Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Mineke Bosch

Hiya i just created a page for Dutch historian Mineke Bosch, since it's my first Women in Red contribution I'd appreciate if someone could give it onceover and let me know it's an OK start. I did have a question about a selected works section, i'm going through the various help docs but i don't really see anything about how much to select, is it just at my discretion? She has something like 174 publications on her university page so i'm not listing them all :) Answers welcome here or on the talkpage. All the best, Mujinga (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: It's an exemplary start of the very highest quality; thank you. Selected works - yes, entirely at your discretion.
Two suggestions for improvement would be an infobox, which might include details of her PhD thesis - see an example at, for instance, Rubina Raja. And then search wikipedia for references to Mineke Bosch which could usefully be turned into a link - example. (There's always more to do - the suggestions are in no way a criticism of the excellent start.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mujinga: It's a great article, thanks. I've rearranged the opening sentence (the "lead") because if birth and/or death dates are known they conventionally go directly after the name, in brackets. It makes it easier for readers, especially those scanning a list of hits or hovering a mouse over a title, if the dates are in a predictable place and right near the start.
I've also added her to the surname page Bosch (surname). Some other editors would also add her to a given name page and add her birth to the 1954 year page, but I don't usually do that myself. (Ah, well, on finding that Mineke was a redirect to the one other name-holder, I've this time created a given-name page for them).
I'm a bit of an enthusiast for redirects, so I've created Cornelia Wilhelmina Bosch and Cornelia Bosch: sometimes these fix existing red links, perhaps in lists of award-winners which use full formal names, and in any case they might help the reader find the article, or help prevent a careless future editor from creating a duplicate. (I've just spent some time merging a recently-created Hilda Mabel McKay into a long-standing Hilda Stevenson, which wouldn't have happened that way if the creator of the old article had added a redirect from her birth name, or if the creator of the second one had searched for her under her more-used married name!) I've just checked "What links here" and found her listed under her long-form name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Historians, which illustrates that nicely: one more red link turned blue. Well done. PamD 15:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow thanks for the kind replies and the useful suggestions! I tried to follow the primer
@Tagishsimon: An infobox is a great idea!
@PamD: Thanks i didn't know about the date convention or name-holder pages. Oh gosh yes the redirects are essential!!Mujinga (talk)

Collective Biographies of Women

Saw this site promoted on the Signpost as mentioned in Smithsonian. Thought it be useful to have this site as it brings together over 900 sources about women together. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: Looks good. I've listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources/Fully accessible biographical dictionaries.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of A+F submissions lingering at AfC - anyone an active reviewer?

I've been trying to review articles that were submitted to AfC during the Art + Feminism editathons, but the backlog is huge -- as of this morning, there are more than 2600 articles in the queue. If anyone's up for reviewing, there is a glut of submissions around 18/19/20 days ago. (Posted at WP Women artists as well.) Thanks! JSFarman (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

guidance on redlinking

Such a great wikiproject, kudos to all involved. I love to fill in redlinks, so I guess I'm a silent member of this project, but have an inhibition about creating bios on living people that I would like some guidance on. There are some excellent researchers who publish material I am citing, but the trend is that other editors have created articles on scientists with seemingly less hesitation when they are men (I cynically presume it is more likely to appear at AfD, "so it goes"). Anyway, given my hesitancy about creating bios on the living but notable, is the best way to bring this to others attention by redlinking the name or noting it on a list? cygnis insignis 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis: It is always useful to expand our crowd-sourced redlinks, particularly if you are able to add one or two good sources, but we always welcome new articles from our members. I see you have already created many bios, mostly about men. Why not try to concentrate a bit more on women? You might find some useful tips in our Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in film?

Hi all,

I was just talking with a new editor, CuriousDaily, about an interesting idea they have for an article: women's suffrage in film. It seems like we don't cover such a topic directly, although there are plenty of relevant sources out there. There's a "popular culture" section of Template:Suffrage, but otherwise I don't even see a category.

So we were talking about how best to approach it, e.g. women's suffrage in film, suffragists in film, suffrage films, pro-suffrage films, etc. My inclination was to recommend starting "women's suffrage in film" which could encompass the rest, unless there are sufficient sources concentrated on a genre they refer to as e.g. "suffrage films," but that's based more on Wikipedia best practices than on deep knowledge of the subject.

Since you've been doing so much great research/writing about women's suffrage recently, I thought WikiProject members/page-watchers may have some valuable input on the best approach, may have come across some good relevant sources on the topic that you could share, or may know whether or not we deal with this or related topics already (perhaps within another article/context we've not yet come across).

For context, CuriousDaily is participating in a Wiki Education professional development course to improve suffrage-related articles in collaboration with the National Archives (in advance of its Rightfully Hers exhibit opening in May).

Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be inclined towards "Women's suffrage in films", and assuming they are enough, to then break that down by country. --LauraHale (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ryan: How about writing an article on "Films about women's suffrage", (perhaps along the lines of Films about race). It could also be a category, maybe a subcategory of Category:Films about social issues and/or Category:Documentary films about feminism? Some women's suffrage films may already be listed under this category or under Category:Feminist films. There are also some interesting subcategories under Category:Feminist works. There seem to be lots of films which could be included as "Films about women's suffrage" along these lines, either as a list or a category. Just make a search on "suffrage in films" to see how many there are.--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I would refrain from doing a general article because it will be inherently culturally biased. An article about "Women's suffrage films in the United Kingdom" or "Depictions of women's suffrage in American films" would make much more sense. There have been a number of movies, a number of them made for TV films, in Spain about this topic but a general article seems unlikely to focus on that. How would that be covered? You'd have to take a transnational feminist perspective, or build up from the national articles to a main article to avoid that problem. The Women's suffrage article itself is problematic in this regards as taking American women's suffrage and thoughts about how it works as the default. (Latin American and Spanish women's suffrage was often tied to issues around women's access to education first, before a broad issues of "economic and political equality and for social reforms" came into effect. This isn't apparent until the country by country narrative, and not even then as you'd have to read a few non-Anglo Saxon historical country narratives to see a broader trend. --LauraHale (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You make some valid points, Laura, but we should never forget that we are trying to create an encyclopaedia for general use. If I were to become interested in films about women's suffrage, I would probably search on that combination rather than suffrage films from the US or the UK. So I still think a general, introductory article would be useful. Thereafter, country- or continent-specific articles could of course be written. As for the article on Women's suffrage, I think it does a pretty good job of presenting the general picture although it might well be useful to stress the education aspect too, perhaps even in the lead. As you are familiar with the background, you may be ready to make a few improvements
Now that we have made a number of suggestions, it would be interesting to see if Ryan is interested in going ahead with an article. I'm sure a number of us would be interested in contributing. We could also list the topic as one of our priorities for April under our Focus on suffrage.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, LauraHale and Ipigott. Reflecting a global vs. strictly national perspective is a good point. The reason I'm inclined towards "Women's suffrage [in the United States] in film" is to ensure there's room to talk about representation in film in general, rather than some other wordings which may limit it to films that are about women's suffrage [in the United States]. Pinging CuriousDaily, as the user who was interested to start this. It looks like you have some interested supporters here! :) aside: for future pings, my username needs the " (Wiki Ed)" part :) Ryan is someone else --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Popping in to say that, while I don't have any insight into how best to cover the topic, I do know of several women who were crucial to representing women's suffrage on film in the U.S. and I am super interested in contributing more on the topic! I've found a ton of historical sources by searching the Media History Digital Library, and there is a LOT more that needs coverage on Wikipedia. Feel free to ping me directly about this project, Ryan (Wiki Ed)! Nonmodernist (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Max page limit/size/entries of redlink list pages

Hello, I added a limit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Scientists of 5000 entries, due to ListeriaBot not being able to edit the page anymore and the massive size making the page slow to load. Even with a max of 5000 entries (which about halved the size of this specific page) the page continuous to load slowly.

