Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 94

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96→Archive 100

Dr. Susan Moore

I don't know if there's enough sources from prior to last year and the pandemic to make a proper article on Dr. Susan Moore, but there's certainly plenty to make an article on the Death of Susan Moore, from the New York Times to ABC to the IndyStar, twice. And what she went through definitely had impacts that went beyond just her situation.

I'm currently in the middle of working on other draft articles at the moment, so I can't focus on this right now. But I think it's something important to be done. So I come to you, my friends. SilverserenC 03:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is important. The subject is difficult for me but I can start a draft and add small amounts as bandwidth allows, with an invitation to others to contribute freely. Draft:Death of Susan Moore. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, Silver seren I've added some more to the draft, but it's so upsetting I have had to stop for now. I've not got to the impact/aftermath but I think the circumstances sections are OK. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the excellent work Lajmmoore; and, I can relate. Hope you’re taking good care offline. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a CC image of La India

La India is a Puerto Rican American female singer whose been active in the salsa scene since the '90s several hits on the Billboard Tropical Airplay. However, I cannot find a free license image of her anywhere online. I've tried Google, YouTube, and Flickr with the creative commons search filter, but found none that are appropriate to upload. Would anyone be willing to try to get an image of her on WikiCommons? Erick (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Drat, if you’ve exhausted YouTube, that’s usually my best trick. Though I will say, once Victuallers got a great image of Meredith Graves by leaving some polite requests on the Flickr images that would work well if only they were licensed correctly—someone said yes and so we have File:Meredith Graves by Jaime-Salazar.jpg. You could try that? Innisfree987 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@Innisfree987:, I've e-mailed her agency in hopes of maybe either they or her can upload an image to WikiCommons. Otherwise, I'll try the Flickr requests. Erick (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Kathe Rosenthal

Dear WPWIR people, I have written an article on Käthe Rosenthal, botanist, partly based on a German Wiki Draft. I hope you find it acceptable Brunswicknic (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A very good article in all respects. Thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Brunswicknic, It's ace! If you feel like it, you could add it to 'Plants & Gardens' which focusses on plantswomen, including botanists. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mary Rambaran-Olm

Hello all! I've just added a page for a medievalist Mary Rambaran-Olm, due to her activism I imagine it might become a target for vandalism, so I wondered if a few people wouldn't mind adding it to their watch lists just in case? Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, added! Feel free to ping if you need a hand and I haven’t noticed. Thanks for this interesting entry! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Amanda Brock

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could have a look at this page and help me get it approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amanda_Brock As there is an interest here in female biographies, I hope you can see the importance of Amanda Brock being added to wiki, as CEO of OpenUK, she has had a notable career and impact. I would greatly appreciate any help or tips in order to get this page approved! Thank you Amurphy79 (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amurphy79: I read it, and it looks to have the same issues the past ... 6? ... AfC refusals have mentioned. You should try actually working on feedback rather than just keep submitting hoping for a different outcome. Not all women biographies are notable, and to keep this project's credibility we actually make sure of that. Sources need to discuss the subject in more than a passing mention and, importantly, if she is only notable as CEO of a company, presumably her achievements of note are all part of that company's success and are only relevant there, thus no biography is warranted. Same standard as male CEOs, perhaps a redirect would suffice? Kingsif (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for having a look! We have put in a lot of work to try and address the AfC concerns, there had been some contrasting feedback as well beforehand so that work may not be apparent, but thank you for your suggestion to incorporate into the broader article, that is very helpful! Thanks again Amurphy79 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Extensive coverage of Women in Red

Joshua Zitser's article "Challenging the massive gender imbalance on Wikipedia. Hundreds of dedicated volunteers are defying the sexists to write women back into history." on Insider provides interesting background on Women in Red based on comments from several of our most active editors.--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And the situation in the Netherlands

This is reflected by Faye Welch in her article at CommentaryBoxSports titled "Wikipedia gives a picture distorted by men".--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Lea Bertoto article help

Hi,

I photograph a cemetery in Arlington, MA (and a few others) and put enter the headstones into find a grave and add their birth, death and marriages and then link the ones I can to family members. While doing this I find fascinating stories and a few mysteries while searching the newspaper for their obits.

I stumbled upon a head stone that was different and neglected with just the name Lea Bertoto. The initial research was she was a Italian dancer by way of France with very poor parents but made a sensational splash on the theater in Boston in the 1890. I don’t have my notes right here but she was called the little dancer and wowed the audiences until she died tragically of spinal meningitis at age 18 while doing shows in NYC.

After her death there was even a woman who put fresh flowers on her grave for years until her death like story. And she was a favorite of the theater owner Austin who owed the Austin’s Palace theater in Boston. There was also a lot about her supporting her poor illiterate immigrant no speaking parents but who knows what part of that was sympathy press.

I know I can’t write the article myself what do I do with this info and all the newspaper references? Any suggestions? Cadilks (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Cadilks: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I see there are a couple of references to her in connection with her death ([1], [2]) but I don't know whether she deserves a biography on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Facebook whistleblower Sophie Zhang

Hi there, I started this stub and it appears this lady is into a significant action over Facebook and democracy. I'am not a native English speaker, I'am not used to writing biographies, nor used to integrate my stub within Women in Red. I have a small need of mentorship, while Sophie Zhang's article needs more sources identification, sources reading and content expansion. Edits power welcome. Yug (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the sources are heavy based on The Guardian. There is a NYTimes article and looks like she is under consideration for a Constantine Award. Awards are important for establishing notability, so if there are any others you find, i suggest including them.Fred (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Code of Conduct for our project

