Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 136

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 130

←

Archive 134

→

Looking for notability requirements advice for a subject matter expert

Latest comment: 11 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all

I'd really appreciate some advice in undertanding notability guidelines and also the practical realities of available references for writing a biography for a woman who is the head of an organisation. Jojo Mehta runs Stop Ecocide International and is covered a lot by relaible sources, however she is not the main topic of the articles, she is interviewed as a subject matter expert on environmental law. Can someone advise me if the references available are enough to meet notability requirements? I don't want to write something that is likely get into a deletion discussion.

Articles completely about her, mostly as a subject matter expert

Short interview or statement in articles about the topic of ecocide law, while they're not full interviews the jounralist has spoken to her as a subject matter expert, many of the articles include an image of her as she is a signifcant part of the article.

Articles by her published in reliable sources

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @John Cummings it can be difficult to find sources for wikipedia purposes about someone who writes things and is in the public eye. I started going through the sources you supplied, but I'm afraid my eyes glazed over so I'd suggest instead to pick the best three sources per User:RoySmith/Three best sources. If you have three good sources meaning significant coverage in reliable sources, you (prob) won't have the article deleted ... if we take the first three you listed:

Earth Island Journal - "Earth Island Journal is the media arm of Earth Island Institute — an organization that supports environmental activists and leaders working to protect the biological and cultural diversity that sustains our environment." - I'd say this could be good for adding details but isn't a solid source for your three best since it's clearly propaganda for the good stuff
CBC - solid source, but interviews won't count much towards notability, so again not one of your best three. The essay Wikipedia:Interviews discusses this issue in more details.
Ecologist - solid source, sadly it's basically an interview again

My gut feel is that Mehta is notable by wikipedia standards, but these three sources aren't going to be the best ones to convince people. Feel free to suggest another three if you like? (And obviously this is just my opinion) Mujinga (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Seconding the gut feel. See the google scholar results, for example: [1]. That's a lot of scholarly sources namedropping someone, which would be very unusual if she was "just" a spokesperson. You could also try Stop Ecocide (not that WP:NCORP is an easy bar to pass) as well or as an alternative (with Jojo Mehta as a redirect to the org). -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asilvering and Mujinga thanks so much for your kind replies, yes its quite frustrating, she is clearly quite influential in the area and is widely talked about but seems like she currently doesn't meet the inclusion requirements, nor does Stop Ecocide International, unless I'm missing something. I feel like the most likely sources to meet inclusion requirements are these.

Is there a good place to ask about notability as covered in academic sources? I don't understand it well in practice and really want to avoid getting into a deletion discussion.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you be more specific about notability as covered in academic sources? It's effectively the same as notability in non-ac sources, just easier (since academic sources will almost always be WP:RS). Unless you mean notability under WP:NPROF? -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPROF is for people who work as professors and/or produce academic sources. It doesn't cover Mehta since her academic publication record is not at that level (because that's not what she does). As for using academic sources as sources for other kinds of notability, I think there is not really any special criterion. Sources are sources, regardless of whether they are academic or not. Published academic journal papers would generally count as reliable and independent (although there are some exceptions like predatory journals or journals run by a subject's employer). But just as with any other source, we would need in-depth coverage of Mehta herself, not merely namedrops. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

help finding suitable references for Draft:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press

Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I’ve been a Wikipedia user since 2006, but only recently drafted my first article (Draft:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press) which was reviewed and declined today.

PLEXUS “was a radical feminist newspaper in the San Francisco Bay Area, published by a women’s collective from March 1974 to July 1986.”

In a thread on WP:AFCHELP review of submission by BananaSlug it was suggested I ask on WT:WOMRED for help finding more suitable independent sources.

I would much appreciate any specific suggestions of suitable sources to cite, or suggestions about how to look for such things, or in fact any hint about how to get this article accepted.

Thanks, BananaSlug (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@BananaSlug: Thank you for starting this one; I've promoted this to articlespace as PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press. Rublamb is unequivocally responsible for pushing it over the finishing line; major effort over the last couple of hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for moving and your confidence in my work. I had not published it because I had questions about some of the unsourced text. Finally found the source it had been lifted from. I have now either paraphrased or removed this content, so feel better about its move to the mainspace. Interesting topic! Rublamb (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all of Women in Red and especially: @Rublamb, @Tagishsimon, @S0091, @Peaceray, and et cetera! BananaSlug (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome! Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Finding obituary request

