I wrote Violet King Henry. It's been tagged as reading like a personal opinion piece and including too much personal detail. I'm baffled. I saw Wayde Compton on Twitter mention the upcoming documentary. So I wrote up an article. I admit I didn't put as much effort into it as I do with professional work, but I don't see what makes it sound like personal opinion. Also, unless it's that I need to go into significant detail about the role of porters in the African American community (Compton has been heavily involved in this), the work of the porter union in US Civil Rights, second wave feminism in high school, the rarity of a black Canadian woman in Calgary making a living at playing piano, or the Great Migration and the 1907 racist laws in Oklahoma, I don't see how this is overly detailed. It seems to me more like there isn't enough understanding of black Canadian history or feminism. Maybe I need to spell that out more?
Westendgirl: Glad you brought this up as the tags certainly seem inappropriate. Mifter added them while you were still in full swing with the article. You've created a very informative biography, completely in line with our call for better coverage of black women. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the tagging was excessive and anyway unnecessary, especially for an article that had only been live for ten minutes and was being actively worked on. It looks as if the person who added the tags later started to regret it.[1] I would have removed the "stub" class from the talk page because this also seems inappropriate but I see you put it there! Thincat (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, good. I think this article is one of the most thorough out there at this point, so I'm glad you all had a look and that some of you stepped in to help. The more I read about this woman, the more fascinated I became. The work she must have been doing at Immigration Canada would have been tied to implementing the Bill of Rights (now the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and thus very significant in human rights work. Because the department was so tied to employment at the time, I imagine that's how she got recruited to the YMCA in the US -- I read that she was instrumental in helping black people find employment. It looks like her family had strong ties to the US Civil Rights movement. Even their presence in Alberta was huge and the government of the time tried to get the black settlers sent back to the US -- it led to a racist Canadian policy that lived on till 1962, when King Henry would have still been in a senior post at Immigration. It's too bad more wasn't written about the work she did...or that I imagine her parents did.Westendgirl (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Westendgirl It's a really nice article. I am wondering if the tagging was done because of a new article patrol. That always seems to result in a lot of tagging, prod and AfD nominations from people who patrol before the article is even finished. I don't see that you are autopatrolled. You have created 60 articles and I think more than meet the requirements. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with SusunW. It's a nice article, and it seems like you're a perfectly competent article creator, so I'd recommend asking for autopatrolled right. It stops your pages appearing in the New Pages Feed, where they often get tagged before we finish writing them. Joseph2302 (talk)17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
For the record as I was pinged in this discussion, when I first saw the article it looked something like this. At the time I was concerned as the article appeared to be essay-like in its inclusion of seemingly arbitrary trivia and its general organizational structure. Looking at it now, most of the concerns I raised have been addressed to make what appears to be a very nice new article. If you haven't already considered, I would recommend putting it in for a did you know mention on the front page as it looks to me like their are plenty of interesting "hooks" (term for a did you know except) you could use for it. In general, when doing new page patrol we do tend to tag aggressively and clean up where we can as for every 1 article like this (where the author has taken a great deal of time and effort to refine the article) their are 100 where the author has not (and unfortunately likely will not) spend the time improving the article. Personally, I watch some of the new articles I tag to see if the creator is making an effort with them and to lend a hand. If you'd prefer to avoid tagging of a new draft in the article mainspace you can use a personal sandbox to tinker with a draft article before moving it to the article space, otherwise just remove the tags yourself once you've handled the issues raised. Finally, I took some time to review your article creation history and have given you the autopatrolled userright as a number of other commenters suggested above. This will mark your new articles as automatically patrolled which should help reduce tagging of early drafts by new page patrollers. If for some reason you do not want this userright let me know and I would be happy to remove it. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I always start new articles as subpages in my userspace. I used to just keep them around indefinitely, but I started blanking them soon after copying into main article space when I noted new page patrollers were reviewing them. I just got autopatrol rights myself after creating a flurry of articles over the last few weeks (many for WiR), so that should stop the unnecessary reviews anyway. Funcrunch (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been a while since we had posted about autopatrolling and I think it is important that we remind our members about it. We all know that finding sourcing on women is harder and developing an article often requires help from the community, but we can't do that if they are deleted before we even know they are there. I still create every article in a user page. When you click on a red link, a thing comes up with instructions. The last bullet point will let you create your article at Special:Mypage/article_name, which can be moved to an article once you are done. SusunW (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone who helped me on this. I went on a binge and I have added a ton of articles now! And I'm relieved that they aren't being nominated for deletion right away.-Westendgirl (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Notability
