Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 140

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135←Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142→Archive 145

and my Challenge ending ... planned for International Women's Day on 8th March

I've nearly written 2,500 biographies of women and that will be achieved somewhere before International Women's Day. (If I include girl's schools and convents then I'm already there). As some may know I have been writing a biography a day for over a year and I'm thinking that after what will be >430 days then I might pause. I'm not sure but 430 biographies at 1 a day may be a record for #1day1woman and maybe 2,500 women biogs is as well? (Part of the reason for doing at least one a day was to stop @Jesswade88: from catching me:-). I think we will also hit our 300th editathon in March! Maybe I will try and match the round the world cruise that Lajmmoore has just completed. Can I claim the countries I have already done @Lajmmoore:? Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to more enterprising challenges and successes from you Roger. Your efforts are always an inspiration to others. I would nevertheless like to point out that in reviewing new articles about women, from time to time I come across exceptionally productive contributors. My latest "find" is Alperen who by making use of the Module:CS1 translator (which is not recommended for the EN Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Content translation tool) has already produced 47 biographies of women since the beginning of the month. He keeps me pretty busy adding missing categories and taking care of the way we present things here but I must say his translations are impressive. Unfortunately he prefers to remain independent and is therefore not a member of Women in Red. But does that matter?--Ipigott (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course not ... but "only" 491 so far. :-) Victuallers (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject of multiple contributions, I should also mention Maniakilljoy97, who has already contributed 60 articles on rhythmic gymnasts since the beginning of the year, many with an unusual amount of detail for articles about sportswomen. As most of these articles are not tagged WIR, they probably go unnoticed.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh yes, you can use the countries you've allready written people from! (You might have even already done it!) Lajmmoore (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Sneha Revanur - needs some WP:NPOV cleanup

I just declined this draft due to WP:NPOV concerns and that it largely focused on Encode Justice, an organization she started, rather than her. However, I do believe she is notable so appreciate any helping hands or if anyone disagrees with my decline, feel free to revert me and/or move it to mainspace. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it's now on mainspace. Interesting young AI activist.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Chicago's Musicians Club of Women

If anyone if looking for a project, the Musicans Club of Women in Chicago would make an interesting topic. This newspaper article gives a nice overview of the organization. It drew my attention while writing an article on opera singer Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano) who received a scholarship from them. I did a brief search on the organization to find out what it was, and in doing so noticed the group got mentioned in passing on a number of articles on women composers in Grove Music Online. Apparently they have helped a lot of women musicians get training and have commissioned music by women composers of note. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Around the World!

Hello friends! It's a special day for me this evening, as I finished an article for a woman from Venezuela. This was the final country on my "Around the World" list. I've now written a biography for a woman or non-binary person from every UN-recognised (or partially recongised) country! Link to the list is here - I'd love to hear from other people who have done it too Lajmmoore (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore Congratulations on this global achievement! PamD 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore:: Great idea! Great achievement! Maybe you can come up with another interesting challenge?--Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Excellent! Love to see that. Penny Richards (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore Fabulous! Very cool challenge, which I am guessing was pretty difficult to do. I know from my chain challenge that it's pretty tough to find sources in some places. SusunW (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Brillant! Ms Moore! see my question below .... any one else thinking of setting out on this cruise? Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Superb! Congrats!! I am trying to edit an article for Spanish born author, former correspondent and photographer Ruth Baza (Wikipedia Fr Es) who has dared to file a complaint against Gérard Depardieu for sexual abuse (rape) in 1995 when she was 23, anorexic but a renowned and daring journalist & rock photographer since 17. Her courage has been recognized by several International Women Assocs (Women Press Freedom and The Coalition of Women in Journalism to name a few) and the story on her awful experience has gone around the world since she is the first female journalist who files a complaint against a film industry personality. An actor who faces more complaints for sexual abuse, harrasment and misoginistic behavior and comments towards actresses and ladies in the film industry. Her career is large and pretty interesting. I hope I can go on with the edit or look for some help here. More bios like of these women are needed! Sylvie Siminovich (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore (sorry I forgot to add your user name) Superb! Congrats!! I am trying to edit an article for Spanish born author, former correspondent and photographer Ruth Baza (Wikipedia Fr Es) who has dared to file a complaint against Gérard Depardieu for sexual abuse (rape) in 1995 when she was 23, anorexic but a renowned and daring journalist & rock photographer since 17. Her courage has been recognized by several International Women Assocs (Women Press Freedom and The Coalition of Women in Journalism to name a few) and the story on her awful experience has gone around the world since she is the first female journalist who files a complaint against a film industry personality. An actor who faces more complaints for sexual abuse, harrasment and misoginistic behavior and comments towards actresses and ladies in the film industry. Her career is large and pretty interesting. I hope I can go on with the edit or look for some help here. More bios like of these women are needed Sylvie Siminovich (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
For Lajmmore!
Offering my congratulations, too, Lajmmoore, and I bring cake! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, @Lajmmoore. You've certainly had your Wikipedia passport well stamped! Oronsay (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas redirect?