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hey, all! Just finished up an article on actress M'liss McClure and it's unclear on if she's still alive today. If she is, she'd be around 100, which is possible, but unlikely. Her birth name was Helen Francell Coutts, but she did officially change it to her stage name the article is at. She also married multiple times and I'm unaware if she changed her last name during any of that, though there isn't any indication she did. Anyways, I'm just wanting to know if she's still alive, since that would also determine what sort of photo I'd be able to use in the article for her. Silver seren^C 21:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Silver seren according to ancestry.com via Wikipedia library, she was Helen Francella Coutts, born 3 September 1925, died 4 October 2013. I don't know how reliable that information is. TSventon (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure either on if Ancestry counts as an RS. Silver seren^C 05:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry.com itself isn't, but the information on it is often sourced to something that is. Unfortunately that's often something like a photograph of a primary source with no further information to help you find it. -- asilvering (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a usable source, with her death date and details Glamour Girls of the Silver Screen Rublamb (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the website itself would be inherently reliable? I see it has an unlinked list of newspaper names at the bottom for sources, which are unfortunately not accessible. And the use of Ancestry.com in that section makes me wonder if that is also specifically the source for the birth and death information. Silver seren^C 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with a secondary source using public records from Ancestry because Wikipedia allows public records for non-living people. Because she is deceased, it is also fine to use the public records found on Ancestry as a source for this article. The citation would be for the record/record database via Ancestry, not Ancestry itself. Rublamb (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

New tabbed header

Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I was bold. I created this {{WikiProject Women in Red tabbed header}}, which replaces this, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/WiR header. Then I placed the tabbed header on top of all the pages named in the tabs, except for the WikiCommons one. -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks great, Rosiestep. I too have been bold and changed the colour of the Previous events drop-down heading, but just on the Events page so far. If liked, I am happy to seek it out around the WiR pages and update accordingly.--Oronsay (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I like the consistency (#D0F0C0); it looks nice, Oronsay. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

On my talkpage, Ipigott mentions that the TOC has disappeared from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Showcase after I added the new tabbed header. I don't know how to fix this and am hoping someone with more technical expertise can sort it out. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I added __FORCETOC__ to make it show up; I'll see if I can figure out why it disappeared in the first place. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspect it may be the __NOTOC__ in {{WikiProject Women in Red tabbed header}} doing that ;3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out, and then fixing the issue, Maddy from Celeste. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Think I've found all the drop-down headings and all now #D0F0C0. We're looking good for 2024.--Oronsay (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Theme for April 2024

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all! I'm not sure if there's a better forum for this but I would like to propose that one of the themes for April 2024 be women environmentalists, environmental scientists, policy-makers, advocates, etc. in honour of Earth Day on April 22. There is a current topic of 'health' for World Health Day on April 7, which I could see dovetailing nicely with environment as a focus. Is it possible to do two themes that are somewhat related or do we think that would be distracting? Thanks for the consideration! Kazamzam (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a good suggestion. We last had a monthly focus specifically on Environmentalists in May 2019 but we had Climate and environment in January 2021. Of course, we also included environmentalists in Climate, our year-long initiative for 2022. I've included the suggestion on our Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Gloria Meneses

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Help from a Spanish speaker? I started an article for Uruguayan activist Gloria Meneses, who is *sometimes* described as Uruguay's first trans woman. I'd appreciate some help with the Spanish sources, in particular distinguishing between 'transvestite' and trans woman. I worked from a translation of the ES page and added further content, but am now doubting myself a little. I'd like to nominate it for an DYK (by Friday) & i've cross-posted to LGBT studies. Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore, is this still an issue? "Transvestite" and "trans woman" are culturally specific terms. It looks like you have it correct now? -- asilvering (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Stacy Layne Matthews

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Stacy Layne Matthews for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing or otherwise improving. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:MISSING

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

In 2005, a project was launched to create articles for famous people on WP:FINDAGRAVE with no articles. We are 90% done, but progress has been pitifully slow for the past 11 years. Perhaps this project can help out?

Many authors at Project Gutenberg also don't have articles. Scorpions1325 (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions1325 - this is SUCH a cool idea. I'll look over some of these and see what I can find sources for. Thanks so much for the tip! Kazamzam (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions1325 I have found several women with existing articles on the first half of page A, and created redirects at Geneviève Auger, Vivian Allen and Louisa Anderson. TSventon (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to go through them all manually myself like I did with the missing High schools, but that was very exhausting. Nonetheless, I was still able to determine which ones had articles.

