Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Please add data to Wikidata when creating articles

Also, please take a look at this list, which lists the 1000 articles about women on English Wikipedia most recently added to Wikidata: User:Jane023/Women in Red, now blue on some Wikipedia. If you can find the time, please add some data to the ones lacking data. Thanks. Jane (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Jane023, this is fantastic! Can we make a copy of it for use by WiR... maybe something like: WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Newest articles on some Wikipedia? Updating the entries is definitely something that some of us will want to do. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Glad you like it! I was thinking of maybe setting these up per occupation, but that was before I saw that many were missing occupations. I can't make a list of the most recently created 1000 q numbers set to female because it times out (and I know from experience that many are created each day that don't link to any Wikipedia). When items are created about women without a sitelink they are generally well-filled with data and interlink to other items. The problems are the "single-sitelink" items, some of which may be mistakenly created and will need to be merged. So yes, I think we should create a subpage and setup something per area of interest - writers/sportswomen/actor-singers or something like that? Jane (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
1 for writers! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
OK I will make a subpage for writers. Meanwhile I updated the above list to only show the 1000 most recently created women items without any occupation - if there are any writers you recognize, fill in the occupation. Jane (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Newest items about women writers from some language Wikipedia. Jane (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Jane023: I have added Wikidata details to about 35 of your first list but I see it has taken me almost two and a half hours. It really looks to me as if most of the work could be automated. I'm surprised that details from the infoboxes are not being scanned, especially for the host of sportswomen. Could this be because the WiR metrics bot is overriding other processes? If so, we should do something about it. Any ideas, Rosiestep?--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
.::::Ipigott, good point, and good question. I'm trying to learn as quick as I can but it's slow going for me. I'll be at several Wikidata meetups and trainings in the next 3 weeks (Smithsonian, WikiConference North America, Wikimania) and will try to be a sponge.
Jane023, thanks for the writers' list. As soon as I saw the articles I had created, bereft of key info, I blushed; I'll do better going forward. But as Ipigott mentions, it takes time to populate the fields in Wikidata, which is why, I guess, we're inclined to ignore that task. I know the direction that the community is headed towards is to populate the Wikidata fields and they will transclude into an infobox (Template talk:Infobox person/Wikidata) vs. populate an infobox which would transclude into Wikidata. The trick is to find a way to make this happen in a more automated way, perhaps from categories? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I think you need to be a bit more than a sponge. The whole tie up with Wikidata is a major issue. Perhaps you could mention the problem in your talks and discussions in the hope that action will be taken.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes good points, and welcome to my world! Try not to go through the whole list as that will only get you down. Do 1-5 a day or week and the backlog will diminish, I assure you. I am constantly doing merges and adding data for paintings, and because I have done it so often I am getting pretty efficient at it and often use quick statements. Theoretically, the problem will get easier over time. I noticed that the writers list looks way more filled than the other occupations, so it looks like someone has been going through those. My main concern is not items from English Wikipedia, but those from Wikipedias that I can't even read, like Farsi and Chinese. I am so well versed in article markup now that I can actually add data for paintings for most Euro-languages, especially if there is an image for the painting from a museum that has an english-language interface on their website. Best, Jane (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jane023 as I don't have the bandwidth or expertise to do more. I appreciate that you are the Women in Red Wikidata expert, and that we can lean on you in this regard.
These links may interest some folks:
Rosiestep: These are all very interesting but I'm still not clear about the flow from Wikipedia infoboxes into Wikidata. There seem to be conflicting views. For creating and adding info to Wikidata while remaining on Wikipedia, I highly recommend the WE-Framework gadget. You should install it as part of your Wikipedia interface. I think you'll find it saves you a lot of time and trouble.--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
That gadget is exactly what I needed, thank you. I was telling Jane023 on my talk page that I hate filling in forms (something my real life requires far too much of) and can't justify doing it in my limited leisure, but the gadget might make it not such a chore. I still won't get a great thrill from completing it, but if I don't need to leave enwiki, I'm more likely to try and remember, at least sometimes. Penny Richards (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Ipigott, I owe you, big time. Didn't even know such a gadget existed. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ipigott: It sounds a useful gadget, but I can't work out how to " install it as part of [my] Wikipedia interface"! I don't seem to have a meta:Special:MyPage/global.js. I think I've got a .js somewhere but no idea where. And it's not listed, as far as I can see, among the gadgets section of "Preferences". Any ideas? PamD 16:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm terrible at explaining this stuff, but for me it worked like this: just click the link for the meta page; it will say you don't have a page like that, but you can start one. Do that. Then paste in the little bit of code for the gadget, and save. If it worked, you'll have a bunch of extra links under "tools" in the leftside column when you're on Wikipedia. Since I mostly do bios, I use the WEF:Person link. Penny Richards (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

South African event on "Her Story" on 29 July

Perhaps we can help with the articles created during the #HerStory event. See here for further details.--Ipigott (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.


(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

Introducing...
WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage
Facilitated by Women in Red
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages too

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • We are going to try a new initiative, starting August 1st: #1day1woman. It's modeled after WMAR's "One Day One Architect" campaign (cc: Jaluj) of writing an article a day (community effort, I think) on an architect; and #1lib1ref, a campaign for librarians to add references to Wikipedia articles. The ideas behind #1day1woman are:
  1. Goal for WiR to create at least 1 article every day which fits into the WiR scope (women's biographies, women's works, women's issues). That said, individual editors can have individual goals if so inclined.
  2. Historically, if you wrote an article within the WiR scope but it didn't't fit into the monthly focuses there was no WiR page to note it. Now there is!
  3. Hashtag social media campaign from your Twitter, FB, Tumblr, etc. accounts.
These are just preliminary ideas. Add your ideas/comments to the mix! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that some of our participants only take part in the editathons which cover their particular field of interest, for example classical music, architecture, politics or sports. Some of them are members and appear on our main mailing list, some are not but participate regularly when we have something that fits their interests. I think we should therefore distribute this invitation as widely as possible. I'll try to make a start by sending it out to pertinent WikiProjects and to those on out international mailing list. But if anyone reading this page is aware of others who may be attracted by this approach, please also send them an invitation. I would also suggest that from the beginning of August, we look carefully at who is creating articles about women outside our editathon priorities and draw their attention to the new initiative, encouraging them to add their names to the list of participants and possibly to membership of WiR. I think in that way we might be able to create wider interest in our efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Two articles from a new WiR member at AfD

I see two articles from a new WiR member, Afifa Afrin from Bangladesh, are at AfD. Both articles, Alina Begum and Nazia Akhter Juthi, are about badminton champions. They seem fine to me but I'm no expert on sports.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a flawed nomination since both entries appear to meet the notability requirements for badminton athletes. --Big_iron (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The nominator seems to have taken a large number of articles to AfD in a very short space of time (about 49 in 35 minutes) (but male as well as female players). PamD 14:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance on UK women journalist articles.

