Trying to get more musical theater writing women on Wiki
Hey! By my count only 8 of 29 of the BMI alums on the BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop are women, and I think they are a few who are missing who could be notable enough to have pages. I've written a base-level draft for Draft:Sara Wordsworth for anyone who'd like to jump in and help. (I haven't submitted it to AfC yet, as I don't think it's ready/could use some sprucing up, but I hope there's enough to justify notability!)
Buf if anyone has an interest in musical theater and would be interested in jumping in there, I'd greatly appreciate it! Additionally, the next person I have my eye on, is making a page for Kate Leonard https://www.yourfriendkate.com/about I'm not 100% sure if she's done enough to warrant a page, but she was a cowriter of some reasonably popular musicals, including Ratatouille the musical which raised $2 million dollars for the Actors Fund during the pandemic - which I think was the most they ever made from a fundraiser.
Wikipedian339: It seems close to meeting notability requirements, There may be some useful material in this. While the links to the awards are useful, it would be good to find more independent biographical coverage. If you cannot put together a full biography, you could always expand on her involvement in In Transit.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the guidance @Ipigott! I did a deeper dive and found more things in the personal life section in addition to some more projects for the career section. If you get a chance, can you let me know what you think now Draft:Sara Wordsworth? Thanks a million! Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I thought I signed up for something happening in June trying to increase the number of Good-rated articles about women; where I could ask for an article to be read through quickly by experienced reviewers to tell me if/how it might be quick-failed within the Good review process. But now I can't find that page. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and/or have a link? jengod (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by birth month/Women born in February
There is a person named Silvia Reyes in this list, but I am afraid that your bot will remove this entry from the list, thinking that there is now an article about the Peruvian referee. There isn't!!! That new article is about the Spanish transgender activist of the same name. I am currently going through articles linking the referee and amending the text [[Silvia Reyes]] to read [[Silvia Reyes (referee)|Silvia Reyes]], tedious though this is. I know, though, that I cannot edit the page named in my heading. Could somebody please arrange to keep the referee Reyes's name on the list? There is still no article about her, after all, and the transgender activist is far from being one and the same. Thanks.Kelisi (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikidata has two separate entries, and the referee has articles in German, French, and hu.wiki (Hungarian?). The Spanish activist has 4 articles in other wikis. PamD20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Anne Finucane's biography
Hello! I have submitted a request to update the article about American banker Anne Finucane, who has retired from the vice chair role at Bank of America and taken on other responsibilities.
Here is a link to my first request. Are any WikiProject Women in Red editors able to take a look and update her page for me? I am also notifying User:Victuallers, who has reviewed the article previously. Thank you! KMBrightSide (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you and a good point. I think all biogs that are updated by paid editors should record that imput. I have exchanged emails with one of the people who paid KMBrightSide and I don't think they realised what mesaage you send when you pay an editor to write about you. The article I saw by KMBrightSide was (IMO) sycophantic. None of it was actually 100% wrong but on the spectrum between marketing and biography it was not as close to biography as I would expect from an uninvolved editor. The article has since been substantially improved by having sections deleted.Victuallers (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
It would be useful if KMBS added a clear COI icon to their talk page. It's some consolation to hear that I am not the only member of Women in Red to be repeatedly invited by COI editors to incorporate suggestions for "improvement". While some of the requests I receive seem reasonable, most require extensive examination and seldom meet immediate approval. I must say I am not at all happy about spending so much valuable time reviewing requests from paid editors who are obviously primarily interested in supporting those who pay for their services. Perhaps we can take a more coordinated approach. Any suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Innisfree987, Victuallers, and Ipigott: Thank you all for your responses here. I appreciate the time you've taken to engage with my request and for your guidance. I thought I had properly disclosed my COI when I listed it on my account page and the Talk page where I initially posted my request for an edit review, but I can see now that I should have called it out here too. I will make sure to note it at the top in any future edit review requests and I have added that COI icon to my talk page, as suggested. On Victuallers' reference to "the article I saw by KMBrightSide," I just wanted to clarify that I've never authored an article on Wikipedia, and this recent request we are discussing is the only intervention I have ever made on the platform. I respect and am fully committed to working within Wikipedia's rules. KMBrightSide (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know anything much about Spanish WP, but "Just under a fifth of Wikipedia’s content, including biographies, is focused on women,..." (Guardian article) sounds suspiciously like a typically mangled Guardian distortion of the en:wp stats, where - crudely - 25% of articles are biographies, of which 20% are of women, so only 5% of all articles are biographies of women. In the unlikely event that the Guardian's numbers relate to any reality, then the Spanish Wikipedia has done a fantastically good job! Or they don't have many articles on places, species and the other non-gendered subjects that make up the majority of en:wp articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Or totally. That page says "As of March 2023, only 18.5% of the content in all Wikimedia projects, including biographies on Wikipedia ..", which seems oddly high to me. What's the male figure? Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, from the Humanwiki page they link to that is "All Humans with at least one Wikipedia article", so very far from all "the content in all Wikimedia projects"! Pah. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Sandra Hemme, longest serving wrongfully convicted woman in US history
I just created a draft for Draft:Sandra Hemme. Her conviction for a murder over 40 years ago has recently been overturned. It is believed the murder actually was committed by a police officer. Thriley (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I just started Janice Underwood as part of the education and LGBTQ+ editathons. I thought for sure there would be a PD photo of Underwood because she was the first chief diversity officer of the U.S. Fed Government. I can't seem to find any. Maybe someone else may have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Janice Underwood, United States governmentwide chief diversity officer, in 2023
I am working on an article about Sister Anita Smisek in my sandbox. I am trying to verify "In 1995, the Czech community honored Anita with that nation's highest award. The Order of Knights of Comenius" from this source. I have been unable to find proof that the Order of Knights of Comenius is an actual thing. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
According to page 4 of this Smisek received The Order of Knights of Comenius from the Czech Cultural Center Houston in 2004. According to page 2, 1995 was the year the Czech Cultural Center started. TSventon (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that LGBT Pride month is coming to an end, and therefore also the activity of the Women in Red Wikiproject related to it, I have thought of highlighting 4 Spanish trans women whose translation could be of special interest to the members of the wikiproject.
I have just heard from Maximilianklein that he expects to be able to fix the problems with Humaniki around 7 August. It has not been updated since 24 June. In the meantime, the monthly stats on the Metrics page should provide an indication of progress. (cc Oronsay).--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
TSventon: I am not sure what the current problem is but in the past there have been problems with server space and server accessibility. Fortunately Max Klein who developed the feature (as well as earlier versions reflecting our statistics) has always been in a position to deal with problems within a reasonable time despite heavy commitments to other research projects. I believe updates are based on wikidumps which occur every two weeks. If you are not satisfied with this arrangement, it might be possible to provide a backup based on a statistical analysis of the number of women's biographies compared to the total number of biographies on the English Wikipedia but Humaniki is regularly used for many other language versions and also covers Commons and other wiki projects. It therefore seems to me preferable to stick with Humaniki unless more lengthy delays occur.--Ipigott (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to understand what problems Women in Red has been having or is expecting to have with Humaniki, so I gather that there may be a six week gap until around 7 August. I agree that shouldn't be a major problem, particularly as we have been warned in advance. TSventon (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for this post which was based on an email from Max Klein. It seems however to be a false alarm as I now see that Humaniki has been updating regularly (oce every two weeks) and that our main Women in Red page has been adjusted accordingly.--Ipigott (talk)
@Ipigott, Normally the update is available on every Friday morning (Sydney, AUS time). If not, I try to check back once or twice a day and change the figures on WIR's homepage when Humaniki has done its work. 400,000 will be another nice milestone on the way to 20% and beyond. Oronsay (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2024
Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313
Thanks for sharing this @Inkian Jason - I'd like to see a bit more included about the Senate hearing see & there's quite a few references coming up from google books see - also, it would be great to see some criticism from a reputable source Lajmmoore (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
No talk page announcement yet for July?
I don't seem to have had the usual monthly announcement (but I've already got a woman sci-fi writer lined up to translate...). PamD09:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that it may be because today's a Sunday. I have alerted Magalibrarygirl and Victuallers but there has been no response. Unfortunately, it's already 1 July in Australia. I believe Rosiestep is unable to handle this kind of thing herself but perhaps she could encourage others...--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I see that the July announcement got sent. Yay! A friendly FYI for another time: Gamaliel and Ser Amantio di Nicolao are also WiR members and admins (have MassMessage rights) so maybe they'd have time and inclination to assist with this task. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! It was me - I didn't see the ping that the invite was ready, so logged on yesterday to check. It would be great to have more people MM - I'm happy to do it, but as I say, all it takes is one missed notification and things get out of step! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Keily Blair draft
Hi editors, I wrote a draft for OnlyFans CEO Keily Blair that may be of interest to the folks here. I have a COI so I cannot create the article directly, but would love it if someone here could take a look and offer their feedback, even move it to being a full article if you think it merits that. I appreciate any insight you have. You can find the draft here. Cheers AG at OnlyFans (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It looks pretty balanced to me, and I made a few edits. It might be good to get one more editor's opinion on moving it to mainspace. Nick Number (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Number: Thanks for taking a look and making those changes. I'll let this sit here for a few more days. If no one else responds, mind if I ping you to see if there is anywhere else we might attract another reviewer? AG at OnlyFans (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@AG at OnlyFans Ok. Also, if you want to upload a better photo than the one I found on Flickr, there are some guidelines here. The Wikimedia Commons method is easiest if you have an image you can license appropriately. Nick Number (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I unfortunately, Boud, do not have the time to work on articles for these due to my prior commitment. But I do hope that these references prove helpful for you or anyone else that wants to take a stab at making some book articles. SilverserenC23:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Not exactly a woman, but all the reports here call her she. Rather than answering individual queries, I'm posting here and if y'all think it's inappropriate, feel free to remove it. Beryl arrived in Mexico as a Category 2 hurricane just north of Tulum, early this morning. Around 11, she will be just south of Valladoid. It's been difficult for them to project where she was headed. Originally maps showed south of Campeche, but she has steadily pushed northward and is now likely to pass around 8-10 km/5-6 miles north of Mérida. She is likely to be downgraded to a tropical storm by the time she hits here. To this point, we have experienced only minimal rains, but they are telling us to expect 5 to 10 inches of rain. I live in the city in a concrete house and we've had days to prepare. We are safe, but we may well lose electricity and internet service. (We prepared, have battery-operated fans, clocks, phone chargers at the ready.) Please keep all the villagers, who live in low areas surrounding Mérida in your thoughts today. I'll be on-line as I can be. SusunW (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
asilvering, after weeks of preparations and stress, we were very lucky. Although it passed within 15 miles of us, we had just a light rain and we did not lose either power or internet until Sunday. Then there was no internet all day Sunday and Monday, but functions are normal today thankfully. My heart aches for those who were not so fortunate in the Caribbean and now in Texas. SusunW (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The second sentence makes no sense...