TVSenton, Maybe, you, me, and a few volunteers can split which pages we review. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions1325, I have reviewed all the women from A to L and found 60 names with articles, including a few men. Reviewing all the men as well would be a much larger task. I notice that WiR also has a list of Find a Grave famous women redlinks. TSventon (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Did you find any women that you could add to the project? Sorry if I misspoke, but I just intended for this project to help out with the women. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have found 58 women who already have articles and can be added to the project (and also 4 men). I think it is reasonable to assume that this project is interested in helping out with women without spelling it out. TSventon (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Janet Beavin Bavelas

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

New article, Janet Beavin Bavelas, one of the first to be put together by its editor ... subject is an academic who arguably meets NACADEMIC criteria 1 (based on ref 6). If anyone experienced in academics wishes to give it a once-over, that would be handy, although I think it's in good shape. Her birth name was Janet Helmick Beavin, as far as I can ascertain. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I started an infobox and added a ref; otherwise it looks okay to me. Penny Richards (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

t/y. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of sourcing on her stuff on Proquest via the Wikipedia Library. Silver seren^C 02:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Power is better than love. Love has only been disappointing."

Latest comment: 11 months ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all, I'm working on a draft at User:Eddie891/Evelyn Y. Davis. I'm having a bit of trouble shifting through the sourcing and telling what is just sexist and what is accurate (for instance, there is a lot of focus on her fashion, but she seems to have encouraged this). I read about her and I get this image of a powerful woman who stood up for what she wanted, but a lot of the sourcing just presents her as a bothersome egocentric woman (which I'm sure they wouldn't have done if she was a man... but on the other hand she seems to have reveled in/ almost cultivated that image). Not sure how to balance this. I have dumped a bunch of writing (certainly not all, she was a master of publicity), and any help/commentary would be greatly appreciated. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891, the article seems to be entirely based on news sources, could you find some book sources? There are thousands of hits on Google books, some of which may be useful. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon, this is the only relevant and reliable book I could find on Google books. And it doesn't have *a lot* of coverage. Is there something I'm missing? I think most of the results are the hearings of congressional committees. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891, there are another 5 or so books in the first five pages of Google books which aren't hearings of congressional committees. They don't have a lot of coverage, it may or may not be useful, and you may have already checked them. TSventon (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, not too useful from my estimation, though I’ll take a look again. Thanks for the suggestion either way, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Google scholar seems to have some promising secondary articles Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Eddie891, just saw this while doing my checks before signing off for the day. this, this and this all seem relevant. A whole lot of hits in archive.org, if you want to wade through them. Article looks interesting. I had never heard of a shareholder activist before. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I will incorporate those sources shortly Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I love the headline WSJ put on her obit: "Evelyn Y. Davis Would Have Wanted a Bigger Headline on This Obituary". -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all! Created at Evelyn Y. Davis, any fixes would still be appreciated. Also, can anyone find a picture? I'm kinda shocked that despite her love of publicity, there seems to be none that aren't copyrighted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rosa Lee Nemir

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just accepted this draft but it could use a little help with some additional sources and the prose if anyone is interested. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a ref, but I'm too exhausted today to focus enough on article writing. So I'm just going to snag the sources for you, S0091, or the author, Miakim7115, or anyone else to expand with.

Dr. Nemir's 'Sane Approach to Women' by Anne Dee Page 2

Syracusan's mother: Colgate honors Dr. Rosa Nemir by Emily Butterfield Page 2

Hopefully that's helpful. Silver seren^C 05:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Delia Smith's Cookery Course

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I just redirected this book to Delia Smith. Personally, I think it's a seminal and essential piece of work, and many relatives have used its contents extensively. But I can't find any sources about the book, which is bizarre given how well it sold and how much in high regard it is. Am I just looking in the wrong place? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but she falls rather into the pre-internet/still in copyright shadow. You should make sure the article actually mentions Delia Smith's Cookery Course, which it doesn't seem to at present - this was I think a reincarnation of stuff mostly published earlier in various formats. She was by that time too well known as a columnist & tv presenter to get much review coverage. See Should we reunite Pausanias (geographer) and Description of Greece? for a somewhat similar discussion - but there there is nothing much to say about the author. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Delia Smith's Cookery Course seems to have been a TV series in 1978 (not mentioned in the article), then published as a BBC book in three annual parts, then republished in different formats. It may be best covered as part of Smith's career. TSventon (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if newspaper reviews would be a place to look (if you've not already)? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone give me some feedback on the notability of a draft?