Hi, please could the kind members tell me if there are any good tricks for finding sources on prolific journalists, such as User:Mabalu/Susannah Frankel, where the majority of search results are actually for their own articles/work? I started the article, thinking there would be plenty of accessible sources, but then discovered that apart from a WWD article I couldn't source any solidly "reliable source" information on her. Given her long running, very high profile career, this surprises me. To me, she is obviously notable, but I am having trouble proving it per the BLP rules for biographies of living people.

I have been steadily chipping away at the list of redlinks on the Dress of the Year page - there are several other journalists there who I know have had very long, notable, successful careers, but it is so difficult to show this in their articles. Even most of the ones I have managed to put together mainspace articles on, like Meredith Etherington-Smith and Moira Keenan, I feel really uneasy that they may be at risk of deletion if a deletionist spots them, due to the limited, very scraped-together sources. But it seems so obvious to me that at the time, these were very highly regarded journalists in their field, who were asked to make an expert, knowledgeable choice for posterity, and I feel that needs to be recognised. Any assistance would be deeply appreciated. Thank you so much, Mabalu (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Googling Susannah Frankel, I see what you mean - lots of hits, all by her rather than about. But I think writing books contributes usefully to notability, especially if they get reviewed: Visionaries must have had some reviews in press, but too early to be easily findable online. Worth pursuing. I've taken the liberty of adding 3 books to your draft - just delete if you don't like. PamD 13:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
And the very fact of being invited to choose that "Dress of the Year" seems to fit the first part of the first bullet of WP:JOURNALIST (which redirects to the more general "Creative professionals"): The person is regarded as an important figure .... I'd cite that in any deletion discussion for these writers. PamD 13:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Oddly the Fashion Museum website doesn't seem to have a section specifically about "Dress of the Year", but this 2016 piece has the quote Each year, the Fashion Museum invites a top name from the fashion industry to select an outfit .... Looks useful perhaps! PamD 13:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you PamD! It is much appreciated. I feel a bit more confident now that I can fight in the corner of these journalists should their articles be threatened in any way. Mabalu (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Try going at it from the other people in their lives, for example [1] indicates Keenan was raised in India. I also found an obit in The Times, but they are subscription. I can add info from the obit. Her husband was John Ogden and her parents Brigadier and Mrs. John Keenan. I'll look at the other one in a minute. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Great tips! For me with Frankel, the key I needed was finding out that she had been at BLITZ, which enabled me to track down a lot more info and nods outside her own articles. I hadn't realised that she was mentioned/cited in so many other articles, but rarely linked to... putting that right now! Mabalu (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Times archive 1785-2010 is available to all (or most?) UK public library subscribers, along with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Newsbank (UK newspapers, regional and national, lasat 25 or so years), British Library Newspapers 1730 - 1950 (national and regional) and various other treasures. If you haven't yet got access, ask at your local library or check its website. You're paying for this through your Council Tax, so make use of it! PamD 15:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
PamD That's great info to know, I had no idea everyone could access those sources in the UK. I'm in Mexico, so it doesn't help me *sigh*, but I do have a subscription to Gale which helps. Mabalu Several of WiR editors compiled Wikipedia:Creating biographies on women, which may help with ideas. Backing in through other people and employers is a good way. There is no one way to do it. Both of them are looking pretty solid. I would suggest you beef up the lede. It does not need to be cited, as it is just a summary of citations already shown in your text. But major accomplishments that meet notability standards ...Etherington-Smith is editor-in-chief, Keenan's work in her regular column "Growing Point" was highly regarded by social services experts, etc., will help ensure that they don't become targets. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@SusunW, Mabalu, and PamD: I learned a lot from this thread. I avoid writing about journalists just for the exact problems that you all ran into. It's good to learn about or be reminded of different techniques for ferreting out information. :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've got any tips but there may be safety in numbers – the more that articles of this kind get established, the more likely they are to be accepted. Here's another woman journalist at risk currently: Holly Brockwell. Note her prominence in the #MyPillStory campaign... Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson my question to you would be, if she is prominent for her campaign to be sterilized bringing the question of whether doctors have the right to make choices concerning women's bodies contrary to the woman's own wishes (and I agree that is where her notability lies), why is that not in the lede? Why is the Mail being used as a source rather than more RS? [2], [3], [4], [5] SusunW (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: There seem to be a lot of potential red links: Gadgette, SheSays Award, The Drum (magazine). Any of these articles would help make her article seem more solid - especially in terms of her "Woman of the Year" award. PamD 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Another search trick I've found that helped a lot with Susannah Frankel was, I did Google searches for "Susannah Frankel is", "Susannah Frankel was" and "Susannah Frankel has" - and similar. Because the phrases were in quotes, I pulled up sources that actually discussed/mentioned her, rather than things she had written. This should work with other prolific journalists and writers. Mabalu (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu, that is a GREAT trick. Had not thought to do that. I just tried it on an academic that I have had a similar problem with, sources by her, not about her. It works :) I will add it to the essay! If you run across other tips, please let us know. SusunW (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
So glad it works! I've added Sarajane Hoare and Sandra Boler now, and really appreciate all the help with Moira Keenan. Thank you! Probably not going to be able to edit for a few days now, but feeling very pleased with the last few days of creating articles. Mabalu (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Up coming events and projects

Please remember to inform the New Page Reviewers on their page at WT:NPR of anything that may cause an influx of pages that might be tagged for deletion if they are created in mainspace. Forewarned is forearmed and prevention is better than cure. If we know what to expect, we can help rather than bite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung for trying to assist us. As you probably know, WiR runs online editathons every month for the whole month. I've posted our August activities on WT:NPR. If you think it's a good idea, we can include WT:NPR on our mass messaging list (and you personally too if you wish). In this way, they will receive invitations from us at least once a month. We also post information about external events on our main WiR page and on this talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung - There will be two edit-a-thons occurring in Montreal at McGill University, on Wednesday, 9 August, during WikiConference North America. I think many of the attendees will be seasoned editors, but it's quite possible that university staff, etc. might want to learn how to edit. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Missing persons