I was recently requested to do a survey via wikimedia on their newish Universal Code of Conduct. It made me wonder if we should add something to the project page concerning expected guidelines and behaviors as well as resources on reporting issues. Don't get me wrong, everyone here in my experience has been super supportive and assume good faith. However, for transparency, it might be useful to have some sources added for our members. Fred (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In what way do you suppose that WiR is not already bound by the UCoC, such that it requires an addendum to or its own UCoC? What problem are you wondering about fixing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like that. I don’t really know what’s in the UCoC and having it at hand could be a helpful resource IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
? There is a link to it above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC).
The meta project page is (at least for me) quite a large volume of text to plow through and has appeared when I’ve clicked over to still be in process? I was imagining something shorter with links out to the full. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I assume WiR is bound by the UCoC, but i am not sure everyone is aware of it. I'd guess i'd go to arbcom if i had an issue, but maybe that's too extreme. I want us to avoid problems by making the information available and i like Innisfree9877's suggestion of offering a quick summary.Fred (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
How about "be nice" as a quick summary? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This seems unnecessary: WiR editors are all Wikipedia editors. I wouldn't expect to see a WiR page about paid editing, or Copyvio, or anything else which applies universally to all editors. One news item here to announce to members that it has been introduced, perhaps - and this discussion does just that. But I really don't see why we need a WiR-specific version of a Wikimedia-wide code of conduct, or a dumbed-down version because our members can't handle the whole thing. I wouldn't expect to see it on any other WikiProject page. PamD 19:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edith Warner

I just threw together an article on Edith Warner in the past half a day. Probably one of the fastest articles i've made, but I felt pretty invested. I'm actually rather surprised there wasn't an article on her already (not to mention a larger amount of mentions of her from other articles) considering how frequently she was mentioned and discussed by the major scientists involved in the Manhattan Project. If anyone can find any other improvements to make that I missed, have at it! SilverserenC 06:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Arctic Knot minority language conference

If anyone here is working with minority languages and/or indigenous languages or would just like to learn more about the work being doing on Wikimedia projects for these languages, please join Wikimedia Norway for the Arctic Knot minority language online conference June 24-26. If you would like to give a presentation on a topic related to this, today is the last day to submit a proposal. -Yupik (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yupik: Thanks for keeping us informed about this. All the previous conferences in the series have been focused on Celtic languages. As this one is in Norway and given its title, it looks as if it is set to address Sami, Yupik, Greenlandic and other Inuit dialects. Do you know whether this is in fact the case? If you are giving a presentation yourself, perhaps you could emphasize our interest in covering more women from these indigenous communities.--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
That is, in fact the case. Saami languages and all languages in the Arctic region are the main focus, but if previous Celtic Knots are anything to go by, we will be all over the map :D I have submitted a proposal for a presentation with this wonderful project and others in mind :) -Yupik (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Yupik: It could be interesting to cc the Wikimedia's LinguaLibre.org community. You can ping me periodically too. Yug (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
That looks really inspiring, Yupik. May I suggest that if your video presentation is in one of the languages you suggest, it might be useful to provide an English translation, possibly in the form of subtitles.--Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding recent articles listed at WP:AFD created under #1day1woman initiative

Hi members, Rukma Roy, Ratna Ghoshal, Anushree Das and Malabika Sen created under #1day1woman initiative are listed for WP:AFD. If anybody interested please help to rescue them. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thank you and you are correct regarding nominator, I hope all survives. Already enrolled at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/184#Participants. Looking for more help in coming days. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Run n Fly: To become a full member of WiR, you should also register on our main page. If you prefer not to join the project but would like to be informed of our activities, please let me know and I can add you to our mailing list.--Ipigott (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Yes sure, please add to the mailing list. Also, bit worried and disappointed because it took me a lot of time and days to find WP:RS about the artists and draft the articles per WP:ENT and now find them all head towards WP:AFD. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Run n Fly: I don't think you need to worry too much about these. They seem to be getting sufficient support. For future articles though, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. It's really important to include informative secondary sources. Please let me know on my talk page if you need further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

19 percent

Do we have festivities planned for when the percentage of biographies finally hits 19? Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Gamaliel, great idea... but I haven't heard of any such plans... at least not yet. Maybe some folks with a creative bent can come up with something cool! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Possibly @GoranSM: can help? The question is why WDCM Biases Dashboard is reporting 19.17% for women on en.wikipedia, where humanwiki is reporting 18.85%. I suspect the distinction is WDCM counting "uses" of wikidata items on en.wiki (" the count of the number of pages in a particular client project where the respective Wikidata item is used" [3]), where humanwiki is counting sitelinks in WD items. Even then, the difference in both absolute and percentiles between humanwiki and WDCM is very puzzling, and we lack any real insight into how WDCM is compiling its stats what 'use' or an entry in wbc_entity_usage means, and why it differes so much from the sitelink count. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, I didn't see that in the explanation. wbc_entity_usage includes sitelinks, but also any other sort of data associated with the item. Let's say you had a company with {{Infobox company}} that, while it didn't have a |founder= parameter, had founded by (P112) on the associated Wikidata item. The infobox would fill in the name of the founder, and that would count as a use as far as wbc_entity_usage is concerned. (wikitech:Wikidata Concepts Monitor#[AN IMPORTANT] NOTE on the Wikidata usage definition has more on this) This might make sense for WMDE's use case, but sitelinks are what matters for WiR. Vahurzpu (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Vahurzpu: Thanks for these explanations. I had always wondered what "usage" meant in this context. It is a little clearer now but does not yet appear to have been finally established. I do agree though that the Humaniki data are what we need to measure our progress on the proportion of women's biographies on the EN Wikipedia. 19% will be an important milestone but I suggest we leave major celebrations to the day we reach 20%. As we seem to need a bit more than a year to move up a percentage point, we should reach 20% well before the end of 2022.--Ipigott (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Help - need an admin

Can someone who is an admin put protection on Vera Gedroits? It has been under attack for 2 days from a series of editors who are vandalizing it and randomly changing information, probably because it appeared as a Google doodle. I am so frustrated trying to keep up with the changes and make sure that only verified information remains, but I just cannot keep up with them, there are so many random and unsubstantiated changes being made. SusunW (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@SusunW: I've given it ten days' protection - hopefully that will be enough to deter vandals. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much Ser Amantio di Nicolao. It's been crazy trying to keep up with the changes to the article and work on other articles. Perhaps the protection will slow down the level of disruption. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@SusunW: I have it watchlisted. If there continue to be problems I'll see what else needs to be done. That being said: I think it should be fine - most of what was going on seems to have been IP-driven. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I appreciate the help from other editors in trying to roll back or undo the changes these IP editors were making. Hopefully in 10 days the hullabaloo will have died down. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Useful resource

