're aiming to run this contest March/April 2017. No rush on this, but in the next few weeks if we could start to have a central discussion on developing this here I would appreciate it. The main discussion for this can take place in January. We can afford to take it easy for the rest of the year, so heavier discussion can wait until after Christmas, but some brief initial thoughts on type of contest/scope would be appreciated.

Discussion
I've long wanted to see a contest for the US. Covering all states would be wonderful to see. From my perspective I would prefer it if it was a general contest as we badly need articles improved for many places and topics in the US, particularly geography related. We've got what 180,000 stubs for the US? Do we run a Destubathon to allow for both destubs and new articles like the Africa one? Or a pure women creation contest for the US? I think it should be a general Destubathon but give the best prizes to editors who flesh out and create the most articles on women? Further thoughts please, but we can be relaxed about this over the next few weeks as the money is already there!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It was nice speaking with you about a US-women-diversity contest,, following up the announcement of it at Sunday's WMDC annual meeting. Here are a few details. (cc: ) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sponsored by WMDC and I'll facilitate
 * Approved funding: US$1,250
 * Geo scope: US 50 states, plus DC, PR, and Guam
 * Focus: women, especially women of color
 * Undecided: (a) new article creation vs. destubathon vs. GA/FA component; (b) prize distribution, e.g. by state, by occupation, etc.; (c) start date and duration, but March or April seem promising for different reasons; (d) etc. etc.

Thankyou Rosie, good speaking to you too. Might depend on how many people are willing to help run it. A general contest like WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon is a lot of work to run without numbers, requires more judging work, but that covered all types of article improvement up to GA level. For me, given that we have 180,000 odd stubs, and already have a fair number of GAs and FAs for the US, we should make it the US Destubathon, but like with the Africa Destubathon allow new articles on women only, so you effectively cover both. Let's see general content improved for the US, and some of those existing poor quality bios on women cleaned up too. I would be willing to help draw up a core article list for the US in January-February with support, so you could probably find important articles to destub and cleanup and target those. So would benefit the Women in Green cause too. If we make it a Destubathon, a simple expansion requirement with 1.,5kb total prose etc, that's easier to check and judge, so if there's a lot of articles it's possible we could build in a rule in which editors have to check one article, rather like QPQ with DYK. Why not give a small prize for the editor who approves the most articles of other editors done in the contest?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, this contest grant doesn't cover US content in general. It is approved to focus on US women in the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I misinterpreted US women-"diversity" as meaning general! $1250 is certainly more suitable for a pure women contest than a general one and will make it easier in some ways. You know the Africa Destubathon offered $20 per country and some larger prizes and look what happened ;-) Possibly an idea might be 52 x 20 for each state, most destubs and creations, whoever does the most articles for the most states wins the contest. The remaining $200 could be split into a few prizes like Most new articles created, most women destubs overall etc. This looks promising I think, certainly doable!♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I really liked the structure of the Africa Destubathon with the most articles improved for each country winning a prize. I think the prospect of dominating a single country intrigued more editors and boosted participation more than did Awaken the Dragon, etc., where only the top couple of people earned prizes. I'm inclined to focus more on destubbing, as there are about 20,000 stubs in WP:Women, than on article creation, but I don't know how much trouble there is with AFD, etc., with the various WiR editathons to really judge how much extra work that would be for the judge(s). I'll also throw out the possibility of splitting the prize money and running two smaller contests, each focusing on a different thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Re the diversity component, bio of a woman of color, it could be scored with double points or something like that?
 * Destubbing is extremely important, and though we launched Women in Green in June, we haven't done a full court press on article improvement, so maybe this contest could champion that effort. I'm equally fond of new article creation, but destubbing wouldn't preclude it as an article could start as a stub with the first edit, and be destubbed with subsequent edits.
 * , I'm intrigued about the idea of two smaller contests. Ideas? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, double credit for women of color is the easiest way to handle that sort of thing, I think, in the context of a larger contest. I think of a destubathon as something to improve already existing articles so new articles is a separate thing, IMO. Couple of different ways to separate the topics of multiple contests, really only limited by usefulness of the slicing. Could do one for destubbing and another for new articles or women of color and women lacking color or scientists and arts, etc.; just things off the top of my head.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See my post below about the international contest happening in March and April. WikiProject Women in Red/Contests I think by WiR linking all of these contests together all of them will benefit. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Linking together would be more ideal certainly, though I believe the DC chapter want this to have a pure US focus. Two separate US contests and an international one all the same month I think would be unlikely to max potential. I think we need to plan the way forward with the various women groups so no contests overlap. On the US one I think running one contest is more than enough to handle, two contests would be much more difficult to run, and would weaken it I think if there was more $600 for each. I think the Africa approach with mainly a Destubathon but accept start class new women entries is the way to go.♦  Dr. Blofeld  20:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not had a chance to speak with Rosiestep directly since the announcement about the The women you never meet was announced a few days ago. My thinking is that the DC contest could be run as a subproject of the larger global event. The way that they are organizing the contest it to have local affiliates coordinate the activities in a language or region. I think it would work to have Wikimedia DC work on a US states contest as part of the part of the larger The women you never meet contest. At this point everything is still somewhat fluid with all of the events in March so there is time to make it all work out. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Save the Date: April 2017
and I spoke again about the WMDC contest, and we've nailed down a few particulars. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When: April 1-30, 2017
 * Grant: US$1,250
 * Format: Destubathon Plus (to be clarified)
 * Geo scope: US 50 states, plus DC, PR, and Guam
 * Focus: US women
 * Type: contest+campaign... it's a contest with prizes for those who want to participate in a contest, and it's a campaign if you want to participate in the event but don't want to compete for a prize.
 * Meetup page: (coming up)