Today I was invited to an event in support of the International Day of the Disappeared which is coming up on 30th August. As we deal in missing persons of another kind, this day looks to be a good occasion for project activity. You can read more about the issue at places like the Red Cross. So how about it? Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, we are discussing having an editathon on disapeared, detained, imprisoned women in January. [6] SusunW (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Female aviators

Hi! I'm trying to empty the redlinks page here. However, I just noticed that they're all foreign language, and some (such as Louise de Coligny-Châtillon's article) already exists on the French Wikipedia. I was wondering if anyone could help translate or secure translation of the French language articles? This would definitely make things a lot easier as far as emptying goes! @Rob talk 09:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

RobBertholf all Wikidata lists are going to have high foreign language content, as they are pulled from other Wikis for the most part. I don't speak French (or any other language except survival Spanish though I read several), but I write lots of articles on women from other Wikis. Here's what I do. I pull up the article and translate it and I pull up the sources cited on it. If the sources don't fit English WP guidelines (and often the sources do not fit our criteria or are non-existent because other Wikis have other requirements) I search for sources. Often, I find it easier to write the article from scratch rather than translate it from the other WP, as the source material doesn't match the content. I run sources through two different translator programs, say google translate and bing translate (or for Dutch Systranet), and see if I can get the gist of the info. I then write the article in draft and have someone review it if I have doubts. There are several polyglots who are members of the project and are very helpful and wonderful collaborators. If someone who speaks French doesn't answer you, ping me and I can probably assist in finding someone to help you. Good luck with the redlist and thanks! Clearing a whole list would be awesome! SusunW (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Another way you could try to beef up that first revision and avoid speedy deletion would be to add an expansion request template. I wonder if it would be possible to create redlink lists by language-to-be-translated-from to assist editors with a second language in finding articles to translate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
RobBertholf: I see you've created an English one-liner on Louise de Coligny-Châtillon although the French version is much longer. I can try to help you along with that one sooner or later although as French is widely understood, it may be more useful if I work on Dagny Berger (Norwegian), Dolors Vives Rodon (Catalan), Marina Știrbei (Romanian), Elida Carlés (Spanish), Maria Teresa Cassini (Italian) and Luisa Elena Contreras Mattera (Spanish) if they prove to be sufficiently notable for the EN wiki. I hope I can also find English-language sources on them. I'll try to make a start on Dagny Berger today.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
RobBertholf: I've looked into Louise de Coligny-Châtillon quite carefully and am afraid to say she does not seem notable enough in her own right for the EN wiki. I can find very little on her achievements as an aviator, her greatest claim to fame being that she was one of Apollinaire's lovers. Most of what is in the French article could therefore be more appropriately used for expanding Guillaume Apollinaire. I have however made a start on Dagny Berger and Dolors Vives Rodon. If you are interested in aviators, you are of course welcome to expand them. I'll continue with the other names I mentioned as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Olof the Eskimo Lady

  • "Olof the Eskimo Lady: A Biography of an Icelandic Dwarf in America". University of Michigan Press.
I ran across this just now while doing research on something else. It's different. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Orangemoody

We are currently investigating several large new sockfarms operating with the same MO as Orangemoody. Some of the characteristics are:

Creating or selecting articles about notable women
Using socks or IP to introduce highly defamatory content in them.
Demanding money to remove it. (extortion)

or

Creating or selecting articles about notable women
Offering 'professional services' to prevent the articles being taken down. (protection racket)

Please report anything suspicious. We will look into it thoroughly at SPI and COI. Even if it turns out to be a false positive all occurences need to be examined. Investigations are carried out as discretely as possible.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You can report it directly on SPI, COIN, or to any admin working on those issues. Or even by email. However, as soon as they realise they are being investigated they try to cover their tracks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • As it happens, I was just contemplating reporting an editor at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. But the instructions there say that "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline." So, my impression is that it is quite dangerous to get involved in such issues. Raising the matter on someone's talk page is likely to result in cross words and conflict. And if you don't report the matter in the right way, you could find yourself being blocked for harassment. So, I decided to play it safe and do nothing. Perhaps Kudpung can provide some links to examples showing best practice. Andrew D. (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Kudpung, I assume the content the socks are adding is not sourced, correct? If we see such additions, we can revert the information and then report such behavior to you...or should we just try to report via email so that they don't try to cover their tracks? Thanks for clarifying! Many of us are new to dealing with Socks. I've had to explain what socks were to some editors. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson and Megalibrarygirl: COI is one thing and sockpuppetry is another. However, one often leads to the the other, but where most socks have a COI, many editors with a COI are not socks and may not even be aware that they are breaking the rules. The concerns with Orangemoody-style issues are so serious that we must investigate anything suspicious even if it turns out to be a false positive. One of the problems is that the MO is so insidious that to the naked eye the articles all look immaculate and well sourced. Yes, people, especially the guilty ones, will protest their innocence very loudly so it would be better to let me or one of the other admins who is working at COIN know first in order to avoid upsetting anyone. That said, I have no official capacity - none of us has - but you can be sure anything will be handled with the strictest discretion until there is enough evidence to go public with a name on the noticeboards. We are not bound by policy to inform people that they are under investigation for sockpuppetry, it's not the same as ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC review for Louise Bryant

