Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Women scientists by percentage

Can anyone please point me to the page which provides a breakdown of women's biographies by occupation? Pharos is working on something and needs the info. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but check out User:Jane023/Number of women per occupation. NotARabbit (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, NotARabbit. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Pharos: I think the best source is the Denelezh Gender Gap sorted by occupation. While the stats are from Wikidata and cover all language versions, by clicking on the various columns (especially females), you get an interesting overview. You could also look at the EN categories. For example, see Category:American women by occupation with 739 scientists. To compare them with other categories such as writers, artists, you have to take subcategories into account too. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was thinking of, Ipigott. Hopefully, it's got the information that Pharos was seeking. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I thought that was the one. If you click on Total, you'll see that Scientists comes up 12th with 325,662 biographies in the overall total but that only 42,763 of these are articles on women (13.5%). As a result, if you click on %Fem, Scientists drops to over half way down the list. Unfortunately, WP Women scientists does not appear to be as active as it used to be. I see, however, that 7,273 articles are tagged Women scientists (cf 29,718 Women writers and 10,251 Women artists). Perhaps we should initiate a real drive to cover women scientists, possibly in collaboration with universities and research bodies. There's some interesting background info here. And lots of stats from Unesco. How about launching a meaningful initiative on women in science later this year.--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, because Pharos didn't indicate to me the specifics of what he was seeking, I'm not sure if this link provides exactly what he wants or not; we have to leave it to him to decide. As the founder of WikiProject Women Scientists is still in medical school, the project has had less energy than in previous years. Good idea; let's add a women scientists event to our calendar... plus women writers, if I can be so bold. Would it make sense to annualize these on our birthday months (Emily/May/women scientists; Rosie/December/women writers)? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Yes indeed. I would be all in favour of reviving work on both Women scientists and Women writers. While I think it is important to explore and cover women from less common occupations, we seem to be losing out on the number of new articles completed each month. Covering more general topics might help to rectify this. As I suggested above, we could try to increase our impact by collaborating with other interested parties such as the universities, research interests and international institutions. Maybe Wikimedia would also assist in helping to extend our initiatives by encouraging participation by editors writing in other language versions of Wikipedia, as well as in Commons, Wikidata, etc. It goes without saying that this would all need careful preparation. We could even devote up to three months each for scientists and writers, perhaps setting month-by-month priorities on historical figures, women from the developing countries, award winners, etc., while allowing broad coverage of the overall priority throughout. Maybe we should open up a new discussion on all this in order to attract more suggestions and reactions.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with the female scientists is that many of the occupations for them do not "compute" in Wikidata as being science occupations. I have said before that you need to be clear about how you track women in Wikidata. For the paintings project, we want everything we want to track be "instance of painting" and not "instance of portrait painting" or "instance of self-portrait". This work of "reducing intersection" has started for women writers, but still needs to be done for other occupations. So e.g. a female entomologist needs to have "occupation=scientist" and "field of work=entomology". It's fine to have "entomologist" listed as occupation, but in the LOD world, please include the tracking occupation as well. Jane (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, sure, open a new discussion to attract more ideas. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I did an query with WP:PetScan taking all people under Scientists and subcategories to level 5, and with 'human' and gender marked on Wikidata. This is incomplete of course, but I did make the judgement that English Wikipedia categories wold be more complete in covering various scientific occupations than Wikidata. I got 14% on English Wikipedia (similar to above), and 8% on German Wikipedia.--Pharos (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, but there are probably way more female scientists on Wikidata without any occupation at all, just because they were added by bots that only add "human, female" to new article qid's. My gut feeling is that the 14% is probabaly fine though, since the same is true for male scientists. The lack of metadata on Wikidata doesn't seem to be a gender-related problem, but I am not sure about that. Jane (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Marileen Dogterom

I created a two-line stub, but she is a colleague of mine, and therefore I have an obvious COI. I am not planning to expand the article, but someone else may want to do it, for example, the reference which is in the article gives a good overview (and is a solid seconfdary source). Notability is not an issue, she just won a major prize which was announced today.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Gianna Simone draft

Resolved

Hello, Women in Red! I've drafted an article about American actress Gianna Simone for community review here. The draft provides a neutral overview of her early life and education, career, and personal life, using Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, and Ms. Simone has reviewed the draft for accuracy. I've disclosed my COI appropriately, and I am looking for an editor who is willing to review the draft and move into the main space appropriately. I've posted similar requests at WikiProject Women in Red before (Anne Finucane, Melissa Bell), and received some very helpful feedback and assistance, so I figured I'd try again. Wikipedia articles currently mentioning Gianna Simone include Unbroken: Path to Redemption, List of Chuck cast members, and "Chuck Versus the Wedding Planner". Feedback is welcome here or on the draft's talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Ipigott. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: gendered nurse categories

I've asked the nursing wikiproject about gendered categories here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Nursing#Gendered_nursing_categories. Comments welcome. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Space issues on Redlists

Editing on Redlist pages is sometimes cumbersome because of their length, but I always think a long list is a good list (possibilities!). However, there are two aspects that I think we could address to tighten up the sprawl. First, I need to warn you that these suggestions might just be self-serving on my part: I do all my editing on an iPad, so tend to notice when I have to do extra scrolling or zooming around a page.

1. {{Women in Red redlist header}} takes up a whole screen on my iPad with, IMHO, too much verbiage. It borders on TL;DR. It tries to cover a lot that is better done with an individualized intro on each list. I’ve drafted a shorter version of it in my sandbox; please consider that as a suggestion.
2. The layout of our Wikidata lists has evolved to be more standardized from list to list, with minor differences like the order of columns or what column they are sorted on. But many are too wide for the page on my iPad, which means that the whole page shrinks so that I have to zoom in to read it. I’d like to propose doing away with two columns in these tables: place of birth and place of death. Of course, people may find these essential for their work, in which case I hastily withdraw the proposal. But consider: these places (IF listed) are usually towns and cities only, with no clue as to what state or country it’s in. I know I often have to click through to the article or Wikidata item to find out that information, so it’s not helpful for sorting or skimming through the table.