My article, Annita_McPhee, was tagged for not being about someone who is notable. This person was a three-term leader of an Aboriginal community and negotiated enormous ($2B) resource rights contracts that are known throughout the province. She's also won awards. Is this still not notable? Westendgirl (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: The Annita McPhee article was tagged in May 2016 by SwisterTwister in this edit. Nine months later, since the tag was still on the article, I expanded the tag in this edit so the link in the tag pointed to the more specific Wikipedia:Notability (people). The goal of doing so (for thousands of articles) was to generate conversations like this where knowledgeable people would either decide that the person was notable and remove the tag, or decide the person was not notable and send the article to AfD. GoingBatty (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
J. Morgan Puett is a notable woman artist, fashion designer, and arts organizer. I've tagged the talk page of her article with WIR 2017 to draw more attention to the article. Thank you for your work on it. Netherzone (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Tell me about it! She was a Guggenheim fellow too. What does it take? Entering the page of a Guggenheim fellow and noted art is into the deletion queue is... well, it's bad. Article kept.104.163.150.250 (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Galician
Per the language links on our mainpage, effective today, there are 11 other language versions of Women in Red, Galician language being the newest! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Meetup page revamp
Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/35, the Women Anthropologists Meetup Page. I've made several changes to the meetup page, mostly moving informational info into "infoboxes". This was the approach we used for Wikipedia:Meetup/San Jose/Cisco/January 2017, e.g. informational info in infoboxes. The thought process behind this is that event should have it's own infobox with specifics relevant just to it. The Events Box replaces all the "clickable buttons" which were at the top of the page. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I like the info on the side, but miss the buttons on the top to switch between events. I get that they are still there on the bottom, but I find it harder to navigate for each event of the month. SusunW (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, Makes sense. I returned the Clickable Buttons across the top, and removed the right-sided "Events infobox". I made the Clickable Buttons smaller and all in a row so they have a smaller footprint on the page; how does it look? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I see you have been reworking the editathon page. I was surprised to find the red links had completely disappeared from the body of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/35 and only appeared in the introduction. I frequently go back to the red link section for inspiration. As an old hand, I know where to look for the links in the nav box but I'm not sure those less familiar with our work will think of going there. I suggest they should be restored.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Overall I like the new page layout and see you have been continuing to work on it. Thanks for specifically mentioning the infobox and the redlinks at the foot of the introduction. When I first wrote on this, I had not realized so much had been moved into an infobox. I would nevertheless have preferred to see the redlinks mentioned in the body of the article in a section which would also appear in the TOC as Redlists which is where I was looking for it. I had added a couple of names to participants without noticing there was a new box. I note you have "Special requests" in the box but I can't see where redlinks should be placed. I see you've also been working on Black Women which has much clearer access to the redlists. Thanks for making all these improvements and making our editathon pages more attractive. Perhaps it is also time to update our main WiR page along similar lines. IMO, the only feature from Project X which seems important to keep is the member registration.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: On the red links, let's see what the others think before moving things around. (I don't think the opinions of an unobservant septuagenarian should be taken too seriously.) But how about our main page? Is there anything we can do about it? Perhaps it can also be improved by moving more things into boxes. Whenever I've tried to work on the general display, I have found that whole sections somehow disappear. If we really decide to reformat the whole page using a more traditional approach, it would be good if we could somehow maintain the membership registration module and perhaps also the "metrics" (unless we simply make our month-to-month metrics a separate page). I was wondering whether Tagishsimon with all his skills could help us out along these lines. Both Rosie and I have included Harej in several earlier messages on the same topic but as far as I am aware there's never been any response.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rosiestep and Harej: One of the most serious problems with the main page at the moment is that the icons identifying the various modules do not appear until you start scrolling down. They should of course be visible from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject might be interested in this contentious AfD of a recently created biography of a woman scientist. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Joe Roe I looked at the article and as it stands, it does not meet WP criteria. All the citations are BY the subject. You found a ton of sources, which do meet our guidelines. I would recommend that the article be userfied and totally reworked, because at this point, the cabal of naysayers on women scientists have already pounced and pretty much made a case that canvassing has occurred. Just my two cents. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done that - there are many blue links which need to be checked & removed, and which I may or may not get around to doing (I'm a bit behind on my Petscanning right now...). This list would also presumably qualify as another dictionary for the purposes of the WiR template, should anyone wish to take it forwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Amazingly fast work as usual. I've looked at a few in more detail. Although the database includes several references on each, it is not easy to find background on many of them on the internet. But some of them are well documented.