If anyone here would be interested in reviewing Louise Bryant for FA, I'd really appreciate it. The process is going well, but only two reviewers of content have weighed in so far, and I assume that at least three will be needed. The review page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louise Bryant/archive1. Much obliged. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a looksie when I get a chance! @Rob talk 08:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Finetooth I have no earthly idea how to do a FA review. Reading through the article it seems to meet the FA criteria you posted and other than a few minor changes I would make that boil down to personal style preferences it seems fine. My one question would be why you state "Bryant was born Anna Louise Mohan"? It seems awkward. Anna Louise Mohan was born is straight-forward and factual. She wasn't Bryant, when she was born and you have adequately explained when and how she became Bryant later in the text. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
SusunW, RobBertholf Thanks to you both. Reviewing at FAC is time-consuming, and there's a learning curve for new reviewers. It's a big ask, and I thank you for even considering my request. I didn't mention earlier that the reviewing instructions are at WP:FAC under "Supporting and opposing". Most of the formatting for the review itself can be sussed out by looking at what others have done with heads, indenting, signing, and so on, and then just imitating. I took your advice, SusunW, and dropped "Bryant" from the sentence you mention. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Finetooth I have one other correction, though it took me a while to ferret it out. Gwen Le Gallienne was not Richard Le Gallienne's daughter, rather his step-daughter. She was actually the daughter of the sculptor Roland Hinton Perry. Not exactly sure when she started using Gallienne's surname. [7], [8], [9], [10] SusunW (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably after Gallienne married her mother in 1911? [11] SusunW (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
SusunW Thank you. It's highly unlikely that I would have found that on my own. I have changed the text to say "stepdaughter" instead of "daughter" and added a note with an RS, the Associated Press article, explaining the change. Finetooth (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: WP:NFOOTY guideline

A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline here: RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline. Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi,

Sorry it takes a bit long to get it back to you! So following our previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations. You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username Recent Edits within Women Recent Edits in Wikipedia First Edit Date Most Recent Edit Date
BH13 (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-07-26 2017-07-26
Nickm57 (talk · contribs) 28 1467 2006-03-24 2017-08-03
Anna Roy (talk · contribs) 53 23375 2009-02-22 2017-07-29
Daviddaniel37 (talk · contribs) 17 1209 2006-02-08 2017-07-26
Unibond (talk · contribs) 26 2323 2008-05-23 2017-08-03
Almanacer (talk · contribs) 14 1380 2006-06-20 2017-08-01
Myownworst (talk · contribs) 11 1736 2009-11-29 2017-08-01
Monado (talk · contribs) 23 2981 2005-04-09 2017-07-30

Bobo.03 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott: did you see this? SusunW (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03 This is cool. How is this list generated, e.g. automatically? Maybe we could coordinate something like, if the editor has at least "X" amount of "Recent Edits within Women", we'll put an "Invite" on their talkpage for this month's editathons, unless they are on the opt-out list. And we'll add them to the Outreach list so they get future Invites automatically. If this is agreeable, we need someone to volunteer to do it.
But also consider: (a) Does this tool differentiate what types of edits they've made, e.g. did they add silly templates, vs. appropriate content? (b) We should be cognizant that there are lots of editors who work on "content gender gap" articles (check out our Metrics page!); who want to "stay under the radar"; don't want to be a "Member" of any wikiproject; and/or don't add their name on our editathon pages because they fear this, that, or the other. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03, Ipigott, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, and Victuallers: ... which got me thinking... Maybe we should be going through our Metrics page and add the editors who created all those articles to our Outreach list? Could a bot do that? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep Yeh, this list is generated automatically by the system I built. Basically, the system will find the editors who were active in the past week, and look into their edit history in the past. With some algorithmic consideration, the system will generate the list. For instance, right now it considers editors as candidates if they've edited lots of articles within your scope. Some other ideas we have: if they've edited talk pages of some of your existing members, and if they've edited articles on topics relevant to your project. Also, we will put some editor who just registered Wikipedia in the last couple days and made their very first couple edits on a project article on the list. So what do you think?
In terms of how to invite those new editors, we also want to hear some ideas from you. Would you be interested in an automated approach, for example, the system inviting the most suitable candidates each week? A semi-automated approach, for example, a single "button" to generate a invitation to a candidate? Or would you prefer to manage the invitation process totally manually?
Regarding your questions, the system currently only count if the editor makes an edit on the article page. It only ignores reverts now, but not yet "appropriate content". We are happy to hear your suggestions to improve the current system. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Bobo.03: I'm glad to see your work is beginning to provide some results. At this stage, I think it would be more appropriate if those of us working on WiR approached editors who might be interested in joining our project. First of all, the very fact that you have mentioned them in your list here will draw their attention to our discussion and to WiR. But I think we need to look more closely to what they have actually been doing, especially as WiR is essentially about creating new articles (although we welcome improvements to existing articles too). To take those you have listed, here are a few comments:
BH13: New editor, made one short edit to an article created in 2005. Not worth inviting.
Nickm57: Editor since 2006. Has created a few articles on Australian actresses but only one this year. Several recent edits to existing articles on Australian actors and actresses.
Anna Roy: Editor since 2009. Interested in poetry and poets. Has not created any articles since 2013. Short recent edits to articles about poets, mainly male. Probably aware of WiR. Was invited to WikiProject Women writers in 2014 but did not join.
Daviddaniel37. Editor since 2006. Has not created any articles. Very few edits on women. Probably not interested in WiR.
Unibond. Has created 16 articles since 2008, none about women. Probably not interested in WiR.
Almanacer. Since 2006, has created only one article (in 2013). Recent edits show no particular interest in women. Probably not interested in WiR.
Myownworst. Has not created any articles since joining in 2009. No particular interest in women. Probably not interested in WiR.
Monado. Has created 10 articles since joining in 2005 but none since 2012. Recent edits show no particular interest in women. Probably not interested in WiR.
So from the above, to answer Rosiestep's query, I certainly don't think these names should be added to our mailing lists. The only ones who might be interested in WiR are Nickm57 and Anna Roy. They'll see these pings and can respond if they wish.
I think Bobo's approach will need further sophistication if it is to reveal names of real interest to our project.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Bobo.03: Our project's scope is new article creation (not article improvement, though, of course, that occurs, too) of (a) women's biographies, (b) women's works, (c) women's issues. There's a bot which generates our monthly Metrics lists. The list shows the articles which editors created each month within the scope of our wikiproject. What would be helpful for recruitment is if your tool could use the Metrics lists, and provide a table, by (a) month (2017 only; it would not be useful to go further back), with (b) who created these articles (editors' names) and (c) how many articles did each editor create each month. The people who created the articles which appear on our Metrics lists are the people who are participating in our work. Some of them are Members, and some aren't. Our recruitment should concentrate on the ones who are (a) aren't Members and (b) aren't already known to us as active contributors. If you can auto-generate such a list, we could review the data and make some decisions regarding recruitment strategy. For example, if an editor created only 1 article within our scope since January 1st, and it's a 1 sentence stub, we wouldn't automatically want to invite that person to Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Another group we might want to focus our recruitment efforts on are Category:Female Wikipedians if they have edited within the last 30 days.
  • Please let me know if this makes sense and if you have any questions. And thank you for your interest in helping us. Much appreciated! Will you be attending Wikimania? If yes, I'd like to meet you and talk further about this. If you aren't attending Wikimania, would you have time for a chat via Google Hangout on Monday, Wednesday, or Thursday this week as it might be interesting to include your research in the Women in Red presentation at Wikimania which will occur 7 days from now. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be a great idea to include our work into your presentation, @Rosiestep:. I'd be happy to talk more about it via a Hangout session! One of my co-advisors, Dr. Haiyi Zhu, will also join the meeting. How about Thursday? What times work for you? I am not sure about the convention to set up a meeting through Wikipedia, but here is my email: [email protected]. I think we can start from there. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Bobo.03 - I sent you an email. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep. Invitation sent. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting to see this list can be generated! To offer a different perspective, I wouldn't discount editors interest based on their past edits. Personally I didn't create any articles about women until I found out about this project. I think there is an argument that there is all the more reason to contact editors whose history shows that they don't create many/any articles about women. Some editors may not realize there is a need for new articles on women or they may not know where to look for ideas on who to write about. Introducing editors to our project may inspire them to start. Knope7 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was our original purpose, and how traditional recommendation systems work in general - recommend stuff based on one's previous browsing/editing records. WIR in this case is a bit different. We might be able to create customized recommendations for WIR. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