The World Contest

 * The World Contest - a mega world contest covering all 195 countries, to be held mid 2017 possibly.


 * The Africa contest was a tremendous success, with 2041 articles produced. It showed that with a prize attached to every country you can get editors working on every country. The way the contest worked, we saw relatively even coverage for African nations, which you would never get without a contest. Many countries, which rarely get articles improved each year saw dozens of articles coming in.


 * I think the current challenge series demonstrates that there is interest in development from most areas of the world. Perhaps the main attraction is that we'll accept articles on every subject. Getting people to produce just women biographies will be tough, but I can certainly see a way if the prize fund was sufficient enough to give a prize for most articles created or destubbed for each of the 195 world countries and then whoever does the most articles for each occupation.


 * What I think we need is a similar format to the Destubathon, an A-Z country list, give editors banks of articles to improve and create for every country, and distribute the prize funds, perhaps give more for new articles, or the same amount. But then if you consider all of the world countries, you could also give rewards for doing articles on women in different fields of occupation so in effect you have a strong mechanism to get editors to improve and create women articles on every country and occupation all at once. That would definitely work if the prize fund was sufficient enough, I think it would need to be something like $100 assigned to each country, perhaps $50 and $50 for most creations and most destubs for every country, and a larger figure like $5000 or something split into all of the different occupations. So I estimate to pull off a world contest which is really going to get people working on every single country and field of occupation we'd need around $25,000 if you consider that 195 x 100 is $19,500 alone without even considering the occupation prizes.


 * A strong mechanism for a world contest might be if you set the articles you want created or improved for each country. Obviously some countries like US and UK will have more articles than Vanuatu or Comoros or something but the mechanism would get people doing them. If you set it as something like "whoever creates or destubs the most articles from this country first from the lists wins the prize", that would give people more incentive to edit at a faster rate. A potential problem with that though is poorer quality/rushing.


 * For the Africa Destubathon the requirement was 1.5 kb destubs and creations for women bios. Worked very well, but I know a lot of editors who didn't contribute or expand entries they might have because they couldn't find enough info, myself included. For many developing world countries that can be difficult. If we want to max out the number of articles improved and created I think we could relax it to 750 characters of readable prose. Sure, many articles created would be stubs, but they'd be decent stubs with sufficient starter material. That would maximise the chances of more editors doing more articles in bulk.


 * Ideally I would love for us to run a general world contest like Africa, with all topics and most prizes for women articles, but the scope may be too big. I think for the global one for now, keep it purely a women contest. I've started a North America Destubathon one, for that you could make it a general subject contest but give the best prizes for women entries destubs and creations for every state of US and Canada and might be more manageable to run. While increasing the women bio percentage figure and number of quality articles is of prime importance, I think if we're running scaled contests to attract the widest audience making it a general one might be good regionally, as I think its important to develop all aspects of the encyclopedia, not just women bios. We are a general encyclopedia at the end of the day, not a women encyclopedia, so I think that does need to be taken into account.