It turns out (...it only took me a month to find...) that the Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Throughout the Ages can be viewed in full by anyone with the Wikipedia Library bundle, as a Gale ebook. Here is a link: for those with the bundle, does it work simply to click on it? It was *very* hard to find by navigating to it, to extent I don’t want to close the window because who knows how I’ll make my way back there, but I hope these breadcrumbs may assist others a bit at least. It has the potential to help knock out hundreds of redlinks! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987: Amazing find! Yes, I can click on any of the red links and find the full article. But I still think it will be useful to continue with the red links.--Ipigott (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott oh thanks so much for confirming it works! That’s great! And in a way I think it makes the redlinks more useful because any not listed on Encyclopedia.com can still be accessed for most editors. We’ll do our best—we’re about 25% done, so good progress but still much remaining and depends on continued volunteer capacity. On that note, particular thanks for your efforts sorting out the aristocrats—that’s a real weak point for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
If we do make it to the end, working to turn the redlinks blue could be a fun editathon project—a little something for everyone! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Innisfree987: Covering the entire dictionary in one editathon might be over-ambitious but we certainly ought to mention some of the pertinent categories in our future assignments and maybe add some of them to crowd-sourced lists. I was also wondering whether we should create a special WiR page of biographical dictionaries which are fully accessible through the Wikipedia Library bundle. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl, SusunW and others could assist in preparing the listing.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same—perhaps on or linked from the Resource page? Meanwhile yes I was very pleased that two sections of the redlist were finished in time to add to the April garden event! Innisfree987 (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Very happy that you were able to find this and that the Bundle is proving useful to you Innisfree987. I added the link to the relist. As for links, I admit I had no idea it existed, but though it's a little hard to find, this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources/Fully accessible biographical dictionaries can be added to by anyone. Ipigott, Sue, Rosie and I have asked the Library previously, they don't have a list/sorting to identify women's topics. Thus it would simply be a matter of manually hunting through everything they have. I'm thinking that would be exhausting and discouraging. I think our best bet is to add them as we find them to our resources lists. SusunW (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
SusunW: I had already added Dictionary of Women Worldwide to our Fully accessible biographical dictionaries but as we identify more, I thought it would be useful to have a separate page on useful biographical resources from the Wikipedia Library with all the necessary explanations. I would be happy to try to see what they have but cannot find out how to go about it. It proved very difficult to find out that the Dictionary of African Biography was there. Maybe we can look at dictionaries on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Ipigott, I saw that you had added the Dictionary of Women to the "accessible biographies list". (I added Dictionary of African Biography and the Caribbean one to that list). What I meant was that I added the library link to this redlist. In my dreams, I would love to have a button on the library combining in a special collection resources for women, but I think that is never going to happen. I've asked numerous times. Rosie, Sue, and I did propose that all WiR members have access to collections like the Alexander Street Press' Women in Social Movements database (now in the bundle) or the Cambridge Core Orlando Collection of British women writers (which is not in the bundle) but were told that was impractical 2 years ago. Seems to me the bundling process shows we were just ahead of our time. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, I never would have found it but for you! Thank you so much! I share your and Ipigott’s wish for a centralized WP Library listing of resources (e.g. I would love an easy way to get to Women’s Wear Daily/WWD, frequently one of the only RS’s on a number of women’s-interest topics). I agree searching will likely leading to gnashing of teeth... but maybe we could have a WiR subpage for WP Library resources in general (biographical dictionaries and beyond), and accompanying talk page for instances like this where someone finds something but needs help linking to it or otherwise instructing others correctly on how to find? And once collected, maybe it would be easier to make a case for a Women’s bundle (clearly you all were onto something!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, We do have some redlists prepared from biographical dictionaries about women. We could perhaps set up a resource list and let people add to it. So if they find a resource they need, we can add it to the list. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favor of anything that makes searching on WP easier. In general I find it is not. But, I am really really happy that others are in favor of collecting women's resources and perhaps if we do figure out a way to organize links to the Library, we can nudge them again for a special collections grouping. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: As our Librarian in Residence, would you like to set up a draft page along the lines discussed, adding the resources you mention yourself? Then the rest of us can chip in until it becomes worthy of inclusion in our resources. There's certainly no rush for this but it would be good to have something to work on within a few weeks. I was also wondering if Rosiestep could encourage some of her students to look into this, perhaps in connection with writers.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: Would this be like a "list of lists" to support this section? --Rosiestep (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, Ipigott I think that it's sort of a meta-list that we'd be creating. A list of resources that might include information about notable women. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Would the material be added here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources), or would we create a new WiR subpage for the material? Also, a question about the Resources subpage... after reviewing it, I spotted some biographical dictionaries. Is this the best place for them, or should we have a subpage for biographical dictionaries (with links if appropriate)? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, That's a good question. We also have lists of biographical dictionaries on the Redlists page. I think it wouldn't hurt to look at both pages and see if there is a better way to organize things. We could just link off the Resources page to a crowdsourced list of resources... the meta-list. I think that's a good way to go. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl How about if we created a subpage called, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Biographical dictionaires and include links. The links could be to google books, to our redlists, and any other format that's applicable. This would corral them altogether. We could include a link to this subpage on the redlist index in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Dictionaries and other reference works section, e.g. using the {{ main }} template; and add a link to the list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources page. I'd be glad to start work on this if it makes sense; I'd be equally glad to have us go in another direction -- I defer to you. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I think that's a good idea. I'll put it together. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, awesome! You're the best! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for a month-long subject