1800s reviews of music performances

I started the article on the concertina performer Marie Lachenal. This source lists snippets of reviews of her performances and I'm just seeing if anyone could dig up those sources. Such as if someone had a subscription to old newspaper archives. SL93 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with access to the British Library Newspaper online service (through academe or by being a member of a UK public library) can find a lot: I searched on "Lachenal" from 1 Jan 1865 to 1938 and the first hit might even contradict the existing source as it's The Era (London, England), Sunday, January 29, 1865 and says "The Mesdames Lachenal gave their pleasing performances on the concertina..." (though it depends which sisters were playing I suppose). I can't summon up much enthusiasm - lots of Real Life stuff to do today so shouldn't be playing on Wikipedia - but someone in UK might like to run with it. And if you're in the UK and haven't (a) joined your local public library and then (b) explored its online offerings ... you're missing out on wonderful resources you've paid for in your Council Tax! Have fun. (Though, looking at more of the hits, quite a few seem to be red herrings, with no highlighted "Lachenal" on the page image...) PamD 07:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
PamD: Lucky you, living in the UK. Unfortunately, as a Brit living abroad, I am denied access.--Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott I'm sure there are plenty of compensations for living in Denmark and Luxembourg! PamD 17:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
PamD: Yes, indeed, there certainly are many advantages in both countries. Denmark has excellent public library services but I'm afraid I can't say the same about Luxembourg. I can access many Danish online sources on the basis of Danish residency. I also take advantage of their ILL services whenever I can. Nevertheless, I think it's a pity the British public library network is not more inclusive in regard to British citizens who are ex-pats. But it's great that people like you are ready to use their resources to make information more widely available via Wikipedia. BTW, I'm impressed to see that you've created over 1,400 articles since you began with Mary Robinson (Maid of Buttermere) in May 2007, and that recently you have been concentrating increasingly on women's biographies. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

English male musicians category, but no female (or women) musicians category?

When trying to add a gender specific category to the Marie Lachenal article, I noticed that there isn't even one of them for English female (or women) musicians. I do see this and it's subcategories - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_male_musicians. I have never actually seen a male specific category till now. Just sharing this oddness. SL93 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't looking hard enough. My question is if I created a category for female musicians, could it just start with one article? I would of course need to figure out how to create a category. SL93 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
SL93: There are in fact lots of categories on female musicians, both by instrument, etc., and by nationality. While English female musicians does not exist, there is Category:British female musicians. Personally, I think British is more suitable than English, Scottish, Welsh, but I suppose these could be made subcategories of British. There are hundreds of categories on Wikipedia with only one entry. I agree that Category:English male musicians is strange, ditto Category:English male composers and Category:English male singers (although we do have Category:English female singers. Ser Amantio di Nicolao may like to comment on this.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that most of these sort of ...male... categories were created by "what about the men" activists thinking that symmetry = equality and ignoring the history of repression that makes the fact that women did these things noteworthy in a way that the fact that men did them is not. But perhaps I don't have enough good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The majority, I believe, were created as a response to certain "female" categories being described in the media as ghettoisation. Personally I prefer the original WP concept of not allowing cats to be split by gender, which was defeated first by the category American women senators, if I remember correctly. It makes far more sense to have overarching gender categories and a good intersection mechanism. However we are where we are.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
Yes, a combination of avoiding the accusations of ghettoisation, after the huge row & media storm over the American novelists, which I'm surprised David doesn't remember, and the usual obsessive itch to create new categories which affects some editors in that area. The English/British thing used to be mainly driven by Scottish nationalist editors like User:Mais oui!, and is another largely useless nuisance. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I remember the fuss over ghettoisation but the solution to that is non-diffusing categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well personally I'm very happy to leave it there, with in many cases only female sub-cats, but others are not, or are feared by some not to be. Either way, your lack of good faith above is misplaced. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Céleste Mogador

It may be a bit late as far as one of this month's projects goes, but could someone take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Céleste Mogador please? Thank you. --Big_iron (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Received 5,824 page views on August 8 when it appeared in DYK. --Big_iron (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Organization of Worklists

I'm new so I apologize in advance if this is an obvious answer, but I was wondering about how the sorting of the work lists goes. If there are work lists within certain categories (by geography, by time period, etc) that aren't on the work list page do we add them to the rest of the work lists? I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Kentucky women and I wasn't sure if it should go on the work lists page or not. Sbbarker19 (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sbbarker19: You seem to have done a pretty good job on Kentuckly women. You'll find a similar list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Texas_women but I also see we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Wisconsin women which is simply an alphabetical listing, as is User:Tokyogirl79LVA/Virginian women (which should probably be moved into the WiR space.
As far as I know, we have never developed any firm rules on what to do with the lists once articles have been created. I think in most cases, for the "crowd-sourced" lists, we simply try to create articles as we go along, especially in connection with our editathons each month. From time to time, we check through the lists and delete the blue links. I don't think we have ever kept a specific record of who has created the new articles. Some users seem to keep their own records in their user space, others rely on tools such as Articles created by user. When new articles are created on the basis of the Wikidata lists, the names disappear when the list is updated, usually within 24 hours.--Ipigott (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Sbbarker19 for creating the list! We maintain the master list of lists here, {{Women in Red}}; anyone can add a new list. Megalibrarygirl is our Librarian in Residence and she might have other recommendations. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in the Olympics