 * Run a contest to coincide with editathons and special months for certain key institutions. Offer support to groups like Art+Feminism which might have editors contributing at editathons but see articles created deleted. There could be prizes offered to the editors who expand the most articles created by newbies at editathons for instance, which would diminish the number of articles going to AFD or being tagged. In turn, that would encourage more people to stay on and show them that their work is valued and being improved. At present I think there's too many isolated efforts going on at one. To produce optimum results we need to gear all of the efforts into one to mutually benefit people at the same time and make people contribute towards them in a contest. That would massively reinforce the causes of different groups, and increase the chances that WIR might obtain further funding for contests.

Discussion
Though long term of course we really need to get existing articles destubbed and improved, I think for the inaugural contest it's best if we give the article creations the full throttle. $100 for each country and then $500 for each field of occupation. Perhaps reduce the expected prose to 750 char or 1 kb. 750 char I think would be more ideal for Africa in particular. Though we want to reduce stubs of course, there's good and bad stubs, cleanly written, well sourced 750 entries I think are just about acceptable. I just think we need to run a big contest first to see potentially how many articles could purely be created in 4-6 weeks. Obviously we expect the articles to be properly sourced and written, but if you run future contests then we'll split the prize money into new articles and destubs. So we'll get there eventually, but I really want to try running a pure article creation contest as the pilot one and see how many articles can be created globally.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'm not sure how many editors such a contest would really attract, but with the Destubathon I set 2000 articles as the target, and we reached that with 1.5 kb expected for Africa, which is tough to do a lot of the time. A full global contest with 750 kb min requirement and just new articles, possibly something like 5000-10,000 is achievable in 6 weeks on the larger scale and funding, not sure. We could try to set the bar at 10,000 new articles and see how it goes. Globally I think with the prizes planned, there's a way we could really do that. We'll have to generate a list of 10,000 articles we want created covering every country though. A way to enchance this might be to make it a contest with whoever creates the most articles out of given batch and reaches a certain number of bios for a given country first wins the prize. That gives the incentive then to max out production and encourage different editors to pick a country to work on and go for it. The issue there though is potential quality/paraphrasing issues. I think you really need to run a full throttle maximum impact article creation contest initially though to see how it goes!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See my talk page for further brainstorming on this.--Ipigott (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please copy it here then as the others are going to commenting on this here as well.♦  Dr. Blofeld  19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Ipigott's talk page
Yes, made a decent start on this! Can you give me a list of the different main fields of occupation we're dealing with with women? Is there a way we could narrow it down to 10 primary fields of occupation for women or is that not enough? I was thinking something like $5000 divided by 10 to cover the occupation aspect.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (Answering your first question) The top ones are writing (including novelists, journalists, playwrights, non-fiction), all forms of art (painting, photography, sculpture, music, dance, theatre and film), science/engineering and "feminism" (women's rights, trades unions, suffragettes, etc.). Among the "occupations" we have architects, archaeologists, business leaders, educators, philosophers, religion, nurses, diplomats, food and drink, military.


 * If you need more, look up the categories under Category:Women. Great initiative. Let me know if I can help.--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (Second question) Yes, I think they could easily be arranged in ten main groupings.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

So far I think


 * 1) Literature
 * Art
 * 1) Science and technology
 * 2) Entertainment
 * 3) Government/politics and Feminism
 * 4) Leadership and Business
 * 5) Religion/philosophy and education
 * 6) Military
 * 7) Food and drink
 * 8) Healthcare

How about the above? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Before the edit conflict I was sending this:
 * Not too keen on history. How about "Feminism, Leadership, Education, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Government". --Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturing I don't think is as viable as one for Leadership and business, how about the above now?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm convinced feminism (meaning women's rights, fighting for status, pioneering women's activities) deserves a slot of its own. I don't really think food and drink is so important; it falls within the other activities. You might consider a slot for other occupations: military, aviation, exploring, etc. The one we haven't mentioned and in which there is superlative interest is sports. So how about:


 * 1) Literature (including journalism)
 * 2) Art (visual arts, dance, music)
 * 3) Science, engineering, technology
 * 4) Entertainment
 * 5) Feminism (women's rights, pioneering)
 * 6) Leadership (enterprise, business, government)
 * 7) Education (academia, religion, philosophy)
 * 8) Healthcare
 * 9) Challenging occupations (military, aviation, exploring, discovery)
 * 10) Sport