MSGJ - I see you've redirected WiR's Ideas talkpage, to this main WiR talkpage with the edit summary "centralise discussion". Assuming there was discussion to do so, would you please link to it as I seem to have missed it. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rosiestep, from its history the page was only used once, in 2015, so boldly redirecting it seems reasonable. On the other hand there may be a reason to keep it, in which case MSGJ's edit could be reverted. TSventon (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please revert if you disagree. I redirected a few underused talk pages to the main project talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
MSGJ: This is not the only talk page to have been disabled and redirected. Many of our other WIR pages have also been redirected in the interests of "centralizing discussion": They include New Members, Outreach, Research, Resources and Showcase. This seems to me to be a very strange case of "being bold" without any previous discussion. Isn't one of the basics of the wiki approach that every page should have a talk page? It's certainly the case in other non-Wikipedia wikis I have used. I strongly suggest that the redirects should be deleted and the original content of these pages should be restored asap. Some of the comments are of significant historical interest. As far as I know, no one has faced problems in regard to these talk pages.-Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Centralising discussion is a very common approach on Wikipedia, so I didn't think it would be controversial. The idea is that we don't want people posting on pages which are not used, as they might not get a response. It is better if they post on this page. However if you disagree, then please revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
MSGJ - I don't want to mess things up so would please revert it yourself. There are 79 pagewatchers of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas so that should be sufficient assurance that someone will notice if there's a comment made on the corresponding talkpage. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that all the recently redirected talk pages have served two purposes. The first is in connection with what should be included on the corresponding project page while the second is to attract comment on related issues. MSGJ may be right in believing certain topics would be more effectively discussed on this page but I still think there is a case for maintaining the individual talk pages. By going through the specific discussions they include, I am frequently able to contact people familiar with a particular topic or development and can also find background on how the page has evolved. Responses on any talk page can always be encouraged by pinging those concerned rather than by involving all those who contribute to this talk page. I think all the talk pages should therefore be restored. It might however be useful to include a hat note on them with something like "If your comments warrant wider or more urgent discussion, it may be useful to post them on the main Women in Red talk page."--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted those changes now. Just one comment: a short time ago some members of this project were not happy that decentralised discussions were taking place on Template talk:WikiProject Women in Red and asked for discussion to happen on the main project talk. Now you seem to be saying that having separate discussions is fine and to be encouraged. You might want to think on these contradictory views! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I would support centralising discussion from the pages redirected by MSGJ, perhaps using Template:Superseded. Of the six talk pages three had never been used, one had a single conversation in 2015 and two had several unanswered posts between them. If the pages were needed in the future they could easily be brought back into use. TSventon (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Eek! I didn't realize that ... a short time ago some members of this project were not happy that decentralised discussions were taking place on Template talk:WikiProject Women in Red and asked for discussion to happen on the main project talk.. Truly sorry about that! I don't mean to create extra work for anyone, but can someone please link to that convo? (I did start this section by asking, Assuming there was discussion to do so, would you please link to it as I seem to have missed it.) Thanks!
TSventon, that is a cool template. Did not know about it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
TSventon: I appreciate your interesting suggestion but now that the pages have been restored, it seems to me that several of them contain useful information. At this point, I am rather concerned that we are facing a number of rather unexpected changes suggested or implemented by contributors who are not among those who have consistently been adding or improving articles under Women in Red. The discussion on template changes above was also in relation to "administration" rather than content building. There may well be a case for reviewing our approach to templates, talk pages and discussion but I think it should rely on the support of major contributors to the project. For this reason, I would like to involve other members of the project in the discussion I am launching below.--Ipigott (talk)

Wikipedia's shortcomings in regard to Black women

In connection with our current coverage of Black women, the recent Civic Sociology paper "Wikipedia and the Outsider Within: Black Feminism and Social Inequality in Knowledge Sharing" by the instructor Tracy Perkins and Black students from Howard University may be of interest both to Women in Red contributors and to WikiEdu. One of the main findings is that peer reviewing by White males tends to reduce the number of valid sources on deserving Black women. It was found that "We observed widespread racist and sexist knowledge gaps, stereotypes, euphemisms, and misinformation in the Wikipedia articles related to our coursework." For further background and user names of contributors see Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Howard University/Sociology of Food and Agriculture (Fall 2018). (I'm not sure whether there is sufficient interest in academic articles like this for me to post them here. Maybe in future I should just include them on our Research page.)--Ipigott (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No, keep 'em coming, thanks! This one is more nuanced in the detail than your summary (or their abstract) suggests, & often quite sensible, though with many of the traditional academic mistakes "...the requirement for subjects to be deemed “noteworthy” through citing multiple sources that meet Wikipedia’s standards of reliability..." (though "notable" is used trwice later) right at the start. Based on a small class sample in a 2018 WikiEdu course, & strictly dealing with African American topics only, except for Columbian exchange. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I mean, we're never going to be perfect, but we can always do better. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes I appreciate them as well! Thanks @Ipigott! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Johnbod for drawing my attention to the "noteworthy" slip-up! My mistake. Saguaro23 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott Please keep on telling us about interesting stuff: we can choose to ignore it if we want! Thanks. PamD 18:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
And for anyone interested, the activist Maria Elena Lucas mentioned might be worth looking into: as well as the book referenced, (Forged Under the Sun/Forjada Bajo El Sol: The Life of Maria Elena Lucas) reviewed in Publishers Weekly and academic journal MELUS, there seems to be an audiobook aimed at children about her, and oral history interviews with her are archived at Harvard. I can't see this one because I'm in Europe. Someone might like to work on her? Or perhaps on Fran Buss / Fran Leeper Buss, who wrote the main biography: lots of info about her in the Harvard source, and another of her studies was Jesusita Aragón. PamD 18:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There's also a review of the book in The Oral History Review and what seems to be an entire chapter in a book about her book. SilverserenC 18:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of alerting SusunW to Maria Elena Lucas. There must be more we could find about her.--Ipigott (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There's this as well. SilverserenC 19:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Maria Elena Lucas's book and tons of information about her [1] appear to be available through archive.org. My clipping function isn't working for newspaperarchive.com, but there are also news stories about her in the Brownsville paper, which likely could also be found in the Texas newspaper archives. This is Megalibrarygirl's territory. My chain is still in Africa and I hate to derail it at this early point in the year, but I'm happy to help with sources if someone wants to write her. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
If nobody is in a hurry, I could have a go at Maria Elena Lucas once I have taken care of a few life things? Balance person (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@SusunW I think doing a chain will be my next challenge! Thanks for the inspiration! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, the hardest thing I have found is that you have to "set up" the next article before you finish the one you are working on. I don't exactly know how to explain that, but media and scholarly reports often do not mention other people your subject was involved with, so you have to make sure you can identify enough sources for a redlink in the article you are working on before you finish it. Definitely challenging. (Hint, sometimes I end up writing about the author of a source.) Good luck. It will be interesting to see how long of a chain we each can make. SusunW (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do keep alerting us to bias and gaps. If we are not aware, we can't do anything about it. Thanks for all you do. Balance person (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree; it's definitely worth alerting readers of this talkpage regarding articles such as this. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
So, just to recap. On Lucas, the paper says: "At least one student in a subsequent class reported wanting to write a new article but not finding enough sources about the topic she had in mind. In this case, the original article was to be a biography of farmworker activist Maria Elena Lucas (Buss 1993). The instructor had initially selected several farmworker leaders, including Lucas, as possible subjects of new articles, but removed two of them later for the same reasons. Thus, between them, the student and the instructor self-censored the classes’ contributions on the basis of Wikipedia’s notability standards. This example illustrates the way that Wikipedia standards replicate knowledge inequalities regarding both farmworkers and women of color that are produced elsewhere. In these cases, they not only replicate these knowledge inequalities but enlarge them as well. Maria Elena Lucas has an entire book written about her, but Wikipedia standards for establishing notability require more than a single source in an effort to share knowledge not potentially biased through the lens of a single author." But, presumably without knocking themselves out, WiR readers have found multiple other sources (the first two go back to the last century). The problem seems to be the internet search competence of the students and perhaps the instructor, rather than "the way that Wikipedia standards replicate knowledge inequalities regarding both farmworkers and women of color that are produced elsewhere. In these cases, they not only replicate these knowledge inequalities but enlarge them as well." But this ringing conclusion has now entered the academic literature, and will no doubt be cited time and again in the future. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnbod, for bringing this section of the paper to our attention. In all fairness, you can hardly expect WikiEdu instructors to have anything like the experience of our more seasoned editors in identifying pertinent sources. Like many newcomers, they go no further than simple Google searches. Most instructors are aware of the basics of Wikipedia editing but have little direct experience of creating and editing articles themselves. They and their students rely quite heavily on the support of representatives of WikiEdu. I have brought this discussion to the attention of the author Saguaro23 and look forward to any reactions.--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Ipigott and all, thanks for the discussion! I'm glad to see that there is interest in developing the Maria Elena Lucas article and that there are enough Wikipedia friendly sources to do so.
On a related note, I'm starting to think about how to develop a list of needed Wikipedia articles on US-based environmental justice organizations, campaigns and activists. I had assumed that I or my research assistants would need to provide a starter list of appropriate sources for each suggested new article (enough to get over the notability requirements). But based on the discussion above, perhaps just putting the article suggestions out there is enough? I'm not yet familiar with the Wikipedia internal infrastructure for managing such projects. Saguaro23 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Saguaro23, if you want to just make a list of topics you believe are notable, that's enough. That's how most redlists on wikipedia work. For a non-WIR example, see WP:ATFP. If you have a starter list of appropriate sources, that's great - go ahead and add them. But wikipedians are pretty used to starting from scratch. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnbod Thanks also for your point about about our use of Maria Elena Lucas as an example of a larger trend on Wikipedia not being nuanced enough to speak to the fact that this group was able to find enough sources on her to likely get through the notability requirements. If we had gotten that feedback as part of our peer-review, we would have been glad of the opportunity incorporate that into our discussion. As it is, I'll keep it in mind going forward. Saguaro23 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
By "peer", you presumably mean other academics claiming some expertise on Wikipedia matters. We see a lot of gender-related papers notified here, but I've never seen a request for pre-publication reviews or comments. Many if not most of the papers we see would have benefited greatly from this. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Saguaro23, fyi for the future, if a subject has an entire book written about them with a mainstream press, there's simply no way they won't be found to be notable. (I wouldn't make this claim about self-pub books.) It's true that we require multiple sources but I simply cannot imagine an AfD in which a biographical article whose topic is the subject of an entire book ends as delete. Even if someone argued that the book being a single source was a problem (I've never seen this for book-length sources that I can recall), I feel very confident that a participant in the AfD would turn something else up. If you're ever in the position again where you get into an absurd bind like that one, you're fully welcome to post here about it to see if anyone else can find something. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, as here, "an entire book written about them with a mainstream press" will generate at least some reviews, which will count. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks so much for sharing this! Creating some articles for this month's edit-a-thon (not as many as I would have liked, due to issues with burnout) certainly drew my attention to the problems with bias on this front. One of the articles I created was about JoNina Abron-Ervin, which got me looking at the representation of women in the Black Panther Party. About 22% of the articles we have on members of the party are about men, which is roughly inline with Wiki-wide women's representation, but the party's membership was somewhere between 40% and 70% women! The edit-a-thon has been great for focusing on this under-representation, but I wonder if maybe we need something longer-term than just one month of each year. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: I certainly agree that we need to devote additional efforts to our coverage of Black women. Maybe we could specifically include coverage in connection with our other priorities for 2024. In any case, you could make suggestions on our Ideas page, perhaps under "General ideas for improving Women in Red" - or wherever else it seems appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Estimating Gender Completeness in Wikipedia