Sorry this is so long... Post whatever feedback you have on these two ideas, even if you don’t use a tablet. ;-) NotARabbit (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit: Good suggestions. Now that editors are increasingly using mobiles, it is important to adapt to their needs. As Rosiestep created the header, she should also be consulted. As for the places of birth/death, I have never needed to use these.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Places of birth on the Wikidata redlists is useful if the nationality column is missing, as I sometimes go through these lists and add missing nationality based on this info. As for the header being too long, I've thought so myself... please be bold and change the wording, colors, and anything else you think will improve it! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I find the place of birth useful as in the UK there will often be separate sources for Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish subjects. Likewise many subjects in the USA have separate Dictionary of ... type publications for each state. Place of death I think could go. 14GTR (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally appreciate all the work that you do for us NotARabbit. As Rosie is cool with the shorter header, I'm fine with it too. For me, as I rarely write about living people, having the dates is critical, but the places don't matter to me. I never start an article without checking for sources, so as soon as I find a name, I start researching. If there aren't enough sources, I pick another. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit: I now realize I do use the birth and death place names, especially when they differ from the nationality given. They provide a historical clue to the background of those concerned. I therefore suggest we keep them.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit: I gave your sandbox a spitshine. Feel free to revert if you don't like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, that looks good! Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I’ll update the header now. NotARabbit (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ouk Phalla

She is in the news because she died, and all we have is a redirect to her husband. Can that change? I found this about her dancing. I'd like a break from recent deaths, - too many lately. Anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There's very little about her in the reports of the car accident. The only thing I found was that she was a candidate for the upcoming elections.[1]. There's probably more in the Cambodian press if anyone is able to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's the same in Khmer.[2]--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I know there's little in the recent press, that's why I supplied what I found about the classical dancing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

London calling

In the press - Mayor of London actions London schools to fill the wiki gap Victuallers (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Like 3 cheers for Sadiq Khan — Maile (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, Roger. It looks like a great initiative. Let's hope it has a good response. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be listed. The most recent meetup for London is the one on 10 June which does not appear to have anything to do with Bloomberg.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There's even more background from the mayor's office here.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I love that its being done, and its great that we are mentioned, but why we were not asked to comment/contribute needs some investigation. I will ask wikimediuk to see if they know anything Victuallers (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I was one of many volunteer editors at the 10 June London meetup. As far as I know, no one was aware of this editathon. WMUK need to work harder to engage with the volunteer editor base. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That first article mentions Maud Palmer, Countess of Selborne and says One of the women [named on Millicent Fawcett's statute], Maud Palmer, the Countess of Selborne, who was President of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association and part of the suffrage campaign, is also without a Wikipedia page. Not after today. Not so - her article, and a redirect from Maud Palmer, have been in place since 2017. PamD 07:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Of the other articles mentioned, Farrah Storr, the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, and the entrepreneur Emem Rita Usanga are still red links. Rosalee Mason, already a one-line stub, was expanded by a new editor.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see WMUK knew all about it. See their tweet here. Also tweets from Bloomberg.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, it looks to me as if BarbosaHil was at the editathon and attempted to submit Draft:Rose Ferguson which was refused. I cannot find evidence of any other articles created by schoolchildren on the 12th.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Mayor of London knows about us and our work, and is providing support through this publicity. This is the big time! I don't know what his politics are, but he mentioned us, so I tweeted a thank you to him. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I contacted WikipediaUK, it looks like it was an oversight not to tip us off. Pity, cos we could have supplied online edits. HistorianAlice and @JessWade were there. Jess (like Penny) creates a wiki article every day and nearly always mentions us. @HistorianAlice is a WIR at Wellcome. Both good mates of Women in Red on @Twitter. We have spoken at United Nations, and we have had an editathon in Paris and UNESCO follow us. However here we have a UK iconic politician (he is left to centre in politics) taking our message and saying it under his name... and he mentions us! Victuallers (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way we can see a list of outputs from the Editathon, so we can improve than where necessary to protect from deletion? Were the editors told to add the WP Women template to talk page so that alerts will appear? Might be some lost opportunities. PamD 05:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @HistorianAlice and JessWade: who might know the answer!PamD 05:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

But neither username exists! @Victuallers:? PamD 05:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Twitter names begin with an "@". Jess's name on wiki is @Jesswade88:. A sample of their work is here. I'm sure we could do more to support their work. Do reach out. Victuallers (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Alice edits as User:Zeromonk, so let's try Zeromonk. Edwardx (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If this event was arranged by WMUK, then maybe @Daria and Stuart would know if there is a list of outputs (did they use the Dashboard?), if the editors were told to add the WP Women template to talk pages, etc. As this event is getting some negative pushback on social media, hopefully we can be of assistance. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello all - just got your ping, sorry for the late response! and really sorry for missing meetup again, the Processions walk took a lot longer than I expected... Re this: Stuart asked me to come and compere the session, so I did a 20min refresher with them on 5 pillars, what's a reliable source, and what info should go into a biog article, then showcased a few pages at the end to celebrate some edits achieved. He had been round the schools in advance to do training - I'm not sure what he covered there precisely, I think the basics of editing but not sure if he mentioned talkpages & wikiproject templates. A few of the students wrote their usernames down for me when I was chatting with them at the end so I could look at their sandboxes after the session finished and help to make their pages live - did Elizabeth M. Kennedy & Elizabeth Tanner when I got home that night. The others can probably be found by going via Wikipedia:GLAM/Schools Resources Page, which Stuart created as a hub. Each of the schools then has its own sub-page with usernames & suggested people to edit. I'm hoping to take a look tomorrow - any and all help would be much appreciated! Zeromonk (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Students & teachers all keen for follow up sessions - if I can make these happen I will def be in touch with WiR & London volunteers to plan & carry out :) Zeromonk (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Zeromonk. As you can see, we'd love to assist with future events in any way you think might be useful. For the moment, though, does WMUK have a plan on how to manage the negative social media issue (being discussed at length on FB and TW)? My concern is that the student editors who participated in the event are reading the unpleasant comments, which might affect their desire for future editing. While not all young people participate in social media, it's a reality that many do and are highly influenced by it. Perhaps Daria Cybulska (WMUK) and/or Stuart Prior (WMUK)/Battleofalma will offer input in this regard as Lucy is still away, though she did tweet about the problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Hello all, this was indeed a WMUK-organised event but it was all put together at very short notice and keeping it as simple as possible made sense, I was not involved in the volunteer-liaison but my understanding is that we originally expected JessWade and another volunteer to be helping Alice with the training at the event, but last minute changes meant it was just Alice present. To clarify, this event wasn't really a traditional editathon per se, the attendance was restricted and the event was timed to the last minute, but I apologise if it feels like we're keeping this type of thing from people. Additionally, the goals for this kind of event are slightly different. Our priorities for these type of outreach events where you have a lot of new people, with little time and only about an hour of pre-training are:

• Increase public understanding and awareness of Wikipedia with the media-reach an event like this has.
• Increase public understanding of the gender gap on Wiki and most importantly that projects like Women in Red are trying to address it.
• To enable some meaningful contributions to WP by first time editors (in this case quite young) and to enable them to read and understand WP better.

AND

• Not to break Wikipedia while trying to do this

All of this involves scaling back the ambition a bit, so we were fairly tight in terms of the list we were working from, were sure that the majority were notable and tried to also get meaningful yet reasonably simple tasks for new editors to do such as expanding Rosalee Mason or creating Nan Ino Cooper as well as coordinating this with Mayor's Office Press Releases.

In terms of how it went, I was very happy, and as Alice mentions, we hope we can use the warm relationship with these schools and with Bloomberg to greater effect in the future.

It feels like something that would be helpful is if we could work out a simple protocol for us matching up this or other relevant live events with online contributions and participation from Women in Red members. i.e what would be the basic information you guys would need, and what would be the best way to communicate this, and so on. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK)

• Battleofalma, Zeromonk: Thank you both for your explanations. Now that I have had a bit more time to look into it all, I realize how much time and effort you, Stuart, put into training at the schools. You certainly helped the pupils along with all the user pages you prepared as well as guidelines for many of the individual pupils on women they could write about. I was pleased to see how many of them made a good start on preparing biographies. There must be at least 20 drafts providing a reasonable basis for mainspace pages. It is a pity that nearly all of them are still in user space. As far as I can see, the only ones moved to mainspace are Victoria McCloud and Karen Blackett. (I haven't found any trace of Draft:Rose Ferguson in the links provided above.) Are there any plans for further assistance to the pupils of these schools or is the exercise over for the time being?