This page is titled "Women in Red." The second sentence says, "Welcome to Women in Red (WiR)! We are a group of volunteer (unpaid) editors of all genders..."
The name of this project references the topic it focuses on. The second sentence describes the people who work on the project. pburka (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I found this article/rant
Take a look at this rather interesting article...Gauthier, Maude; Sawchuk, Kim (2 October 2017). "Not notable enough: feminism and expertise in Wikipedia". Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. 14 (4): 385–402. doi:10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why they gave it this title, because from my reading it's more about how wikipedia privileges certain kinds of "facts" over others. Their main complaint is that topics related to aging on wikipedia are treated almost entirely biomedically, ignoring other kinds of academic work on the subject. They run into some trouble getting things through WP:NCORP, which is really harsh for the kinds of topics they want to write on (academic institutes, etc - very difficult to get fully "independent" sourcing). They are frustrated by wikipedia's inconsistent standards (ie, that we don't let trash through AfC but that trash can persist eternally in mainspace if no one bothers to nominate it for deletion). That's a pretty legitimate concern imo, especially since there's no really honest statement like "we know wikipedia is full of crap that doesn't meet our guidelines, and we want to get rid of it but it's a gargantuan task" anywhere. Any newbie who brings it up just gets told "other stuff exists" and dismissed. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Joey Wat
Hi all. I disclosed a COI on the Joey Wat page about a female CEO and requested an expansion of the career section a few weeks ago. I'm trying to comply with WP:COI by not making any edits myself. I was hoping editors here could evaluate the proposed expansion and collaborate on other improvements. Coreyhcooper (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yuna Kim A-class assessment
Hello everyone, WikiProject Figure Skating has just started doing A-class assessments. Our first article submitted for review is Yuna Kim, and we're in need of a third reviewer. Here's the link to the assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Assessment/Yuna Kim. While figure skating isn't a completely women's sport, most of its athletes are female, and as you might expect, is a neglected topic, especially skaters' biographies. The assistance of any member of this project would be muchly appreciated. You don't have to necessarily be a figure skating expert (although that would help, of course), but you should at least be knowledgeable about editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Even those who only watch figure skating every four years during the Winter Olympics (a group I call "the uninitiated figure skating fan", haha) are welcome! Thanks to all and best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Kato Mikeladze Award
Hello folks, looking for something else, I came across the Kato Mikeladze Award which is given to a women's rights activist from Georgia each year since 2013. All the names (bar one) on the list are red. I've not had a chance to check whether sources are available for them all, but if anyone feels like a challenge the list is there (& on Wikidata), hopefully making them more visible! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
When you find the perfect source
Just wanted to express my absolute momentary joy. I've been working on User:Silver seren/Lisa M. Corrigan for this week's biography article. And I haven't been finding too much. Some, sure, but ProQuest and Newspapers.com (as much as I can make that work, thanks for the help though, Pburka!) haven't really been coming up with much, nor were the initial Google search results looking too helpful.
I was worried I was going to have to rely on book reviews to wring out what scant biographical info I can, which I've mostly done just last week with Grace Lavery. But, lo, what did I find? On the 10th page of Google search results? Could it be? The perfect source? Indeed, my prayers have been answered.
Albumen silver print of a photograph of Jackson by Charles F. Conly (c. 1884)
Helen Hunt Jackson was the author of Ramona and I worked on her biography in July 2017. Then I promptly forgot about her. Today, I got a pleasant surprise. Adam Cuerden has restored her image. Thank you, Adam, for your gorgeous work. So grateful that you dedicate some of your time and skills to improving photos of notable women. -- Rosiestep (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Need some support in Community Wishlist
I posted a wish about a tool to reduce a gap at least a little bit more but it seems it doesn't look at least somehow important. I wrote my request from my own perspective but know that this problem appears not only in Russian and in the description of this project it's said that there are people from different countries here; please, take a look, and if the problem of gender marking in job titles is valid for your language, let the Community Wishlist team know about it on the talk page. Thank you in advance. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Line go up (A WiR Statistical analysis)
Hi everyone. I caught a statistics bug today and wanted to look at our progress in increasing the number of women's biographies on English Wikipedia. I don't know if anyone's done something like this recently, but thought I'd have a look over. As it says on the project front page, this project was created almost a decade ago, when it was discovered that women's biographies numbered roughly 15.53% of biographies on the platform. As of 1 July 2024, we have gotten this up to 19.86% (accounting for 399,180 biographies), which is a 4.33% difference. We're currently keeping track of this number using Humaniki, but its data doesn't go back as far as 2015; it started collecting data in December 2020/January 2021, so this is the data I had to work with.
On 28 December 2020, there were 331,934 biographies about women, accounting for 18.689% of all biographies on English Wikipedia. This means that over the past three and a half years, we have created at least 67,246 new biographies, accounting for a 1.17% increase in the proportion of women's biographies. On average, this means we create roughly 19,645 new biographies each year, increasing the proportion of women's biographies by roughly 0.342% each year. (Judging by this, we can expect a 1% increase roughly every three years)
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it is a rarity that the number of biographies or the total percentage decreases. The last week that these numbers decreased was two years ago, on 11 July 2022, when the total number of women's biographies dropped by 187 over the preceding week. In fact, in the past three and a half years, we have only seen five weeks where the percentage of women's biographies dropped (of which two weeks saw an increase in total women's biographies, but not enough to increase the percentage figure).
All this has led to a very steady increase in both the total number and proportional representation of women's biographies. If we keep on track with this, then according to my projections, we should hit 400,000 biographies by the end of the month and we might even hit the fabled 20% figure by the end of 2024! This will definitely be something to be celebrated and might justify a big edit-a-thon towards the end of the year in order to get us over the line. Projections of when we might get to 50% are quite a bit more distant; at current rates, we won't hit gender parity until the year 2111. What Wikipedia, the internet and the wider world will even look like by that point would be anyone's guess.
It also seems like some of our progress might be slowing. While we increased the percentage figure by 0.415% in 2021 (accounting for over 24,000 new biographies), the percentage increased by 0.329% in 2022 and 0.296% in 2023 (each accounting for slightly over 17,000 new biographies). We're still improving things, but this does indicate a need for further outreach and onboarding if we're to keep going in the longer term.
Thanks for this! One thing I'd say is that if only because of history, we are most unlikely ever to get to 50%, nor should this be an aim of the project (this used to be often seen as an aim, but I think most people have now realized this). That's unless some new predominately female type of person starts being regarded as notable in large numbers. I won't labour the point, but think about large all-notable jobs with easily-found statistical data, like politicians elected to national legislatures, top-level team sports and so on. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding my thanks! Also, for transparency, clarifying that, in 2015, Roger and I never mentioned a particular numerical goal, rather, the goal was to "move the needle", e.g., improve on the abysmal 15.53% statistic. That said, I'm guessing that most of us will be ecstatic upon reaching that elusive 20%. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
20% would be great (50% would require us to delete history). There is evidence that the new additions of biogs are much more equal but the figure is likely to settle at about 28%. The effect of additional biogs is ever decreasing - but still very important. "Moving the needle" was indeed the aim. (There were paper encyclopedias with the percentage of 3-7% women). Truly terrible - and it hurts to know that a future edition of "famous modern women of Afghanistan" is destined for an even lower target. On the other hand the figures are very skewed by an obsession with blokes who can kick a ball ... and it looks as if that is reducing. Seeing stadia filled with ppl watching women play football is marvellous. I think that if we work really hard then Rosie, and my, granddaughters (who recently met) might think that gender/racial/European bias was a "thing of history". Lets keep moving the needle. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Women in Red!!! I did not know that you and I wrote >1% of them, Roger... so, WOW! What I do know is that it's been quite a journey, and I'm glad that that journey included your fam and mine, including your granddaughter and mine, meeting up last month. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Happy Birthday, Women in Red! As of 15 July, there are now over 400,000 (19.874%) women's bios on English Wikipedia. Well done everyone!. Onwards and upwards. Oronsay (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Kamala Harris
New WikiProject, in case any WiR members are interested:
Aren't you supposed to get clearance somewhere before doing this, including showing a number of editors claiming to be committed to working on the subject? User:Joe Roe will know. WP is littered with inactive projects. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok! I came here to recruit participation and promote collaboration, not to be told I'm in the wrong. If you don't want to join this new WikiProject, then don't join this new WikiProject. Thanks, --Another Believer(Talk)14:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We're expressing doubt that this is an effective way to promote collaboration and concern that it will exacerbate an existing problem (profusion of inactive wikiprojects) that other editors are trying to deal with. Please do consider whether you could achieve your goal by working within the framework of an existing wikiproject. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I want to add an image to the article Helen Saunders. I found an image here. The credit in that article for the photo of Helen Saunders states "Image credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain)". I can NOT find this image on the commons. Any help appreciated. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I have found that image in other articles but with the credit line "The Estate of Helen Saunders", for example [1] from studio international.14GTR (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks 14GTR! I shall use the image as "fair use". I think it may have been mistakenly uploaded to the commons awhile ago and then deleted as still in copyright --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
"Dramatic deeds are remembered, but too many feminists of the past are forgotten"
Thanks for this. In English Wikipedia we don't link years, and we format numbers with commas for thousands, not spaces - so 12,345, rather than 12 345. I've corrected those.