I think that a topic for one of the upcoming months could be silent film actresses. While browsing the silent film actresses categories, I saw that there are many stubs and start class articles and it seems wrong for them to be in that state. For example, Kate Toncray (178 films) and Sylvia Ashton (134 films) are stub articles. SL93 (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I do know that the editathons are focused on new articles and these actresses are still not represented very well in general. Those articles above are just examples of other work that can be done. SL93 (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
SL93, we haven't done a Film+Stage event (which would include silent film actresses) since August 2019, so I think it's a good idea for 2021; added it here. Regarding your recommendation for "article improvement", please consider making that request at WP:WikiProject Film and/or WP:WikiProject Women in Green as the focus of WiR is "article creation". Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I think "Silent film actresses" is an excellent idea. I come across many from the Nordic countries who in fact later became notable as stage actresses or opera singers. I have tended to avoid those who did not become prominent in other fields but acting in silent films is also worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. One advantage is that there are usually plenty of PD photos. I look forward to participating in December.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

May contest

Hello! WMDC has a May contest/event that editors here might be interested in: Wikipedia:100 DC Women. We'd like to ask for participation and perhaps including this on your ediathon/events calendar. Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • From the redlist, there seem to be plenty of historical figures to draw on. I might just try for four myself to see if I get a postcard. In previous events of this kind, I've been promised postcards but have never received any.--Ipigott (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting on my postcards from some other events. But rest assured I will be mailing these out personally, so you can ping me if you don't get yours. Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Laura Hoffmann

Seeking Germany-based editors with a subscription to WAZ to assist with clarification in AfD discussion regarding Laura Hoffmann Hmlarson (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Guinness to support coverage of women rugby players

An article titled "Guinness and Wikipedia to tackle rugby gender disparity" by Sport Industry Group presents an analysis of the current lack of attention to UK sports women on Wikipeida with particular attention to rugby players. A focused effort will now be made to improve coverage in collaboration with Wikimedia UK, calling on the involvement of editors, rugby fans, writers and journalists.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This article was brought to my notice and I wrote a bio of an Aussie RU player, only to have it moved to Draft space as, apparently, she was not considered notable, as she had not been in a team finishing in top four of a World Cup. I will be interested to see how the UK project goes.--Oronsay (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes - WP:NRU does seem highly restrictive and a bit wierd, especially in that a team passes in and out of notability all the time, & that only applies to womens' teams. Of course, if she passes GNG, she should be ok regardless. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also of interest today

Artnet announces "Experts Launch a Massive New Wikipedia-Style Archive to Address the Lack of Research on Women Artists From Central Europe". It can be visited at Seondary Archive, with a country-by-country index. The profiles are compiled by the artists themselves but many of them appear notable enough for Wikipedia articles.--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

#1day1woman

Can someone please restore April to the #1day1woman meetup page? It has been prematurely updated to May.--Oronsay (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't see for looking.--Oronsay (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Article from the Daily Telegraph

Hello all, Does anyone have access to UK's the Daily Telegraph? If you do, could you message me the contents of this article? I think it would useful for this draft I've just started. Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I sent you an email. :) SilverserenC 19:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Could I be cheeky and ask if you could possibly message me with this article in case it adds to information about the career of Kay Coombs? It is one of the few times she has appeared in an newspaper. --MerielGJones (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph should be accessible through proquest via WP:TWL Eddie891 Talk Work 16:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891, Thanks for the reminder! I need to be better at using the resources there, this is a good prompt! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
TWL has done a great job building a wealth of sources, the hard part is remembering what lives where! Eddie891 Talk Work 22:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891 Thank you for this information.--MerielGJones (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

ITNRD

Hi all, sad to report the death of Madeline Davis, the first scholar in the US to teach a course on lesbians and co-author of one of the most important early academic histories on the subject, Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold. Her entry is substantial but lacks references which I’m trying to add so she could be an ITNRD candidate. If anyone’s interested, hop on in; am posting this now as I'm going to be offline for a bit so we won’t edit-conflict one another. Thanks very much—it would be great to bring it up to snuff before clock runs out for ITN. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A morning spent down rabbit-holes

So, I chose an article to start for "May Mays" by my usual technique: look at the redlink table, sort by the "site links" columns to see women who are in a lot of other Wikipedias but not yet ours, go down it ignoring porn stars and centenarians, find someone who looks interesting. Found Marie-Adolphine, a Dutch nun killed in the Taiyuan massacre in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. Found some good sources and a couple more images, created a solid little well sourced stub, and incoming redirects ... from some of the many versions of her name!

I'm not an expert on Catholic saints' names ... but what a minefield. Mary / Marie / Maria, hyphen or not, Adolf/phine, surname Dierkx / Dierckx/ Dierks/Dirks etc. When a Dutch woman joins a French-based order and serves in China and is canonised in Latin as reported in various other languages... a lot can happen in translation! Her fellow martyr Mary/Marie/Maria Clare/Chiara/Chaira(in several reliable-looking sources, a well-spread typo I think!) Nanetti (here in French wiki) is another Mary I might have a go at if I feel strong.

But what's taken most of the morning was sorting out Martyr Saints of China. Wow. Largely copied straight from the Vatican announcement of their canonisation in 2000. Earlier today it was a rather Grotty looking article , with no detail on the saints who died in the Boxer Rebellion - someone had removed that section last year, with a grumpy edit summary of "(This is one of the worst formatted article on Wikipedia)". Possibly true, but not a reason to remove a large chunk of content. So I found and replaced that part of the list. And then the fun started. I tidied the appearance (though finally wimped out and commented out a long list of lay people who I can't see ever getting articles even though canonised), and looked at Marie-Adolphine's sisters and some priests and bishops. All were either red links or plain text or circular links pointing to the same article. All now have an {{Interlanguage link}}" to link them to an article in French wikipedia, and some have links to existing article in en.wiki which were lurking under different names ... but to track them down I used the French "120 Chinese martyrs" article which had a list of linked names, went to those French articles and looked at what other language articles were on offer, followed links to any English ones ... etc. So many names, for each of them. Anyway it was fun, but it's taken the whole morning and I really ought to flesh out the article on poor old Marie-Adolphine who started it all! And then perhaps a couple of stubs on her red-linked sisters (all Mary, so good for this month's challenge).