As for assistance by members of Women in Red, I think several of us would have been able to lend a helping hand if we had been warned of the event in advance. In future, perhaps the best way of going about this would be to provide us with the user names of those preparing articles. Alternatively, we could liaise through the event organisers. I see that some of the content was not in fact prepared on the 12th but several days beforehand. It looks to me as if we could have done much to help things along. Even now, if any of the pupils are still keen on editing Wikipedia, we could help them forward with their articles. A number of them show great promise. See, for example, the drafts on Pip Jamieson, Jessica Butcher, Denisa Gannon, Mercy Ashworth, Sian Anderson, Jess Butcher, Margaret Owen, Laura Stebbing. There are quite a few more which could easily be further developed. I believe somewhere I found fair drafts on those mentioned by the mayor: Farrah Storr and Emem Rita Usanga. (Or maybe I just saw them on St Saviour's page.) I'm not too sure how we should proceed but I think many of these girls should be given further encouragement.--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott, we were constrained in terms of time (~2hrs) so while many girls started something, getting things to a stage where we could publish was harder. The AFC process is completely at odds with the reality of training people to edit WP as it doesn't allow people making their first contributions the excitement and reward for their efforts of seeing their new article go live. In general, I tend to create the article myself and have them contribute the text they have already created in their sandbox to it as a workaround.

I'd done some pre-training of Bloomberg engineers and teachers on the basics of editing and the key parts the girls had problems with (they are digital natives so pick up the technical parts very quickly and are very confident about making edits) such as article structure, citations and the right type of language to use, so we did have some extra support capacity in the room, but trying to steward the creation of articles that are in a good state in a group of 70 children is quite hard! In terms of getting things from userspace to article, I will follow up with the schools and see what can be done.

What would be useful to know is exactly what point in time WiR could get involved in these things. In this one it would've been helpful in terms of research and creating lists I think, and more generally feeding work to be done into our events like this would be helpful. For example, the Bush Theatre is holding an Art + Feminism event on July 25th to create more content around women in theatre, so once I've got a page up, some help with worklists and resources might be a good way to work together. Battleofalma (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Battleofalma: Pity the schoolgirls' event received so much negative publicity. It would still be good if we could help some of these girls forward. So if you return to the schools, perhaps you can let us know which ones are keen to continue and we can try to help them to improve their work and bring their articles up to mainspace standards. As for the Bush Theatre event, it would certainly help if you could provide a link to your meetup page well in advance. We could then announce the event on the main WiR page and also encourage our members to help with redlists, etc. How about our redlinks of Actresses from the UK? A+F tends to attract wide support. Hope it goes well.--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, ah well to be honest most of that attack is aimed at Sadiq Khan really, and I think we've become used to the backbiting that happens when anyone talks about the gender gap on WP, usually from people who don't know much about WP in the first place. I'm meeting the organiser of the Bush Theatre event the 5th of July so I'll aim to get a meetup page set up then that they can use, and I'll let you know. Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

New discussion about changing the title of Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy

There has been an ongoing discussion about changing the title of the Yale student abortion art controversy article since mid-May. If you have an opinion, the discussion is located at Talk:Yale student abortion art controversy#Title change still called for. —Vera Syuzhet (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Two more GAs

Thanks mainly to the efforts of SusunW, two more of our articles have now reached GA: Carmen Casco de Lara Castro and Vera Gedroits.--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott I actually had those two and Mary Hayley up for review all at the same time. I really am thinking that we need to work on improving so many articles on here. I love that Women in Green is getting more active. Working on Gedroits was a pleasure. Such an interesting life. Casco was a long process, but thanks to Kudpung, she finally emerged from cold storage. Who would have thought that a Paraguayan powerhouse would have a GA on English WP? I am thinking next month for stage and screen we tackle your proposal to work on Margot Fonteyn. SusunW (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Three is one month is not bad going!--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Congrats SusunW from me and the smiley-face hand-drawn barnstar! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Rosie! I honestly don't think I have ever had so many files reviewed at the same time. It was stressful, but very rewarding to see all of these women's articles improved by such great teamwork. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Erica Benner

Would anyone be interested in writing an article about Erica Benner? She added her own name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Academics at my suggestion a few months back, and her latest book has been reviewed by Terry Eagleton and Julian Baggini, and in the NYT. I will eventually create the article myself, given the time, but I thought this might be an interesting project for anyone looking for a clearly notable academic to write about. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Songwriter (Q753110) and hymnwriter (Q13424456) Wikidata redlists

Would someone be so kind as to create Wikidata lists for these two occupations; and then add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/80# Redlists (lists of redlinked articles to be created)? I'm afraid I have forgotten how to do so, e.g. what to include in the template. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done

I combined them both in one list, which is only about 320 people. If you want to have separate lists anyway, just let me know. NotARabbit (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, NotARabbit. I wish there were more 320 entries but this is a good start. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I added vocal composer (Q28771895), lyricist (Q822146), singer-lyricist (Q15981299), and even songwriting (Q17344835) to the query. Now there are 750 entries. :-) NotARabbit (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, NotARabbit! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Fellows of the British Academy – a new red-list of 340 academics

Hi all. Each year since its foundation in 1902, the British Academy – UK's national academy for humanities and social sciences – elects a select few academics to its fellowship. For the last two or three decades, about 30–40 people have been elected annually, so it's highly selective, and each academic should meet WP:PROF. But until 2016, we had no comprehensive list of Fellows, and so no way of knowing how patchy our coverage of them has been. In 2016, I began using the original annual reports of the British Academy dating back to 1902 to produce a full list of fellows. This was a huge task as these reports are mostly offline and the names had to be transcribed into a spreadsheet and then wikified. It was only in July last year that the raw lists were all dumped into Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the names in the reports used people's initials (e.g. J. R. S. L. Smith instead of John Smith) which made identification and linking difficult and slow. Thanks to other editors, a good chunk were linked, and over the last few weeks I've finished the job with some of the more tedious (and lengthy) lists. As a result, we now have a full list of 'missing' Fellows of the British Academy – those without articles. The 340-name long list is here. Whilst the list is dominated by men, there are plenty of women there too (though not as many as there were two years ago thanks to a few dedicated editors!) I thought people here might be interested in trying to start those articles, and I'd love to see that list gradually turn blue. FYI, a really useful resource if anyone has access to it is Who's Who (the UK version published by Oxford University Press), while the British Academy maintains open-access biographies of many deceased fellows and short profiles for living ones (the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and national newspaper obituaries are also great sources for deceased FBAs). Anyway, happy editing, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for this - there will be no question that any FBA is notable. I suspect we do have quite a few of these - for example, we don't have John Bailey (literary scholar, born 1925) (redlinked there!), but we do have John Bayley (writer), and it's Jon Stallworthy not John. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing those out; there may indeed be a few false negatives (I had Google-searched most of the red-links to make sure but it looks like a few crept in), but the bulk of the list should be accurate. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC).