My recommendation would be to limit at least every page to a sensible number of entries, would like to get some thoughts and or opinions from you about this. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I support your change, RA2F; thank you. Clearly the page as was, was broken. Next, that's a particularly poor redlist for two reasons: 1) it lists occupations covered in other lists and 2) it doesn't include subclasses of the occupations it's querying for (albeit for the obvious reason that to do so would leads to a timeout). Given the length problem, ideally it would be constrained to scientific occupations not covered in other lists; and it would include subclasses of occupation.
Like you, my preference is for shorter lists; I created by-country lists of actresses, painters, politiciaans and writers a year or more back to provide a larger set of smaller redlists. Ipigott spoke in favour of retaining the single large list of actresses, which lists an arbitrary 5k of so of the ~37k actresses; I don't understand why; now seems a good time to rehash that discussion.
My preference would be sub-2K lists, fwiw; anything larger I find unwieldy. But, I acknowledge there are contra-issues in splitting lists (e.g. on what basis; who will do the work; do more smaller lists work for all users given we know some, like Ian, have a preference for large lists). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redalert2fan and Tagishsimon:: First of all, I'm glad to see this problem has been sorted out and the scientists list is being properly updated once again. It seems to me that if 5,000 is still liable to cause updating problems, then perhaps we should establish a rather lower maximum length. The reason I like the "single large list of actresses" (and similar longer listings) is that it provides a useful overview or starting point. As I am fluent in a number of languages, I frequently use these longer lists to identify articles in several of the other wikis before I actually choose names on which to start new biographies. I usually write about people who died long ago as I am interested in historical figures and it is easier to incorporate relevant images. By using the longer lists, I can find names from several different countries by doing date-based sorts. Otherwise I would have to go through many different country-based lists. Of course I find the separate listings by country useful when concentrating on one language or nationality but in some cases they do not display the names of all the interesting historical figures as countries such as Italy and the Czech Republic have changed their names over the years. One of the more recent features which I find very useful is the sitelink column where I can often find the names of women who have been covered extensively in other languages but not in English.
It would be interesting to know the extent of computing resources required to run these lists and whether there is indeed a significant difference between updating the longer and shorter lists every day. If these resources are indeed significant, it might be reasonable to reduce the listeria update to, say, once a month. I'm sure that would be adequate for our purposes.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. Personally I actually don't have a preference on if there should be a limit per se, I find that a complete list might come in handy for some purposes, for example with work on wikidata Q's but also as Ipigott says about finding something to work/start on. Limiting these list to a # does seem to defeat the purpose a bit but you could follow the SPARQL to the Wikidata Query Service if you want to see all items. On the other side if you are only interested in specific sections/occupations/nationalities (or a combination of those) as I am the smaller list make it way easier to work with and have the benefit of better (or no) loading times. This should not be overdone however, we probably don't need a small list for every possible combination; then we might get lists with less than 20 or even no items...
I don't think there should be problems with resources for updating the list, I would hope that ListeriaBot has that covered. There seems to be a set max number of items that can be on the page but not limit to the things that can be displayed as dob,pob,occupation,image etc. This does have the effect that we can have page which are over a 1M bytes which does actually take significant resources to load. Try to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Scientists (near 1M) and you actually have to wait before you even can press the edit button and then you have to wait again when the text loads. This is a clear case of a page that is too large. I think keeping pages sizes under 500K if possible is recommended. This by either limiting the number of entries, or removing some fields from the table, all information can be found on wikidata if needed. Unfortunately our enthusiasm for the list in this case seem to be limited by page sizes and not specifically # of entries actually. I would love to see both options working but it seems like limiting large list for usability purposes is the way to go. I am in for making smaller list for occupations that there are many performers of, by country, separate from the discussion of the large lists problem these can be made anyways.
Just a note, the more filled in wikidata is the larger the list will get. If you find that lists related to South Korea have doubled in size I'm to blame haha. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The ListeriaBot limit appears to be fixed at a max of 8000 entries, if exceeded the bot is unable to update the page. However as explained above I still recommend a lower limit. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In The News

Does this project have any way of covering biographies of women appearing on the front page as part of In The News? These often as part of the "recent deaths" section, because the presence of obituaries allows us to greatly improve such articles. Tania Mallet should be appearing on the main page shortly, Zuzana Čaputová is there right now, Aretha Franklin was a previous major feature, while I have also worked to get Andrea Levy and Rachael Bland on the main page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333: As far as I know, Women in Red has not included ITN as a priority but I know several of us have contributed to articles on those who have recently died by drawing on obits. If you have any suggestions on how to improve contributions to ITN, it would be useful to know how to proceed. I think Wikipedia:Women in Green might be a more suitable project to address as Women in Red aims first and foremost to create new articles rather than to improve those which already exist.--Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Aretha Franklin was on the WIR banner on Twitter on her birthday and got some attention. Identifying leading women and creating more banners would be useful? Victuallers (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

In the Guardian

New article in top UK newspaper by TigerLilyRocks (Victoria Leonard) mentions us! Victuallers (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Fountain_(Duchamp)

Hello,

An increasing amount of articles seem to point out that this work of art was not the creation of Marcel Duchamp but Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, so I tried for the article to reflect that better. As a result, a user not only removed all my edits, including references, but also completely deleted her name from the lede of the article. I put it back in there, but as he has removed all I wrote, I am pretty sure he will remove that once more. Is there anything I can do?