You haven't given a source for her birth date: is it in one of the refs? It needs to be clearly sourced. For the benefit of non-Polish readers, it is helpful to use the "trans-title" field in your references to show the title of the sources, so that we can get an idea what kind of source they are. The lead paragraph is a bit confusing for those who don't know what "Sejm" means: could you clarify it? Or maybe just give the dates that she was in parliament, as more meaningful?
I'm not sure what "She was a councillady of Gmina Lipinki during its 2nd tenure." means. Because "MP" is pronounced "Empee", it takes "an" rather than "a". I've added a few missing "the"s. Remember that punctuation goes before references.
I think the headline is about the cross Wikipedia female percentage, which is currently 18.843%, but I agree that it is smart for leaders to set themselves attainable targets. TSventon (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Wondering if this project covers fictional women as well as real ones? I ask because someone raised an issue at Talk:Women in Shakespeare's works and I wondered if this was a good place to draw attention to the article and to encourage an expansion of it. AndyJones (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that struck me as the wierd one. Many short WP articles have far too many sections imo. Where do these standards lead? Do they matter? Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The criteria are strangely mismatched in level. 1 category is something I'd expect even of a stub. 4 refs and 2 interwiki links should be true of most start-class articles. But 8k text and 7 sections are pushing towards at least C class assuming the references are proportionate. Many Good Articles do not have 7 sections. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
And not all articles need an image - if it's about a philosophical concept, for example. Agree that 7 sections is ridiculous, 1 category is rarely adequate. I suppose our philosophical concept could squeeze through by using the "5 out of 6" rule - but this would allow an article with no categories, or no references, to be eligible. Very odd set of criteria! PamD08:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
A basic criterion would be "It has a lead sentence which tells the reader the significance of the topic and puts it into geographical and chronological context where appropriate" - but of course that's not measurable algorithmically (though perhaps they should be working towards that with AI?)
Thinking of the need for a "[Name] (dates) is/was a [nationality] [role in which notable]", compared to the "[Name] was born in [city, no country] to [father's name] and [mother's name]." which we sometimes see. PamD08:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This really seems like something written for a different language wiki (especially with all the strange grammar), or written by someone who does not actually edit Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Why doesn't the WMF have these things vetted by actual Wikipedia editors...? They're funding all this research that will have utterly meaningless results because no one is consulting qualified people for experimental design. Like, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the WMF read that atrocious TOOSOON paper and uncritically set up a task force to address en.wiki's egregious bias against using GHits to establish STEM women notability at AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Good questions all! One shouldn't complain about the WMF being concerned with all WPs, not just English. It's not at all clear to me what use will be made of this. Most of the page was written by Redi in March 23, but this set of criteria appeared (by her) in December 23. Why, where did they come from, and what are they related to? Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Help accessing a source?
If I have to ask over at the Resource Exchange, I will, but I was wondering if anyone here knew how to access this source from New Scientist? I was looking around The Wikipedia Library, but I'm not sure if any of the databases give access specifically to that magazine. SilverserenC18:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Unhelpfully, Gale in The Wikipedia Library has access to New Scientist from February 25, 2023, while the article is from 2000. TSventon (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for not noting that here. Apparently, what you see in my link is the full (somewhat short) article. Their whole "subscribe to see the full thing" is complete BS and where the text fades out is the real end of it anyways. Such nonsense. SilverserenC20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?
I've been trying my best to go with biographical subjects where the sources wouldn't be newspaper based (scientists and such), due to the current situation discussed above about Newspapers.com access. But I can't avoid that entirely even with these biography subjects. So, question, if I still need to cite a Newspapers.com article, but am unable to clip things with the current situation, what's the best way to make a reference citation? Is a URL link like this okay to use in a reference? SilverserenC22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@Silver seren: I've been linking to https://www.newspapers.com/image/foo and adding |url-access=subscription for now. I've bookmarked all the articles and plan to go back to add clippings once (if?) this is fixed. Nick Number (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I've been using those links and there's a bot that comes along and removes the Wikipedia Library proxy from the url. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! So I recently made a list of women sportswriters and have purposefully added red links to it of women who have had significant careers as sports writers. Since this month focuses on Women in Sports, if anyone is interested, do check this out! Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Omnis Scientia, for starting this list. At the moment, it looks rather like a set based on categories. It would be more useful if you could add basic details such as DOB and DOD, and any important types of involvement. Many of our other lists of women carry such information. See for example List of women architects or our many lists under Template:Lists of women writers by nationality. Maybe your sportswriters could also be included in pertinent nationality lists.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott, its very much under construction ATM. I'm gathering more names where I can and was surprised how much distinguished women don't have articles. Will definitely be adding their basic info and the newspapers and works they are known for, of course! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia In an international encyclopedia it's not appropriate to divide the list into "American" and "Others"! Please rearrange it into a neutral geographical arrangement. See List of women architects as an example - by continent and then by country. PamD13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Omnis Scientia But I see your list still started with North America. Why? It's just an ordinary continent and files under "N", even if it's some editors' centre/center of the universe. I'll change it to a neutral A-Z sequence. Also, are the headings to be adjectives or placenames - they were a mixture so I standardised it on adjectives, not sure that was the best choice but at least it's consistent.
I see that Category:Women sports journalists includes woman from a wide range of countries (India, Greece, Honduras, Venezuela, Spain, just clicking on a few of the entries) - though some may be broadcast journalists rather than sportswriters I suppose, even though the category is a child category of Category:Women sportswriters! PamD20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@PamD, oh I didn't notice. Will fix that. I kind of got sidetracked there looking for more names outside the U.S. (not a lot, I'm afraid).
I don't know that it makes sense to have a distinction between sports journalists and sportswriters; I thought they were synonyms...unless journalists is meant to include non-written journalism, I guess. pburka (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Pburka, sportswriting has a long history which is very interwined with sports itself. Until quite recently, sportswriters even considered themselves as being in the same profession as athletes rather than journalists. Expansion of media from print to television and then internet lessened that connection.
As for "journalists", those include a wider range of people now, including television analysts, broadcasters, writers, bloggers, and so on. Its a catch-all term, basically. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to see this is now progressing. I know from experience that these list require considerable time and effort to develop. I'll try to help out as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Omnis Scientia. A friendly FYI that a list of women sportswriters will be helpful not only while WiR is facilitating our Women+Sports campaign, but also next month, as every September, WiR facilitates a month-long "Women Writers" event. Thanks for starting the conversation on this topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I just started an article on Puerto Rican nurse and public servant Susana Centeno. She is the namesake of the Susana Centeno Hospital. I am having trouble finding her year of birth and death. Best I can find is that she was born in 1911 or 1912 and died before 2006. I also can't find any photographs of her. Hoping someone else may have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I found this in the Social Security Death Index via Ancestry. Also there's an Ancestry family tree that claims that the same Susana Centeno as in the SSDI has the same names for the parents as the ones in your article. Not sure if this is conclusive under WP:RS standards but seems plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Birth Date 24 May 1911
Issue year 1952
Issue State Puerto Rico
Last Residence 00949, Toa Baja, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico, USA
Death Date 11 Dec 2001
Living parameter in the biography wikiproject template (and also women in sports)
While going through Category:Biography articles without living parameter, I noticed a slightly disproportionate number of women Olympic athletes were within it. I suspect, but am not certain that this is because of the article run WiR is hosting on Olympic athletes. I wonder if adding "living=no" or "living=yes" can be semi-automated somehow in the WiR article creation process.
I dream of horses: The project is actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport. Thanks for pointing out it is considered inactive. It seems to me the state of activity is frequently based on the extent of editing on the project page and its talk page. This is only one measure of activity and can be misleading. I make wide use of Women's sport when reviewing or assessing articles. The information displayed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Assessment shows that there are now over 138,000 articles carrying the template and that a considerable number of articles are listed under Article alters, etc. I therefore think WhatamIdoing, MSGJ, or other members of WikiProject Council should list it as active.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Is anyone actually coordinating with each other to create/maintain the articles of women athletes (or other aspects of womens' sports)? If so, we may as well consider Wikiproject Women's Sport active, and start the cat herding process of getting people to actually use the project page. If not, is Wikiproject Women's Sport really active? It's not like adding a Wikiproject template takes a lot of effort. I dream of horses(Hoofprints)(Neigh at me)10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
On the basis of this discussion and recent activity, I've changed the status of Women's sport to "active". In my opinion, it's one of the most important of the "women" projects listed on sites such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the group's status.