Noswall59, I've added a link to your list to the events planning, as we are having an editathon in September for academics. SusunW (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Unneeded project redirects

These redirects were used when we had worklists instead of redlists, but there are no links to them now. They each have a minimal edit history: 1–3 edits at most before being turned into redirects.

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By dictionary
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By educational institution
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By focus area
4. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By geography
5. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By occupation
6. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/By time period
7. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/Other
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Requests
9. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Red/Requests
10. Wikipedia:WikiProject XX/Tasks
11. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/DNZB
12. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers & journalists
13. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/ADB

I think they should be deleted as no longer needed, via speedy WP:G6. Any objections or other ideas? NotARabbit (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I added three more to the list (8, 9, 10). Just like the others, these have no incoming links. But these started out as redirects, with no edits except the bot fixing double redirects, so there is essentially no history at all. NotARabbit (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, adding three more (11, 12, 13), two redirects and one old Wikidata list. No history and no links to any of them (except the Wikidata list, linked from Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages). NotARabbit (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be kept, mostly per WP:CHEAP, or if someone browses old histories. Not a big deal either way though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with NotARabbit that they should all be deleted. Leaving them here could cause confusion. The "worklists" concept (and also "requests" and "tasks") came from Project X which is no longer active.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, I used to hang out at WP:RFD a lot, and got pretty good at assessing redirects, at least in article space. I’m quite conservative in my deletion recommendations; if there’s even one link to the page, albeit from an archived user talk page, I leave it alone. Or if there’s any kind of history. But there are more than 850 pages in our project space alone; the ones that we aren’t using (and never used) are simply clutter. They just make it harder to herd them all. NotARabbit (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some related commentary to the section #Redlist index above. NotARabbit (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Redlist index

This project has lots of redlink lists, and an index is obviously essential to be able to get to them all. However, there are two indices at the moment. One is the one linked at the top of the project page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. One can get to various redlists there. But on many of those list pages, the path at the top does not take you back to the same redlist index. For instance, at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Activists, if you click on “Missing articles by occupation”, you end up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/Index, which is another index of redlists.

It seems clear to me that the two indices are inadvertent duplication, but I’m fairly new to the project, and there may be reasons to keep two lists. Please let me know if there are!

If however, this is unnecessary duplication, I propose to:

1. fix the header breadcrumbs to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index Done
2. carefully merge the two index pages and redirected the “Worklists” one to the current index Done
3. organize the links so that the Wikidata lists are in one section and the crowd-sourced links in another — I combined them instead
4. put every list we have into the index; those that are not ready to go live yet can be commented out, but they need to be there so we are aware they are being worked on Done

I would like to do this task. But I know many of you may have objections or ideas or questions about what I’ve set out here, so take it away! I have a series of chores to accomplish today, so I will be back here only intermittently, but I’m eager to see what everyone comes up with. Thanks! — NotARabbit (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, I created/populated Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by occupation) to make those easier to find. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb, for all your work on the red lists, especially categorization which is really useful, but also the headers, etc. I don't know whether you picked them all up, but over the years I have created quite a number of Wikidata lists which either produced no results or contained only one or two entries. I really don't think they should be included in our categories, listings, etc. Maybe the best way to deal with the problem would simply be to delete them? Alternatively, in some cases the lists could perhaps be expanded by extending the search to related terms, especially in regard to occupations.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I’m hoping to expand some of those short lists later on. NotARabbit (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• The new categories have also provided me with a basis for improving the Redlink index (which should probably be the only one we continue to maintain). The extremely short Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Prisoners and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Technologists should probably also be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m thinking we can combine Technologists with another list. Prisoners... maybe make that dormant for now (comment it out)? NotARabbit (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Can the prisoners one be fitted into the current structure instead? It may be short (after an editathon in that area), but the fact that one of the two names on it currently is very notable suggests that it's probably worth keeping around. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it’s already there, under P in Occupations. I struck my suggestion above. NotARabbit (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Animators and cartoonists as it is a combination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Animators and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Cartoonists. Perhaps we should simply delete it.

The Animators and Cartoonists Page has a few incoming links. Probably it should be a redirect to one or the other. NotARabbit (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest we delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Worklists/Index as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index has now been substantially improved. There is absolutely no reason to maintain two lists.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)  Done

I redirected the older list to the current one. NotARabbit (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I agree, but let me go through it one more time with a fine-tooth comb to make sure we’ve transferred/merged everything to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. I have some time today to do this. I’ll also fix the breadcrumbs link to go there. — NotARabbit (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit: Your assistance is always welcome. Please also let me know if you come across and important occupations or countries that are still not listed. If you have time, you could check to see whether all the Wikidata links from the World Contest have been integrated.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On that note, do you need Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality? That seems mostly useless given your other lists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Headbomb. I see no harm in keeping any lists that have already been created until I or someone else can migrate the redlinks to another list. Especially crowd-sourced lists like that one. I’m still deep into the organization and linking of the index page, and it’s (of course) a much slower process than I expected, but it’ll get tightened up eventually. NotARabbit (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@NotARabbit:, take a look at Category:Women in Red redlink lists and it's subcategories then. I've added Education/Identifiers based on your updated index. Those may help to find missing ones. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb:, those categories are going to be essential for wrangling all the lists. Thank you so much for keeping them up. My head is starting to swim with all the lists of lists of lists! ;-) NotARabbit (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Just coming back to this section to review and update what I’ve done up to now. I’ll add notations above (using {{tq}}). NotARabbit (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in GLAM redlinks

I've started a new redlink page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Museum people and enlarged Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Librarians. Hope it's useful for people! Dsp13 (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Very useful. I've added the museums people to the appropriate lists.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I've started a page on The Woman's Building (Chicago). I plan expand it by gathering names of women artists exhibiting in the Women's Building, which is different from the women artists exhibiting at the Palace of Fine Arts, Chicago, which needs its own page as well and is on my list. My interest is mainly in women artists at the Fair, but the other aspects of women at the fair would be interesting. Better editors than I (meaning y'all) might have a good idea on how to approach this. Internal politics within the Board of Lady Managers is quite a ride and could be good topic for a specialist in suffrage and also feeds into the proposed idea of expanding coverage of the topic of women's groups and societies mention elsewhere on Women in Red. Thanks for your consideration. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have patience to read them, the whole catalogues are available at archive.com: [3] Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

New templates

I’ve created some new templates that might make setting up new pages a little easier. Please let me know if you need tweaks or fixes, and I’ll gladly do them. These are my first templates, though, so keep them simple, please!