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I see the discussion is veering towards delete which I find rather surprising given the extensive number of exhibitions, publications, interviews, etc., posted here. I think someone needs to go through these more carefully as quite a number appear to me to be valid secondary sources. It would also be useful to know whether any of the artworks are on permanent display. There must also be Polish news sources, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Artists such as Karina Smigla-Bobinski create works that are often not perceived as "collectible" by museums & institutions because of their ephemeral, dematerialized or performative nature. These practices, like Conceptual art of past decades, may disqualify (or ghettoize?) certain artists from traditional encyclopedic standards of notability. One hopes in the near future that the criteria for artists' notability are revised in relation to 21st century practices. There are many art worlds; not solely the institutional art world of museum collections and commercial galleries, which are biased towards promoting and collecting male artists due to the subjective economics of collectability based on "market value," and political bodies such as boards of trustees private interests. Just my two cents. If I find time, will work on her entry. Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is always finding RS according to Wikipedia's definition. Secondary sourcing on artists and academics is hard. Journalists write about their works, not them, or you get one liners that say they had a show. Exhibit catalogs for artists are deemed as promotional. How do we become advocates for women having their stories told? How do we change the media so that they actually record the accomplishments of women? It's a quandary. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
WiR members - Some more of you may want to weigh in on Karina Smigla-Bobinski at Articles for Deletion. She is a well known New Media artist of note, shown in museums and galleries around the world. My arguments do not seem to be taken into consideration. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Netherzone: Seems to be OK now. Thanks for undertaking such an extensive analysis. We really should not have to go to such lengths to keep articles about such notable women on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott Yes, I see that the nominator retracted, and withdrew his nomination for deletion, but the deletion template is still on the artist's page. Will an admin do a sweep at some point and remove this? These lengthy discussions are an absurd waste of time, when a few editors want to nit-pick and hold women to an unrealistic degree of scrutiny. It is as though they are interpreting WP:Artist to suit their own criteria and pre-conceptions, while not making any effort themselves to look things up and improve the article. Well, ever onward...! Netherzone (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Netherzone: Yes, the banner will be removed by an administrator soon. The only consolation is that the page reviewers are equally keen to see biographies of men deleted too. Many seem to think it is an achievement to have articles deleted and simply do not take sufficient time to look into the background of each article. I'm glad to see you have joined the team of those who are prepared to see that justice is done.--Ipigott (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep In the event that there was not one already, I just made one and uploaded it to commons. Women in Red Barnstorm 2017 Feedback or suggestions are welcome if there are other ideas - I'm not a designer, but can work on it to the best of my abilities. Netherzone (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep I figured it out! See image below. can you send me or post a swatch of the actual blue? - I'm working in photoshop and can change the color manually (don't think the program accepts code). Or point me in the direction of a sample of what #ABCDEF looks like.
@Rosiestep: There seem to be very strict rules on creating barnstars. You will see from Wikipedia:Barnstars that there first has to be a discussion on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page. Otherwise "Barnstars without consensus will be removed." I would have liked to add this one to the Wikipedia:Barnstars#Topical_barnstars section along with those for other WikiProjects such as Women's history but was frightened it would be deleted. As it was your idea, perhaps you can undertake the necessary steps to make sure we are not breaking any rules.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Good policy. The mainpage admits the project is moribund, and so the risk of no response is high. If so, it is up to us to do our own discussion, not least so as to have something to point back to should anyone ever have the temerity, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding this image (red heart logo in light blue box) as a visual aid, as I thought of some questions. Are we cool with the "shading" of the heart in the barnstar, e.g. the logo doesn't use shading? Also, Netherzone, is the red hue in the barnstar the same as the red hue in the logo (#FF0000; see Red); if not, can you make it the same? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep the heart was shaded so that it did not sit as a flat item on top of the dimensional shaded star. An aesthetic decision which can be changed (it looked better to my eyes shaded, but we chould get the consensus of the creator of the logo, since it was an alteration of their original.) Also, when I uploaded the barnstar, I did not have the name of the logo creator's name to add to the image credit - who is it? Lastly, I will try to change the color of the star. I was working with a barnstar downloaded from Commons that was brown. Added red-fade shaded corners. I'll see if I can change it to #FF0000 without losing the detail. I'm not a designer, but will give it my best shot. The next couple days are heavy teaching for me, so don't hesitate to nudge me if you don't hear back soon! Netherzone (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Just my two cents, I like the shading of the heart. Kind of makes it "stand up" from the background, like a cameo broach. SusunW (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Love Heart Kamma Rahbek
WiR laurel
Netherzone, with or without the shading is fine with me; just wanted to make sure that people commented in case there was a design reason to go with one version vs. another. The original artwork is this Love Heart Kamma Rahbek. Just noticed this "WiR laurel" in our Commons logo subcat, and it's lovely! Wasn't aware it existed! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Good to know! I like the laurel a lot too, and am wondering if it could be added to the barnstar. When I have time I will experiment. Netherzone (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sitting in a meeting fiddling with the logo. The laurel has been added and looks awesome. I am unable to figure out how to get the star in exactly #FF0000 red, but was able to shift the color toward the red end of the spectrum. Sorry for the smaller size, will work on upsizing next. Feedback welcome. Women in Red Barnstar 3 - red with laurel.Netherzone (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Larger size added. See image below. I've tweaked the laurel and centered it, so version 5 will be more symmetrical (small star is centered under large star. Will upload. Once we finalize a decision, I will deleted the older versions.