A WP:WikiProject is a group of people (i.e., not a subject area, a collection of assessments, or a bunch of pages). If there are no people there, then the group should be marked as inactive. However, if there are people responding to questions, then it should be marked as active. (I suggest using semi-active for borderline or unclear situations.) It's perfectly fine for groups to change their activity levels over time. The main point behind the active/semi/inactive tags is to give people a hint about how likely they are to get the help they need. Unlike, e.g., a WP:PROD tag, marking a group as being inactive does not have any direct consequences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
A woman on stage
Marina Kondratyeva, who shaped the history of the stage of the Bolshoi Ballet for 70 years, first as a dancer, then a master tutor, died and appeared among the recent deaths. The attempt to also present her on DYK resulted in a tag for better sources that I hate. Any help in finding secondary sources which may be in Russian (which is very foreign to me). Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I don't know where they get the 102 from, though. - I did what I could, but that was not enough. I hope for someone knowing Russian, and I hope that the rest of the NYT is more solid and can be quoted by someone who has access. I am busy with two men who died more recently, but really don't want to leave a celebrated ballerian of the #1 ballet in the world with the tag that I think is appropriate when a starlet has nothing but her own website. I am not in a position to remove it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I was able to access the International Encyclopedia of Dance article Ipigott mentioned via Wikipedia library and Oxford reference and searching for Marina Kondratieva (not Kondratyeva). It is only a couple of paragraphs, but every little helps. TSventon (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, can you please add that ref and use it where applicable. I'm busy - two RD articles on the Main page at the same time - and it would also look better if more people showed interest. I guess it's more or less what Classical Music Daily also has, and Oxford looks more serious ;) - Anybody to read the NYT. We got the advice to archive it and then read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
On NYT, it has been suggested that if you remove the cookies, you can read the article in full. My problem is that I don't know how to remove NYT cookies without making a mess of everything else.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I asked about this over on Media copyright questions a couple days ago, but no response thus far. So I thought I would bring my question to you good people. I finished an article on Janet W. Hartley the other day and was looking for a potential public domain image for her. I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? SilverserenC21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe? The problem is that the post doesn't say "... and this is a photo from that 1995 interview" or even "and this is an unrelated NIH photo of her", so, even though that does seem likely, it still might be "and this is a personal photo of her taken by her grand-niece who doesn't have anything to do with the NIH, thank you very much Shirley". But the bottom of the page says "Email: history@nih.gov". Maybe send a quick email? "Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor, who wants to know whether this photo you posted on X/Twitter is an NIH photo (which would make it public domain, so we could use it in our article). If it is, would you be so kind as to send a copy of your reply to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?" --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
True, those are an option. If it comes down to it, which of the two there would you think turns out better if cropped to just be Hartley? SilverserenC22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, so I got a response, GRuban. They said that photo in particular was also scanned from an NIH publication (though didn't say which one) and they also linked to this issue as yet another photo option. All of them should be in the public domain, they said. Though I'm not sure I should use the original one I linked above if we don't know the exact source publication it's from. SilverserenC23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Were they kind enough to CC permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team)? Then it depends on which VRT person you get. Honestly, I think if an NIH person says that it's an NIH photograph, that should be sufficient, without demanding publication name and page number (after all, the point is not where and when it was published, but that it was taken by the US federal govt); but you could well get a VRT person who demands a shrubbery; I have had one who demanded my article subject scan in and email their driver's license. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I, uh...may have forgotten to ask that part, GRuban. >_>; They did respond again though and said that the specific photo I was asking about was from the 1987 NIH issue of Women in Science, page 138. Also, they linked another issue of the NIH Record with a photo of Hartley. They said that all of these photos of her in NIH publications are public domain and requested that the Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum are put as the attribution as the holders of all said issues. But, otherwise, free to use. SilverserenC03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
So, I can't find information about any magazine called Women in Science. (I can find lots of pages on the subject from various science magazines and websites, including a https://womeninscience.nih.gov/ website, but that says it was created in 2007). The 1987 NIH Record issues can be found at https://nihrecord.nih.gov/past-issues/1987 and I have not flipped through them, but doubt any one has a page 137, they normally run 20 pages or so. So are you quite sure the NIH person meant this was an NIH magazine called Women in Science? If so, again, I'd be willing to take their word for it; but if not, it would be a shame if it turned out to be a Women in Science issue of some different non-NIH magazine, that happened to have a section about the women of the NIH. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Hartley in 1987
The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.
OK, that's good enough for me. I uploaded that image and put it in the article. Now if you either (A) want to go for GA or FA or something or (B) have editors that don't like you (basically anyone who might be unusually picky), you probably want to reply to your wonderful quickly-responding NIH contact, and ask: "Thank you so much, but could you please resend that email saying 'The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.' to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, CC-ing me?" Then the VRT responder will very likely stamp the file with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PermissionTicket, which will be good enough even for the unusually picky. (Say 90% chance; I am occasionally surprised by the evidence demanded by our fearless volunteers, as mentioned above.) The VRT people will want the link to the Commons file, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janet_W._Hartley.jpg; including TSventon's Google Books link may help convince a skeptical VRT-er that such a thing did likely exist. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 Summer Olympics start soon, with the first competitions taking place on July 24 and the majority of qualifications having wrapped up. For anyone who's looking for sportswomen to turn blue, there are a lot of qualified athletes missing articles, including for nearly every sport and country, a large number of which likely pass GNG (though should not be assumed without proof). Below I've listed the number of qualified women Olympians who are redlinks by sport, with links to the lists:
Thanks, BeanieFan11! Sports is a little out of my usual topic areas, and the only one of these events that I have any particular interest in and knowledge of is sport climbing, but I've already added two (Piper Kelly and Jenya Kazbekova). There's more of a language barrier for some, and I think for Beatrice Colli most of the in-depth sources are unfortunately in video rather than text, but I'll see what more I can do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks like Newspapers.com has been made completely unavailable now (with the button even being removed from The Wikipedia Library, replaced with "Temporarily unavailabe") and no explanation forthcoming thus far. A lot of threads on Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library and Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com, but no answers. I'm not even sure if there's a Phabricator ticket open on it (or would this be rolled into the several prior tickets covering the many issues we've been having with Newspapers.com access?)
It leaves me kind of at a loss on how to do proper research though. The vast majority of biographical subjects I have to write on require access to that one directory (and Newspaper Archive is a very poor substitute). Not sure what to do at this point. SilverserenC18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a Phabricator ticket T322916. Click on "Temporarily unavailable" for a link.
Ah, I didn't realize they had turned that into a link. I see I was right though on this being added on to the same issues we've been having for nearly two years now. And no response on the ticket for three days or even really the week prior to that. That's concerning. SilverserenC19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Most of the articles that I start are biographies and this is so frustrating. I don't have the money to sign up for a membership either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the same problem I was having, that I mentioned to you in that recent AfD. I wonder why you're still unaffected. I was able to read only two of your clippings, but not the others. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
TSventon, thanks. I still can't figure out how to clip, but for days I have changed the newspapers.com to www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org to read the articles and then just pasted the newspapers.com link with subscription required tag. It's annoying, but at least it works. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I have not had any success in accessing Newspapers.com in the last few weeks. Not sure how to implement the cookies suggestion. Hoping it is fixed soon bc I used it frequently when drafting bios. TJMSmith (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing assistance request
Sorry for making so many threads around here lately. I've been working on this weeks biography article for me: User:Silver seren/Betty Hanley and run into a brick wall. Finding two full length articles entirely about her was easy, popped right up, and I already knew about the third article that mentioned her from previous article work. But, after that...I can't find anything. I've looked high and low through The Wikipedia Library and done a fairly exhaustive Google search. Maybe I'm just not using the right keywords? I feel like there has to be more out there since I found two full length articles about her, one even being from a US paper and not a British one. Anyone have any ideas? SilverserenC21:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Bdatpal: As the article was also listed as WP Sweden, I have already reviewed it. I check additions to WP Denmark, WP Norway and WP Sweden at least once every two weeks. Please let me know on my talk page if you need assistance with Sweden articles.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer of assistance, Ipigott Could you please guide me on how to find the appropriate WikiProject for any new page I create? Additionally, what’s the best way to notify an available editor to help review and improve the article once it’s under the right WikiProject? Your advice would be very helpful in ensuring the quality of future articles. Bdatpal (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Bdatpal: You should have contacted me on my talk page on this as your articles do not appear to involve women. I see one more was pending review and I have now reviewed it. I can't offer any further assistance on how to have your articles reviewed more quickly. Things are particularly slow at the moment as there is a backlog on database applications which means listings of new page reviews in specific fields are not being updated as often as usual. Let's see if your future articles are reviewed within a reasonable time. If not, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the articles, Ipigott. I apologize for not contacting you through your talk page earlier, I was not involved. I appreciate your efforts, especially given the current backlog. I’ll keep an eye on the review process for future articles and will reach out if there are any significant delays.