If someone could create a Wikidata list for Women in the Olympics, and provide a link, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I don't think Olympics is a detail commonly used in Wikidata. As far as I can see, the word Olympic sometimes occurs in the general description but not under occupation, etc. If you are interested in Olympic participants from a given country or for a given sport, it might be possible to look at categories in the other language wikis to see who is missing from the English wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a category so I am hoping someone can create the list as it'll be used for a September editathon with Los Angeles Olympics Committee. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a list, but I've got at least one useful book on my shelf, Doris H. Pieroth, Their Day in the Sun: Women of the 1932 Olympics (University of Washington Press 1996). I'll bring it to the LA editathon if I can attend in person; I assume the committee has a library of similar for our use (or can assemble one in the intervening weeks). Penny Richards (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Penny Richards! Yes, they have holdings and collections but not sure what they'll have available. Adding JSFarman to the convo.
Headbomb - Nice to meet you at WCNA2017! Do you create the Wikidata lists? (Can't remember if that's one of the things you do.) If yes, could you please create this one for us? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Very nice to meet you indeed! Sadly, Wikidata is not something I have much expertise on right now. I've been attending several sessions on it, and will attend many more over the weekend, and while I plan to get a lot more involve with it, right now I'll be mostly useless on this. However I believe Stephen Sbrick (or something similar to that, I forget his exact name or username) was looking for you and I recall from he's quite involved with Women in Sports and Wikidata, so I'd ask him about this. GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) and Keilana (talk · contribs) would know likely know the username, since this guy was talking to them about this last night. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
That's him yes! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's me. I'm in Montreal, and coincidentally I was talking about you (to be more precise, I asked a question, and your name was the answer. I will be happy to try to help, but my Wikidata skills are limited. That doesn't mean I won't try, but I'd prefer to wait until I get home and can spend some time on it. (I noticed a poster (in Montreal) about Wikiproject Olympics, so I assume it is related.) Don't hesitate to ping me again if I don't respond in a few days, I have made more promises in the last 48 hours than I can keep :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: As I explained above, the only way in which Wikidata could be used for creating a redlist on Olympic sportswomen would be to scan the general descriptions in each of the languages. This would be quite a laborious process. That is why I think it would be better to start with a check on the categories in the languages of the largest wikis. But while we have two technical experts involved here, may I ask both Headbomb and Sphilbrick if either of them could help Dr. Blofeld to develop a bot in connection with his World WiR Contest. All he needs is a bot which can check that articles have 1.5 kB of running text and that each paragraph has at least one in-line source. As the contest is planned to begin in October, this is becoming increasingly urgent.--Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott. Yes, it would just need to check article readable prose count and that there's no unsourced paragraphs. I'm currently thinking that November might be and mutually supporting Asian month but we'll see.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the list. It's not complete (there are still some 20tk unmatched profiles to Wikidata entries), probably has some errors, but it will be fine enough. Having profile at SR (Sports Reference) is almost the same as being a Olympian (in 99% of cases). Ranked by number of iws and with linked SR profile. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow!! what a cracking list, in time i will jump on this but at present i am working on pre-WW1 Olympics (tidying up, red-links and destubbing) for all countries and competitors, but huge thank you from me for this. Iantheimp (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Edgars2007, thank you. To be clear... this list includes additional sportswomen besides Olympians, right? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Rosie, As far as I am aware, SportsRef is for Olympians only. I've done a tons of work over the years in filling in lots of redlinks, with a recent focus on women competitors. That list is great and I've linked it to the main WIR template. For info, ALL Olympians are notable (see WP:NOLY). If anyone has an specific questions about creating biographies for Olympians, please drop me a note on my talkpage. Please remember to include what I call the core categories - sport & year, and which country they represented. Check the basic categories on this example for more. And make sure you edit drug free. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Edgars2007: Thanks for coming up with this great list. It just shows how wrong I was about not being able to use Wikidata for Olympics. My apologies Rosie. I'll leave these things to experts in the future.--Ipigott (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red in Montreal

I returned home from Montreal on Monday night, my head swimming with ideas. Like so many others, I'm experiencing Wikimania-withdrawal and it's coupled with WikiConference North America withdrawal, that conference having occurred the 2 days before Wikimania, and I was a co-lead. That said, I wanted to share some highlights with you pertaining to Women in Red.

  • Wednesday, August 9, during WikiConference North America, one of the preconferences, WiR hosted an editathon focused on Canadian women at BAnQ Vieux-Montréal. It was a great experience, we got a lot of work done, and we talked about "moving the needle".
  • Thursday, August 10, I presented a keynote on the Gender Diversity Mapping project. While there isn't specific mention in the slidedeck to WiR, WiR (and all the language variations) is mentioned several times by interviewees so it's applicable.
  • Also on Thu, I did a Lightning Talk on "He Who Writes the History Books Wins". The Simone de Beauvoir slide/quote is something that @Roger and I brought up at Wikimania Mexico City in July 2015; it is one of the backbones of our work.
  • On Sunday, August 13, Roger and I (he via video; me on stage) presented the annual WiR updated in the main auditorium (so I think it was recorded).
  • Other things:
  • Using ORES, EpochFail is researching whether the Keilana Effect (WP:WikiProject Women scientists) was replicated with WP:WikiProject Women writers. I did not ask him -yet- to run the data for Women in Red, but it'll be my next ask.
  • Lots of conversations about our work/scope (across multiple languages) on FB and TW.
  • The #1day1woman campaign is a bit hit. We'll report on it at next year's Wikimania.
  • During Wikimania, I had a call with Bobo.03 and his GroupLens Research advisor, Haiyi Zhu. They are working on a recruitment tool for us.
  • I encouraged everyone who is doing the work within the scope of WiR who wants to use the ITU/UN Women shortlist honor as part of their conversations with other organizations to do so.