Thanks for any insight you may have!--Farbre (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven is a new story for many of us - for me because of The Guardian's story [1]. It does not seem to be such new news for the wider art history world. The topic is discussed in depth on what is, for now, the article's reference 2 - [2]. Perhaps the best approach is to start a new discussion on the article's talk page setting out the changes you'd like to see made, and arguing for changes from the supposed consensus.
It's absolutely the case that Siri Hustvedt's claim is getting some mileage. Whether "an increasing amount of articles seem to point out that this work of art was not the creation of Marcel Duchamp but Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven" amounts to anything more than the media cycle's reaction to her novel and PR for that novel is worth questioning. I'd be a little wary; she is not an art historian, and her thesis, at least as relayed in the Guardian article, is not obviously more compelling than the Tate's explanation of the likely genesis of the piece, which deals with exactly the same baseline evidence - Mott/Mutt, Duchamps letter to his sister &c. (There's another irony, btw, which is that the Grauniad story's photo is not of Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, but is instead of Maria Germanova [3].) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Without looking at the current mode of interpretation, I think this comment is very close. The work is, arguably, intended to create a argument about the creator and provenance, it became art when it was critiqued as art (or not). Let me know if I can be more unhelpful in passing comments. cygnis insignis 12:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
There are three discussions on this, one an Rfc, from 2018 on the talk page. Then more in the archives. The story gets regular press airings, but has not really won over the art historians, for various reasons. Farbre, I'd be cautious about wading in on such a heavily-discussed issue with your very first edits, though they do show a commendable grasp of citation style etc. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Yet another mode of interpretation, the object is designed to inspire pissing competitions. cygnis insignis 12:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
cygnis insignis there, winning Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red for the day. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent women portraits

Hi, I would like to mention a few women and girls portraits recently uploaded to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Julia Margaret Cameron
    Julia Margaret Cameron
  • Minnie Maddern Fiske
    Minnie Maddern Fiske
  • Mabel Hubbard Gardiner Bell as a girl
    Mabel Hubbard Gardiner Bell as a girl
  • Ellen Terry
    Ellen Terry
  • Dr Sushila Nayyar, 1947
    Dr Sushila Nayyar, 1947
  • Mahatma Gandhi with women textile workers at Darwen, Lancashire
    Mahatma Gandhi with women textile workers at Darwen, Lancashire
  • Migrant Mother sequence by Dorothea Lange
    Migrant Mother sequence by Dorothea Lange
  • A Hindu Lady
    A Hindu Lady

Thank you! I came across a page, the list of Wharton School Alumni, and was apalled that the list was mostly men. I began to add women alumni, and then got stuck when it came to the photo part. Currently there are only photos of men, but I couldn't figure out how to find a copyright free photo of one of the women alumni. I will look in commons. --Sloane05 (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah yeah. A typical case of women not represented. :( Yann (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Some of those have alternate versions that are FPs already (Fiske, Terry, and I think one of the others in the Migrant Mother sequence), but not all. The Nayyar and Mahatma Gandhi ones look particularly promising. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 22:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Embarrassment of economists

A class at the University of British Columbia have just released about 30 new women economist articles, the vast majority of them of spectacularly high quality, on us. Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of British Columbia/Women in the Economy (Winter II). If anyone would like to join me in adding categories, authority control, wikilinks, formatting, redirects, etc, that'd be much appreciated. Two in particular, Mariacristina De Nardi and Jeannine Bailliu need additional refs that are not primary sources. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I found several of those articles earlier today and added categories. In some cases I also created talk pages with templates. I hope to work on more tonight. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
These impressive results appear to be due mainly to the efforts of Elysia (Wiki Ed) who is also a keen contributor of women's biographies as Enwebb. The articles appear to be the culmination of an eight-week course. Let's hope some of those concerned will continue to edit on Wikipedia. Nearly all of them have reached a high level of competence. If any need further assistance, they are of course welcome to become members of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
You are too kind, Ipigott! I'm delighted to do what I can both professionally and off the clock. Thanks bunches also to Tagishsimon for all your helpful edits to these biographies. I'm glad this is getting some positive press on the twittersphere! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree. I did a little bit of work on a couple of them, but honestly, they're in fine shape...they don't need a whole lot of work. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Women radio writers

Created this today...I was surprised we didn't have it. I've populated it some, but I suspect there are a few more lurking about in other categories that can be added in. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

American Colonial Women and Their Art: A Chronological Encyclopedia

I've been working on some aspects of American folk art recently, and they led me to the above book, which can be found (in portions) here. What I can see offers a lot of fascinating fodder for discussion. Seems to offer a great deal of potential...pity it's behind a wall. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe someone can contact the writer for their metadata (so the list of names, or at least for the terms in there?) I have no connections to Durham, but maybe you can find someone? See here for contact info. Jane (talk) 07:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't really been updatuing the showcase until today, so here's everything since the last update, for your enjoyment. They are by various people and restorationists, a good chunk are mine; Yann - who is rather underrepresented in this slice compared to how much he does - did the Anne Dallas Dudley image; Rhododendrites did the excellent Helen Keller restoration; Jebulon did the Nobel Prize one - he does a lot of work, but much of it for French Wikipedia, so not all of it gets over here; and the Martha Érika Alonso was released by her before her untimely death.

There are currently five women-related FPCs. Jacinda Ardern after the Christchurch shootings, Lucy Arbell, Nelly Diener, Julia Margaret Cameron (I may have grabbed a tip from Yann on that last one), and Célestine Galli-Marié. Please remember not to use my listing things here as a voting guide. Participating at FPC is good; becoming a mob of unthinking canvassed voters is not. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 05:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Another WikiEd onslaught

Tonight's drop from WikiEd slightly less successful than yesterday's, though in fairness this seems to be from an editathon. @Jami430: When WikiEd does this sort of thing, could you PLEASE drop a note and provide a list of articles to WiR, here, since there is a team of people here who can help with format, categorisation & suchlike. Right now a number of your articles were promoted at a time when they were of poor enough quality that they'll be picked off for deletion, which is going to be very disheartening for the contributors. You're not on your own with the results of an editathon if you involve other willing & experienced volunteers. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk)

WiR - Please give the following some TLC
Tagishsimon - Would you mind looking at What links here for Lisa A. Carey? I noticed a redirect from Lisa Carey shows several different women of that name who are not Lisa A. Carey... but I don't feel qualified to fix it. Some of these bios are very light on. I have been through most, trying to find articles to link to them, including surname pages. I hope someone else will add banners to their Talk pages as my experience is limited to Aussies, particularly writers. Oronsay (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Oronsay Well spotted. All fixed now. Softball player, writer & camogie player.--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I did some work on categorizing Felicia Cosman. Not sure how perfect it is, but that's about as close as I can get, I think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Grazie molto, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tagishsimon thanks for reaching out. Someone who knows folks at Wiki Education reached out to Bay Area volunteers looking for help to run an edit-a-thon. They never got a response, so they asked us a few days ago to join and help. Will and I were available in the evening, so we attended to guide them through the editing process. It turned out they were running a "competition style" event to determine whether the tool they're using to surface "red-link biographies" could help Wikipedia editors identify missing articles more easily than the traditional method. It was a bit chaotic, and Will and I tried to rein in the biography creation. We moved stubs into the mainspace upon request, and both of us have tried to go back to those stubs to improve them. I do apologize that it gave you work to do. As far as I know, we only moved stubs with enough sources to achieve notability, but both Will and I will assist in our volunteer capacity to improve them. Again, this event was not a Wiki Education-run event—we just happened to be the Wikipedians who responded to help. I apologize for any confusion. If I can make one note in defense of this group of edit-a-thon attendees, they work for an organization that is trying to build a tool to help Wikimedians (for free), and they believe in what we're all trying to do. They definitely intended to help rather than overwhelm the community, and I hope several of them will stick around and learn more about expected editing protocols. Jami430 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tagishsimon I wanted to thank you for cleaning up these articles so quickly. I circled back later in the evening only to find templates, categories, and some links added. I appreciate your attention and apologize for adding any additional work to your plate. Letting the community with a note and remembering to use my volunteer account are easily achievable for future events. Thanks again for reaching out, helping polish these articles, and for your understanding. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jami430 and Will (Wiki Ed): Thanks Jami & Will. No apologies needed nor defence; I totally respect the nature both of the volunteer editors, and your work in assisting them. And we now have another 25 or so great women biogs. When I launched into them yesterday, some of them looked a little shaky ... and the point here is absolutely not to criticise you or the volunteers for the state they were in - that's just circumstance and the product of your best endeavours in the limited time available - so much as to encourage you to liaise with us for the reason that we are that extra pair of hands, generally always online and available to improve articles. As it is, we've been through all of the articles in a fairly exacting way, and I'm confident that they'll all now stick without challenge. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
And to be absolutely clear: we're thankful to you for those biogs & do greatly appreciate the work you're doing & have done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon :) Thank you — and I'll be sure to take you up on getting some virtual support next time I'm helping with a biography-related event like that! Thanks again for all the helpful work. Jami430 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that clicking on the "Talk" tab on the Deborah Beidel article brings up Talk:Valeria Bertacco. The latter page shows "Redirected from "Talk:Deborah Beidel", but I don't know how to correct the incorrect redirect. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. (Once redirected, there's a link back to the page that did the redirecting. Once there, you can delete the redirect. Not very sure why the problem arose - the edit history doesn't make it very clear, but it doesn't seem to have been malicious, and all's good now. Good spot, Eddie. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, Thanks for making that correction.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiEd Women Biogs protocol