Hello all, I have been getting an error message "Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests".
https://copyvios.toolforge.org/
I have been getting the message for about a week. Does anyone know if the Earwig Copyvio Detector is broken? Any recommendations for alternative sites? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It's been broken for quite a while. Over a month, at least. Though it's specifically the internet search part that's broken. If you uncheck "Use search engine" and only have it copyvio check with the sources in the article, it will work. SilverserenC21:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone! Over at Women in Green, we have been keeping track of our backlog of unreviewed GA nominations about women and women's works. At time of writing, this backlog has over 60 nominations still waiting on a review, some of which were nominated last year. asilvering (talk·contribs), who recently coordinated the July backlog drive, which focused on helping new reviewers get started, suggested I bring this up here. If you are an experienced reviewer that can contribute to bringing down the backlog, we would be more than happy if you could help. Or if you are interested in reviewing GA nominations, but haven't yet started, we can provide you with a mentor to help navigate you through the process. Feel free to comment here or over at the WiG talk page if you're interested, we'd love to have your help! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
And just to add: if you're interested in reviewing but "mentor" sounds a bit formal and you just want someone to check over your first review (or first couple of reviews) before you close them out, we'd be happy to do that too! -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
de-orphaning as monthly initiative?
hello folks, I'm at Wikimania & the head of research just shared this slide about how many women's biographies (across all Wikipedias) & how many are orphans.
head of Wikimedia Research discussing new insight at Wikimania International Conference Centre
It could certainly, at least, be a monthly tip. But I like tasks like destubbing and deorphaning. I observe my own informal "December Destub" every year; in the busyness of the holiday season, it's a nice way to keep contributing without the full absorption of creating articles. Penny Richards (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, Lajmmoore. In many cases, women articles deserve to be included in appropriate lists. This is a simple way to de-orphan those displaying the tag. Many of those needing to be de-orphaned have been created by relatively new Wikipedians who also need help with categories and sorting. I spend quite a bit of my editing time trying to help them along. New articles about women are usually displayed on User:SDZeroBot/NPP_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women but as a result of database problems, the list has not been updated since 2 August. For those seriously interested in de-orphaning women's articles, lists can be found here and on similar lists linked from Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
One of the easiest ways to de-orphan biographical articles I've found is adding them to surname list articles. Obviously, we'd want to spread around the biographies more than just that single place, but it's a start. There's also alumni lists for university pages, some lists for certain professions, and other things like that. SilverserenC15:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm rather doubtful about de-orphaning; many articles don't "need" to be de-orphaned at all - categories are a different matter entirely. Apart from the affiliation lists SS mentions above, which are fine, care should be taken not to shoehorn links into articles where this is WP:UNDUE. For example most biographies of academics & scientists should not be linked to from the pages of their areas of research; there are just too many. Novelists and artists are similar. I know of no evidence that this is an issue affecting female bios more than male - was there any in the presentation? Ok, apparently there was - the slide shown says this. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
It says "overrepresented", but not by how much, and given that the pageviews only increase by about 10%, I'm not sure it's all that important. That's not to say I think it would be bad to have a de-orphaning drive, since that is obviously going to improve the encyclopedia! But I'm not convinced, at least not from this slide, that it's a huge issue. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of adding to surname lists in particular: it reminds readers that there are Georginas in among the Georges everywhere. For many women (academics etc) it's worth searching on their name to see whether they are cited in other articles so that an "author-link=" can be added to refs. Anyone with a British honour, such as an MBE, will be listed in the relevant honours list and should be linked there - but may be there with a longer form of name, which suggests the need for a redirect as well as a link. I wonder what that "causal evidence" is, showing that de-orphaning leads to 10% more internally-referred pageviews? Does just adding to a surname list do the trick, or is it referring to inclusion in the text of relevant articles? PamD19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
To create lists, Petscan might be useful: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/. "British women" and "Orphaned articles", 3 layers deep, found 192 articles, not quite all biographies (and some of pretty dodgy notability). 6 layers deep found random things like Victorian slide bracelet, in Category:Victorian fashion, which led up to Category:Queen Victoria and hence to Category:British women! "Women" and "Orphaned articles", 3 layers deep, found 944. Obviously not all orphaned women would be retrieved there, as some will be more than 3 steps down from "Women", but it's a batch to be looking at. PamD19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, sorry that I missed that session! I'm a +1 to de-orphaning as a monthly initiative, (a) particularly if Leila Zia is talking about it at Wikimania. (b) As Penny Richards mentions, some months, veteran WiR editors want/need to shift their workflow. (c) I think article-improvement events have the potential to attract editors from other areas of EN-WP, who might become WiR editors. (d) I think it's fun to have occasional (2? 3? 4? /year) article-improvement events (double-the-lead, add-a-cat, de-orphan, etc.) sprinkled in with our article-creation offerings. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much everyone! It sounds like people regularly de-orphan (great) but that there is also appetite to perhaps use a monthly theme to raise awareness that this is a useful and important task, and is fun to switch up what/how people edit. I'm going to add it to the ideas page - perhaps as "Deorphan December"? De-stubbing could be included too? Lajmmoore (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll just add on this that when I see an "orphan" tag, I often look at "what links here" to check, & pretty often the article isn't actually an orphan - sometimes they have quite a few links. I don't know if the research mentioned above works off the tags or does its own research to get its numbers. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Drafts have been initiated for the five women who have served as chairmen of the powerful Public Utility Commission of Texas (the title of the office is "Chairman"). Any help in getting these drafts finished and moved to mainspace would be of great benefit to this project. Most of these officeholders have also held other prominent positions in public life or industry.
Humaniki, the site we use to update our statistics each week, is offline at the moment, returning a 404 Not Found error message. I don't know who to contact about this. Hopefully, another Women in Red editor can follow this up. Oronsay (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping a eye on this Oronsay. The person to contact on serious delays is Maximilianklein but last time I alerted him, the problem had been automatically resolved before he had time to look at it. I realize many contributors are interested in seeing when we reach 20% women but let's give it another couple of weeks and see whether things are back to normal again.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Silver seren: I've included a pertinent template at the top of the article. While it is understandable that the subject of the article is keen to add personal details, this is not acceptable under COI, especially as many of the additions are self-promotional. I think an administrator should revert the article to the version of 25 July. JoelyProudfit should be informed on her talk page that the best way to have suggestions incorporated into the article is to list them in order of priority on the article's source page together with reliable secondary sources. Let's see how things evolve over the next couple of days-Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Someone else already added a COI template to her talk page, but she seemed to ignore it. I'll give a little bit of time, but I'm definitely going to eventually just do a wholesale revert of the changes. SilverserenC14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
She has replied on her talk page now to my COI notification, so hopefully with that, we'll be able to productively help include any COI edits as long as their supported by RS and follow our other guidelines.
I pointed her to request edits on the article talk page using the COI template and explained the RS requirement.
I'll let you handle the either reversion or copy-editing if some of their changes are supported by RS, since COI edits are strongly discouraged, but not strictly forbidden, so maybe we don't need a wholesale reversion, but I'll let you judge it based on the content added.
I just helped step in with the COI note to start when you made your original request here and as I said to the user on their talk page, I'm happy to help guide her on the COI disclosure and edit request portion at least. Raladic (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
After further discussion on their talk page, the user now understands the process, I have pinged you on their talk page to discuss the best path forward and they have started making the edit request process on the article talk page, so I think you should be able to take it from there and work collaboratively with them to help fix issues of the page in line with our guidelines and policies. Raladic (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I read the paper with interest and agree with the difficulties cited about writing about women. What I missed was a firmer, more strategic proposal on how to reduce the number of women's biography deletions, especially on the EN wiki. Perhaps Hiperterminal has some suggestions in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I confess I find myself unimpressed by this paper; it shows a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general. Most deletion of new pages doesn't happen at AfD. The paper doesn't actually show data for how many pages were nominated for deletion by gender, nor for how many were actually deleted. 115 pages is a tiny sample, easily skewed in either direction by a UPE/COI cleanup, for instance. And they confuse cause and effect when they suggest lengthening discussions. Indeed the only concrete finding here is that AfD's for biographies of women scientists attract more attention: and eyeballing their figure, end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Well at least it is mercifully short! I think by now we expect "a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general" in papers, don't we? They have adopted the (to my mind) unhelpful and confusing way of describing successfully-defended Afd's as "miscategorizations" (by wrongly "categorizing" the article as non-notable). I think this was first spotted in a paper by Tripodi et al, given a very rough ride here. As usual the possible impact of this project and similar initiatives in - say, possibly - producing more new female bios by very new editors is not even mentioned. That would be super-difficult to handle in statistics, but it should be at least mentioned, to my mind. That "that AfD's for biographies of women scientists [and other types of women I think] ... end with deletion less frequently" is not a new finding - the argument is that the bias is shown in an excess of nominations, which may indeed be the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello both @Hiperterminal is one of the authors, so perhaps you could be mindful of that in the tone it is discussed in, use good faith, and be constructive for how future iterations could be improved. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for this comment. I was thinking the tone was unnecessarily rude and doubt about myself. I will put a little bit more of love to my research but many thanks for give me a perspective about how I was reading the comments. For me it is very useful. At the end, it is not hard to be constructive, right? Hiperterminal (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I think all comments here are constructive. If you don't like them you could pick areas of research where the subjects can't talk back. As a bonus friendly tip, next time get a native speaker to check at least the title of the paper - I'm sure Lajmmoore would be happy to help. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
AfD's for biographies of women scientists [...] end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality) – this was Tripodi's (2021) core finding and none of the nitpicking of that paper on-wiki has actually been able to explain it. If AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs men, then that is ipso facto evidence that more notable women are ending up at AfD than notable men (Tripodi's 'miscategorization'). This is not a positive bias. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Joe Roe there are two possible reasons that might explain why AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs of men: firstly that nominators are more likely to nominate notable women than notable men for deletion and secondly that AfD participants try harder to establish the notability of women than of men. Tripodi accepts the first reason. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. I suppose Tripodi's conclusion is based on the assumption that AfD outcomes are an accurate test of notability. I think that's a defensible assumption at scale, but certainly not always true. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
At least 3 possible reasons: #3 being that the long-running furore over "gender imbalance" leads to more new bios by very new editors (often their first and only edits on WP) of subjects that are non-notable, or close to it. It would be amazing if that factor had no contribution. By contrast, many male bios at Afd are COI-ish puff-pieces of lawyers/doctors/businesspeople that have absolutely no chance at Afd. They get a few opposes very quickly, & other regulars don't bother. This probably explains, Joe, "why AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men". They also tend to be on people from areas where notability criteria are more complex (academia, arts, activism), and there is more to debate. Plus there are sorting/alert lists, both on and off-wiki, for female bio afds, but not for male ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's been a while since I read her paper but as I recall Tripodi found that bios of women aren't more likely to be nominated, just more likely to be kept, which excludes most explanations based on differential article quality. But what you're suggesting is that new articles on women are more likely to fall into a notability grey zone, and therefore produce more contentious/less easily closed AfDs, whereas men's are more clear-cut? This sounds similar to Hiperterminal's hypothesis below. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Understandably, neither of us can be bothered to re-read her paper, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't attempting any new research on whether bios of women are more likely to be nominated, but cited older research, some of which suggested they were. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The three reasons aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody can deny there is a corps of editors who put considerable effort into demonstrating the notability of women scientists, but not men. Many members of this project do so. And that effort is a good thing! But it absolutely skews the length of AfDs. I also agree with Johnbod's thesis, and I don't really think it can be disputed; a movement dedicated to writing new biographies is inevitably going to create a few that are of marginal notability. It is easy to see how those would lead to contentious AfDs that end in keep/no consensus outcomes. Essentially, my point is that the data in this paper speak to the existence and effectiveness of the WIR project and of like-minded editors: it tells us little about why a gender gap persists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this. It's interesting that AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men; do you have any ideas on why that might be, Hiperterminal?