You might be able to find better headings but I think these represent the ten main slots. There will be grey areas between art and entertainment and between science and education. But all this could be explained. I think you're on the right track. We could also use these headings for editathons or whatever. What's missing is geographical/religious origins and ethnicity. Nothing for the Jews, eskimos, or aboriginees -- but these could no doubt be accommodated under the other headings?--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are good, we can include Food and Drink in Art I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No rush, but feel free sometime this week to further outline sub fields which would be included under each here.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Food and Drink could also be an aspect of leadership. Maybe there should be an 11th category: "Other", to cater for anything unexpected. Many of the women in the BBC 100 Women would fall into this slot. Also many women who become famous because of news coverage on murders, rape and other crimes, spying, accidents, or because of their notability in travel, gardening, demonstrations, etc. There could be a way of combining participation in Other with that in the 10 main slots. I'll also try to participate in the discussions on the other pages addressing contests on Women.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest putting "Healthcare" under the sciences and replacing it with "Music"? I think music is discrete enough as a topic to be worth considering as a separate matter. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could combine music and dance with entertainment. Science already covers a great deal and music and dance (both classical and modern) are an integral part of the entertainment scene. The reason I included healthcare in the list is that it is one of the professions in which women have played a major part. But perhaps it could become "Healthcare and services" or something similar.--08:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Ipigott (talk)
 * Feel free or  to update the list.♦  Dr. Blofeld  17:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there at page where the list can be updated? If not, I suggest:


 * 1) Literature (including journalism)
 * 2) Art (visual arts, painting, sculpture, architecture)
 * 3) Science (including engineering, technology
 * 4) Entertainment (theatre, film, music, broadcasting)
 * 5) Feminism (women's rights, pioneering)
 * 6) Leadership (enterprise, business, government)
 * 7) Education (academia, religion, philosophy)
 * 8) Services (healthcare, administration)
 * 9) Challenges (military, aviation, exploring, discovery)
 * 10) Sport

Hors concours: Other (everything else)

Ipigott (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Length
I decided to cut the minimum requirement to 750 char. The main reason is that in many developing world countries, particularly Africa, it's often tough to produce 1.5 kb. I tried a few during the Destubathon and it's often very tough. I think 750, maybe 1 kb should be the minimum requirement, but then you could have a larger prize at the end for "most start class articles created oiver 1.5 or something".♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. I think several members of WiR would support incentives for quality rather than just quantity. You suggested we should begin with emphasis on article creation. We could perhaps also use the first month to see how things evolve rather than introducing prizes from the start. In my experience, most of the biographies resulting from our editathons have been at least start class. In fields other than sport and entertainment, I have a feeling this will continue to be the case.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep it at 750 char min, and then for the larger prizes make it a requirement that they're 1.5 kb or something, that would work, and also allow people to freely create. All articles would be expected to be formatted and written properly, even if shortish, so overall it would give women bios a massive boost.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

100,000 Challenge for Women
The Challenge series combined, see Template:The 100,000 Challenge, has produced well over 7,000 articles in just a few months and with only three contests. The challenges motivate a lot of editors to produce content and see a body of work collecting. While it is true that many of the participants contributed anyway, the work coming in from all the regions demonstrates that there is interest for this in most areas and it's enjoyable. Now the current largest challenge is 50,000 for the United States, with the rough idea of 1000 for each state, though inevitably it won't work out like that as some states have a lot more activity than others. I believe the Challenges and the percentage bar is something which can motivate editors.
 * WikiProject Women in Red/The 100,000 Challenge

I think with the women project, if you keep in mind some contests, global in scope, then potentially you could have many new editors contributing articles. I think if we are to truly be ambitious but keep it within reach, at least within a few years, then we should set a 100,000 article long term for women. Make it 50,000 new articles, 50,000 destubs or 75,000 new articles and 25,000 destubs. Make it the main vehicle to get WIR to 20% + biographies on wikipedia. Having that percentage bar I think will motivate more people. If not, then a large scale contest is going to give the challenge a fuel boost. I think we roughly worked out that it would currently take up to 8 years at current rate to get us to over 20%, I want to try to aim to get us there in two years through this. I think it would be a fantastic thing to see women articles all numbered coming in, and a way editors can claim credit for them. for example. 467. Sheila Davis, new article by Penny Richards etc.

I think the 100,000 Challenge for Women would be the best way t0 cover both WIR and Women in Green, boosting new output and existing quality at the same time, which has been lacking from WIR, but something which badly needs development as there's so many stubs on women and important articles which are nowhere near the standard they should be. Two different percentage bars towards the 100,000, to separate excisting article entries from the missing ones.