Happy May Day plus one to you all. PamD 11:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

PamD, What an amazing morning! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: All too common for a retired layabout. I polished off her three redlinked sisters by midnight, and added a few more categories today. So that's four ticks for both "May Ma(r)ys" and "Europe"! It would be nice to find a European mental health personality called Maria... perhaps I'll have a look at the redlists! PamD 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
PamD, if anyone can find one, you can! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on the hat trick /trifecta PamD for María Domínguez Castellano! I myself am looking for a badminton player from the Holy See named Mary to write about. Regarding rabbit-holes, I've been there too, but story usually ends with something burning in the kitchen. It is a very good thing there are no animals or children around here. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • PamD: This kind of research and cross-referencing is invaluable. Especially in the case of women, it is extremely important to be able to find articles with ease, whatever name variation triggers the search. You are certainly not wasting your time on this, even if it reduces some of the time you are able to devote to writing new articles. Great stuff!--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment request for paid articles about women

Hello! I'm a paid editor from Finland. Last year I created these articles: Zibby Owens (American writer and podcast host) and Taura Stinson (American songwriter, producer, musician, composer and author). Both of them were recently added a Paid tag which refers to problems in the neutrality. As a paid editor I cannot remove the tag myself. I think I've used proper sources and included just facts about these ladies. I've asked help on their talk pages but there's no progress seen. So I wonder if some of you could take a look and tell me if there are problems I just can't see. And once I'm here, there's a third article too: Nancy Spector (American museum curator). I think the controversy part is controversy itself but as I don't know the American art world my judgement is not the best to evaluate the status. Jjanhone (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: As the paid editor, you cannot remove the tags. But look at the phrasing "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup" - it's not saying that they are not neutral, but alerting other editors to the fact that there have been paid contributions. You should leave the tags alone and not contribute to any discussion about them, but feel free to continue editing. Kingsif (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Well the Paid template instructions say like this: "This page may be used on pages that have disclosed, but still problematic, paid contributions and that require cleanup. Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." And as this tag is now added only to 171 articles while there are over 5,500 articles with disclosed paid edits I do not think it is a neutral tag. Jjanhone (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I just skimmed Taura Stinson, and that tag needs to stay (or be replaced with other ones): It's basically an excessive list of works, sourced mostly to generally unreliable, user-generated sources. IMDb, Goodreads, Discogs and Genius are not usable references, especially not in a BLP. By my count, at least half of the sources used fail WP:RS. I also want to recommend that you tread carefully with posts like this, given your recent block for canvassing others to remove tags. --Blablubbs|talk 12:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: Setting aside the Paid Contributions tags being removed, because that's really not going happen and shouldn't as the overall tone of the articles are promotional, one of the biggest issues I see is that there simply aren't enough intellectually independent sources.
Most of the sources for Zibby are surrounded around one or two singular events or creations of the subject. Similar stories which share the same information are not considered independent sources. There may simply not be enough there yet to build a case for notability and that's okay. Her career in that industry is rather new and hopefully it will grow and expand into other areas and then an article would be more appropriate once other reliable sources produce more about her.
In the case of Taura, I would typically give her more leniency simply because it's not easy for a songwriter or musician to be featured in most reputable national news/media outlets due to the nature of their business. However, with a career that started in the 90's you would think there would be more than what is in the current article. The sources provided there do not total up to much we can use to evaluate notability.
In regards to Nancy, most of the sources there are vague and do not give us in-depth information about the subject. That's a tricky term but even if we set the bar at the lowest possible setting some of these sources would not pass, imho. Some of the sources themselves are reliable and independent. Others would be considered primary sources as they are/were directly connected to the subject. Still others are not considered reliable even if they are independent.
If any of these articles came up for AfD, and based only on what is in the articles, most editors here would have a hard time making a case to retain them. Admittedly, I have not done a BEFORE search as this is not AfD and the questions raised were solely about content within the articles themselves. While Wikipedia does not have any rules expressly forbidding Paid or Non-paid contributors, it is frowned upon and the articles created must face very serious scrutiny to ensure NPOV is followed by the letter of said policy. --ARoseWolf 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! My customers are not paying for me to get rid of the tags but I use my own time to learn how to improve the content. I hope also paid editors are allowed to talk about the content of the articles. Owens is not only a podcaster and author but a writer too but this part of her career has been removed from the article, see e.g. [4]. What comes to Stinson if "IMDb, Goodreads, Discogs and Genius" were removed from the article, would it improve the quality of it? Would her own website be a better source than them? At the moment Discogs might be the only place where the pseudonyms she has previously used (there's ten of them!) have been listed. And lastly I think Spector's article is very unbalanced: at the moment the career of over 30 years is given 1,150 characters while the recent controversy incident takes 927 characters.Jjanhone (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: Primary sources only improve an article once notability is established. They can not be used to justify or prove notability. I know it can be very difficult to accept but just because someone is mentioned all over the internet and just because they may have a following does not mean they can have an article on Wikipedia. We want to include, I want to include, as many as possible but realize that we need a solid foundation before allowing for these things. As it stands, Wikipedia's foundation is more like wet sand than reinforced dry concrete. If you are serious about Wikipedia then I have a few suggestions. Stop editing on articles you were paid to contribute on. Find an editor that would be willing to look at these articles. Make sure you have little to no connections with said editor. Let them try to find the sources needed to ensure notability. Accept whatever they find out. It may simply be that there isn't enough out there to build a strong enough case yet. --ARoseWolf 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ijeoma Nwaogwugwu

I just removed a speedy delete tag from Ijeoma Nwaogwugwu, which was contested, and have left a note to the editor to ask for help here. This looks like a good potential WIR article, but editing it is beyond my knowledge scope. The author is a university student. Fingers crossed here. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ijeoma Nwaogwugwu already has a listing at Wikidata — Maile (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Female Latin artists show on LAMC and and the Latin Grammys