@Ian (Wiki Ed) and Elysia (Wiki Ed): Per a tweet to Ian earlier, can we / how can we put in place a protocol with WikiEd, such that when a WikiEd editathon or class publishes multiple women biographies, they drop a note and, ideally a list here so that WiR volunteers can assist in ensuring the articles are improved and, crucially, not subject to deletions. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon - I hadn't really thought about this before. I'm just speaking for myself here, but this sounds like a good idea. I am only speaking for myself here - I can't speak for the organisation without discussing this with my colleagues, and I can imagine some challenges when it comes to implementing it, but I like the idea, and I will bring this up with them. Thanks the the suggestion. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): Thanks Ian. I spent many hours yesterday, and I've been going for a couple of hours today, doing largely technical fixes on WikiEd related articles. And I know a number of others from this group pitched in to help with yesterday's economists and will dive into today's scientists & clinicians. Your work is very very welcome indeed, but even for the best articles there is always something more to be done - arcane technical stuff like wikidata links, redirects from name variants, links to new biogs from existing articles &c. For editathons we've seen a repeated history of editathon / short delay / deletathon which can largely be prevented by making the articles look the part such that they do not catch the deletionists' eyes. And WiR has lots of specialists in doing all these things.
So this is strictly not about ownership or anything silly like that: just a genuine desire to lend a hand, and a bank of experienced wikipedians committed to getting the women biog count up, and avoiding unnecessary deletions. It would, as I said, be ideal to put a protocol in place within WikiEd - by which I mean, ideal if WikiEd people know about WiR, are informed about WiR by WikiEd, know that we're on hand to assist with bedding-in articles, and know that the best way of interacting with us is to drop us a note here, ideally pointing to a list of articles. I fully respect that you can't speak for WikiEd, but if you could do the introductions (since we're not sighted on WikiEd internals) that would be splendid. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ian (Wiki Ed): The same could apply in other subject areas - it would be helpful if WikiEd established a protocol such that when there's a batch of articles being created on a theme the relevant WikiProject gets notified and has access to a list of the articles being created. Also editors creating articles - or the Editathon organiser - should create a talk page with one or more appropriate WikiProject banner (eg {{WP Bio}}{{WP Women}}{{WP Canada}}{{WP Fashion}} for a female Canadian fashion designer), so that if there's a deletion proposed it gets flagged up to editors watching the deletion alerts who then have an opportunity to improve the article and save it, or to challenge an unjustified deletion proposal. PamD 07:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: - I absolutely get it that it's not about ownership, and yes, I know the value of getting things to look right. (If it looks wrong, you tend to look for a problem, while if it looks right you assume that the article creator really knows where their towel is.) @PamD: working this into the broader workflow of all classes would take more thought in terms of how to implement it in ways that doesn't generate mass confusion. I could imagine adding Rater to students accounts (my favourite new tool), since it lets to search the list of existing WikiProject templates to add. But I could also imagine something like that going horribly wrong (with, say, students rating articles as GAs because that's what ORES predicts). Something like 90% of students work on existing articles, but there are some classes that do a lot of article creation, especially in areas like women's biographies and species articles.
These sounds like good ideas to me, and I can think of a few ways in which they could be implemented. I'll definitely bring them up with my colleagues. I'm sure there will be real constraints - staff resources, tech resources, the reality of what sort of things we can get instructors to adopt - but personally, I'd say this is worth advocating for. Thanks again for the suggestions. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Denelezh gender gap tool lives again

The Denelezh gender gap tool has been brought back from the dead. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to agree with WHGI ... not quite sure where the differences arise in the counting bases. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On closer examination ... now that I've figured out what I'm looking at, the two tools correspond almost exactly. Example for 1 April, for en.wiki, Denelezh shows 287,669 and WHGI showed 287,467, diff of 202 ... not enough to affect the percentiles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Anouk's "It's a New Day"

Hi all, I loved this single by Dutch singer Anouk (singer) and it is now trending in the Dutch top ten. I made a list of the 28 women in the video (no confirmation, but Anouk posted a list of women on her fb page). Here is my list:

  1. Mother Teresa
  2. Serena Williams (black tutu)
  3. Emma for Change (twitter Emma4change)
  4. Coco Chanel
  5. Princess Diana (casual denim)
  6. African woman (Wangari Maathai)
  7. Sally Ride, not Christa McAuliffe (Challenger disaster)
  8. Audrey Hepburn
  9. Glasses & Cane, white headscarf with lace (Sojourner Truth)
  10. Frida Kahlo
  11. Young Oprah
  12. Lace cap&collar, black dress (Florence Nightingale?)
  13. Malala Yousafzai
  14. Margaret Thatcher
  15. Joan of Arc
  16. Amelia Earhart
  17. Female athlete, medallist (Wilma Rudolph nr. 117?)
  18. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? (she's not in the list) (crocheted collar but no glasses Marie Curie?)
  19. Rosa Parks (glasses, hair braided, prisoner 7053)
  20. Mona Lisa?
  21. Single braid (Marina Abramovic)
  22. Black hijab Jacinda Ardern after NZ bombing
  23. Nefertiti
  24. Michelle Obama t-shirt photo
  25. #metoo Tarana Burke (not Alyssa Milano?)
  26. Rosie the riveter (Naomi Parker)
  27. Meghan Markle in pillbox hat
  28. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (red lips, pin "Well behaved women rarely make history" for House of Reps)