In response to the above interest, here's one more from January 2024. I should warn you that I found it rather confusing. Published by Cornell University, "Estimating Gender Completeness in Wikipedia" by Hrishikesh Patel et al, it displays female, male and undefined statistics for various classes of person (based on DBpedia) and proposes increased efforts at inclusion of women in some of these. The problem for me is that it is not clear which language versions are addressed, despite the fact that article edits are apparently taken into account. (Could it be that the study is based on Wikidata profiles rather than Wikipedia articles?) The paper concludes by maintaining that, for example, the class of female engineers is only 78% complete compared to 90% for males. It goes on to suggest: "Such methods and results may be useful to the Wikipedia editor community to inform editorial decision-making processes." Maybe others will be able to interpret the findings better than me. The paper can be read here.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Another example from the same table is that the class of female academics is 97.5% complete compared to 97.7% for males. I don't understand what the figures mean either, but I don't believe that they are the number of actual Wikipedia articles divided by an estimate of the number of possible subjects for Wikipedia articles. TSventon (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello folks, I've been working on a short-term paid project to share images of a year of culture that was held in Leeds. There's more on the project here. A couple of women have come up (& there are images of them linked on Wikidata) that I think could be stubs. I am bit stressed out at the moment, so won't be looking at them any time soon:

If you're interested, there are more images in general here. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month: March 2024

See this on meta for an appeal for work on Ukrainian culture in March 2024. If you can find a Ukrainian woman artist to write about this month (especially with initial Q or R!), you might like to add yourself as a participant to swell their numbers. PamD 12:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Their redlists do not list many for English who do not already have articles. Our own redlists are probably a better source of possible candidates.--Ipigott (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting WiR talkpages

Should WIR "subproject" talk pages be redirected here?

In the light of the above discussion, I encourage comments from regular contributors to Women in Red on whether they think discussion on subprojects such as Ideas, New Members, Outreach, Research, Resources and Showcase should be redirected to this page. Pinging Oronsay, Rosiestep, Lajmmoore, CT55555, Victuallers, Cielquiparle, SusunW, Chocmilk03, Penny Richards, Silver seren, PamD, Curbon7 and calling on any others who would like to comment.--Ipigott (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think its fine for them to all redirect, but the main talk page should have something that says "you might have come here from a sub-page" - when I started editing redirects confused me SO MUCH Lajmmoore (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You can use {{central}} for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't say I'd be bothered about it either way. I will find you. Penny Richards (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Lucy sounds just right - if it is not possible and it was not much effort then the sub-project talk pages might say "Welcome, hardly anyone will read a post here - but a post to the main talk page is almost guarenteed to get some attention." Victuallers (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Are there any sub-project talkpages that you think should DEFINITELY NOT redirect here? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be quite a bit of activity on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index. Some of the others seem to be mainly of historical interest. Even if they become redirects, it should still be possible to review their history.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Should WIR "event" talkpages be redirected here?