While the barnstar+laural is pretty, can we also keep the laurel and the barnstar as separate things? For example, I can envision using the laurel on invitations and/or etc. I can envision two levels of barnstar, one with and one without the laurel. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I think the barnstar itself is likely to be far more frequently used than the one with laurels. So let's keep them both. I can see that Netherzone's interest in art is serving the project increasingly well.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
WiR Barnstar
I will save two versions on Commons, and delete the others so that they are not used by mistake. Is there a formal process for deletions from Commons? The two versions kept will be named Women in Red Barnstar and Women in Red Barnstar with laurels. If there are other versions for special events, I will keep my original Photoshop files so they can be modified as needed. Glad you like it! Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Good job, Netherzone; were you able to delete the ones which aren't going to be used? If not, do you want to list them at WikiProject Council and ask them to delete, e.g. they might know a Commons admin? I'd recommend un-categorizing the ones which we want deleted so that they don't accidentally get used. I can do the un-categorizing, but I'm not sure which ones we want deleted. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this info Rosiestep - I've deleted the categories on the older versions, and posted a request on the WikiProject Council talk page, asking if they know of a Commons admin or could explain the deletion process for me to do it myself. In the meantime, I was able to update some of the older versions with our final image. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tania Antoshina up for deletion
The article on Tania Antoshina (artist) is up for deletion. Probably will survive, but it still needs work. I've added a number of citations, etc. If anyone has a moment to look at it, or vote, please do, as she is an important, well-known Russian artist. Netherzone (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify what images are ok to add to the "Featured pictures" section on our meetup pages, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/36#Featured pictures: (a) new images uploaded to Commons within the focus of a particular editathon, vs. (b) WP:FP? I've been hesitant to add anything there as it's been unclear to me, so am guessing others might also be wondering. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I think the intention was to include Featured pictures which made the grade as a result of all Adam Cuerden's successes but there is no reason we should not also have a section on "New or improved pictures" under Outcomes. The only problem is that all those added as fair use by editors such as Victuallers will not be allowed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Another potential source for some redlink lists - the various U.S. state encyclopedias that are available online. Not every state has one, but most of those that do have a separate, browseable category for women.
For a start, would you consider creating a US women online dictionaries by state page which contains bullets for the state dictionaries? Someone may then want to build on that work by creating redlist pages for the biographies themselves? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone interested should feel free to add files of those in the PD to commons or wikisource, where they could be used in proofreading the text and making separate, stand-alone articles there which could be used as the basis for articles here. It would also, in general, raise the visibility of wikisource, which can also host a lot of similar biographical dictionaries, like the Marquis Who's Who series, which may contain bios which don't meet our standards of notability here. On that basis, increasing the SEO of that site could also be seen as being in the interests of this group, particularly for individuals whose notability might be disputed. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm up for doing redlists, but short on time. Might take a week or more before I can get around to it. Keep adding to the list of sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas how to identify Black women like Sylvana Simons? I am asking because I could generate some data from Wikidata based on "ethnic group=African American", but the world is so much bigger than that. Thx Jane (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Jane023 I am not particularly good with WP technical stuff, but there are categories, Afro Caribbean, Black British, Maybe this helps? Category:People of African descentSusunW (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep This one is up your alley, writers. Just found it while trying to figure out the identity of Mrs. C. C. Stumm and I did! I'm writing on her next.