Here is Anouk's list: Marina Abramovic Jacinda Ardern Tarana Burke Emma González Wangari Maathai Meghan, Duchess of Sussex MichelleObama Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez SerenaWilliams Oprah Winfrey Malala Yousafzai #jeannedarc #cocochanel #mariecurie #princessdiana #ameliaearheart #audreyhepburn #fridakahlo #monalisa #nefertiti #florencenightingale #naomiparker #rosaparks #sallyride #wilmarudolph #margaretthatcher #motherteresa #sojournertruth I think we should wikify this music video somehow, but music is not my thing. At the least we should make sure all of these women have OK wikipages (at first glance I think they are OK). Best, Jane (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be our anthem! Discussions on Twitter seem to think this is a good idea. This video fills me with emotion and it seems to me its the spirit of our project. Does everyone agree? Its Anouk's birthday today so she in on out Twitter banner. Victuallers (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree! Love it. Jane (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I think glasses and cane, white headscarf is Sojourner Truth! --Nonmodernist (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Ooh added thanks - I guess cane represents age - but that headscarf! I couldn't find it anywhere - do we have a picture on Commons with her in it? We should do, if that is iconic in some way. Jane (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Here she is. --Nonmodernist (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh of course - I was looking at the shawl but yes the hat and cane work, thx Jane (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the caption to that postcard is so incredible ("I sell the shadow to support the substance."). --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Me too, I love the song, and guess what, so does Katherine Maher! I'm all for making it our anthem! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

New stubs needing attention

I've created about thirty new stubs for American women artists in the past couple of days. It came about accidentally as I realized that the clearest notability criteria for artists is if they are included in "multiple museum collections". So I looked at the Whitney Museum or American Art collection, starting with "A", and did a quick search to see if any of the female names did not have pages. If they didn't (a lot did not), was there a second museum with them in the collection? So far I am up to "H" in the Whitney collection. If anyone would like to take a shot at adding material, the list is on my user page. The stubs are very minimal, but basically impossible to delete, per WP:ARTIST! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I'm up to about 75 stubs, from cross-referencing the Whitney Collection alone. The Whitney should be done in a few days and should yield at least a hundred. There were some very interesting people in there: Nicole Phungrasamee Fein, Sandy Gellis, Virginia Overton and Vera_White_(artist) are a few. A very big shout out to Oronsay, who turned my pathetic two-line stub on Loretta Hines Howard into this lovely addition.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Great work, ThatMontrealIP! If I have time this week I will try to add to Vera White. [4] She's in my preferred time period and deserves to step out of her husband's shadow :) --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a great idea, ThatMontrealIP. I have started identifying some myself - list on my user page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the great work! Tacyarg, feel free to use the short stub template I put in my user area. If your museum has a count of the number of works held by a certain artist, I have found that four or more works means they will generally be known enough to already have a page. That said, there are sleepers in these collections who really should have had pages years ago. Take Dorothy Varian, for example, who is in two collections and had shows at the Whitney and MOMA! It has been really fascinating to read about these women and see their works in the collections. This experience has also pointed out to me how the notability criteria could be written in ways that encourage easier article creation. The hard fact that "in several museums or notable gallery collections" equates to notability makes it easy to find the subjects. If other criteria were less vague, getting more women on Wikipedia might be easier-- and not the incremental, source by source notability struggle that it is. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
A couple of other museums you may want to consider: the Smithsonian American Art Museum and MoMA. I know there was a list of women in the latter collection floating around here somewhere...perhaps one for the former as well. (I'm currently on a bit of a kick writing about artists of another stripe, but I'd be happy to pitch in in a couple of weeks to work up some more similar stubs.)
On a somewhat related note...does anyone know of a comprehensive list of artists in the collection of the National Museum of Women in the Arts? I'm sure there are a lot there. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, I am not sure if you can get a text list, but the menu of their collection seems to have them. Click "artists" at left. I guess we could always just email these institutions and ask, as they are certain to have extensive lists.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Mmmmmh...I dunno. It might be comprehensive, but I'd rather have a list direct from the horse's mouth, as it were. For one thing, that display only shows 18 artists' books, and I know their collection numbers in the thousands. I was just hoping something might have been developed for an editathon so that we wouldn't have to pester the museum for it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

New York Times article on harrassment on Wikipedia

Hi, I was interviewed by the NYT among other editors, and the article by Julia Jacobs was published today : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html Warm regards, --Nattes à chat (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article but it is more concerned with LGBT harassment than with the need to improve the coverage of women.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, more GT as no lesbians were mentioned at all, and we're over represented in the Wikipedia community among female contributors. Only the male or transwoman experience was portrayed, which is disappointing. Though like the other editor said in the article, props to Wikimedia’s Trust and Safety Team as they have really improved in the past year or so. It just can't easily be talked about publicly. --LauraHale (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. It is nice to have that on the record however, as it is related to the experience of people working on WiR coverage of women. We don't want our helpers harassed! I removed the fb click id from the url. Jane (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I certainly thought it was a relevant article; part of the reason we have a gender gap in our articles is that we have a gender gap in our contributors. Even though this article focused more on LGBT people, women (and racial minorities, for that matter) tend to experience the same patterns of harassment. (And Laura, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by your comment; the only trans editor interviewed was male, and trans women are women at any rate.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
What I meant was that it did not talk about the LGBT experience. It talked about the gay male experience and the trans experience. These experiences are similar but not the same as the experiences of lesbians (or the missing bisexuals either for that matter). This frequently happens, where lesbians are erased or not included in the narrative. Hence, in that regards, the article was disappointing. I apologize for getting the gender wrong on the transperson. That was not my intention, and I wouldn't intentionally misgender someone. My intention was more to focus on how despite talking about these issues, they were still exclusionary towards women when over half the women in surveys of women who edit Wikipedia are often not heterosexual. :/ So female orientation minorities were erased even as issues of women's content was highlighted. :( --LauraHale (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If know of missing newsletters (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Curators and dress historians

I have been adding museum curators and dress historians to Wikidata. Not all of them meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but many do, and all of ones I added have references/citations (some better than others, of course). Is it appropriate to add worklists for these occupation categories to this project? - PKM (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, without hesitation. We seem to have redlists covering curators and fashion designers. Costume historian (Q51095439) is not currently covered. Are there other occupations to be looking out for? Or have you added Field of Work properties to wikidata items? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added and linked the list for Costume historians. Many of them are also curators or professors. My intention was to add both occupation and field of work, but I got a bit sloppy on field of work - I intend to go back and fix that. There is also occupation textile historian, but those have a very high overlap with costume historian (we might make a query that looks for one without the other to reduce duplication?). - PKM (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
What is a dress historian? I mean, I have a rough idea, but the details sound fascinating. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 12:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Anne Buck, for instance. In contemporary times, the excellent Amber Butchart - practical example [5]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Good work!! Delighted to see this list - this is a subject dear to my heart, just wanted to give a cheer on to you all - and how lovely to see Nancy Bradfield on the list, I credit her books with fuelling my passion for dress history. Mabalu (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and to add - I actually have had a very rough early article on Phillis Cunnington's husband in my workspace for the LONGEST TIME, I had almost forgotten it was there See: User:Mabalu/C Willett Cunnington Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mabalu: We already have Cecil Willett Cunnington. What we need now is a good article on Phillis. If you have time, Anne Buck could do with some love. Meanwhile I've requested Nancy Bradfield's obit, and I'll have a stab at a start for her. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
GREAT news about Cecil! I'll be glad to get rid of that stale draft, I looked to see when exactly I started it and was mortified. I'll take a look at Anne when I have a chance. Just got myself back into article creating with Nancy Melcher so still feeling a bit rusty... Mabalu (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes. That is a bit old, isn't it. Nancy Melcher article looks fantastic; kudos. I have more to add to Anne Buck ... some explanation of her contribution to the discipline. But right now she's a bit stalled. I'll also point you at The Costume Society which is something of a runt right now (and may always be). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant to send a request to review this article I wrote about a political activist