I'm also not convinced by the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between the length of a discussion and the likelihood of a keep outcome, though. I think you're overlooking a potential confounder in the level of consensus. In other words I suspect the causal graph is not:
I am still working on my thesis and developing ideas about the different factors. Another not published yet, are the arguments used in the debates. I still need more data but, I have an idea that notability (or non-notability) is clear for men but not for women or other genders. Seems people can easily vote for non-notable men (2 votes to generate consensus) but where there is a woman, people doubt more if is notable or not, generating a longer debate.
Similar notice to above, except the article itself doesn’t need attention, I’ve significantly expanded it already. It is nominated at ITN, and the nom would appreciate some attention, in part due to the circumstances around the discovery of her death meaning it’s just been nommed but already in the lower half of the page. Kingsif (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Kingsif: In cases like this, it's important to post the item asap. It seems to me that thanks to your additions, she is adequately covered in the article.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
National Allotment Week (UK)
Hello folks! Next month as part of National Allotment Week in the UK, I've been invited to speak on a panel about women and vegetable gardening. Its come about because I told a friend about the event on Plants & Gardens (which started as an idea in my head), and like lots of others here try to regularly edit about women in botany/biology/etc. I have a ten minute slot & I wondered a) if there are key things you'd like me to mention and b) if any of the stats wranglers had any figures for how green-fingered professions might have improved (or not) while the project has been running. (I bet Women in Science has also done a lot of contributing too) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, I checked the contents of Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners and only 23 of the articles existed when Women in Red started in 2015 (marked x below), so 40 have been added since, including some by yourself. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Contents of category
Helen Vickroy Austin 2017
Ernesta Drinker Ballard 2011 x
Helen Ballard 2020
Iris Bannochie 2006 x
Émile Napoléon Baumann 2018
Jelena de Belder-Kovačič 2018
Rae Selling Berry 2015 x
Sue Biggs 2018
Sylvia Blankenship 2023
Andrea Brunsendorf 2018
Maggie Campbell-Culver 2013 x
Angelika Campbell, Countess Cawdor 2024
Pamela Cunningham Copeland 2017
Emma G. Cummings 2018
Anna de Diesbach 2009 x
Margaret Bell Douglas 2019
Jane Edmanson 2018
Margery Fish 2016
Catherine FitzGerald 2019
Olive Fitzhardinge 2012 x
Elizabeth Gilmer 2009 x
Jane Norton Grew 2023
Annie Gulvin 2018
Jane B. Haines 2020
Beatrix Havergal 2009 x
Isabelle Bowen Henderson 2024
Amelia Egerton, Lady Hume 2018
Alice Hutchins (gardener) 2021
Charlotte Knight 2015 x
Snježana Kordić 2012 x
Joy Larkcom 2021
Abra Lee 2021
Norah Lindsay 2009 x
Cecily Littleton 2022
Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović 2018
Mary McMurtrie 2014 x
Corinne Melchers 2020
Hilda Murrell 2004 x
Lady Dorothy Nevill 2008 x
Anna B. Nickels 2021
Ethel Anson Peckham 2015 y
Frances Perry (gardener) 2007 x
Elza Polak 2018
Nora Pöyhönen 2016
Hortensia del Prado 2021
Isabella Preston 2016
Chrystabel Procter 2018
Elsie Reford 2010 x
Patricia Easterbrook Roberts 2018
Eleanour Sinclair Rohde 2006 x
Lester Gertrude Ellen Rowntree 2014 x
Kate Sessions 2006 x
Theodosia Burr Shepherd 2018
Holly Shimizu 2021
Midori Shintani (horticulturalist) 2021
Lady Beatrix Stanley 2020
Frances Tophill 2015 x
Elisa Bailly de Vilmorin 2014 x
Edna Walling 2005 x
Susana, Lady Walton 2010 x
Karen Washington 2017
Cynthia Westcott 2017
Frances Garnet Wolseley, 2nd Viscountess Wolseley 2016
Women in Red & National allotment week slides For anyone interested, the slides I used are uploaded to Commons now! Bear in mind I had 12 minutes, there was a lot of interest in this project, and the wider world of Wikimedia Lajmmoore (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Slight correction, I joined this WikiProject in February 2019 (I didn't start editing at all until September 2018). Thank you for the ping, I'm honoured to be mentioned here. I've never been the most active on the writing women's biography angle but I do try to improve our coverage on subjects that at the very least women like me are interested in. Some examples of that are: no kid zones, Rock 'n Play, and Creatable World. My only GA is Katherine Hughes (activist). Clovermoss🍀(talk)11:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
My congratulations to you, as well, Clovermoss. Well done! Enjoy the honor and I hope you revel in whatever is ahead. BTW... that your only GA is a woman activist... fantastic! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Women in Religion is happy to announce the release of the "Call for Submissions" for Volume Four of the Women in Religion biographies series published with the Parliament of the World's Religions. The working title for this volume is Women Challenging Dominant Religious Practices and Expectations through Women-centered Traditions and Spiritualities. Please consider a proposal; if interested, see here or contact Colleen Hartung (User:Dzingle1). The submission deadline is September 15, 2024. We are looking forward to another successful publication that will allow us to continue our work of raising up the visibility of so many noteworthy women who remain undercovered, both in the general scholarship and on Wikipedia.
Indeed, Humaniki for 5 August shows 20.028% for French but it also shows several other European Languages have passed the 20% milestone: Norwegian 24.950%, Spanish 23.405%, Swedish 22.504%, Finnish 21,404; Catalan 21.198% and Portuguese 20.413%. Now that English is at 19.907%, it looks as if we'll soon be among the twenty percenters too.--Ipigott (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I decided to take a closer look at women's coverage in other languages by submitting "All" on Humaniki. Some of the results for reasonably well developed versions of Wikipedia are unexpectedly high:
Punjabi 56.075%
Igbo (Nigeria) 47.268%
Asturian 42.809%
Malaysian 39,629
Hausa (Nigeria) 36.684%
Afrikaans 35.674
Others listed at over 20% include Basque, Georgian, Cantonese, Korean, Armenian, Hindi, Georgian, Macedonian, Marathi (India), Indonesian, Albanian, Gaelic, Hebrew, Galician and Persian. While the criteria for including biographies of women in some of these may not be as strict as for the English Wikipedia, these results indicate a real interest for writing women's biographies in versions covering some of the world's most important languages.--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Yupik, this is indeed a serious omission, especially as 50.1% women biographies is quite an achievement. It would be useful if Maximilianklein could incorporate it for future listings. With over 23,000 articles since 2012, it looks as if it should have been included when Humaniki was released in mid-2021.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Could be, but then Humaniki is missing out on statistics from a lot of the newer Wikipedias, many of which are from digitally underrepresented communities. - Yupik (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Was talking about this yesterday (with my user:Sara Thomas (WMUK) hat on), and did a rough calc that we need 1815.6 1816 articles to get to 20% on en.wiki.... Lirazelf (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I tried my own calculations using the 5 August figures, including other genders. My estimate is that an extra 2340 female articles would have been needed to reach 20% on 5 August. If I assume that 30% of new articles are female and 70% are male or other an extra 5615 female articles would be needed. TSventon (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Don't forget the Welsh wp at 50% (or used to be). But they only had 20k bios in total, & the 50% was reached by a frankly artificial translation push from English. I wonder if there have been similar effects in other languages? Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
There is an article about Punjabi Wikipedia here, which mentions Mission 50,000, a call-for-action to reach 50,000 articles, in order to celebrate the 21st birthday of Punjabi Wikipedia.TSventon (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
To be practical, should we start thinking about how we (& other allied gender projects) might celebrate when we *do* hit 20%? (I'm assuming we *would* want to celebrate and share the collaborative success somehow) - what would that look like for our community?