For any interested in female Latin musicians, the Latin Alternative Music Conference (LAMC) held a Wonder Women of Latin Music pane and on May 9, the Latin Grammys will present Ellas y Su Música on Univision. Thought female Latin artist could use some more attention on Wikipedia! Erick (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lucinda Franks

Prominent journalist with an interesting biography; I just nominated at WP:ITNRD. I should have some time to update this today, but thought I'd post here to get some more visibility and continue my on-and-off quest for gender parity at ITNRD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Shon Faye

Article was proposed for deletion today. If anyone has time to look at the article and try to find additional sources or believes there are enough sources to contest then here it is. I don't believe any subject is "hopelessly non-notable" but it may need a little work. I'll take a look in the morning when I have fresh eyes as well. --ARoseWolf 20:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I declined the prod. The article cites enough sources that AFD is the only acceptable place to decide notability. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: Thank you! I wanted another set of eyes to look over it but I concur with your decline should any fuss arise from it. I will still look for additional sources to shore up any potential concerns over notability in the morning. I am late for my walk with my daughter and I am sitting on my deck using the laptop now to make me feel better about it (technically I am outside!) but her eyes are staring at me in disapproval. it's a balmy 5°c which is almost swimming weather. --ARoseWolf 20:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Growth features for newcomers

Hello Women in Red -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team, which works on features meant to increase the retention of new editors. The features give newcomers clear tasks to do to get started, and connect them with an experienced mentor to answer their questions.

Screenshot of suggested edits module in Czech Wikipedia

I'm posting here because I know that engaging with newcomers is an important part of your work, especially new people who would otherwise would not be getting involved on the wikis. In the longer term, perhaps there will be opportunities for Growth features to be used for Women in Red work, either for queueing up tasks to work on, or helping newcomers connect with mentors.

In the past year, we have found evidence that the Growth features have a positive impact on newcomer engagement, and this has led us to deploy the features to a total of 33 wikis, including some large ones like French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Japanese Wikipedias. So far, so good! Because we've seen the features lead to good outcomes, we have started the conversation around what it would be like to try them on English Wikipedia.

I hope some of you can check out the project page and also the discussion where we are thinking about how to try these features on English Wikipedia. Please do chime in either here, or on that discussion page. If you want to try out the features, you can see these simple instructions for how to try them on Test Wikipedia. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, MMiller (WMF), for bringing this important matter to our attention. I carefully monitor all the new members of our Women in Red initiative and provide them with pertinent background information and suggestions in connection with the interests they express on joining. (In this project, new participants complete "cards" expressing their main fields of interest and areas in which they need assistance.) As for complete newbies, i.e. those who join the project as one of their very first few edits, more than half never make any further edits while about one out of ten follow up very positively on the suggestions made. Many of those who do not continue to edit appear to have been encouraged to join the project at physical or virtual editathons or through educational initiatives. It might therefore be useful for you to give special attention to contacts with the organizers of these initiatives, including improvements to relative guidelines, meetup pages and educational assignments. I would certainly be interested myself in assisting you with the introduction of your initiative on the EN wiki, especially if it can be aimed at encouraging wider participation of women editors. Please keep me informed of further developments.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF), Hello! This sounds a fantastic initiative - I think the "What next?" is such a key thing for new editors to be supported in and would be happy to see if I can help (time willing) Lajmmoore (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for checking out the project, Ipigott and Lajmmoore. I'm glad you think we're on the right track. Would you be willing to be in the pilot group of mentors? This would mean that each of the 2% of new accounts will get a mentor randomly assigned to them, to whom they can ask questions. The questions will get posted as comments your talk page. Because most newcomers don't ask questions, I expect you would each get a few questions per week during the month or so that we would experiment with these features. What do you think? -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF): I would very much welcome additional monitoring. The ramdom assignments will be a challenge although I hope at least some of them will be for women newbies I have not already discovered.--Ipigott (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to be a mentor, no where near ready for that, but I would love to go through the program. I've only been on Wikipedia since August of last year and I would love some guidance on where to go to and how to get there. Even if I know it already I know I could learn something new about it. It really looks amazing and I look for every opportunity to learn and maybe one day it will grow into me helping like more experienced editors are able to now. I already read and go to Ian for a lot of my advice so randomly not assigning me to them would be helpful. Give Ian a true test, although my brothers would disagree with me on the level of challenge I can be (lol). But no, I truly adore Ian and Susun (SusunW) both. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello Tsistunagiska -- thank you for your enthusiasm! I'm glad that the feature set looks useful to you, from the perspective of someone who was recently a newcomer. As we get set up for the experiment here on English Wikipedia, you'll be able to flip the features on for yourself to try them out and let us know what you think. You can watch the project's talk page to notice when that happens. With respect to the idea of being a mentor, I bet you will be ready sooner than you think! We've seen newcomers become good mentors within months of joining the wiki, and we have a theory that having a mentor who recently was new can make the mentee feel more comfortable. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF), I will forever be enthusiastic about learning. Books and nature were my best friends growing up. I would read the books and then go on my own adventures outdoors playing out the scenes. Books gave me a love for language and culture. Language and culture fueled the flame for life in me. I love life. I love living life. I see my daughter doing some of the same things and it just brings back so many great memories from my late childhood into my early teens. I look forward to taking part in this program and becoming a better editor. There is so much more I know I need to learn and want to become more effective here. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
MMiller (WMF), Yes - I could help out I think. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone (Ipigott, Lajmmoore, Tsistunagiska) -- I'm following up here to let everyone know that the Growth features are now available to test on English Wikipedia. They are not being assigned to any newcomers yet, but experienced users may turn them on in preferences to try them. We hope you try them out on desktop or mobile and leave any notes here (or on the project talk page). After a couple weeks, and after we iron out any issues, we plan to start giving the features to 2% of newcomers to get a sense of how they work on this wiki, and so that we can make plans for next steps.

If you are willing to sign up as a mentor for this first round, you can do that on this page.