Template name	Notes
{{WiR-HeaderBox}}	provides the red-bordered box and the WIR logo, with pale-blue frame optional
{{WiR-SubheaderBox}}	pale-blue bordered box for the second heading often on redlists
{{WIR-purpose}}	the welcome text we use about what WIR is
{{WHGI}}	provides the latest % number from WHGI with optional date (manually updated)
{{WIR-side}}	infobox used on meetup and focus pages

These still need redirects, so make those as you find you need them. I’ll do a few tomorrow morning (if I have the time) or Wednesday. NotARabbit (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a fun little article

From AGU’s GeoFIZZ column: “If Disney Princesses Were Earth and Environmental Scientists…” I thought this was appropriate while preparing for July’s Women rock! theme. :-) NotARabbit (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Love this NotARabbit! SusunW (talk) 03:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Great to see a more humorous topic on this page. We've recently become far too serious.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red is featured in Toolhub

Check this out. Big thank you to Harej (WMF). Now we just have to "fill in the blanks". --Rosiestep (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not too sure whether Wikipedia:Women in Red/Tools and technical support could be adapted to this framework.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith Jordan Gardner

Edith Jordan Gardner is in AfD. As I'm retired, and considering the nominator is one of the reason why I retired, I will not partecipate in this AfD other than notice it here. I will let this project decide if it's worthy try to save it, considering I originally created it under this project. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a tip to consider for this article. One of the reason of the nominator is that, once this woman married, she stopped to work and was not noteworthy anymore. Aside that she continued to be a public speaker on politics and women's suffrage, people should also take into account that, up until 1947, women teachers in the public school system in the United States were forced to retire if they married. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem - even if the nominator is an ass - is that it doesn't really make a case for why she's notable. Being a public speaker on politics and women's suffrage might make her notable - but we need more information than "She was a public vocational speaker on world affairs." It doesn't help that the article's lead primarily highlights being a head of department at a high school - which really doesn't suggest notability if that's her main significance - or that the main source focuses on relative trivia concerning her relationship with Stanford. Your point about women teachers being forced to retire if they married is fair - but it's not made out that she was close to being notable before she married either. I'm not voting here because work getting deleted discourages article creation and I'd rather support creators, but articles that don't make a clear claim of notability are going to be at risk of deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle please reconsider your retirement from editing. I did some research on Edith Gardner and couldn't come up with anything more than you did. I can't find anything to justify WP:Notability (academics). Hopefully, after some time away and a little distance from the frustrations, you will return to Wikipedia. Sorry to lose you. — Maile (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Striking my comment above, as the article has been improved a lot today does seem to meet notability. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 weeks ago I said I was retired and that I was not adding new content, which I did. Then yesterday night, by chance, I stumbled upon an article with a notice that if not improved by the 25.06 it was up for deletion. I improved it adding just 2 sources, and after me someone else improved it more. And today? a stalker decided it was their task to put up for deletion an article of mine. It's clear that I'm not welcomed to Wikipedia, and it's clear there are users that are taking upon themselves to task to make it clear. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, thank you, at least for sharing your opinion on the nomitator, that is in line with mine. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the nominator is an ass (based on this AFD, at least), or any argument that she's stopped being noteworthy once she married. The argument made is that she didn't seem to be noteworthy before marriage, and after marriage she did pretty much nothing to add to noteworthiness. Please WP:AGF and keep WP:NPAs out of this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, "(based on this AFD, at least)" that is the point, but too tired to explain the stalking behind. And btw they just explained to me there is even a policy against the listing of wrongdoings of other users (I suppose following the main concept of Assuming Good Faith, concept that, btw, the nominator is the first to ignore), therefore reason more to not explain why. But I appreciate your "lean on delete" and trying to give input to reconsider. Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle I don't know who gave you that advice, but requests for interaction ban are often aired at WP:ANI. You do have to provide diffs for them to look at. I know it's difficult if you feel another editor is dogging your heels. Been there, survived it (more than once). I never got around to ANI, because no one ever explained to me I had that option. Up to you. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The main issue I have right now is there's basically no information on any of those clubs, save for those she was a simply a member of. It's hard to gauge if being president/chairperson of the other clubs convey notability, or if they were simply social clubs and local interest associations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66, The Drover's Wife, Headbomb, I improved the article. A woman, not married, that in the 1910s travelled to Egypt, India, spent a year in London, all experience worthy of many articles in newspapers. She was also interested in environmental issues, and lobbied for women's suffrage (being the president of a local chapter of the Equal Suffrage Movement as well). Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle, great job in improving the article. Locating century old newspaper articles is not an easy task and we appreciate your willingness to search for these badly needed resources despite your retired status. The article could be further enhanced if active editors are able to locate more information about her involvement in the College Equal Suffrage League during the same time period. (Note to active editors: the CESL article could also use more citations.) Did anyone noticed that she became president of a chapter that was based in Berkeley while she was still living and working in Los Angeles? How long would such a train ride be back in 1910 before Amtrak was able to straighten out the tracks and lower some of the steeper grades back in the 1980s? It would not be a fast commute between Northern and Southern California. Would anyone think that ultra-conservative parents during that time period may consider a young school teacher's involvement with CESL may be considered a "too radical" activity which would endangered her job status? Regardless, we appreciate the improvements. 68.50.32.85 (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sincerely I do not understand which is the problem of the nominator with this article?

After improvements I have established that Edith Jordan was "the head of the History Department at the John H. Francis Polytechnic High School, president of the Southern California Social Science Association, chairman of the Department of Legislation Oakland Forum and president of the Town and Gown Club, president of the Cornell Women's Club of Northern California, president of the University of California branch of the Equal Suffrage League", but the nominator now states: "I suggest again that of the fairly limited coverage she received, a good part at least is due to her very notable father."

I have established that Edith Jordan, already in 1913, umarried and alone, travelled to India, circumnavigating the world. And she was a social worker with special interest in environment preservation... in the 1910s! And the nominator said "For a person to have a Wikipedia article, he or she needs to have actually done something of some significant interest or importance, unlike this person, who lived a fairly ordinary and uninteresting life typical of a person in her social position at the time."

Now, or the nominator does really not have an idea of what life was for women in the 1910s, or there is something behind that I do not understand. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Elisa.rolle One aspect of this WIR community that I really admire is the ability to not respond in kind. Unless it gets worse, don't break a sweat over it. Editors are watching it. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

July events

July is only a few days away. Has anything been decided about a virtual editathon theme? It's probably mentioned above, but nothing jumps out at me. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 Geofocus: Sub-Saharan Africa (#83); Women of film and stage (#84); 20th-century women (#85); Women Rock (#86) SusunW (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Celia Brackenridge

I've just created a brief article about Celia Brackenridge, if anyone would like to help expand it. There are plenty of sources about her. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's currently a DYK about Brackenridge on the main page. Thanks to other editors who have helped improve the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Edith Jordan Gardner and Mary Putnam

Expanding Edith Jordan Gardner to avoid the AfD, I discovered she and Putnam were the first American women to visit Kuala Lumpur: [4]. I think this is a nice DYK, but if I remember well, you cannot create a DYK on a page with AfD, is it correct? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

You can nominate it, just mention in the comments that it is at AfD and final approval will need to wait until it is resolved as keep. SusunW (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:DYK details the eligibility requirements. — Maile (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Film + theater Wikidata lists