I've often wondered who keeps an eye on our events' talkpages, especially after the month is over. So putting a message like Victuallers suggests on event talkpages might make sense, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Support, these talk pages are not used from what I've seen — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
As a newbie I was puzzled and disappointed when no one responded to my event Talkpage query. (I only found out about WiR through "events"). I didn't know this Talkpage existed or that it was an option to post here. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What would have helped you more - being redirected here automatically, or having a notice on the event talk page suggesting to post here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you had that experience, Cielquiparle. I'm assuming that others have encountered the same thing. Mea culpa. :( I think adding something like the Victuallers note, in big and bold, would be a process improvement. Sorry it's taken us 8.5 years to figure this out.

  • Draft: Welcome! Hardly anyone will read a post here - but a post to Women in Red's main talk page is almost guaranteed to get some attention. Click here.
(just an example)
(another example) --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
We can certainly make a template (how about below) but personally I think we should give full consideration to the option of just redirecting these talk pages
Link is black of course because it's linking to this same page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Very nice, WomenArtistUpdates!
MSGJ, honestly, I don't know what's better (template or redirect). But certainly see that we need to do one or the other. I'm traveling so other editors are going to need to decide. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we need to give special attention to the Ideas talk page as the Ideas page is itself a kind of talk page. I suggest we include something like "If you wish to comment on our events or suggest improvements to the project, you can do so on the Ideas page itself. Other matters will receive more attention if posted on the Women in Red talk page."--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Should WIR "template" talkpages be redirected here?

All, some, none? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

What's up with Art Feminism?

I know it's only 3 March but even so, I'm surprised that apart from me, up to now there have only been three contributors to Art Feminism. This used to be one of our key opportunities to include women artists, feminists and activists of all kinds who deserve a place on Wikipedia. Maybe we are being distracted by #1day1woman, the alphabet run or education (all of which are proceeding well) but I think we should try to contribute more enthusiastically to an assignment closely related to Women's History Month. Maybe things will pick up as we approach International Women's Day on 8 March.--Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Large number of articles up for WP:AFD

I am astonished at the huge number of articles up for WP:AFD are these all articles that have been created by the project or are they merely a list of ALL articles about women up for deletion? I've created more than 200 hundred articles many on women, none have ever been deleted, what's going wrong? Theroadislong (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure! I've had a number of articles go through AfD myself (and survive) but none of them were bios of women. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The articles listed include any article included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, e.g. Renata Wielgosz is not tagged with Women in Red. Hopefully experienced members of Women in Red are familiar with Wikipedia:Notability, so their articles are less likely to be nominated for deletion TSventon (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you that's encouraging. Theroadislong (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
We don't I think have a comparable list for men, but looking at the inclusive Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People there are more of them, which I think research in the past has confirmed, though there have been claims that women are disproportionately nominated. Since most noms are BLPs or at least modern, finding the right basis for comparison is fiddly. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I have checked the women and people sorting lists and currently I count 50 women listed, 36 males, 1 non binary person and a few non human subjects. This is only a snapshot,so I would hesitate to draw conclusions. TSventon (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
The large number of AfDs may be a result of positive work. There was a drive in February to get rid of any wiki articles with no references at all - by adding a reference! I added refs to over 100 women's articles who were listed here (and got a barnstar). As you will see, there are still about 90 articles that have no refs (and in many cases little hope of finding a reliable ref). I'm guessing that editors who failed to find a reliable ref for "Ms. Joan Doe" may have AfD's her article and this may have caused a bulge in the numbers.... but no reason to think that women should be more than 20% of the afd'd biogs. Victuallers (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Articles about women are likely be more than 20% of the afd'd bios because many afds are started as part of the new pages patrol process. The proportion of new bios about women is more than 20%, which means that the percentage of bios about women has been increasing over time. TSventon (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, plus the % of women bios for people living after say 1950 is also higher than the overall 20%, and as I said above "Since most noms are BLPs or at least modern, finding the right basis for comparison is fiddly". So there's two reasons. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, many of those listed in February had been created quite some time ago. Up to now, far fewer are listed for March. Quite a few AfDs are regularly "saved" but unfortunately many of those I see every day on New women pages for review don't deserve to be kept unless much more time is spent on their improvement and sourcing - if indeed they can be better sourced. It's often difficult to decide whether recent contributors should be helped to improve border-line biographies or whether they should just learn from the negative feedback they receive. Maybe more WIR contributors could look at some of these and try to help newbies along before their work is deleted and they decide Wikipedia is not really worthwhile. --Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

"Find her": some thoughts

I've spent the last hour or so happily working on our Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/301: "Find Her". But if I add all my work to the "Outcomes", it'll get silly. I've looked at 10 women's articles, and for I think 7 of them I've added surname page entries (or created a surname page, or redirected from a unique surname), and/or added redirects from birth name / long name / short name. I could add all seven to the "Outcomes", and then all those for the rest of the month ...

What I've done is to pick a WiR Editathon - I went for number 25, Archaeology - and work through the list: 1 to 10 so far. I'll continue, and it seems a good way to identify a set of articles on women, which we want to ensure get more easily "Found".

I wonder if it would be useful if we encouraged other people to pick an editathon like this, and to work through it? But it would then also make sense if we kept a list of which editathons people were working on.... OK, I've gone ahead and added such a list at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/301. If people think this is a helpful idea, we could perhaps add a note about it within the text about the Editathon? I'm sorry to be offering these thoughts so late, I should have thought it through while the month's projects were under discussion, as this is rather my specialist topic!

Having got a bit carried away in February with the WP:FEB24 non-WiR project of reducing backlogs of unreferenced articles, I'd planned not to do so much this month but to get on with some overdue Real Life stuff, but this 301 project could become equally addictive. (Last month I initially looked for unreferenced British women, using Petscan to intersect "British women" and its subcategories with "All articles lacking sources", but became fed up with high proportion of unsourced nobility, not having a copy of Debretts to hand, so diversified onto British mountains and hills, British rivers, Cumbria, Lancashire, and some random stuff.)