of the Sex Workers' Rights Movement before I tried launching it onto the mainspace because it had been previously deleted having met some backlash: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colette Pervette. I had done a complete rewrite overhaul of the article. I read up on the guidelines and essays and I cited all my sources thoroughly. I wanted to request feedback, and I realize now I should have moved it to Special: space or Draft: space (it was in my User: sub pages). However, I forgetfully submitted it anyway, and it has been deleted again, even though I honestly felt I had met the criteria. I want to revise it and seek feedback, only the trouble is I didn't make a backup copy of the article I had been working on all week, and now it's gone without a trace. I contacted the editor directly on his talk page for a copy a few minutes ago, so I hope they responds soon. I am seeking feedback/support with this article, improving NPOV writing, and navigating deletion discussions. Olivettilly (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Olivettilly: Your article is here. From the deletion discussion, it was considered to be far too promotional and based on primary sources. Before you start working on other biographies, I think you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. I suggest you leave your next article in draft space until it is really suitable for mainspace. If you need help, just drop a word on my talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :Ipigott for your response. However this article is a much older version of the article. I understand now that it is far too promotional. I have since rewritten it entirely with an impartial tone. The one I am looking for if you read the notification in red was deleted yesterday [6]. If I may get this iteration back that would be so so helpful.

URL shortener for the Wikimedia projects

(cross-posting post by Léa Lacroix, Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata, from Wikidata-l) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Having a service providing short links exclusively for the Wikimedia projects is a community request that came up regularly on Phabricator or in community discussions. After a common work of developers from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany, we are now able to provide such a feature, it will be enabled on April 11th on Meta.

  • What is the URL Shortener doing? The Wikimedia URL Shortener is a feature that allows you to create short URLs for any page on projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, in order to reuse them elsewhere, for example on social networks or on wikis. The feature can be accessed from Meta wiki on the special page m:Special:URLShortener (will be enabled on April 11th). On this page, you will be able to enter any web address from a service hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, to generate a short URL, and to copy it and reuse it anywhere. The format of the URL is w.wiki/ followed by a string of letters and numbers. You can already test an example: w.wiki/3 redirects to wikimedia.org.
  • What are the limitations and security measures? In order to assure the security of the links, and to avoid shortlinks pointing to external or dangerous websites, the URL shortener is restricted to services hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes for example: all Wikimedia projects, Meta, Mediawiki, the Wikidata Query Service, Phabricator. (see the full list here) In order to avoid abuse of the tool, there is a rate limit: logged-in users can create up to 50 links every 2 minutes, and the IPs are limited to 10 creations per 2 minutes.
  • Where will this feature be available? In order to enforce the rate limit described above, the page Special:URLShortener will only be enabled on Meta. You can of course create links or redirects to this page from your home wiki.The next step we’re working on is to integrate the feature directly in the interface of the Wikidata Query Service, where bit.ly is currently used to generate short links for the results of the queries. For now, you will have to copy and paste the link of your query in the Meta page.

A list of women clockmakers

Last night I was chasing down some information about Candace Roberts (no article yet, but she seems an intriguing proposition...I may work something up this weekend) and that led me to this list: WOMEN CLOCKMAKERS, WATCHMAKERS & CASEMAKERS in EUROPE, AMERICA, & CANADA 1350 --- 1950. I have no idea how one would even begin figuring out notability requirements, but I figured this might be of interest to someone working on the field of decorative arts, where there is much fodder for future work. Incidentally, the same site provides me with information on:

All potential article subjects, I suspect. Fascinating, the things you learn when you begin your research around here... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Understanding overall gender bias across all language Wikipedias

Hi all

I'm finishing a blog post about gender gap events and I want to add an overall %s of male vs female articles (I know this is available for Wikidata but I'm writing for a general audience so the Wikipedia number makes much more senese). I'm really suprised this isn't easily available WHGI, unless I'm missing something? (if the person who makes it pretty please could you add this?)

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@John Cummings: the denelezh tool has been revived. It gives m/f splits for wikidata, for each language wikipedia, for individuals with at least 1 sitelink ... you must be able to find something in it. (Equally, I can't see how to get it to tell us the total m/f split for the sum of language wikipedias only, although it would be possible to grab the stats for the discrete language wikis from the bottom of the table on the page I linked to, and work that out. @denelezh is active on twitter & so I'll ask if there's a possibility of select options for this.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon:, great, thanks very much. John Cummings (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
wow that's a cool tool. on the documentation page it says:
How can I have the number of biographies accross all Wikipedias?
At the moment, Denelezh only provides statistics about a specific Wikimedia project or all Wikimedia projects together, not a subset of them.
also i found this graph showing 'Evolution of Gender Gap in English Wikipedia' quite telling (although binary, i guess that's not the fault of the analysis tool though) Mujinga (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And Denelezh say: aggregation across multiple language wikis not coming soon.[7] (I presume deduplication of individuals is the issue.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

first biogs submitted for review from WomenInClimateScience at Uni of Exeter

Hi. We've been working on women in climate science today, and we've a couple of biogs now in queue for review. I'll add links to the others as we submit:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyagarry (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Moira Paul (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Freyagarry and Moira Paul: Thanks, we'll be happy to deal with these --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
WiR: These could all do with categorisations addming. Not my strong point. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Could I request some double-checking of Marian Westropp-Dawson?

I had been intending to do an entry for Mrs. Eric Pritchard (kind of a cult hero for her "Cult of Chiffon" book (1902) among dress historians and fashion researchers) for a LONG time, but had found her to be the MOST extraordinarily difficult person to research/actually find out anything about. Turns out Marian Westropp-Dawson (as she was born) has an incredibly convoluted history with possibly two marriages (one which I can't find out anything about - did Eric Pritchard even exist? A pen-name intended to confer respectability on her as a underwear-loving woman fashion journalist?). There is still quite a bit of work to be done - she was clearly a very interesting character, and I need to add something about her connections to Daisy Greville, Countess of Warwick, to whom Cult of Chiffon was dedicated. I got so confused trying to disentangle all the conflicting leads and different clues and hints that I would appreciate it if fellow editors could check and see if it is clearly explained.