Per our conversations here, can someone please create Wikidata lists for these occupations and add them here? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Showgirl (Q3482594)
• Soubrette (Q836983)/(Q3964987)
• Stagehand (Q2328828)
• audio engineer (Q128124)
• A2 (Q4649098)
• Video Engineer (Q11330839)
• theatrical electrician (Q5357767)
• Lighting technician (Q17082153)
• light board operator (Q6546151)
• Spotlight operator (Q7580081)
• theatrical technician (Q1020621)
• property master (Q1430377)
• flyman (Q51156785)
• Rigger (Q2152783)
• magician (Q15855449)
• master of ceremonies (Q497240)
• illusionist (Q1658894)
• theatre manager (Q1776724)
• projectionist (Q1415369)
• dramaturge (Q487596)
• theatre critic (Q17337766)
• costume designer (Q1323191)
• animator (Q266569)
• television producer (Q578109)
• film producer (Q3282637)
• theatrical producer (Q1759246)
• line producer (Q1826375)
• cinematographer (Q222344)
• film editor (Q7042855)

User:Katsheron/Deanna Kamiel

This draft needs some help. Any takers? Potentially notable subject but not good as it currently stands. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians

I have a new project-related publication, "Which women mathematicians get written about on Wikipedia, and why", in the July–August 2018 AWM Newsletter. Mostly it explains the criteria we use to determine whether an academic should be included, in an attempt to focus article-creation efforts on people whose articles are likely to avoid deletion, and outlines some steps to help more women meet those criteria and help create more articles. (Whether these are the criteria we should be using is a different question, but I think there are still so many people who meet the criteria but have no article yet that focusing on these people will not be much of an obstacle.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Really nice article David Eppstein. Easy to understand and explains the pitfalls of Wikipolicy well. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein: I really appreciate your careful analysis of how to select women mathematicians who deserve articles on Wikipedia. I think we could adapt many of the criteria to a more general approach on how to select candidates for women's biographies, particularly academics from other spheres of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein: I agree with all the positive feedback. Great article and wonderful, broadly applicable advice. Fighting for equity in published stories and award recipients helps everyone. Sweet kate (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

An excellent article by Eppstein that explains well the criteria that the WP:Prof guideline advises should be met. A point I could reinforce is that, when assessing citation patterns, it is recognized that these differ from field to field. Citations for pure (but not applied) mathematicians, theologians and philosophers tend to be low, those for computer scientists and life scientists tend to be high, so one doesn't compare the two. The practice is to compare within a field: like with like. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC).

Draft:Emily Hester Brodrick

I just declined this draft. Is this something that could be salvaged? FYI, I see reviews of one book here and here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This one was created by Charles Matthews who is very much still active and I assume has moved beyond needing to use AfC for his new articles. We should perhaps leave it to him to decide whether/when he wants to move it to mainspace. I'm not sure why Shadowowl submitted it in the first place. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Processwise, this is what happens, it seems. It is clunky, for sure. I preferred the notifications from User:HasteurBot, but it seems those have stopped. I would hope that the alternative route becomes the standard. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It was up for G13 and would have been deleted if I didn't submit it. -- » Shadowowl | talk 11:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl and Charles Matthews: All you have to do to exempt a draft from G13 is edit it. Not all drafts have to or should go through AfC. I don't think it's good practice to submit drafts on others' behalf if they haven't previously indicated that they want to use AfC, especially not when they're experienced content creators like Charles. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I have expressed my feelings about the process a number of times, as for example here to @Legacypac:, one of those who think deletionism in the Draft: space is significant maintenance. I find my drafts are still sent to AfC, whether I want that or not. When the namespace was first set up, we were encouraged to move drafts from our personal userspace into it. Then it turned out that there was the downside, that draftspace was patrolled in this fashion, with AfC-declined articles then speedied.

I spend less time here than I did before I undertook big tasks on Wikidata; and then became a Wikimedian in Residence. So some drafts hang around.

I see that Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 66#Template for promising drafts offers a more sensible route, to WP:MFD. I do wonder why that was not applied to my Draft:List of the masques of Inigo Jones, which had a list needing format, by @Shadowowl:. Since I'm an admin I can revive any of these drafts, at any time, and don't necessarily lose work, though keeping track becomes harder. Others do not have that luxury, and may be discouraged. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I regularly submit viable looking drafts to AfC for feedback and/or promotion. This not only postpones deletion but generates a note from a reviewer (often me), onto the creator's talkpage if we don't end up accepting it after copyvio and other checks. I don't check the user rights of the creator, I handle the draft on it's merits. Any user who resists other users moving their pages forward or preventing deletion of good topics should not store their drafts anywhere on site. It is unreasonable to expect reviewers to recall the personal preferences of individual users who abandon the occasional draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Oh, for heaven's sake, we do need people concerned about maintaining the site, but we have never (IMX, in the past 15 years) needed that particular style of process wonkery. See Wikipedia:Process is important where it says "Many processes allow for exceptions or alternate routes in particular cases or circumstances; such exceptions can be added to processes that do not have them." As far as I'm concerned the AfC kludginess was created by retrospective legislation, after the Draft: space was created, and after we were encouraged to move our userspace drafts into draftspace.

The kind of attitude you are displaying there really amounts to saying that I'd be better off sticking to userspace drafts, since you don't think "exceptions or alternate routes in particular cases or circumstances" appropriate, because you prefer a maintenance niche where it's all pretty simplistic. Which the essay I cited above contradicts. The bare bones of it is that, having begun editing in 2003, I have drafts up at AfC, which is for quite other purposes, and tends to be over-strict on notability (for example). Really. They get deleted, I bring them back, it all makes for work.

You know what is actually needed? A PROD-like system, not a speedying. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: BTW, it's best practice to leave the draft redirects behind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Err, can you explain that? If I left them behind and then deleted them under one of the usual categories as the user creating ... that should be fine? I see no mention on Wikipedia:Redirect. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Simple: Wherever drafts are linked, they are now redlinks. Case in point, the header of this section. Deleting without redirects also make it harder/more annoying for people to find the article if they followed a hardlink to the draft from an external site/email (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emily_Hester_Brodrick), and someone who doesn't pay attention quickly might create a new draft at Draft:Emily Hester Brodrick, rather than edit Emily Hester Brodrick. And lastly, keeping the redirect it makes it very easy to see if a draft was moved into mainspace, rather than the draft being deleted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Battin page re-write

Hey there. Here's a little stub I rewrote. I thought you might be interested. She wasn't a red-link, but she might as well have been. I don't think I'm part of this project, but I'm watching with interest. Claim it for your June figures if you like... here is the before page and here is the "finished" version. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Boneso, what a lovely article. And yes, this month I have seemed to expand a bunch of stubs which had little to no documentation. Odd how that seems to run in cycles for me. SusunW (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well done, Boneso, well done! Per ORES, it's now GA quality, so on the talkpage, I updated the class to B. I hope you like it around here and decide to add yourself to the Members page, or to the list of editors who receive our monthly events update. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Boneso Hey! so I gave it a bit of a copyedit. Just a FYI for the future, there's an "infobox scientist" template that works really well for researchers. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and invitation, but I thin GA might be a bit much I'll add my name to the list. I have been aware of the project for some time and I love what you are doing. Looking at your figures for June - even 700 is a lot of pages in a month. Originalmess on the infobox, I mostly use infobox person because it contains all the parameters I like to use and I'm not limited as to what I can add.8==8 Boneso (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Women Disobey