I also wonder whether we should draft a statement together, and in doing so highlight the other language Wikipedias above? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Lajmmoore that it should be a time of celebration, and we should plan for it.
All... What do you think about an Open Letter on Meta-wiki, written in tandem with the the other language WPs who have reached/surpassed 20%? This way, it isn't just EN-WP honking its horn.
And/or we could write a piece for "Diff" and The Signpost?
Do we want help from WMF Comms in developing various comms? (I know the folks in that department...) Maybe they could get the attention of the "big" "international" newspapers to write about it, too? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
A first step might simply be to bring this discussion to the attention of those concerned with improving coverage of women at Meta. For some of the languages, such as those in Nigeria, the efforts of the WMF seem to have achieved the intended objectives. As for an article in Signpost, work could now begin on a draft but I suggest we wait for confirmation of 20% on the EN wiki before publication. As for Welsh Wikipedia, it should have been included with 50.382% women on 5 August.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
There is discussion happening in the various Telegram groups about this (rather than on Meta-wiki). For those of you who are interested in learning more about the TG groups, e.g., WikiWomen or GenderGap, feel free to ping me. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Based on my calculation of the further articles needed it could take around 3 months from 5 August to reach 20%, so now is a good time to start planning. TSventon (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Scope of the project around non-binary people
Hi, I'm seeking some clarification around the scope of inclusion of non-binary people, which is a bit unclear to me from reading the main project page, which says If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary and/or non-binary and/or other. From my understanding and my personal relationships with several non-binary friends, they identify as non-binary and not as women. So, my question here is, does that mean that someone who identifies as non-binary is out-of-scope for the purpose of WiR project, or in-scope, since I find the sentence on the project page is ambiguously worded? Raladic (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The and/or wording means that the project covers people who identify as women, non-binary or both, so people who identify as non-binary and not as women are included. TSventon (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the clarification, I think what threw me off is the emdash after "as a woman" without a comma after "binary".
Any objections to changing it to If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary, and/or non-binary, and/or other.
Actually, while of course technically an article policy, should we remove the and per MOS:ANDOR and make it If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman—binary, or non-binary, or other gender minority (such a genderfluid). (note I also added an example for other, so it sounds more human centric than just "other" and expanded to gender minority, which I presume is meant by it? Raladic (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Your rewording makes it sound like you wish to exclude from the scope people who identify as non-binary and do not identify as women. The new wording reads to me as having "woman" primary, so that it only concerns women binary and women non-binary people (whatever that might mean). Why would you want to do that? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it's the opposite, I want it to be clear that non-binary people who may not self-identify as woman are included, which is why I was asking for the clarification at the top to begin with, as I wasn't sure if they were currently considered included or not.
I think the issue here isn't solved by removing the commas, but removing the em dash would help. For example: If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman and/or non-binary person. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I like your solution for "other", which I missed when I wrote my suggestion above. So I have a better suggestion: If the subject of the article self-identifies as a woman, a non-binary person, and/or any other gender minority. This explicitly includes non-women gender minorities like trans men and non-binary people who are explicitly not women, etc, and I think that's fine, since the purpose of this project is to combat a coverage imbalance weighted towards cis men. -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes thanks, I think this brings it exactly to the point I was seeking clarification on as one of the articles I wrote last week was about a non-binary person and was just nominated for AfD, so I was trying to seek clarification if it was included in the scope of Women in Red, since I've written and improved several articles for WiR.
Ah, Safari Scribe, huh? Once again. I'm definitely seeing an WP:NJOURNALIST pass for #3 with creating a "significant or well-known work", but you could probably better emphasize that by adding the reviews. Check out how I set up the book reviews reference list for Bryan Mealer and you can do the same for Henderson's book. Here's the reviews that I found from a quick search.
In addition to those as reviews, you can probably also use this (Page 2) to add some more biographical details. And then there's this long form journal analysis, which seems like it should be usable in the text for something. SilverserenC14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I made a couple minor changes. But I think it's good to go now. Feel free to re-submit. If it gets declined again (which I admit is entirely possible with how overly strict AfC is in not properly following their own rules), then I'll just move it to mainspace myself. SilverserenC18:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Silver seren, it sounds like you've noticed a bunch of poor declines by this editor before. Have you been pointing them out to him? I've noticed some weird declines too but in general he seems happy to learn when it's pointed out to him by more experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
In my view, her memoir alone should be enough for WP:AUTHOR #3 (as she has created [...] a well-known work [which is] the primary subject of multiple independent [...] reviews). It looks as if she has received a fair bit of coverage (and accolades) beyond this for her other work too (the Fulbright-National Geographic Award, one would think, is a significant award or honor enough for WP:ANYBIO #1). I'm stumped as to why we would NOT want an article (or at the very least, a stub) about her. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Allthemilescombined1: A convenient way of creating new articles in your user space is to use User:Allthemilescombined1/draft article name, e.g. User:Allthemilescombined1/Marisa Meltzer. This also makes it easier to identify drafts you are working on. I'm not sure whether you think the present version is ready for mainspace. I would be happy to move it but suggest you first work on the items under "Additional press" and provide proper references rather than simple links to the articles. They could possibly be used to expand the "Career" section. Please let me know on my talk page when you think the article is ready for mainspace. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
A real barnstar!
I *just* got back to New Zealand after Wikimania (yes, a bit delayed...but it is a long way from Poland, so it was worth taking extra time in Europe to justify the travel), to find my reward from @Victuallerseducation challenge in January this year. An actual physical Women in Red barnstar, a Women in Red T-shirt and some other goodies. Thank you so much Victuallers! Especially because the vagaries of the UK/NZ postal system meant sending this twice. Your achievements, and others like @Lajmmoore's round the world trip, inspired me to set the goal of one start class women's bio a day this year (focusing on women professors in New Zealand, such that I am close to completing them all). I am severely behind on my target but will be working hard to catch up over the next month or two. DrThneed (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@DrThneed: Thanks for all your contributions -- 207 Start and C-class articles since the beginning of the year is no mean achievement. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hawley (previously Holly) Gould (they/them)
Hawley is amazing as Alice Paul in "Suffs" on Broadway. They are an alternate and I don't see reviews anywhere...so, too soon for notability? As Alice Paul, they resembled Meryl Streep, though they don't resemble Meryl in photographs. They will be a star. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
ODNB update on Early Modern Noblewomen
Via Matthew Kilburn @matthewkilburn.bsky.social: After nearly two years of work, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography release on noblewomen in the long early modern period is out: https://www.oxforddnb.com/newsitem/835/whats-new-august-2024
Digital access to the ODNB is available through the Wikipedia Library and libraries throughout the UK. - PKM (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
PKM, thank you, will the ODNB identifiers be added to Wikidata in due course? I have checked the list for redlinks below.
Someone will have to add the ODNB identitifers to the relevant Wikidata items. I encourage editors here to help do so, as once they have the names above will appear on our redlist. Gamaliel (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added ODNB identifiers to the Wikidata items, except "Born to rule? The origins of the medieval English episcopate", which does not have a Wikidata item and is not particularly relevant to this project. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
My head is spinning after looking into Ann Fairfax (landowner) (1725/6–1793) above. We have a redirect Ann Fairfax to a pseudonymous novelist, and an article about an English noblewoman Anne Fairfax (1617/1618 – 1665) (they were related by marriage). But although ODNB calls her "Ann", many sources call her "Anne", including those closely associated such as the website of Fairfax House and the abbey she supported, later Ampleforth College. There's also her portrait (held at Fairfax House, so presumably named by them).
And the Orlando database has our Anne Fairfax listed as Ann or Anne Fairfax (wife of the former parliamentary..., although our article makes no mention of "Ann". I guess the two spellings have historically been interchangeable. PamD14:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, PKM, for this useful information. I have twice suggested that we should include "Nobility" as one of our monthly priorities but it has not yet been included as while some thought it suitable, it was also felt that most women in this sphere were only notable as a result of their husband's or family's achievements. I must say that in reviewing new articles on women, I constantly come across noble women who are notable for their own achievements. Perhaps with this publication, we can reconsider its pertinence to Women in Red and include it in one of our priorities in the coming months. (cc Oronsay, Rosiestep}.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Certainly! Please add it to the calendar on our Ideas page in whatever month you think is well-suited for it. Thanks! Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
PamD, I have tried to bring the redlinks, including Lady Mary Gregory, into line with the ODNB. It won't always be the best title, but it is a starting point. TSventon (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I went in and made some edits to your draft. Since Strachan is a physician, I'd recommend going into Google Scholar and finding more of her academic publications to add to the article; I've added a couple to get you started. Stylistically, I also removed the title Dr. from the text of the article, as that is discouraged by the manual of style unless it's being used to distinguish between two people with the same surname.