Rosie, your contacts are increasingly globally. OK, if we set a 100,000 article target for English wiki, if we could somehow scale WIR to at least the top 50 wikipedias long term, no reason why we couldn't launch a global 1 million Challenge for women long term involving all languages and people regularly contributing towards the challenge and contests. We'd find a way of scooping all entries into one big master list. At present we lack the framework and coordination needed to launch something that big, but I think with this we need to create a momentum, and starting it on English wikipedia to start with is enough. Then you can start to get your contacts, particularly Spanish and French wikipedians working on their own challenges for their wikipedias. Then when we run a contest, these language wikipedias would participate and the entries done would be used to boost all of the challenges. Perhaps the idea of a global 1 million goal would be the motivator to get more wikipedias doing it and launching WIR and starting to work towards something huge worldwide.

Discussion
I would love this to start in January 2017, but at present I don't think we have the support and contest infrastructure in place that we need to make it realistic. I think it's doable with a larger grant to fuel say 4 big contests a year, and have entries done for it feeding the challenge. I think we should wait on this now until we have the funding needed to run large scale contests which are run globally/regionally.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WIR Book Fund
I initially proposed a Book Fund to WP:Africa a few months back but I still think it would be something valuable, particularly for women editing. As potentially there would be a lot of money to be earned from the contests, I think setting up a Book Fund for Women in Red would work well. People can donate any excess earnings they might not want and donate it to the WIR Book Fund. Books on demand can then be bought and handed out to editors on English wikipedia and any of the other wikis and sent to editors who need them to contribute to wikipedia. The book fund could also potentially support editors at editathons and give them working materials to be productive at the editathons and encourage them to continue contributing long term.
 * Ooh, I love this idea. There are plenty of good resources out there - I can name a couple for starters, if you need suggestions - and anything which can free them up for people to use is a great start. Maybe start a small library of them with a major Foundation chapter?  That way when the chapter runs an edit-a-thon it has a collection of sources ready for use. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Contests as a means to resolve problems
As we've seen with editathons and other things, sometimes running WIR can be tough, a lot of work to salvage and copyedit articles done by newbies. I suggest we build in aspects to the contest which are going to reduce the problems we'd otherwise get. If we're running a contest and there's an editathon being held that month, say by Art+Feminism, we build in some prizes for editors who expand the most stubs created by newbies/cleanup the most articles/help the most editors etc. That way we reduce AFDs, increase the quality of work, provide support to the other women groups, and send out a strong message to newbies than their work is appreciated and being cared for.

Discussion
Please identify problems we encounter at WIR and discuss contests as a means of helping resolve them or reduce the problems which occur:

Newly announced international contest The woman you never meet.
Recently a new international contest related to women was announced. Since WiR often works with these type of global events/contents, I wanted to draw your attention to it as planning is happening for WiR contents.
 * The woman you never meet. From March 4 to April 9 2017, the Iberocoop network (group of WMF affiliates) is launching the editing contest The women you never meet. The 2017 edition is global! All the Wikimedia user groups and chapters are invited to participate. This initiative, framed in the month of women and supported by the Iberocoop network was organized in 2015 and 2016 with a total of 1700 articles edited. See meta page for more details about ways to participate. The woman you never meet.

I think that this contest is relevant for future planning and coordination of WiR events next year as is Art+Feminism. (Excuse the dulipate post if it is already mentioned somewhere on this page.) Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Great to see an international contest, though might be tricky as there's a US one running about the same time I think, though there's a possibility of it being in April. Something like 1700 articles is excellent!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This contest looks as if it is intended mainly for the Spanish and Portuguese wikis. I've made some comments on their rules which will need to be adapted to other languages if they take it further. I also regret lack of any liaison with WiR desipte all our discussions about extensions to other languages in March. Looks as if this should be taken up at higher levels by and any others who have been in touch with the other language communities. The way things are set up on Meta, it looks to me as if the organizer Anna Torres from the ES wiki is not in the loop. On Meta, the contest is "The woman you never meet" rather than "The women you never meet". This may also be a mistranslation.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ipigott, they have been doing this event for several years now. This is the first time that it is going global. Anna Torres is active in working on the gender gap with the Spanish language and beyond. I'll check out your comments and suggestions on meta about adapting the rules. And I'm the one that changed the name from Woman to Women. oops. I fixed on the header. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)