I hope this is a useful start. I'll circle back here as other thoughts come to mind. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's your Sunday Aug 13 talk on YouTube, Rosie (not sure if it's also on Commons; hopefully it will be put in this category if and when it is). Great seeing you in Montreal! Funcrunch (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Always great spending time with you, Funcrunch. Thank you for the video link. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Update: EpochFail's analysis of women writers is here. Interested in everyone's perspective on this research. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it points out that we are making a difference, but that sourcing is much harder, as we have repeatedly said. Having worked on some really important Canadian pacifists this month, I have been struck by how hard sourcing is to come by there. Even worse than in the U.S. but probably not as bad as in Mexico. Maybe the Montreal connections can assist with ways to find sourcing? SusunW (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Rosiestep: You certainly seem to have had a busy time. Sincere thanks for all your efforts to support and publicize our project. I looked at the video of your interesting presentation (together with the video from Roger). It was well structured and professionally delivered. Pity there were not more people in the conference room. From what you say, there is still considerable interest in WiR. I was wondering whether there were any new interesting ideas on how we should go forward. Was there any mention of Dr. Blofeld's proposed WiR contests and the difficulty he is having in finding technical support? And how about international extensions to WiR? I was rather hoping there might be ideas about how we can increase interest in the project, encourage more women to edit on Wikipedia or on how we can attract wider media coverage. I don't want to sound critical, but we seem to be less "innovative" than we were a year or two ago. #1day1woman certainly seems to have been very popular with a few participants but it does not yet seem to have encouraged wide participation. Maybe we should start thinking about more radical changes, for example compiling red lists from women listed in business and news magazines (for the present) or from honours or VIP listings by country (for the past). We could also introduce a more efficient system of picking up red links on women from other articles, perhaps based on scanning for common first names, etc. These are just a few ideas of my own to get the ball rolling. We could start giving more credit to editors who identify important women who are not yet on Wikipedia or whose articles have been deleted or turned down. This aspect of our work seems to be gaining importance. I'm sure there could be many other "innovations" to our project. Let's start brainstorming.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ipigott, thank you. The Making Women Blue youtube video is only 22 minutes long meaning our session was 8 minutes short, the time lost to the A/V people having technical difficulties before my presentation, including not being able to get my Presenters Notes up on the laptop they had to switch to using. This meant that everything I said was rushed, I had no Presenter Notes to refer to so many things didn't which I intended to say didn't get said (e.g. SusunW's how-to essay regarding creating women's biographies, Dr. Blofeld's upcoming contest, etc.), and I cut off Roger's video (created by Nick Moyes) before it was done (so the audience missed a wonderful "recruitment" segment).
  • I like your ideas, and look forward to the brainstorming. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Sorry you had to cope with all those difficulties. I hope some of the organizers will read these exchanges and improve efficiency next year. Nevertheless, I think you managed to cover all the essentials. The items left out could contribute to our brainstorming.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Some women (and some men)

I have completed the first pass of Clarke's Dictionary of Pseudonyms. Those people for whom I could not find an article (and haven't already created one) are listed on my project page. List of people and pseudonyms. Not that there is no guarantee that these people are Wiki-notable.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

Oh, I like this very much, Rich Farmbrough. It would be good if we could cull out the women for a WiR list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Dictionary of Pseudonyms. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I copied the page over. I have culled the definite male->male entries form the list up to D. (I don't know whether Rilma is a man or woman... ) Please feel free to cull the rest. I was wondering if I could do something smarter by gender tagging the entries, and using a modified transclusion, to avoid duplicating the list entirely. Maybe I will do that. But might need help with the gender tagging.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC).
I use this list often, thanks for putting it up here. Alafarge (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an eye for Thea Tewi the sculptor

The sculptor Thea Tewi has actually been on my to-do list for a while in her (presumed) capacity as a 1940s fashion designer, but I have held off for a reason that will become clear if you actually look at the sources and the article. While there is no doubt in my mind that Thea Tewi the sculptor is the same person as Thea Tewi the lingerie designer, I haven't been able to confirm this or even find any corroboration. So today I decided to just be WP:BOLD and create the article under the assumption that they have to be the same person (mainly due to the rather unique name and the very circumstantial evidence that Tewi the fashion designer seems to have only active during the 1940s - coincidentally there is a 1940s-shaped gap in Tewi the sculptor's biography....) But maybe someone here can help confirm or clarify this? I can fully understand why the sculptor wouldn't have wanted to be also known as a designer of undies, which may be why there is no corroboration to be found. Thank you so much. Mabalu (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Mabalu There are tons of articles about her on newspapers.com. This one [12] I think will do the trick..."...sculptress Thea Tewi...leading high fashion lingerie designer. Let me know if you need more. SusunW (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My Newspapers subscription seems to have expired - I remember trying to find information on her a couple years back, and not doing too well at the time, so I didn't think there would be any more information out there.... Thanks!! Let's see if I'm still blocked from viewing articles except as abstracts... Mabalu (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu They recently fixed newspapers.com so we have access to all the extra publishing. Definitely worth a renewal. Here's another source, with more detail, from archive.org. You can sign up for a free account and check out the book for 14 days. [13] This is a great service they offer, if you didn't know about it. Details on how to search are in the essay. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
And just for kicks and grins, because I always like to find a photo of who I am writing about, [14]. Can't use it fair use if she is still living, but her dress was lovely! SusunW (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
THANK YOU for the links! I was able to really expand the article and improve it. The pic is LOVELY! I love seeing photos of the subjects too. In a way, I almost feel relieved when they're deceased (a la Jennifer Hocking because it means I can have fun looking for fair-use images. If Thea Tewi is still alive, she will be at least 102 years old... Mabalu (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu de nada. I love that archive.org search. It has proven invaluable, as they often have dictionaries and encyclopedias you can access. And yes, I am the same, I prefer to write about dead women so I can post photos. Check out the dress on my woman from yesterday Josephine Myers-Wapp. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, very interesting indeed!! I have been going a bit article-creating crazy this last week, but not unhappy with what I've done, as some of them have been on my to-do list since I first created the awards pages. Mabalu (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu now that you have her notability proven, here's some details. You can use the fair use photo. She died in 1999, born 1902. [15]. I know Schlachet and Tewi are the same person because of this census [16] (married with a child) and this naturalization petition. [17] (I don't have a fold3 account, but if you click on the link you can see both names), which led to all the rest. Now to see if I can find an obit on her "real name". SusunW (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
AND, I found a newspaper article confirming the name same, but so far no obit [18] SusunW (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that is amazing! I wonder where the name Wittner comes from? It only seems to be on the Smithsonian website... Mabalu (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Mabalu Could it be her maiden name? I have no idea, haven't found anything referencing it and cannot find an obit under either name. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and 2 free New York paper links I know of. But...as long as it is in the article somewhere, maybe at some point someone will find the connection???? SusunW (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
SusunW: Great detective work! Following the development of this article is even more exciting than reading the article itself.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott - Agreed - and also, thanks - I think! ;) Mabalu (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It was fun, Ian. It's what I love about research. Kind like finding the pieces to a puzzle. Collaboration is nice when the goal is to work together for improvement. I think the article ended up really nice. Wish that I could find something that confirms my suspicion that Tewi is taken from her name. I think, as Thea is pronounced without the h in German it is te from that and wi from Wittner, but that's only my hunch. I'd also have loved finding an obit, but no dice at this point. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
SusunW: I think you are probably right. There were indeed Jewish Wittners in the Berlin area before the Second World War. They appear to have moved there from Poland. Maybe there is evidence of the name Thea Wittner in U.S. immigration records?--Ipigott (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Ipigott If someone has a fold3 account, we might be able to see the whole record. I am only able to see a brief abstract, as I don't have a subscription to it. I looked at the people who are approved for Wikipedia:Fold3 and don't know any of them. Maybe Mabalu does? Or maybe someone else who reads our pages does? SusunW (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
SusunW: How about Nikkimaria?--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Given her Jewish origins, Yoninah may be interested in this too, perhaps for DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Joka Vandenberg