Another thought: I don't know who decides about creating redirects in WP space, but I wonder if we could have a WP:WIR-301 as a concise redirect to WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/301 to drop into edit summaries for this editathon, to raise our profile, just as WP:FEB24 did (though that was also for a league table). PamD 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Having now noticed that the list of suggestions says "feel free to add more", I've now added this idea there. PamD 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I thought from WomenArtistUpdates's explanations, these templates were now being created automatically. Maybe MSGJ could resolve the problem.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean. WP:WIR-301 is not a template, it is proposed to be a redirect to the meetup page. I see no issue with creating that, but probably not worth creating them routinely unless they are actually going to be used in edit summaries — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a great idea. Suggest adding to the main event page where it will be more visible — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
OK, we now have a redirect WP:WIR-301 which people can include in their edit summaries. This editathon is very different from most, in that most work will not be in making new pages with a WiR banner on their talk page, but in tweaking surname pages, creating redirects, etc, so it feels good to have something to include in the edit summary to show other editors what's going on! PamD 16:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm using "Find Her" as a reminder to myself, to add hatnotes to articles of women with very similar names (like Evelyn Wells, Evelyn Wells (politician), and Evelyn K. Wells, or Margaret Bryant and Margaret M. Bryant). I like to think that every effort to clarify who's who is a step in the right direction. Penny Richards (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with images

I'd like to help specifically with helping to find images for existing articles about women, since I've been enjoying finding images recently. Is there any categories/PetScan queries/etc that can help me with that? (Sorry for the very "just look it up" question, my brain's not working well today so I'm having trouble finding things!) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the category for requested images of people: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people. Your question makes me realize that it would be nice to have a subcategory for women, but I don’t have the bandwidth just now to initiate that (I’m not great with categories. Maybe someone else is more adept!) Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware of the "requested photographs of [_]" categories, I've just not been able to find one specifically for women :P There's probably some magic someone good with PetScan can do, but I don't have enough braincells today to figure it out myself. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
By trial and error, I have found Category:Wikipedia requested images of women. TSventon (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red- Geographers

Pardon my ignorance, I'm trying to learn to navigate this Wikiproject but may need some guidance.

My main interests are in geography/geographer related pages, and creating pages for geographers who are significant is something I've been working on. One area on my radar that could be of interest to this Wikiproject is the American Association of Geographers list of current and past presidents. There are many red links in there, and many of them belong to women. As each link belongs to a current or former president of a national organization, they should all pass verification checks for notability for academics based on criteria 6 "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." If anyone is interested in creating a page for any of them, they should be fun projects.

I'm not sure how to add them to the lists here without making a mess though. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello fellow geographer! You can add them to the Women in Red redlist for Geographers, which is crowdsourced. Penny Richards (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

R. Indira

Does anyone have time and inclination to improve R. Indira? This is a BLP about an Indian sociologist. It is poorly sourced and there have been editors whose usernames suggest they have a conflict of interest working on the article. I have requested article protection, but it would be great to have sources to verify the information in the article. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I added some of her publications to the article, and found some independent sources mentioning her. That said, a lot of info in the article is still unsourced. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

IWDay at Edinburgh

I shall be there at 1pm Scottish time tomorrow if you want to join Ewan and people virtually Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Identifying articles with meetup (Women in Red talkpage banner discussion)

Please excuse my ignorance, I've been reading through the project pages and discussions but I can't find if it is possible to request a particular red link to have an article written by one of your contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1CE8:15E4:C0FC:AB22:DDB1:9248 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Our Redlink index provides a wide range of suggestions on women who may deserve Wikipedia articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Ipigott, that didn't answer my question I'm afraid. She exists in your redlink index, I just wonder if it is possible to ask a contributor to write the article about her? There are many women waiting for articles, how are they chosen to be written about? 2A00:23EE:2228:2E6E:6C73:5F43:1802:4027 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are 43 articles from 2016 which have not been identified with any particular meetup. Would it be helpful to work out which meetup they were created/improved under and tag them as such? Or no benefit in this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)7