To test the features, please go to your user preferences and then:

This will give you access to the homepage (Special:Homepage), and, from there, you will be able to:

  • contact your mentor
  • select your favorite topics and tasks to make some suggested edits
  • browse help pages
  • see your impact

You will also see the help panel being visible when editing, or when browsing help pages.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): Enabled. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Metrics page update through 30 Apr 2021

For those who are interested in such things, the totals have been updated. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

where to add WikiProject Women's History on talk page?

on Judithe Hernández it contains {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|1= {{WikiProject Biography|class=C|living=yes|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low|listas=Hernandez, Judithe}} {{WikiProject California|class=C|importance=Low|la=yes}} {{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low|MexAm=Yes}} {{WikiProject Women artists|class=C|auto=inherit}} {{WikiProject Visual arts|class=C}} {{WikiProject Smithsonian Institution|class=C|importance=Low|listas=|SIART=yes|SIART-importance=}} }}.

  • should i add it after {{WikiProject Smithsonian Institution|class=C|importance=Low|listas=|SIART=yes|SIART-importance=}}.
  • add it seperately at the end? Gi vi an (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, Gi vi an and thanks for the question. There is no consensus regarding the ordering of WikiProject templates on article talkpages. Commonly, for biography articles, WikiProject Biography is placed first (after the WikiProject banner shell), and all other WikiProject templates are placed thereafter in no particular (or required) order. That said, some editors like to alphabetize the WikiProject templates, in which case, the ordering on Talk:Judithe Hernández would be: Biography, California, Smithsonian Institution, United States, Visual arts, Women artists, Women's History. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Gi vi an (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Woman's Who's Who of America

Compendious biographical dictionary in the public domain I just stumbled upon, in case anyone's looking for inspiration. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! An early text is wonderful for our top-heavy ‘pedia. I have added it here: WP:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Resources/Fully_accessible_biographical_dictionaries#International_2. It also makes me wonder how things end up in Wikisource (though as I am about 20,000 names deep in a 25,000-name list, I probably shouldn’t ask such questions!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well this one's in the public domain as it was published in 1914 but I don't know if Wikisource is systematically including such works.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I see it was already listed under the United States section of Women's Biographical Dictionaries. For those interested, here's the link to the online version.--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, ah thank you! It’s nice not to have to download the whole PDF from GoogleBooks. For the listing, if under the US rather than International, might we also list it under Canada? The Preface confirms it covers both and our resources on Canada are sparse, could be helpful to someone. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
By all means list it under Canada too.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Great, done. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see our resource on "Fully accessible biographical dictionaries" is attracting such little attention. After all the efforts we've been devoting to improving the list and working on related redlists, it's pretty disappointing. I wonder if there's anything we can do to improve awareness? Maybe it would be useful to write a mainspace article on Biographies of women in which some of these resources could be mentioned. We could also try to improve the "Biography" section of the List of online encyclopedias, perhaps adding a subsection on "Biography of women". It might also be useful to write articles on individual resources such as Dictionary of Women Worldwide so that they can be listed under one of the subcategories of Category:Online encyclopedias. Apart from listing "Dictionary of Art Historians", Category:American online encyclopedias looks pretty weak on both biographies and women. Maybe Megalibrarygirl can contribute to this discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • These all seem like good things to do! I also wonder if perhaps at some point we could put a short notice in the Signpost, discussing what’s available and what we’ve done to make it so? I’d only worry it might be a little dry but it wouldn’t need to be very long and m/or, if written collaboratively, maybe someone has better ideas than I for how to give it a bit of flare? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Also don’t despair too much Ipigott! We haven’t even finished the DoWW redlist and I am pleased to have new blue links to remove every day—some creations from editors who have worked on that red list, others editathon contributions that appear to have found the names via Gamaliel's entries into Wikidata! It’s very encouraging—I hope everyone knows all their hard work is paying off! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
        • We're not even halfway through the list. My progress has slowed a bit due to WMDC's May contest but I'm still plugging away. I'm already impressed at the number of articles written about people from the list we've been working on, by Antiqueight and a few other editors whose names I've unfortunately forgotten. So we should all be patting ourselves on the back. I like the ideas I've heard about promoting it so far, thought I think the intensive efforts should wait until we've completed work on the list. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Ipigott, the thing about women's history, is that it is truly under-represented and it's a herculean effort to dig it out. That doesn't mean it's not important to do... but it can be frustrating that there is a lack of participation. I can't believe how many suffragists in the US are neglected, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Innisfree987, Gamaliel ans Megalibrarygirl for your comments and encouragement. As for suffragists, I've recently been writing a bunch of articles about the Swedes, most of them long forgotten. But on the more general front, for several years now I have tried to chip away at the lack of coverage of women on Wikipedia. Especially in connection with the biographies of women in the Scandinavian countries, I have found the information presented in biographical dictionaries to be particularly useful. In general discussions on the gender gap, it has repeatedly been emphasized that our lack of coverage is primarily due to the fact that information on women was not sufficiently valued to be reported on in publications. Now that we have widening interest in documenting historic women, it seems to me to be really important to ensure that our editors are made aware of their existence. I try to devote some of my editing time to improving general awareness of these resources, particularly those accessible on line, but maybe we should get together on clearly focusing on awareness building. I'm pretty tied up for the rest of this month but I think in June I'll find time to begin an article on "Biographies of women". This could provide an overview of past problems, evolving interest and published resources. I think SusunW would be a useful contributor too, especially (but not only) in presenting past problems.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I know it seems as if I have been off the radar lately, but I am literally buried in trying to uncover the legal status of women's nationality. I read 10 documents to be able to write 1 sentence in context. It's slow going and hard to find information about, but I am finding information about activists and eventually will get to writing the part about how women worked to overturn these laws. So far I've done almost all of the Americas and am working on Oceania. I have yet to find a place where women did not lose their nationality. This looks like it might be helpful for Guam but not sure it is a RS for Wikipedia purposes. It does however give names of people that might form the basis of a red list. I do think it might be a good idea to do an article in the signpost asking people to contribute to creating lists of biographical dictionaries about women. As we each get different search results depending on our location, I know there are tons of them out there and it is hard for us to develop content and simultaneously try to flesh out resources. So much to do, so little time. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, I feel you. Writing about the details of women's suffrage is also very confusing (especially since they tend to name different groups with similar sounding or even the same names!)... at least I'm not dealing with legal stuff! Ipigott I am interested in the article about Biographies of women. I'm looking forward to seeing what you write. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes Megalibrarygirl I feel you too. It's crazy hard and confusing. (And the more I learn about it the more articles I find like Women in Guam that need work. But I must stay focused or I'll never finish it.) I've done 38, only 157 to go before I get to the activism part, which will be the story I really wanted to tell. But without the legal context, the story is less meaningful. I'm also interested in seeing Ian's article develop. It would be interesting to know how we leapt from lecturing on women depicted in art in the 1970s because there was little academic work to tell women's stories, to developing full biographies of women. I'm guessing it's a fairly recent phenomenon, but haven't really given it much thought before Ian wrote that above. SusunW (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Margaret Melhase