Does anyone know how to put all these sources into one master list on black women, but keeping the individual pages intact? I don't know if that request is clear, but like a page of Black women in dictionaries that then has links to each individual dictionary. SusunW (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Might mean one of at least two things: single list, each entry pointing back to the dictionary source(s); or, single page on which there are a number of discrete lists, each list pertaining to a discrete dictionary. Which did you have in mind, SusunW --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon I think that I mean the second one. I don't want all the names on one page, only all the dictionaries with links to the pages with lists of names. Each list of names belongs to the page for that dictionary. Is that clear as mud? SusunW (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yippee kayayyyy! That is exactly what I wanted! I started to add the links to the pages in the template, but then it seemed strange to name them all the same with different lists, i.e. how do you have 5 template links with the same name and know which link you are getting? That's what prompted me to ask for one list of dictionaries which then breaks out to separate lists. If we could then remove the two that are in the template and replace it with this lovely, lovely page you have made Tagishsimon, I think it would simplify matters. SusunW (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, Tagishsimon: This all seems to be coming along extremely well. The only problem is that as far as I can see, the majority of those listed are in fact black women living in America. With all your international experience, Susun, have you come across any dictionaries or encyclopaedic works dealing with black women in Africa, Britain and the rest of the world? If so, it would be good to have them on the list. (Hope I'm not being too demanding.)--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't seen any of these old dictionaries on international women. As I am researching one woman, I seem to find another source. When I finally get my OUP access (I've been waiting for 6 weeks, its approved, just awaiting the password), I will have access to one from the Caribbean: Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American biography and possibly others which reach farther. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
To me there are far more glaring gaps in WP's coverage of women art historians than women artists. Academic art history is an area where women have had a very strong presence for almost a century now, and in museum curation for perhaps 50 years or so. I don't think our coverage is worse for women than men, as both are poorly covered compared to some other fields. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You're probably right, although I think our coverage of notable nuns is probably pretty poor too. Are you aware of any particular reference-type works, maybe of a broadly encyclopedia-dictionary type, which might be available to help somewhat quickly fill some of these gaps, @Johnbod:? John Carter (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an entry there is pretty conclusive for notability. They are better on dead people than live ones though. It has to be admitted that most art historians lead rather quiet lives though (if not as quiet as nuns). The complete list can be trawled fairly quickly. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
We do have many more than that; the great majority are in the 47 subcats of Category:Art historians by nationality, eg. 466 Americans. I'd guess we have something like 1700 altogether. The head cat is treated as "diffusing" for nationality. Entries should be in the nationality tree & women in Category:Women art historians. I'll mention the lists at the project & try to add. The Germans and Austrians more or less invented art history & have always been strong in it. But the list has hardly any of the American & British figures missing. I'd think a lot of the list would have notability issues on English WP. I also suspect that there are many like Christiana Payne, who are not yet caught in Category:Women art historians. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a missing article, but one which needs thoughtful experienced attention
I was directed to the page of Virginia Zeani today, by someone noting that the bulk of the BLP article was plagiarised/wholly unattributed. Indeed, I found a half dozen sections or so, all with material that had been section tagged since 2015 as unsourced. I pasted the mess into Talk, and began searching for sources, and moving sourced, verifiable content back into the article. Problem is, (a) I am now in business, and not academia, and so academic references in the humanities and arts are unavailable to me, (b) I am not an expert, or even a devotee, and so even the non-professionals access to these sources. So, for instance, I can only access a snippet version of the Grove Book of Opera Singers, etc., etc.
Hence, I would call this to your attention, for a careful return of the article to a more complete version, after the few days work that would be required to make it encyclopedic, rather than sixth form plagiarised in quality and honesty. Cheers, hope someone with biography and music background can turn their attention, or at least properly post this. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sausalitoarchitect who joined Wikipedia and WiR in January has been experiencing difficulties with his or her first attempts at biographies. There were several attempts at Draft:Violeta Autumn (now Draft:Violeta Eidelman Autumn) which was twice turned down, followed by Draft:John Marsh Davis, also declined more than once. The main reviewer appears to have been SwisterTwister. I have looked at both these articles and am surprised that they were not found acceptable for Wikipedia. The architects seem notable and both the articles include secondary sources. Can we help to sort this out? We don't want to lose another competent new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Tip three: Structure- all WP articles have sections. there are at least three. The Lead, the body, and the references. The lead is a précis of the whole article usually 1 to 3 paragraphs. It is the bit that broadcasters cut and paste into their scripts when a new item breaks. The body has several subsection == Birth and parentage==, ==Early life==, ==Education==, ==Career==, ==Lasting influence== In references there are the the usual bits ==See also==,==References==, ==Further reading==, ==External links==