But I think she is a GREAT example of a Woman in Red, especially as someone who basically set out to tell the new century that it was Absolutely Fine And Not Remotely Immoral For Women To Like Fancy Underwear, and also say You Do Not Have To Be a Fashion Victim, You Just Have To Believe in Your Own Beautiful Taste And You'll Be Gorgeous and Chic.... Yeah. Been kind of a fan of Mrs P for a while, but I'm a bit worried about having to rely so much on ThePeerage for information (is it a reliable source? I checked and I see it is used for some nobility articles, so I think it's OK?). Thanks so much in advance for any help, editing suggestions and oversights you can offer! It is much, much appreciated - I'd like to nominate her for DYK if I can polish the page up a bit more. Mabalu (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mabalu: George Eric Campbell Pritchard was indeed married to Marian Elizabeth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Oh, you're a legend - thank you!!! Mabalu (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Naming and redirect issue — Jane Fletcher and Jane Ada Fletcher

I have just discovered that there are lots of incorrect links to the article about Jane Fletcher, full name Jane Ada Fletcher (1870-1956), an Australian ornithologist and author. There is a modern-day Jane Fletcher who writes lesbian speculative fiction. I changed the link to Jane Fletcher (writer) in one article, but then realised that every single link to the existing article is for the modern-day day woman, apart from the redirect from Jane Ada Fletcher. Is there any way someone can remove the redirect from Jane Ada Fletcher (including updating Wikidata obviously)? Or should I change the rest of the links? Oronsay (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I've pointed some more of the SF writer links to Jane Fletcher (writer). I think that's probably the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And I've just turned the SF writer's links blue with a stub: further contributions welcome (listed her books but haven't given publisher, year, isbn for most of them - too late at night, got to finish now!) PamD 23:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
And added them both to Fletcher (surname). PamD 23:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oronsay: This can be solved relatively quickly with AWB - I'll get to work on it in a sec. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, never mind - seems the issue has been fixed. Nevertheless: AWB is useful for this sort of thing, if it ever crops up again. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to add the detailed book information over the next few days, as time allows.IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for sorting this out. Oronsay (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Medium-term plan 2019

Not sure how we fit into this. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Now I've seen a lot of meaningless diagrams in my days. This one seems to be especially meaningless as well as particularly poorly designed. Presumably "global advocacy" and "brand awareness" are intended to be read as one statement. Not sure what's going on with "worldwide readership consumption". Are we consuming our readers? I thought that was against the rules. And why is "thriving movement" part of the cycle of Wikimedia when the entire diagram is supposed to be representing the movement? Where is the little green transformative step between community and content? Is that just the WMF admitting that they really don't know what happens in the bit so they left it off the chart? It's all a bit silly really. GMGtalk 23:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The "advocacy" arrow is easy enough to miss that the whole diagram looks a bit like it's circling the drain. XOR'easter (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed that there is no mention anywhere of the need to improve the quality of our articles or increase the proportional coverage of women and their interests. (I see we are simply told that "the accuracy and quality of the content relies on many people visiting and engaging with the projects everyday" and that "more intentional focus on code quality and testing will allow for more innovative and faster experimentation".) The whole presentation unfortunately smacks of promoting a competitive product rather than providing a useful service. The only mention of "gender" is in the strangely worded phrases "encouraging gender diversity across all initiatives" and "develop[ing] gender-equitable pipelines and pathways for moving leaders and experts from around the world into positions of strategic influence". These are not mentioned in the main goals but as relatively minor points in the long string of outcomes. I have great difficulty in understanding what is meant by "a fully automated and continuous code health and deployment infrastructure" encompassing "speeding up deployments and having greater confidence in the quality, performance, scalability and overall sustainability of our code base". I see it is not too late to comment on the document (still a week to go until 20 April) but I would like to see whether others share my concerns before I react. In particular, it would be interesting to have reactions from non-male members of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your concerns, Ipigott. No amount of new code or AI thrown at a platform will counter systemic bias, and I note that there is no mention here of addressing editor-to-editor harassment—unless I missed some vaguely-worded platitude about “a welcoming environment” or similar. As some recent AfD discussions have made clear, content gaps and harassment issues are inextricably linked here. One place that this might be addressed is in the Global Advocacy section, particularly outcome 1, which talks about articulating a narrative of the “ideal community.” Still, disappointing not to see any concrete mention of addressing systemic bias nor closing the gender gap. —Nonmodernist (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Nonmodernist: Thanks for supporting these concerns. Up to now there has been no mention of these priorities on the Wikimedia talk page. I think it would be useful to comment there.--Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an April Fools joke, no real plan would be written in this style of techno-cryptic babble: "catalyzing convenorship", "gender-equitable pipelines", "paradigm of free knowledge", "positive and unified free knowledge policy agenda". I suggest that volunteers avoid wasting time attempting to read this management-speak nonsense, and hope it quietly dies buried under the pile of consultant invoices. As unpaid volunteers we have better ways of spending our time. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Fæ has not yet owned our single narrative. By 2021, we anticipate an increase of community acceptance of techno-cryptic babble by 17.33334%. GMGtalk 13:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO WORDS... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

Katie Bouman / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman --Rosiestep (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Just closed as speedy keep snow keep right after you posted here, seems like people people stayed sensible about this looking at the responses. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Just for the record; closure reason was changed to snow keep by the closing admin. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Oh, yes, there are words...but most of them are unprintable. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
trying to AGF: I guess the nominator's computer cannot access news sites? No words is correct.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If you needed more occasion for unprintable words: The first picture of a black hole made Katie Bouman an overnight celebrity. Then internet trolls descended. XOR'easter (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And more: To undermine Katherine Bouman's role in the black hole photo, trolls held up a white man as the real hero -- until he fought back. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I added two of those links to the article; I wasn't entirely sure about the propriety of adding the third, which is an opinion piece. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be a bit of an edit war possibly brewing; additional opinions at Talk:Katie Bouman would be appreciated. (I left a comment just now, but I don't want to jump in with editing the page itself.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review: Dorothy Hague

There is currently a deletion review discussion on Dorothy Hague at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 21. A politician in Ontario, Canada in the 1950s and 1960s, she was one of the first women to be elected reeve in Ontario (The reeve was the head of the town council, the equivalent of the mayor in a city) and she and Marie Curtis were the first women on Metropolitan Toronto council and its executive. Please note, in deletion review endorse means keep deleted and overturn means undelete the article. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This article seems to have been deleted as a result of a misunderstanding. Perhaps Rosiestep could look into it and advise on how to proceed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I haven't dealt with overturns before. Perhaps you were thinking of someone else, IPigott, e.g. @Ritchie333:?
But this brings up an important point of discussion: articles about historical women whose draft pages weren't approved for mainspace or actual articles were deleted for lack of notability. Whom else (besides Dorothy Hague and Donna Strickland) can you name? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
There becomes a broader issue where users end up having to focus less on a topic and good, coherent writing practices when there are no easy notability assumptions about women. This has changed my own writing styles in many ways because article writing often turns into writing to establish notability, with ugly articles with 5 sources for single facts to make them appear notable (even if simple searches can easily prove notability) as nominators often appear to suggest an article is not notable if it is not established clearly in the article. :( --LauraHale (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I am experiencing the exact same thing you state User:LauraHale, so much so that despite an ongoing discussion and revisions on an article I wrote that had been nominated for deletion was suddenly deleted.! I will write it again without a doubt, but this is exactly the same thought that I'm having. Glad I stumbled onto your statement while I dug around for answers and guideline on how to approach this. Olivettilly (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I would be careful in using sources to establish notability as a writing form. While it made stave off some initial deletionists, if you do this too consistently, it may lead to stronger examination of your sources to make sure they adequately do demonstrate notability. (This led me to at one point creating several articles about Spanish newspapers just to make it harder to argue that specific newspapers weren't useful for notability because they were small, local and irrelevant in this process.) My experience is that writing for notability helps best in certain areas, specifically in sports or academics where other clearly established guidelines exist. If you can write better without a million sources, it is better to keep track of other sources that establish notability, and comment on the talk page to list them all if you fear potential deletion. Update the list while drafting. That way, at least the quality of writing won't suffer like mine sometimes has. --LauraHale (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
my experience is that it is better to use even a very small number of good sources, rather than to try to indicate importance by having many weak ones. If the problem is that there are only weak ones, it may not be possible to write an article that will be accepted, and the effort should be put into ones with better sourcing. If the problem is that there are only weak ones because it is early in a person's career, the ideal course is to wait 2 or 3 years, and see if there's something more substantial. But if there are both strong sources and weak ones, remove the weak ones. This isn't writing for notability--it's writing for a better article. Though it is not a formal reason for keeping, having a high quality article matters. The better the writing, the more complete the article, the more reliable the sourcing, all this increases the probability that it won't even be nominated for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