Margaret Melhase Fuchs just came up as a stub in the new pages feed. Amazingly, she did not have a page. She was a co-discover of Cesium-137 in the early 1940s, and worked on the Manhattan project. --- Possibly (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Helen Watterson Moody

Just created this. I feel like there must be much more to say, but for some reason I'm not finding it. Any additional finds appreciated! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You should check out ProQuest too through the Wikipedia Library. There seems to be a couple things in there, such as this review article on a later work of her's, A Child's Letters to Her Husband. SilverserenC 21:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Donnette Zacca

I had a request this morning to help a newbie with an article on Donnette Zacca submitted to AfC. IMO, she is clearly notable and I moved it to mainspace, added categories and reformatted it a bit. When I moved it it said the reviewer was "in the processes of finishing the review". I have zero clue what that means. Anyone? I wanted to check the Gleaner in newspaperarchive.com, but my subscription is not working right now. So, if anyone can help improve the article, please jump in. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Tatiana Nikonova

I recently created an article for Russian feminist activist Tatiana Nikonova. It was quickly tagged for notabilty. Any help improving it would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Need help reviewing article

Hello, I wrote a biography on Felicia Adedoyin - The woman who wrote the Nigerian National pledge. I could not find many references nor a photo. Can anyone help look through and perhaps improve? Sadly, she passed on the 1st. OtuNwachinemere (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Lajmmoore Awesome Thanks!! Sadly Google won't let me access the books. *sad face*

How do you have access to these resources? I bet i could do way more if i had such tools. *sad face again*--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere, I'll add them to the article then. I'm not sure where you're based, but I think google books works differently in different countries according to copyright restrictions? That might be it! Are you able to get resources through the Wikipedia Library? Lajmmoore (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
OtuNwachinemere, I just added an infobox, but I noticed that the universities she attended that are listed on her thesis (link above) are different to the ones in the article? Do you know any more? Lajmmoore (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore sending so many thanks from this side. The article looks so beautiful! So i checked out the listed universities and compared to the ones on the article, turns out 'London University' or 'University of London' is the awarding institution hence its use in the Thesis. We skipped her M.A from Columbia University. Can i simply add that detail?--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
OtuNwachinemere, yeah, definitely, and just reference the thesis for the other university! Happy editing! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
It is amazing how much work can be done through collaborations. Thanks everyone, I am inspired!! *big smile face*--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Indu Jain

Recently nominated for WP:ITNRD and unlikely to be posted at this time due to quality. I'm having some difficulty finding good sources; any helping hands appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: References added (and Forbes 2005->2006 because I couldn't find 2005). KittenKlub (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I do understand what you mean, the same PR stories are everywhere, but there's very little real information. That's what you get with a media conglomerate owner.KittenKlub (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
AleatoryPonderings Do you want a "fair use" image added or is it best to leave it as is for ITNRD? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates, I've run into roadblocks trying to add fair use images for people who have recently died (for reasons that remain obscure to me) so any fair use image would likely be deleted, unfortunately. Thanks KittenKlub and Innisfree987 for all your work! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
AleatoryPonderings Indeed. An editor took the photo out of the Madeline Davis article with odd explanation, but I put it back in. I won't add anything to Indu Jain. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
For general info (having been involved in a few of these now): There’s disagreement about when fair use kicks in, with some editors feeling that there should be a long period after a person’s death, like six months, to prove you exhausted options for securing a freely licensed image like contacting the family (??! I find that a very inappropriate thing to make a blanket recommendation, let alone requirement), and others feeling that once the subject has died there’s no more chance of taking a new photo and fair use applies immediately. For lack of agreement, the consensus seems to be settled around 2-3 months which doesn’t quite match either logic. Shrug emoji. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation Innisfree987. I hadn't thought about exhausting attempts to get a free image. I was in the camp of "fair use" kicking in once the subject died. Shrug emoji back at ya. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Posted! Well done all, and thank you AleatoryPonderings for the flag! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Spouse of the prime minister of India

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (3rd nomination), one of the participants made the argument "Most of the names listed on Spouse of the prime minister of India don't have an article." While not particularly useful as a contribution to the AfD (see WP:WAX) this made me consider that maybe more of them should have an article. Perhaps someone here is interested in or knowledgeable about Indian politics and sourcing and would like a project? Some of these people have names that are too common to make searching easy, and some don't have obvious coverage beyond passing mentions as the spouse of the prime minister, but Sheila Gujral at least looks notable (many published in-depth obituaries, at least one calling her a "renowned poet"), and there is significant coverage of Chennamma Deve Gowda in connection with an acid attack by a relative. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, except by coming up through another AfD I'm participating in: we have no article on Gertrude G. Michelson, businesswoman, first head of an Ivy League board of governors/trustees: [5] [6] [7]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein:, what an exclusion! Started Gertrude Michelson and hope to work on it if you want to help. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_94&oldid=1054634454"