Women in Red are invited to improve the newly-created Women Disobey article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Mary Putnam Henck

As I really do not want to engage in the hassle to nominate Edith Jordan Gardner for a DYK, I decided to let it go. But I suggest to who is interested to research the other woman who was with Gardner when they were the first American women to visit Kuala Lumpur: Mary Putnam Henck, here is her obituary: Skyforest Community Leader Mary Putnam Henck, 80, Dies and this is the school named after her: Mary Putnam Henck Intermediate. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Before her marriage, Henck was also the first woman vice principal in what later became the Los Angeles Unified School District. [5]. After her marriage, she started her own school district at Lake Arrowhead, for which reason the school was named after her. [6]. She corresponded with naturilist John Muir. [7] This is just the tip of the iceberg. -- 50.195.200.161 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shamitha Shreekumar

Copying from here: --Rosiestep (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"I am trying to create a woman biography as a part of this meet up. So I am currently working on a draft article Draft:Shamitha Shreekumar. So I hope Women in Red members would contribute to it. Abishe (talk) 9:05 pm, Today (UTC−7)"

List of drafts as a subpage

Don't know if it's been suggested before, but would it be beneficial to have a list of drafts and/or stubs by wikiproject members who'd like a little help? A directory would help with organization (so people can actually find them! could help with the momentum issue!) and cut down on the number of requests on the talk page for the same thing (hard to navigate right now). originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, but I do not have the technical skill to do that. I also wonder if without the ping on the talk page if we would remember to check the list? Maybe there is a way it could tie to alerts? @Rosiestep, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, and Victuallers: SusunW (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We could keep track of newly-created stubs by writing "Stub" next to the articles we add in the Outcomes section of each event as a friendly alert to others that it would benefit from expansion. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Originalmess, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Victuallers, and SusunW:We can encourage people to add stubs to relevant redlists. I occasionally add "Articles needing improvement" at the bottoms of such lists. Anyone can do it, but if you ping me, I'll do it, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, Rosiestep, and SusunW: I don't know if we need to do it with a bot; it seems like a lot of people create or find stubs/abandoned drafts and post them here. There's 17 currently on this page alone! A centralized page where we post the ones we make/find seems like the easiest way (since there's people who would rather improve an article than start a new one themselves, I think it'd be nice to have them in a not-redlist). originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 19:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Originalmess: I like that idea. I could create a "needs-work list" and divide it up into topics. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl:Ooh yes! That's a better title too. Yay thank you :) originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Originalmess, Ipigott, Rosiestep, Victuallers, and SusunW: I've started a Needs improvement list. Feel free to add to it! I'm separating it by country right now. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

These two articles probably belong on the Needs Improvement List unless someone wants to jump in right now and improve them. They are one sentence stubs on the president (Maribel Perez Wadsworth) and the editor in chief (Nicole Carroll (journalist)) of USA Today. Good news is that these articles were finally created! Rhetorical question... why weren't they created before today? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I certainly think it is a good idea to develop lists of articles created on WiR which need attention. Thanks Megalibrarygirl for starting a Needs improvement list. But now that WiR is a wikiproject in its own right, it should be possible to produce a table of "Women in Red" articles by quality and importance along the lines of the one on "Women writers articles by quality and importance" on the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_writers|WP Women writers]] page. Perhaps Headbomb or Tagishsimon could set it up. In addition, I think it would be useful if editors could let us know when they need assistance, probably on this talk page as before.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please send a WIR invitation to User:SuperSwift

Please send an invitation to SuperSwift. I can do it but I'll prefer the formal invitation from a wir executive be sent to him. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott: did you see this request? SusunW (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi HandsomeBoy and thanks for the referral!  Done --Rosiestep (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW: Thanks. Have followed up on Rosie's message with details of how to join the project. Thanks for alerting me. I missed the original request. There's been so much on this page over the past few days.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Study: "Researchers from CWI have found that female members of the European Parliament are slightly more likely to be featured on multiple Wikipedia language editions than their male counterparts".

In case people miss it, seen on the Signpost, and fully online at here - interesting read. en:wp is one of the wikis with a higher % of qualifying females with bios, though not by quite as much as the French, German or Portuguese wikis. Also found men are more likely to have children mentioned, perhaps because they are on average older (so place of death also more likely to be mentioned). Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Johnbod I think it would be interesting to see how these statistics have changed over time, i.e. pre-collaboration with wiki Women in Red sister projects and after. I cannot help but think that it is a good thing for men's families to have started appearing more in their bios. The omission of them has for a long time been just one of the systemic gender biases prevalent in all media between biographies of women and men. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

From Category:Women Members of the European Parliament, it looks as if our coverage on the EN wiki is pretty good. Megalibrarygirl: Do you know if we have any redlists of those who are missing? As their biographies are all available from the European Parliament, it should not be difficult to include them all.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott These names could be added to Women in politics Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about possibly anachronistic naming

This isn't specific to WIR really, but I figured someone here might have a clue. I'm working a bit on Aurelia H. Reinhardt, and I'm not totally sure about naming. Typically we would refer to an individual repeatedly by last name only in the body of the article. In this case, Henry was her maiden name, and Reinhardt her married, but it wasn't hyphenated as would typically be done today, easily meaning she should be referred to as Henry-Reinhardt. So it's not clear that, by early 20th Century standards, whether she should be referred to as Henry Reinhardt or simply Reinhardt, and it's not totally clear that the article title (not my work) isn't misleading, since Henry wasn't a middle name (as would certainly follow the standard of the day), but a maiden name, where her actual middle name was Isabel. Just hoping someone here has some experience with this type of thing writing in this period. GMG^talk 14:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GMG, from my experience, you have various way to proceed:

Aurelia I. Henry or Aurelia Isabel Henry if she was known with her maiden name in her field. Sometime women married late and her public career was noted with the maiden name.

Aurelia Henry Reinhardt, if you want to maintain the link with the maiden name

Aurelia I. Reinhardt or Aurelia Isabel Reinhardt, if you don't want to maintain the link with the maiden name.

but I think, Aurelia H. Reinhardt isn't correct. Henry is not a middle name, therefore I have never seen that it's shortened to H. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, your assumption that hyphenation "would typically be done today" is, I'd have thought, rather dubious even for North America, and certainly doesn't work for most parts of the world. WP:COMMONNAME is the well-developed policy here; we should follow sources, and certainly not go inventing new names to fit our tastes. That would be "anachronistic". Here, all the sources appear to use "Aurelia Henry Reinhardt" so that is what we should do for the title, and follow their form in subsequent mentions in the text - I haven't checked what they do. It is interesting (and perhaps unusual) that her son "Paul Henry Reinhardt" kept the Henry too. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the common name is definitely including her married name in some form. She was only married for six years, and retained her married name as a widow throughout her professional career. Maybe I'm wrong on the commonality of the hyphen, but I was still under the impression that retaining a maiden name was fairly rare in the West around the turn of the century and didn't really come into popular style until nearer to mid-century. I'll have to probably do a broader survey for a COMMON name argument, although I agree the the H. seems wrong intuitively.