They should be in {{WIR 2016}}, the precursor to #1day1woman which began in 2017. So, if they are identified as 2016 that is fine (I think). Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, no problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of articles which are not associated with a meetup or even a particular year. Would it be useful to at least add the year that they became tagged with WIR? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Many contributors simply add Women in Red as one of several wikiprojects on an article's talk page. If they prefer not to include additional details, I think they should be allowed to do so. In some cases the tag is added years after the article was created as a result of expansion or later recognition that it is pertinent. Some talk pages even have a combination of a tag without details together with more specific tags added in connection with later events. One thing I have noticed in the banner shell environment is that tags for #1day1women which actually point to the year to which they apply now appear without the year. See, for example, Talk:Jane T. H. Cross (2020) and Talk:Kateryna Boloshkevich (2022). You can of course identify the year (and sometimes the month) by clicking on Show. The same is true of other topics repeated from year to year, for example in connection with writers, Talk:Bernice Love Wiggins (2016) and Talk:Julie Marstrand (2020). This can of course be avoided by placing WiR tags outside the banner shell but the consensus seems to be that they should be placed inside. I don't think it's worth doing anything about this. I just thought I should point it out.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Would you prefer the year to be included on the nested display? If so, just for some events or for all events? I agree it makes sense for the #1day1women initiative because this happens each year — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    For #1day1woman initiative specifically, I agree adding the year to the end of it would be a good idea in the nest view. E.g. "#1day1woman initiative 2022". -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Or in front of it? 2022 #1day1woman initiative, which is better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'd be happy with either. My only reasoning for after was it was a shorter version of the expanded text, i.e. "#1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022". -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    How does it look on Talk:Annie Adams? Now the full name is expanded to "#1day1woman 2017 initiative" which might not be the best order — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
    Some talk pages even have a combination of a tag without details together with more specific tags added That seems particularly useless, as the one without details does not provide any new information. Shall we find and remove these redundant banners? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove them. There are a number of highly experienced editors who consistently tag talk pages with a simple WiR tag. If someone comes along years later and adds a more specific tag in connection with a new event, I don't think it would be correct to delete the original tag. Such tags have been used to compile statistics on the number of WiR-related articles per year. I therefore think they should be maintained.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree completely, and this is exactly what would be regarded as talk page clutter, as the additional banner adds no further information. For example, if you look at Talk:Katharina Paulus you will see one WIR banner inside the shell (unconnected to any event) and one outside the shell (connected to #1day1woman). What should happen, in my opinion, is that the #1day1woman banner replaces the unconnected banner inside the shell. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • MSGJ: I am coming around to your point of view but let's say for example that the basic WiR tag was added when a music specialist was writing an article about an opera singer and then two or three years later someone added a tag in connection with a writers event because it was discovered she had written an autobiography. Would it matter that the original tag disappeared? Maybe not. As talk pages are constantly updated it might be a good idea to reduce clutter. Thanks for all the additional time and effort you are putting into Women in Red matters.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the original tag would add any value at all. I guess ideally someone might convert the original one to one more linked to music, or at least the original year, but if not then removing it is tidier with no loss of information (it's still in the revision history if someone really wanted to dig it out!). -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    I trust that edits like this are entirely uncontroversial and to be encouraged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    That depends somewhat on what's agreed re: questions like the "inside/outside banner shell" conundrum (see below); the various tracking uses of these banners (and if/how these may be negatively impacted by the changes that are apparently taking place); etc.
    Is the goal here to supress functionality of the event connected and other specific banners incrementally such that Women in Red is ultimately left with one primary WIR banner? (The technical part of all this is a tad above my head.)
    I might also add that I don't really mind one way or the other (as long as nobody's workflow is being ignored or useful information lost), I'd just like clear guidance on how the templates should be used going forward so we can get-on with other matters. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's not a conundrum; WikiProject banners go inside the shell. The tracking is being handled. There is no (intentional) suppression of functionality. Nobody's workflow is being ignored. Plus, documentation is being made more clear I believe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
MSGJ, your observation (and this thread) may help illustrate an underlying question of mine—which is: Is there a fundamental difference between the main WikiProject {{WIR}} banner (which simply states that an article is "of interest to the following WikiProjects"), and the "meet-up" or event-specific banners (which transmit additional information)? If they are different, should they be subject to the same rules (e.g., is there a justification for placing the latter outside of the banner shell as per other event-specific banners and informational tags such as {{WPEUR10k}} or {{DYK talk}})? I realise that this question may also impact the broader ongoing discussion about WIR banner usage, "banner blindness", theoretical future research projects, project tracking, etc. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no fundamental difference. They are produced by the same template, just one adds a bit more detail. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
If we focus less on the technical aspects of how they are produced (details which are invisible to an average reader, and probably of little interest to most editors), and think more about what their intended purpose is, then there may actually be a difference. (Bear with me...)
The "basic" WIR tag is like most other WikiProject banners—whereas, the event connected banners give specific information about initiatives that led to the creation of the article. These banners can be cumulative if more than one event generates specific article development activity (e.g., article created in the context of "#1day1woman"; significantly expanded and improved during "Alphabet Run: X, Y, & Z edit-a-thon"; and further refined during some other edit-a-thon). As such, we probably want to keep the iterations somewhere handy—both for the tracking activity that seems to be important to some editors, as well as for the link back to the specific events for general reference.
(For what it's worth, this seems to relate closely to the discussion immediately above too.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your point that these banners are "cumulative", and an article can be tagged with multiple events. Where we differ perhaps, is that I think these are best displayed all together in a single banner rather than scattered across the talk page in different locations. This can now be achieved without losing any data or functionality. (But I have decided to let this matter rest for now and let the project come to that conclusion in its own time.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

#WikiD

Hi! Dropped a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard##wikid when I saw this cross my TL because, as we all know, new edits to BLPs may need eyes. No specific issues with the edits, but Malcolmxl5 thought this project might have some insight. Is there a link anywhere or some background? Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 18:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design.--Ipigott (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Happy International Women's Day 2024!

Happy International Women's Day 2024! So thankful to be here with you! -- Rosiestep (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Still joined at the hip. I'm celebrating 2,500 women biogs today! Victuallers (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Polish WIkipedia articles

Dear friends.

I was wondering whether you have some need of translation about ladies' biographies from Polish Wikipedia? Generally it seems to me that PL and EN Wikipedias differ in what they deem "encyclopedic" and I would not like to questimate which article is okay and needs translation and which do not.

Could you help me, maybe? ;-) I was thinking about, for starters, maybe translating articles about Polish feminist? There is a whole category on Polish Wikipedia, you know? But maybe you would like something different? ;-)

Generally I do not know what I am doing xD Any help? ;-)

Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kaworu1992 and welcome. I would suggest reading something like Ten Simple Rules for Women in Red or Help:Your first article to get an idea of en Wikipedia policies. It is important to check that the subject is Wikipedia:Notable at the start to avoid wasting time on a subject which is not suitable for a article. You can also come here for feedback for your first couple of articles. If you want ideas, Women in Red has redlists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Poland. Not all the subjects in redlists will be notable.
I notice that you have started on an expansion of Gabriela Zych in your sandbox. You should acknowledge in an edit summary when you translate or copy text from en or another Wikipedia, so I have done that for you. TSventon (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just created an article as part of the project

Thread copied here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/301, as this seemed the better home for it. PamD 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I just created Brenda Cardenas Thomae as part of the Women in Red project. She was already listed as Women in Red in different lists, like female lawyers and such.

Do I need to add a tag or anything else on the article wikicode? Or in the Project page? Please advise. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Hallo @TepeyacPilgrim. The page you've created looks great, and is relevant to Women in Red, but not particularly to our Editathon 301, which is specifically about adding links and redirects for articles which already exist. This talk page is the talk page for Editathon 301: the general Women in Red talk page is at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Women in Red.
Women in Red has several Editathons each month (this month being this 301, and also 300: "Art Feminism", and 299: "women with names beginning Q or R". There's an all-year 294 "Education". But there's also the all-encompassing 293: #1day1woman, which welcomes all articles about women and their works, whether you're writing one every day or just one, once.
I'll edit the talk page you've created for you article, to reflect this.
Just one thing I noticed about your article: we don't use a person's given name except in the lead: we use surname only. I'll tidy this up for you. But congratulations on what looks an excellent article, and Welcome to Women in Red. PamD 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293, the page for the "#1day1woman", and proudly add yourself as a participant and Brenda Cardenas Thomae as an "outcome"! Again, welcome! PamD 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added her to Cárdenas (surname), and made redirects from long name Brenda Georgina Cardenas Thomae, short name Brenda Cardenas and unlikely-but-possibly-sought short name Brenda Thomae. All just optional extras which help get the article seen and read. I've also suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Brenda Cárdenas that someone might like to create an article on the notable-looking poet with that name! PamD 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
And I've used RefRenamer to change the unhelpful ref names created by Visual Editor to more human-friendly names, per Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Named references. PamD 18:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