I rescued Joanna (Joka) Maria Vandenberg, a crystallographer at Bell Labs, from BLPPROD (by sourcing two society fellowships that give her a double pass of WP:PROF#C3) but the article still needs a lot of help. If you're interested, assistance in cleaning this up would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a first past. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And I've done some WikiGnomish edits and created lots of incoming redirects from variations of her name (eg the APS lists her as "Joka M. ...") and a link at Vandenberg. PamD 07:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I see the problem here, most everything is taken from work she has written, not secondary sources. This gives an overview of her profile. Not detailed but possibly helpful. This talks about her work extensively, but is mostly Greek to me. I am not a believer in the you can write an article on anything. If I don't understand the subject, it's difficult to write a summary. This has more. On the human side, I'm fairly sure this is her [19] SusunW (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Saved some articles from AfC

I saved a bunch of articles from AfC tonight. All were declined for notability. Feel free to help improve! Many qualify for C articles and can be improved further.

Missvain (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Missvain: And all added to Wikidata too. An impressive day's work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's just say I was feeling inspired after Wikimania!!! I'm even thinking this would be a great lightning talk next year... Missvain (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow! I saw the Canadian one earlier, but had no idea about all the rest Missvain. How is it that AfC turned Burnham and a first lady down? It seems fairly straight forward to me. First ladies are inherently notable, as their job is to represent the state or nation. Someone who has been honored with a national award, is also inherently notable. Granted in both cases, one must find reliable sources, but having said that, who would turn down the file in which those pieces of information were already in the file and write "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines", which was the rationale on both? Independent sourcing might have been rationale for Burnham, but certainly not TOOSOON. I repeat what I've said before, never, never, never submit a file to AfC. It's name suggests that it is about creation, but as has been pointed out in these pages multiple times, it is not designed to mentor and coach people in creating articles. Instead, it is designed to insure that if an article is created it would survive AfD. It defies the whole notion that collaboration will lead to improvement and instead acts as a gatekeeping mechanism. Thank you for your rescue services ;) SusunW (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yah, pretty nuts. Some of these were rejected multiple times. While yes, reliable sources are key, I'd rather help improve then just say "no." But, that doesn't seem to be the theme at AfC (and hever has been!). I have more to look at...and have approved a few that were new submissions, too! Thanks :) Missvain (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well done! AfC is broken. Its become a place to exercise power over newbies. This means that we cannot recommend this route IMO until its fixed Victuallers (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Great job. Members of an Olympic team, like Rowena Roberts, should be easy to pass AfC. A whole edit-a-thon could be oriented around just AfC rescue. Hmm.... -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful, if it doesn't exist already, to have a bot pick these articles out from AfC on an ongoing basis so people can try to salvage them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Following up on the super work of Missvain, maybe WiR could develop an AfC "program" of our own. I was thinking something like someone goes through AfC on a regular (weekly?) basis, and lists the women's bios (perhaps only the non-BLPs?) on this talkpage. Then folks can give them a look, improve if improvable, and move into mainspace if appropriate. We would include the article creator in the conversation, e.g. mentoring, and they might decide to become a new member because of the wikilove. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Just FYI, after years of looking at AfCs, only about 10% are actually NON-BLP. The majority are. So... yeah... something to think about. Missvain (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about redirects and metrics

I just created an article on Jamaican-American author Nicola Yoon after reading an article by her in The Guardian. Though technically I didn't create the article, as it already existed as a redirect to an article about her debut novel, Everything, Everything. I am wondering how such articles show up in the WiR metrics, and whether we might be missing out on creating other articles on notable women that exist only as redirects at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder that too, Funcrunch. As an aside, in my library, we can't keep her books on the shelf. They are constantly checked out! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Funcrunch: As you probably know, we have two sets of metrics, those listed under "Metrics" on our project page and those compiled from the Wikidata entries on EN articles labelled "female". As you entered Nicola Yoon on Wikidata, she'll certainly be listed on this week's Wikidata statistics which will be accessible tomorrow. I've also manually included the name in this month's metrics. Please continue to write articles on notable women who have simply been redirects. You might not be credited with creating the articles but you'll certainly be improving the encyclopaedia.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Alice Bertha Moreton

I ran across Alice Bertha Moreton today when an edit to it was erroneously bot-flagged as vandalism. Looking into this, I see the article creator @Mufc ed: has been struggling to keep this article away from deletion since January 2017 (or maybe since 2013 if you look at the creator's talk page). Just thought I'd mention it, in case anyone has the resources to help fluff it up a bit. — Maile (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_30&oldid=1149602812"