But as general practice, with non hyphenated double last names, do we as a matter of MOS typically repeat both names when referring to the person "by last name"? Does MOS or common practice even have an opinion on it stylistically? GMG^talk 14:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We follow sources, allowing for tone & house styles. It can be fiddly, and I don't believe there is a single solution for all cases. Here the main two sources seem to use "Aurelia Reinhardt" (ref 1) and "Aurelia" or "Mrs. Reinhardt" (ref 2) in text. After checking how others do it, "Aurelia Reinhardt" or "Aurelia Henry Reinhardt" might be best. The article currently uses "Henry Reinhardt" in text, which doesn't seem right to me. I tried to move the page to "Aurelia Henry Reinhardt" just now, but there is a redirect in place so a WP:RM (or friendly admin) is needed. The current title seems clearly wrong. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I had the same issue recently with Elizabeth Augustus Whitehead. My first instinct was to write "Augustus Whitehead" as we would today, but it's clunky and conflicts with the sources, so I went with just "Whitehead". I'd probably suggest doing the same with Reinhardt. I don't think you should use her full name, regardless of what the sources say, because that conflicts with our house style and is really awkward in modern usage. – Joe (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... may be an opportunity to settle on some kind of guidance to add to MOS:SURNAME. GMG^talk 15:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo The sourcing directs what one names the article, so evaluate the weight of the sourcing, which appears to be Aurelia Henry Reinhardt, and then make redirects for other names. It helps to be mindful that current sourcing often reflects current customs, which may or may not have been in existence during her time. If there is a conflict with current and contemporary/period sourcing, I typically go with the period sourcing and do redirects for the current name sames. In the text, she should be Henry until she became Reinhardt. It absolutely baffles me why there is a propensity to call someone by another name than the one that they had when an event occurred. If you were looking for her birth record, you would not find it under Reinhardt, so don't use Reinhardt to discuss her birth. Unless she hyphenated it, it won't match the sourcing either, so don't use that. MOS doesn's treat women's names. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the only guidance I found was at WP:MAIDEN, which only deals with article naming specifically. But looking at some of the examples used there, like Courteney Cox and Vita Sackville-West, they both seem to use the common name, regardless of whether they're referring to the subject chronologically before or after their name change. GMG^talk 15:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo I agree there is no uniformity, but in your two examples, Cox and Sackville-West were known by those names because they gained notability prior to any marriage. (I would note, the Sackville-West article uses her first name in a bunch of the text, which is not a recommended usage, so it is not a preferred example.) Far more common would be someone like Mary McLeod Bethune. McLeod in the text until marriage and then Bethune, but there aren't actually standards that are adhered to anywhere on WP as far as I can tell. Some women keep their birth name, some take their spouse's name, some hyphenate (whether maiden-married or married-maiden depends typically on country of origin), some use maiden for professional continuity and married for private life. In previous historic periods, there were actualy laws forcing women to take their husband's surname. Following what sourcing says is the easiest way to deal with name changes and the most accurate. (For example, I wasn't a "W" until I married, so if you are looking for me with that name in my home town, you aren't going to find me.) SusunW (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Vita Sackville-West published and was known publicly as that throughout her life, just as Cox continues to work using that name. V S-W married at 21, when she had already published 2 obscure books of poetry, so no doubt could have switched to her married name if she had wanted to, as Virginia Woolf did. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My late 2ct: I think we need to distinguish two things, article title and how to name her in the article. The article title should be common name, - I can't tell if that is as we have, or if Henry should be spelled out. - In the article, birth name should appear once in full. She can be named by first name(s) when anything is said about her as a child, and she needs distinguishing from parents and other people of the same last maiden name. When grown up, she should be called by last name only, and please not married name before she gets married. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with this. The broader concern though is whether this should be added to the MoS. Seems a bit off that we cover Snoop Dogg but not maiden names. GMG^talk 17:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also late to the party. We should be careful about making assumptions about what's "typical today". Hopefully NPR is an umipeachable source in this arena; they say that hyphenation is on the wane, "a bureaucratic nightmare" and "wasn't really sustainable ... destined to hit a wall after one generation". That seems a bit opinion-laden to me for a straight up news piece; however from personal experience in the Western U.S., a woman adopting her husband's family name but keeping her own family name and not hyphenating is not uncommon. Maybe it's the influence of the Hispanic naming convention here. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

GMG can correct me if I'm wrong, but to clarify: I don't think his question was about the presence/absence of hyphens, it was that some early/mid-20th century sources treat a married woman's maiden name as a quasi-middle name. So in my example, the full name was Elizabeth Augustus Whitehead (Augustus the maiden name; Whitehead added on her second marriage), but sources refer to her as "Whitehead" or "Elizabeth A. Whitehead", which wouldn't happen today, hyphen or no hyphen. Therefore the question arises, when we're referring to her by her surname, should it be "Augustus Whitehead" (following contemporary conventions) or just "Whitehead" (following the sources). – Joe (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

{{ec} (but still relevant probably) I guess though that regardless of actual prevalence, grammatically it seems more natural to include the entirety of a hyphenated double name in non-initial-post-martial-references, while a non-hyphenated double name is a little more ambiguous according to MOS:SURNAME. In this particular case, Aurelia Henry Reinhardt appears to pretty clearly be the COMMONNAME for title purposes, but looking at something like this source, she is "Mrs. Reinhardt" while...oddly enough...her husband is "Dr. Reinhardt", although the more prominent "Dr. Reinhardt" is just as often referred to fully as "Aurelia Henry Reinhardt". So...In this case we defer not necessarily to their "most commonly used name" as in the case with double-no-hyphen-last-name Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, but we defer specifically to what sources say when only mentioning surname, which isn't explicitly covered in the MOS, although obviously here we've managed to infer it. GMG^talk 19:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Should it be part of the MOS, probably, but the issue would be whether there would be broad enough participation so we don't add something that is really not accurate or workable. Women's names are just messy. Having gone to university when the field of women's studies was emerging, I can tell you that a lot of the time inserting the maiden name as a middle name was done to facilitate gathering data under the various surnames. We were actually instructed to do that. (The same could be said for adding subsequent marriages, so you ended up with multiple surnames like Mary Wilkes Storke Hayley Jeffery, when that was never a name that she used.) But, the problem with that approach is that it doesn't follow the sources and ends up with even more name variations. Later there was a switch back to following sourcing, but a mixed approach still exists. My personal opinion is that following the sourcing nearest to the event in question is the most accurate representation, and it also eliminates the need to keep adding on surnames with subsequent marriages. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I see it is now Aurelia Henry Reinhardt, and a lot bigger, thanks to User:GreenMeansGo. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing what I can, although I don't have access to probably the single best source, a full dedicated biography by George Hedley...just in case anyone is in the mood for some writing and has access to a first world library (which I don't). Speaking of historically quirky things, apparently she was in on the whole yolo things before it was popular. Well ahead of her time that one. GMG^talk 13:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)