ClemRutter: I appreciate your dropping in here and leaving your comments, especially "Wikipedia is about sharing so we can all join in and help." As we are dealing with a completely new editor here, I think it's a great pity that despite several calls for assistance, no one was ready to offer any real help or advice. S/he asked Swister for help more than once but received no reaction. On 26 January, s/he posted a query on Teahouse, but no one bothered to reply. On 6 February there was another request for help on the WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk but this only led to a vague reply from NewYorkActuary who failed to explain how to resubmit the article on Violeta Autumn and gave no encouragement on the improvements made. And now your own demanding reactions on structure. I simply do not understand why articles which have been well researched and are well presented with lots of pertinent sources, illustrations, etc., are considered to be substandard. In my opinion, for someone who was new to the complex requirements of Wikipedia editing, the result was pretty good. I would be interested to hear whether others think these articles are not yet suitable. Maybe some are even ready to help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't do a great deal of hard editing these days but given a cursory look at the two draft articles, it would be easy for any experienced editor to just make a few changes and the articles would be fine. The Violeta Eidelman Autumn article is fine, just needs a bit of formatting. But there is no issue with notability or citations, as far as I can tell. ClemRutter offers good advice: I copied existing articles when I first started 10+ years ago as this made the most sense. I finished them in the sandbox and just plunked thew whole thing into mainspace (I was worried about being speedy deleted before I had a chance to finish). There's a learning curve on Wikipedia but it's pretty easy to create a stable article if you've done the initial research, as Sausalitoarchitect clearly has. freshacconci talk to me15:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree. When I started here eleven-plus years ago, I did the same thing - found an article that looked likely and copied bits and pieces of it until I got what I wanted. A lot of those editing habits stay with me - I don't worry about sections, for instance, unless the article is beyond sub-stub length. (If it's three paragraphs I won't bother.) I'm most concerned with creating a readable article about something, or someone, notable. Which these seem to do just fine. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.15:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is submitting any file to AfC. The notes from SwisterTwister claimed there was insufficient coverage of the subject, and yet, not one source cited was given on on-line link. The bias against off-line sourcing is really, really clear. Rather than talk, I did something about it. Worked the sourcing and moved one to main space. Will work on the other one and post a note to Sausalitoarchitect on her/his own page. SusunW (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and Ian thank you so much for bringing these to light. I am not quite sure how you found them, but I appreciate that you posted about them. SusunW (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's thanks to Sausalitoarchitect. I mostly just added sourcing, formatted the page and added a few sentences here and there. But thanks ClemRutter. I was happy to have found the fair use photo. By the by, I like your manuals. Nice that you included the screenshots. SusunW (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments and your work on the articles. I thought it would be useful to draw the attention of WiR participants to the problems faced by new editors who are keen to join our project and help us with our work. @SusunW: You were interested to hear how I picked this up. Every couple of weeks, I look at our new members to see what they have been doing. Unfortunately, many give up editing within a day or two but here we had someone who was keen to edit, had an excellent background as an architect and an author and had sought to put people on the map from the San Francisco bay area. I was amazed to see how badly she was treated and how her calls for help received so little attention. Some of our members have been encouraging new editors to join the Teahouse where apparently they can receive guidance and assistance but this is obviously not working. I could of course have just moved the articles into the mainspace myself but I preferred to allow others to see what was going on. May I suggest we all keep our eyes open for problems faced by new editors, particularly those keen to participate in WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
German-language participation in the Anthropology editathon
Rosiestep: This is a truly amazing development. I see that on behalf of the Germans, Emeritus has put it forward as a contest. As a result, they've already produced 39 new articles compared to only 15 in English. You'll see from here that their page de:Benutzer:Emeritus/BRA/WikiProject Women in Red/Anthropologists/DE has been posted on eight other German pages. For those who read German (Gerda Arendt, Jane023), there is an interesting discussion on some of the names inappropriately included on the German Wikidata list of red links although some editors seem to have found the approach very helpful]. Emeritus is to be congratulated on taking this initiative. I certainly agree it would be a good idea to extend our invitations for March to other languages. I think we also need to develop a WiR page listing other languages showing an interest in WiR as well as a mailing list of users wishing to receive information about our activities. (In this case though, it looks as if Emeritus just picked up the invitation from his/her EN talk page.) Up to you to decide which other languages we should cover and how we should keep them informed. It would also be good to have a point of contact such as Emeritus for each of the languages we cover. Any idea how we could achieve this? If you make a start on all if this, I'll try to help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am glad you found this amazing, Ipigott; me, too. I think the new MassMessage list should at least contain links to the 11 other language WiR versions, and we can add points of contact as we discover them. Also, we should add pages such the one for the French-speaking Swiss women who are working "Women in Red in Switzerland". Do you agree with this approach? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Yes, I certainly agree we should notify all these of our editathons. Unfortunately we cannot use mass-messaging as it only works on the EN wiki. Nevertheless I'll make an "international list" which we can draw on manually.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've created a new mailing list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Outreach/International_list of wikiprojects and individuals participating in other languages who have shown interest in Women in Red. Some of the individuals are listed because of their editing histories, others because I have had contacts with them. Unfortunately I cannot remember the names of those who have been trying to encourage better coverage of women in Arabic and in the various Indian languages. I'm sure they would be interested in our efforts too. If you Rosiestep or anyone else has had contacts with other potentially interested international contacts, please add their names to the list. I'm not too sure how we should proceed with notifying those on the list that we intend to keep them informed. Should we send out a first message advising them that we have included them on the list to keep them informed of WiR activities or should will simply go ahead with an invitation in connection with our the next editathons, encouraging them to contribute in their own language? (I would be happy to send messages out manually as mass-messaging is not available for other wikis.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