The other edits I made were mainly just for flow and ease of reading - feel free to revert those back to earlier wording/formatting if you'd like. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Allthemilescombined1 The section about her earrings doesn't really seem encyclopedic and could be reduced to something like "She is of West Indian descent. Her mother is a physician, and she has a twin brother.". PamD07:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, and happy Friday! I saw Draft:Helena Dunlap get declined at AfC and wanted to see what I could do. General feedback is welcome, as are comments on sources already cited or that I should add to the draft. Thanks in advanced! Rotideypoc41352 (talk·contribs) 15:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for taking an interest in this biography, Rotideypoc41352, but I haven't been able to find any detailed coverage in reliable secondary sources. She is linked to various auction houses but her work does not seem to have been considered significant enough for inclusion in the permanent collections of major museums or galleries. See Notability of creative professionals and WiR's Ten Simpe Rules. I always suggest looking for at least three informative secondary sources before embarking on a biography. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: I took the liberty of publishing your draft. I thought the article was good and that the Hughes, Anderson, and Vure sources were sufficient to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This just goes to show how useful it is to bring things up on this page. I'm happy to see the article is now in mainspace and look forward to further successes with articles refused at AfC---Ipigott (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Jane Parker (academic) AfD
I've done some clean up of Jane Parker but I'm not that experienced at working on articles at AfD so if anyone else cares to contribute it's much appreciated! DrThneed (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Need a hand with a redlist
Hey all. I just tried my hand at setting up a redlist for women revolutionaries and it seems to have populated well. But for some reason the bot seems to have added infoboxes into the descriptions which has resulted in some skewing. Does anyone here know how I can remove the infoboxes and fix this so it doesn't happen again going forward? I'd appreciate the help. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed infoboxes like these have been appearing in other Wikidata-based redlists. Some editors might find them useful but they certainly add to the length of the listing. If we really want to surpress them, we should probably bring it up on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
To me it seems to meet GNG - however the statements with "Citation needed" should either be sourced or removed before moving to the mainspace. Other than that, Well done for your hard work on it, you should be proud!:) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you have Page Move access, Allthemilescombined1? Do you have a "Move" button to the right of History on the top of article pages? If yes, you click that, then in the following page, you change the "Draft" selection to "(Article)" and make sure the title on the right is the title you want the article to have. Then you can pick whatever reason you want from the menu below that, usually "Move to mainspace" and then click the "Move page" button. SilverserenC00:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you have to worry too much about all that. Either a bot or another editor usually comes along to fix any problems (I always forget defaultsort and someone else always does it for me). What you should do though is add some categories to the bottom of the article and also any relevant Wikiproject templates to the talk page. SilverserenC01:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Talk page looks good. And looks like ForsythiaJo got the categories already. You can look at what they did if you want to see how categories work. You basically want to find which ones apply to the article subject. It's a bit of a hunt with "Category:" searching to see which categories exist and would thus be relevant to add. SilverserenC02:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand how on-wiki collaborations work
The Campaigns team at the Wikimedia Foundation is exploring how to expand it's work on campaigns, to support other kinds of collaboration. We are interested in learning from diverse editors that have experience joining and working on WikiProjects, Campaigns, and other kinds of on-wiki collaboration. We need your help:
Take a survey about your experience with collaborations: on Google forms
As you can see here, Rosiestep has already mentioned the effectiveness success of Women in Red. Other contributors might like to join me in adding comments. Don't forget to log in.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Techy.Sap: Thank you for this detailed biography. I looked carefully through your sources and considered several to be acceptable for notability. On that basis, I moved the article to mainspace but it was immediately tagged as AfD. Let's see how the deletion discussion evolves.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@PamD: Hey Pam, I've just created redlists for Jersey and Guernsey. Interestingly, most of the entries seem to be badminton players, which is probably just a quirk of the datasets. The lists can be filled out more by improving the data on the Wikidata side. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Apologies in advance if this is a bit of a silly question. I'm curious whether we can still contribute new articles to a meetup project after the end of the highlighted month? I'm not familiar with the general policies around it. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ornithoptera thanks for your question, so I think we tend not to - but there's no hard and fast rule. For me, I give myself a few days leeway, otherwise I add them under #1day1woman. Whatever the contribution, thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much Lajmmoore for letting me know! Things got hectic for me this month and I was unable to contribute more than I was able to in the end. I'll see what I can do in the meantime and go from there! Ornithoptera (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
You are making excellent progress Ornithoptera, with your recent detailed biographies of Alexina Kublu and Joanna Ferrone. As you appear to be interested in writers and translators, you will no doubt be able to participate in this month's Women writers event. As for contributing to events which have already closed, I agree with the guidance given by Lajmmoore but we have no hard and fast rules. On joining, one of our members actually went back to our earliest events and contributed at least one biography to each in order to be able to say she had participated in them all. Then there are also cases in which new drafts created in connection with a specific focus are not promoted to mainspace until later. They certainly deserve to be included under the relevant priority.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott! I'm very glad to hear that, your encouragement means a lot! Thank you for taking the time to read through them! I've been writing articles on Indigenous personalities for a while now so that was why I was particularly excited about Meetup 314. I'll definitely look into what you have said and keep your advice in mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Women connected to Jesus College, Oxford
Hello all, I was contacted by someone from Jesus College, Oxford, who is involved with an initiative to celebrate "hidden figures" in the college, as they are celebrating the anniversary of the college admitting women later this year. They shared a list with me, in case editors here might feel inspired by some of the names:
Almeria Vaughandaughter sister of Peter Vaughan, the Warden of Merton College, who married the Jesus College principal David Hughes only for him to shoot himself some weeks later... ref
Anne Rastell, she was the aunt of poet John Donne, was married to Griffith Lloyd- he was the first principal of the College 1572 to 1586.
Jane Thelwall, the mother of college benefactor Eubule Thelwall and her portrait with Eubule as a child on her knee still hangs in the College WD (image)
Goody Asaph her portrait wearing a traditional Welsh tall hat hangs in the Principal’s Lodgings “a seventeenth-century portrait of an unknown serving woman offering an onion to a monkey on her right arm; she is sometimes called ‘Goody Asaph’.(image) - I wonder if her portrait is notable, rather than her?
Elspeth Hughes-Davies campaigner for womens’ education, womens’ votes, Celtic studies, educational reform, wife of Principal John Rhŷs, in 1878 she hosted in College the inaugural meeting of the Association for the Education of Women, the committee which led to women’s colleges being formed in Oxford, (ref) & her daughters Myvanwy Rhys (1874-1945) - mentioned in the 1911 census as researcher in history; living in the principal’s lodgings in college & Olwen Rhys decoded a Greek and Latin cryptogram in the Juvencus Manuscript (ref to archive) & the Olwen scholarship (ref)
May Harper a leading figure in the cultural salons of the early twentieth century: the daughter of Principal Daniel Harper lived in the Principal’s lodgings and was an exponent of literary circles with friends including Oscar Wilde. (ref)
Alix Jennings an artist in her own right, she stepped in to help when the College needed a portrait of T E Lawrence to be done posthumously. born in Carlisle as Alice Agnes Thomson the daughter of a plumber and engineer she lived to age 96. (ref) (ref)
I've added the list to the Education event, but I'm dropping it here in case anyone is looking for inspiration - quite a few are connected to Wales as Jesus College has historic links with the country. My understanding is that the college is creating a trail, and when you find a person, you'll scan a QR code to go to more information, and I think some of the places you will go to are Wikipedia articles which already exist e.g. Saint Frideswide owned the land the college was built on, so the link will go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frithuswith (but don't hold me to this as I'm just passing on info, rather than being directly involved). Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about this @Lajmmoore! I'd love to help - I'd be interested in working on a page about Elspeth Hughes-Davies, if no one else has started that yet? Manxshearwater (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
That's amazing @Manxshearwater - I guess if new pages can't be set up, maybe adding information to their relatives, plus a redicrect would be useful (if there's time/inclination) Lajmmoore (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Also - Women in Red have been invited to the launch of the trail about women on 21 September - @Manxshearwater would you be interested in going? It's pretty far for me to travel & you've done a lot more work on these women - message me via the UK Telegram group if you like? Lajmmoore (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Section headings only capitalise first letter and proper nouns: not "External Links". "Selected publication" is the usual heading for "Books", and goes after sections like "Criticism" - see WP:ORDER. That's just a few quick little points on a check of the article, I haven't really considered whether she's actually "Notable"! Good luck. PamD09:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
An interesting read. In UK I've never heard "Sunday sized" so that needs clarified (21x21 I gather). The bit about "fun, accessible..." ought perhaps to be reworked as an explicit quote - and I liked the words later in that para of the source about " ... stretching ..." the solver, perhaps include that too? PamD04:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
If sources permit two articles, then a third article on the Aldgate Bell Foundry might also work. According to this "the bells of Aldgate" refers to the foundry. TSventon (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
In general, I certainly encourage separate articles on each individual but in this case, as far as I can see, these two were closely connected. Nevertheless, if substantial independent coverage exists two biographies may be the best way forward. If not, the current article could always be expanded. Articles on related British bellmaking developments might also be worthwhile, perhaps in connection with Bellfounding.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
According to the article they never worked together, so apart from the name Johanna there seems no reason to link them together in an article. Unless there is more content to add (in which case two separate articles would be best) I would suggest merging into Whitechapel Bell Foundry#Master founders — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
One reason to keep them together is that there is probably little justification for a stand-alone article on Johanna Sturdy. What brings them together is that they were both associated with the same foundry in the 15th century and they both left records showing that women were able to run businesses. For those interested, there's more on Sturdy here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Done Fight Like a Girl (book) + Boys Will Be Boys (Ford book). Boud (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