New artwork by women added to wikicommons

My local museum has just uploaded 148 pieces of art by women artists to wikicommons. I'm going to check all the women have their own article and add an image to them. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_Artists_(Images_from_Royal_Albert_Memorial_Museum_and_Art_Gallery)

EEHalli (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through the list. There were 14 artists in total. Four had pages so I've done some linkage and edits. Two have wikidata entries so will be next to work on. Two have wikipedia entries on different women with similar names so may need pages and disambiguation pages. One has no wikidata entry as a person but seems to be lurking in entries about a book. Five have almost nothing. I've set it all up on a trello list and am going to plug away at them now my weekends are officially free for pure hobbies/pastimes. EEHalli (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
They won't all be notable, I think. Olive Wharry is essentially notable as a suffreagette/terrorist rather than an artist. Interestingly, some of her watercolours on Commons show buildings after (German) bomb damage. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
If they are in the collection of the Royal Albert, and also in the collection of other notable museums, then they would have a case for WP:ARTIST (4b) notability. But it would have to be "several notable galleries or museums". Two major national museums might be enough, but the Royal Albert appears to be more local. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It's worth checking if the collection is designated - which means its of national/international importance. For RAMM, the world cultures and the shell collection are designated, but not the art collection (sadly). This is a super cool project @EEHalli - sounds like you've got stuff covered, but please shout if you need/would like help! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for the steers!
I’ve looked for all the names not already on Wikipedia in the ONDB and online Oxford Art reference books, as those would provide some notability. Not much success, if I’m honest. One, Myra Luxmoore, was a conservative suffragist so I’ll be checking my big book of suffragists for a mention. I suspect this will be something to poke away at!
EEHalli (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shafiqah Hudson

No more time to work on this right now, but if anyone is inclined to work on this draft on a recently deceased Black feminist, please have a look. It would be great to be able to send this to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for flagging. It’s in mainspace now and I’ve expanded a little; if anyone were able to add just a bit more, there’s still time to qualify for WP:ITNRD, since the obituary is dated March 5. DYK might also be an option. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Before it goes there, it should definitely have a mention of Digital blackface somewhere in it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added her to Hudson (surname) - perhaps I should claim that edit for WIR-301. PamD 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Brittany Spanos AfD (now Draft:Brittany Spanos)

There is an article on Brittany Spanos that may be of interest to participants in this group. I have done some work on the article in order to help improve it's AfD survival odds. I lack the expertise (and time) to add more than I have. [NB: I have also just read the section on canvassing and believe that this note falls within the definition of WP:APPNOTE. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood the policy.] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Spanos) has just been closed (with four votes for deletion and two against – which hardly seems like a consensus). I was also in the process of improving the article when it was deleted, which seems a bit unsporting too. What, if anything, can be done to rectify what seems like a hasty (and in my view, ill-considered) AfD closure? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The admin who closed the AfD has kindly agreed to move the article to drafts (instead of deleting), so it can now be found here: Draft:Brittany Spanos.
The primary concern seems to be one of notability (please see AfD discussion). As there is significant recent media coverage of events in which the subject was a participant, this concern may be diminishing rapidly. (There's also now quite a bit more in the article that wasn't in there when it was first submitted to AfD, as well as some additional refs on the Talk page.)
Any help developing, redrafting, polishing and publishing an acceptable version of this article would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
One of the problems with this article, Cl3phact0, is that much of the information is based on primary sources, i.e. items closely connected with the subject or articles written by the subject herself. One or two of these could be included in External links but the major details in the article must be based on reliable independent sources. For further background, see our Primer. As you have managed to create quite a number of biographies, including a few BLPs. you should be able to bring this up to standard without too much difficulty. Please let me know when you have improved the article along these lines and I'll see whether it deserves to be moved to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Ipigott.
Honestly, I fell into this rabbit hole inadvertently while trying to help out over at AfD and would love a hand climbing back out! The task seems to be to establish WP:N without mudding the water.
For me, the BBC, WSJ, and NYT refs, plus the bios from NYU (and maybe the University of Melbourne), the Museum of Pop Culture, the Wheeler Centre, and her employers are useful. Perhaps a few others too.
I'm at a loss to determine how much of the rest should be preserved in External links, what ought to be trimmed, etc. As I didn't originate the article, I'm loathe to just eliminate someone else's work without consensus.
Fun Fact: There are over 1,200 redlinks to Spanos (or her work) on English Wikipedia. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand your problem but I also sympathize with those who thought the article should be deleted. When reviewers are confronted with so many sources closely related to the subject, it really looks as if there were no really good secondary sources. Perhaps Dsp13 who created the article would like to collaborate. I would suggest going back to a much shorter version of the article (e.g. that of 6 February) and expand it a little (but not too much) with details from independent sources such as BBC. WSJ and NYT. It could then be moved to mainspace for further expansion. I certainly agree that Spanos deserves an article. Let me know if this seems reasonable.--Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Just hearing a third voice that agrees an article on Spanos would be a plus is a giant leap forward! I was starting to wonder if my judgment was clouded. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
    Even if the pieces on her teaching the Swift class were SIGCOV (they are not), that would still qualify as one event when the requirement for all subjects is SUSTAINED coverage. The article definitely should not be moved to mainspace without the addition of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much everyone for thinking about this. Please don't worry about removing material on the grounds you didn't originate the article! To be honest, I'd appreciate it if I could leave it to others as I feel I may have been too close to this article, and don't seem very well aligned with others in AfD. Dsp13 (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
One concrete suggestion: I think the first reference in the lede needs to be something independent of Spanos. At present it's a page by her employer. Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. More strongly I would suggest moving all current references that are authored by Spanos to elsewhere in the article, like a "selected publications" section, and avoid as much as possible references that are just author profiles on a site she has written for, that don't mention her at all, or that are just publisher sales links. Because of the negative outcome of the AfD, restoring it to article space is going to face extra hurdles and extra scrutiny regarding the independence and depth of coverage of its sources, so it needs to be ready to stand up to that scrutiny. In theory, it's ok to have an article with a mix of in-depth independent sources and of other sources that are less in-depth or less independent but still reliable. In practice, keeping only a much smaller number of the highest quality sources makes draft reviewers happier. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As a first step, I've replicated all of the articles' references on the Talk page with {{Reflist-talk}}. Next step is probably to pare everything per above advice. Working-up the courage...
Also, based on the quantity of her output, I do think there may be a good case for WP:ANYBIO#2 ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") in the case of Spanos. Reaching consensus on the meaning of our own written guidance may be another matter (see discussion here).
-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP Women's History to WP Women's history (lower case h)

In connection with this proposal, I think there might be a danger that WP Women in Red could be changed to Women in red (lower case). I think we need to make sure we can maintain our current capitalization and do not become a victim of unnecessary "standardization".--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024

Bonjour! Starting next week on Saturday 16 March and until the end of the month, I would love others to join the WikiWomen's User Group in supporting the work of Les sans pagEs to celebrate women★ Francophone writers! The aim of this fortnight-long edit-a-thon is to showcase the diversity of Francophone women and non-binary writers from all over the world.