In connection with "The women you have never met", I already included the organizer Anna Torres on the list. I did not receive any suggestions on how we should launch our first messages. Perhaps we should prepare a special invitation, encouraging the international Wikipedia community to follow our lead in March on Women in Red. As you have put together an attractive editathon page, Rosie, perhaps you would also like to prepare the invitations, one for our EN participants and one for the other language interests. If other wikis can develop Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages along the same lines as the Germans, this would help them along. As we're already half way through February, it might be a good idea to start moving soon. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to help.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We could lend assistance to other language WiR projects by putting their wikidata redlists toghether for them, if we have an idea of their preferred location. I'd be up for doing this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: That's a really great offer and would certainly help them along. For March, the most suitable would probably be those on artists, painters and feminists. (I've just created feminists for EN.) Up to you which languages you would like to handle but we could start with German, French and Spanish, then Italian and Dutch. Other candidates appear to be Catalan, Galician and Albanian. There's also Chinese, Hebrew and Farsi if you want to get into the chicken scratches. I suggest we create them on our own WiR site which we can then link to invitations. If you, Rosiestep, have other priorities, please list them here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Being as inclusive as possible would be good, so in addition to the artist subcat of painters, I'd include sculptors, printmakers, carvers, art patrons, see also Category:Artists by medium; plus Category:Works of art would be nice, too. Last year, there was a lot of interest in adding Activists and Social Reformers, so I'd suggest we continue we them this year as well. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: While I agree that all these might be useful for our English-speaking editors, I think it might be more sensible to start with just a few redlists for all the other languages. I know the Germans and the Dutch know how to create Wikidata lists themselves. I expect others do too. Once they get the hang of things, they can expand their own Women in Red or Art and Feminism sites to cover their preferred areas of interest. I don't think it's really necessary to spoon-feed them with lots of different options at this stage. BTW, you never got back to me on how we handle the invitations. Any suggestions or should I prepare something myself?--Ipigott (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Tagishsimon:: Apologies; I misunderstood. I was referring to English language redlists. Regarding invitations, just haven't gotten to them, though I understand the importance of getting them out soon. I'll create them today or tomorrow. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
According "Wikidata redlink lists for their own languages"
Maybe a subject for its own. Checking and adding to that German redlinks, I came to the result: it's hell. We have been generously in updating missing German descriptions to Wikidata in using the term anthropologist, even it's not really similar. I have been wondering why there so many non-anthropologists got listed? Proofing version histories I found out, that ca 2013 in Wikidata a bot named Legobot was active. He seems to have been working like this:
a "she-linguist" does work in human languages. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just linguist.
a "she-archeologist" does digging human remains. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just archeologist.
a Lady, collecting folk-tales in neighborhood collected human tales. "Human" means "Anthropologist, therefore I (bot) add Property:P106. With few exeptions she is just folklorist. And so on.
The list of results using P106 ist partly correct, but not in any case scientifically. This time we got the occasion to change and add German descriptions to Wikidata. Every other wiki like to develop Wikidata redlinks must do the same. English Wikipedia will, in my opinion, not be able to correct and be precisely, except: a complete stuff check and change them, if necessary. In our case I have to figure out new search strategies to list proper ethnographers, ethnologists and in wider range anthropologists. Regards, --Emeritus (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Emeritus: Thanks for pointing all this out. Unfortunately I don't think any of us will really be able to spare the time to edit out all these additional categories, especially if a bot is going to add them all again. Nevertheless, from the work you and your colleagues have been doing on the German wiki, the Wikidata list of red links seems to have turned up some interesting women requiring coverage. We hope you will be able to continue your efforts in March (Women's History Month) when we will be inviting editors from other language versions of Wikipedia to contribute to articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I would love to get your feedback on our current short list of (african biographies) candidates for the translate-a-thon to be held from around the 20th of Feb. I would like to close the list very soon. It was extremely difficult to actually come with 16 decent biographies... any feedback welcome. Thanks in advance
Anthere: It's not too clear to me which articles have been short-listed, which have been deemed unsuitable, and which still require discussion. May I suggest you prepare a list en clair of those which have been selected, and a separate list of those still under examination. It would also be useful to know which of the articles selected need further work in English. If you need any specific help from me, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, the final shortlist is not set yet. I'll do the final cut tomorrow. This is now the last moment to suggest articles if any of you is aware of one that could be added there. Anthere (talk)
Our final list !