AfD Tammarrian Rogers, could an experienced editor have a look?

I noticed this article on the list. There isn't any discussion yet on the deletion page. It isn't clear to me if Rogers is sufficiently notable, but I think she at least deserves a little effort and investigation. She's had a fairly impressive career so far, although definitely not notable. However, she's a person of color and a lesbian, and in the last few years she's been speaking at Tech conferences on diversity. I think her work on diversity in Seattle, and her speaking might be notable in an different category. Before I spend anymore time on this, I'd like the opinion of some experienced editors. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything that easily suggests notability easily via WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I do; I've added to the AfD. Still; at least we know she's in the vicinity of the border. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!! IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I did what I could with it--eliminating personal matter about motivation, and putting the education and career in chronological order. It's very tricky to show motivation without sounding like PR. It can best be done not at the beginning of an article, but by showing what a person has been involved in. Articles on heads of engineering at major companies are often kept, but the sourcing may be too weak to show the notability--it would really help to have a major newspaper or magazine source,. (I also moved the linkedIn page to External Links--it is not an independent reference & having it gives a bad impression). DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Help with New Article

Greetings,

Yesterday I located a list of Canadian women artist that need articles written. I randomly choose Joan Almond. One of the reasons think her page may have gotten onto the recommended list was her work being selected by National Gallery of Canada. Now I can not find my way back to that list of women. Can you help me with that? Also, yesterday I found a link template for creating a draft page for a photographer. Again, have lost my way. Can you help with that also. Since I've done a bit of researching and gathering references I would like to use the template to create a new article for her and the list of Canadian artist who need pages for future reference. Thanks!! LorriBrown (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@LorriBrown: For the first question, probably User:Sadads/Canadian artists - does that look familiar? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And for the second, it looks like {{Preloaddraft}} using the page Template:Preloaddraft/Photographer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Not exactly sure but I do see Joan Almond's name there so thank you for the link. Also, the link to the draft was specifically for photographers but your link will work perfectly well also. I try to keep track of the links because I find it so difficult to find my way back later on. I appreciate your answering my call for help!  :-)
I also wanted to ask if creating an article for this artist will require the same draft approval process as I am experiencing with an article I just created as my first article (pending its second review)? I also worked on adding additional references to a stub article (only had one reference). This person, Joan Almond, I am finding does not have a lot on good online references that I've been able to locate thus far. Can you help me understand the process my article will go through? Sorry to ask but I am new user and new to this group but would like to help. Thank you!!! LorriBrown (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@LorriBrown: Your earlier article being Draft:Kent Tate. It looks in much better shape now than it did on, for instance, the 7th March. If I were an AfC reviewer, I would be inclined to accept the current draft. But I'm not; I steer clear of that particular place. I think what route you take for your next article is up to you. The probability is that you have enough edits to be able to create an article directly in article space; or to create it as a draft and then move it yourself to article space once you are happy with it. Or take it through the AfC process. There are pros & cons attached to each route. Clearly avoiding AfC means you do not get the very rigorous inspection associated with that place done, and there is a school of thought that AfC makes demands for much higher quality articles, or articles that confirm to some preconceived model of an article, such that passing AfC is a formidable barrier to article creation. Equally, articles that pass AfC are less likely to be challenged later since they have met the AfC standard. Conversely articles that do not go through AfC may be marked for deletion if found wanting once they are in article space. So perhaps you need to judge how confident you are in your ability to create an article which passes muster. If you are not confident, then AfC might be the better route, although it is painful and takes a long time. If you are confident, than avoid AfC and go draft->article or direct to article, and hope that you do not then get knocked back by the article being marked for deletion. Clearly, the more the writing avoids over-promotion, embraces concision and adopts an encyclopedic tone, the less likely a later challenge is. And, of course, you do need to be able to convince the reader that the subject passes WP:N guidelines, and is WP:V, which means that at least some references are necessary. As you note for Joan Almond, finding good references may not be easy - it's a problem common for many subjects and especially common for women subjects, I'm afraid. (Did you come across this which might at least be a little helpful? And you may be able to use some of the citations provided on her website at [8] and [9] as leads to references, or even make references out of them, if you presume that they are genuine). I hope these words help. somewhat. The evidence, to my eye, from Kent Tate, is that you more than have what it takes to write a wikipedia article, and so I hope you stick with us and create more. And, indeed, going back to Kent Tate, a quick glance at a random 27 February revision of a much longer version of the article looks good to me; a 6 March revision I quickly looked at has an italicised quote at the start of the second paragraph of 'Installation art' which didn't work for me and which chimed with the reviewers tone issue, but tbh, and without a forenstic read, I'm not seeing a lot wrong with earlier drafts of the article and am seeing a lot right. hth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Your reply has a lot of very helpful information. Thank you for your encouraging words!LorriBrown (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
some advice, as a frequent AfC reviewer: it is not good strategy to move a draft to mainspace yourself--it's not prohibited, but it always gets noticed, and it tends to create a bad impression--for one thing, it's a device paid editors often use. Once you have become confident enough, by seeing a few of your drafts get accepted, then write directly to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong classification?

I noticed a few minutes ago that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Actresses - US page includes Ernest Butterworth Jr. (at number 143 as I write this note). Perhaps some erroneous coding put that name in the list, since both the name and the accompanying image indicate that Butterworth is, or was, a male. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not the only one. As I scrolled down the list looking for someone I might write about, I also noticed Thomas Bellamy (155), Buddy Messinger (160), and Lloyd Perl (171). Eddie Blick (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
All four have female in their respective wikidata entries. As for Messinger, the sex or gender has male and female on wikidata. Perhaps there is an error with their wikidata entries or they all identify as female? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The trouble seems to be the Wikidata entry for Category:American child actors, which assumed (for whatever reason) that all members of the category are female. I removed that property from the source category, but we might have to fix the individual actors manually. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_59&oldid=895899086"