More information, including how to sign up and participate, and suggested articles to work on, is available at the meet-up page. Like our usual Women in Red edit-a-thons, you can contribute as much as you like. You do not have to be any level of experience or any gender or indeed a French-speaker yourself (my own level of French can best be described as "less than basic"). All are welcome.

P.S. I've followed the example of Les sans pagEs in the way the event is set up (with a proper events Dashboard and Fountain tool and so on) but if you'd like to just participate in the usual WiR fashion by listing your name and adding your results on the page, you can absolutely do so. Merci beaucoup, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Chocmilk03: I am certainly prepared to create more articles about French-speaking women and their works but I am not particularly interested in "competing", using the dashboard or listing my results. I've shown my interest by adding my name to their EN Wikipedia page. I could mark them sans pagEs on "1day1woman" or wherever.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ipigott, sounds good to me! I could be wrong but I'd understood from Les sans pagEs that they're not treating it as a competition either; the Dashboard and fountain tool are just ways to track contributions. I'm happy if people are inspired to work on Francophone women writers and that's what matters. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Portland, Oregon: March 10

On Sunday, March 10, 2024, the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve articles about Jewish women artists. More info:

Sharing in case anyone is interested in participating remotely.

Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Eli185.2 might be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Eli185.2 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Leila Atouna

Atouna was a Moroccan actress and dancer in 1930's who might be notable but it needs better sourcing and NPOV cleanup if anyone's interested. Here's her Wikidata entry. I tagged as a promising draft so it will not be deleted for at least a year. S0091 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Recently elected County Supervisor, Rebecca Hermosillo

Hi friends! I just created a talk page (not quite a stub) for the recently elected District 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Rebecca_Hermosillo. I want to maintain NPOV, but I do know Rebecca and can access her and her team. She is the first Latinx woman elected to this county's board, so it's a bit of history in the making. I've included some links to good coverage from local media, but how else could I help at this point? I'll ask her team if they have a good CC or PD photo we can use. Anything else I can? I'm a bit nervous about creating the wrong template, given she won't actually be in office until January 2025. I strongly believe she covers notability requirements given the coverage of the race. Thanks! JayWalsh (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, membership of "District 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors" doesn't sound notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It definitely isn't enough by itself to pass WP:NPOL. To make sure that an article is kept you would need to find significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources, separate from routine election coverage of her run for the board of sups. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Not to play the 'but this article exists' side of things, but there's a thorough article about this other elected member of the Sonoma_County_Board_of_Supervisors, Chris_Coursey, whose notability appears to be specifically tied to office. It's a county of nearly 500K people. I realize this coverage is mostly election related, but it was a significant topic in the county. JayWalsh (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
He was "the mayor of Santa Rosa, California from December 6, 2016 to December 18, 2018", which I expect helped a lot. Personally, I think US local politicians get a very soft ride on notability here.... Coursey's article predates the BoS role (elected 2020) - created in 2017 with the edit summary "I created a page for the mayor of Santa Rosa. If anything does not seem up to standard, go ahead and change the page up." Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Glitch in red list

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Tunisia has a first column only showing Qnumbers, not names. Could someone who knows about these things perhaps fix it, or ask the right other person to do so? Thanks.

I was looking ahead of the 19-30 March Francophone women writers project, thinking I might find a woman with a Q or R name to work on! PamD 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed this is now happening with a number of redlists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Algeria, I think we need a Wikidata expert to look into it. Perhaos Gamaliel?--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
In connection with the Francophone project, there's also Cameroon, Luxembourg and Romania.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
PamD, the problem seems recent so you could probably look at the 26 January version of the Tunisia list. In the Algeria list the problem occurs between 2 February and 3 March and it may be possible to date the problem more exactly by looking at other lists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Kazakhstan. TSventon (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The problem may be solved. I have clicked Update the list now and the Tunisia and Algeria lists have got names again. A discussion at d:User talk:Magnus Manske#Labels gone in Listeriabot? may be relevant. TSventon (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, TSventon. Updating does the trick. PamD: All those for the Francophone project are now back to normal.--Ipigott (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I have checked all the nationality redlists and updated a few. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Marnia Lazreg up for deletion

I made a quick stub for Marnia Lazreg after reading her NY Times obit. The article was quickly nominated for deletion. I am very sure she meets notability requirements. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added some Wikilinks and a link to a preexisting Wikidata item. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mary E. Chapin

So yesterday I was reviewing a FA nomination and a question came up regarding the Quincy Seminary. Turns out it was the Quincy Female Seminary and was run by two sisters, Mary E. and Carolyn Chapin and was commonly called Miss Chapin's School or Misses Chapins' Private School. Mary is this woman, from East Bloomfield, Ontario County, New York and the sisters are likely the Mary and Caroline who attended the Ontario Female Seminary. According to the obit I found she started the prep school that became the University of Kansas in 1864 and began holding classes in 1865. More and more. Prior to Kansas, the sisters worked at the Milwaukee Female College and offered both normal and collegiate prep courses. After Kansas they went to Quincy, Illinois and after that to Chicago. If the info on find a grave is correct, and this genealogy indicates it may well be, the sisters' dad was well-known for apple varieties and they are related to Mary Chapin Carpenter. I'm hip deep in the review and in the middle of writing another article, but they would be great candidates for our focus on Education. I wanted to put it here in case anyone is interested and before I forget the sources I dug out while doing the FA review on one of her students. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sheree Mack

This poet gets a red link in Simon Armitage, appearing in an event in his "Poet Laureate's Library Tour". An IP expanded on that mention with "despite controversy over the latter's history of plagiarism.", with four solid sources (from 2015-2017). I've removed it from the Armitage article as undue weight. She does seem to be a currently well-respected poet - as shown by her inclusion in Armitage's event, and her position as writer-in-residence to Northumbria National Park[2][3]etc - so someone might like to write an article about her, with a careful mention of that past controversy. (And of course if you leave it until April she'll match the "S-T" section of our Alphabet Run". PamD 20:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_140&oldid=1221218626"