w:en:Malouma, Mauritanian singer, songwriter and politician
Your help is welcome in reviewing and polishing them. In most case, the best version is the English, but there are a couple of exceptions (Nozizwe is better in French, Asmaa in Arabic etc. if someone could help make sure that the English version is fixed so that it can be used as template for translations later on, it would be awesome) Anthere (talk)
Anthere: I've expanded Asmaa Mahfouz a bit on the basis of the sources I could find. The article in Arabic is about five times longer and contains lots of additional detail. It would be good if someone who can read Arabic could draw on it for further expansion of the English article as the English version will probably serve as a basis for translation into the other languages. I'll now try to work on the other four your have mentioned.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I already called for help several arabic speakers, but it seems to go nowhere :( I'll try some more in other channels ... thanks for your help Ipigott Anthere (talk)
Anthere: I'd like to nominate Deolinda Rodríguez de Almeida, "Mother of the Angolan Revolution" for the list. When asked about the one woman's biography I've created which is the greatest inspiration to me, this is the one I refer to. Also, I see that the current list doesn't have an Angolan woman, so this would improve the diversity. However, if you're list has been finalized, I understand. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Anthere: Seconded. The article is well sourced and there are also good versions in Spanish and German. She could be substituted for one of the sports people.--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Eh guys... we have announced the list everywhere... so... hmmm... a bit tough to replace now. But ok. I have one more name suggested by Michael, Wangari_Maathai. So let's start a list of "additional suggestions" because life is too short... Anthere (talk)
Hi, I am thinking to create a similar project on Commons to help and promote multimedia content by women and about women. The first issue is the name, which should be in English, with translations in other languages. Any ideas or suggestions? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann: Sounds like a great idea. The name will no doubt depend on whether the emphasis is to be on images or other forms of multimedia. What are the priorities? I don't want to complicate things but it might be sensible to try to organize a tie-up with Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Initially emphasis will be on images, but that could be expanded later to other types of content. Anyway images form the vast majority of Commons files, other types of documents are much less numerous. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A pretty neutral yet translatable name could simply be Illustrating Women: Filling the Gaps. But I'm sure others could come up with something more attractive. I know Victuallers is interested in improving coverage of women on Commons. It's the kind of project which could benefit from Wikimedia support. Or is it something you think we could start without assistance? Perhaps Rosiestep could bring it up in Berlin.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting idea, Yann, though I confess that didn't know Commons has WikiProjects. Would it make sense to call it by the same name, e.g. WikiProject Women in Red? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann: "Her Missing Face" is OK in the Germanic languages but in the Romance languages you would need something like: Le Visage qu'elle manque. Rosiestep: There are lots of Commons projects: see here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a great project. Not much good at naming, but I wish you luck. It is certainly frustrating to have to struggle so hard for images of women. SusunW (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I could see this as a great partnership. If people working on Commons who are familiar with imaging requirements could work on images for editathons we host ... dreaming ... SusunW (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The way things are at the moment, Commons is particularly useful for images of people who died at least 70 years ago. Perhaps a WikiProject would help to encourage those who add images of living people to Facebook or the other social networks to give them Creative Commons licenses allowing them to be included on Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully we have a lot more images than only of "people who died at least 70 years ago". We have images under a free license or in the public domain taken by contributors, or by external sources. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Before this starts disappearing into the the theoretic ether- you have grabbed the attention of a lot of practising academics Could every one of you approach your employer and ask them to release under cc0, photographs they have in their archives of alumni and graduation ceremonies. These can be scanned and uploaded to commons for future use. Can I add a plea for these to be linked to the folks wikidata item. If a commons project happens, it will have an initial scheme to promote and work with. ClemRutter (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
For now I started it under Commons:Illustrating Women. We could always change the name later if a consensus arises for a better name. Please note that the idea is also to promote images made by women, or images promoting women. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Art + Feminism mini update and info about Spanish-language wiki training
Hello! Just an FYI about the Art + Feminism project. For anyone who is doing a physical event, funding will be available for childcare and refreshments.
There are also two training sessions being held in Spanish: Cómo editar en Wikipedia. If you know anyone who could use that, please pass the info along! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Where would I put a request for an article to be written on Ellen Kelly? (Note that the link redirects to her son, Ned.) A biography lists her occupations as farmer, prisoner, sly-grog operator. None of those seem to be represented in the lists below, unless you call her a businesswoman. There's a new book being written about her, so I think she's worth investigating to see if an article can be written about her. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
122.108.141.214: Looks to me as if you've successfully made your request here. I'm pretty sure someone will pick it up. Perhaps we should start a new set of red links covering women prisoners or women criminals.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Georgia Plessas up for deletion
Despite considerable efforts by other editors, Georgia Plessas - originally written by Sanders - is up for deletion once again. It certainly looks fine to me but there now seems to be quite a gang of deletionists ready to counter contructive efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
--Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