Latest comment: 11 months ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all

I recently found out about a young woman who started a library in the slum where she lives in Bhopal, India. She appears notable enough but I'd appreciate someone double check my slightly rough draft, also any sugegstions for how to format the refs so they don't get cropped for 'overlinking' and then it gets nominated for deletion. I'd especially appreciate help from anyone who knows about Indian news refs.

User:John Cummings/Articles/Muskan Ahirwar

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Presumably this is about User:John Cummings/Articles/Muskan Ahirwar. TSventon (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, added the link to the original message, thanks, don't know how I missed that off. John Cummings (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

John Cummings, you have eight citations to Youtube. I suggest using Template:Cite AV media and identifying the publishers as the reliability of Youtube videos depends on the reliability of the channels. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The subject looks notable if the sources are reliable. (I am not an expert on RS in India either.) Generally you don't need three sources for a single fact, but that could be avoided if the article is expanded. TSventon (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of some Indian news sources is questioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA and you can always check individual sources at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources. For example from that table, Times of India is "considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". As I said to you at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Looking_for_notability_requirements_advice_for_a_subject_matter_expert, it's good to have three "best" sources if you have concerns over notability. On this article, I'd say Hindustan Times, News18 and Asian Age are decent. I don't particularly like using youtube as a source though. Doer doesn't seem great since I can't find an editorial statement and Homegrown has an about us which says "Partnered with over 130 brands on content, brand campaigns, influencer/thought leadership, experiential marketing, research, global partnerships and more" so also not encouraging. Cheers and good luck with it! Mujinga (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much Mujinga, really helpful. I find the way Wikipedia treats YouTube videos as references really frustrating, the citation tool doesn't work properly with it and often I see it considered a blanket iffy source even if the refs are coming from BBC News, CNN channels etc. My guess is this often a product of the referencing tool not working properly with it so the source is often less than clear. I don't really know where to complain to though that would actually help beyond starting a phabricator ticket. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

For me personally I just find it easier to cite to books and other written matter, but it is true that if the youtube channel is the official one of BBC or indeed News18 then it should be regarded as comparable. In case you haven't already seen them, here's some wiki-guidance on use of youtube - Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites and WP:RSPYT Mujinga (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Video links is a good read. Are you using already Template:Cite AV media? That might help Mujinga (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Mujinga thanks, I haven't used it because I didn't know it existed till yesterday. I'll make a request on Phabricator for the Cite tool to work better with Youtube, absolutely mad Wikipedia doesn't create good references automatically for the second most visited website in the world. John Cummings (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

John Cummings: Don't know if you've already seen this article but it looks useful.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott Thanks so much, really useful. To be blunt do you think it has enough refs to be fairly bulletproof to avoid an AfD? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

John Cummings: I certainly think your draft has enough reliable sources to prevent calls for deletion but I think it would be useful to expand it a bit before moving it to mainspace. I see there are some interesting comments on the talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott thanks very much, glad to know its probably got enough refs. John Cummings (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Women's Christian Temperance Union

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion

In 2021, I was browsing a now indeffed user's redlist. I picked a random name, and it turned out to be Mamie Colvin, who was president of the Women's Christian Temperance Union from 1944 to 1953. I realized that not all of their presidents had articles. I set out to create articles for all the remaining presidents of this organization, but I realized that the only one that could easily survive an AFD nomination was the one that I discovered on that users redlist. It has since been created. I thought that creating these articles was a lost cause, but surprise keeps at AFD make me wonder if this WikiProject can help out. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be down for helping with that. I actually had one of my ancestors in the WCTU back in the 1890s. Historyday01 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions1325 Newspapers.com/newspaperarchive.com are probably the best sources for women in this time period. For example on Agnes Dubbs Hays, born 1895 in Ransom, Kansas, parents W[illiam O.] and Florence (née Laplante Dubbs. One of the first graduates of Ransom High School, then went to normal school, and worked as a journalist. Taught in Oklahoma, and then married a teacher from Oklahoma. Taught in various Kansas schools. Wrote books.[2],[3], was state and national president of WTCU. She died in 1982. There is a forward in Hay's book on the history of the WTCU written by Ruth Tibbets Tooze that gives some details too. It has short bios on other presidents. Hope that will get you started. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've written a lot of articles about WCTU women; they fascinate me. Mostly, I've written about "National WCTU" women, rather than "World WCTU" women. I keep thinking about splitting the article to address both organizations (In the present day, they continue to be two separate organizations.) and would appreciate feedback regarding splitting. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd advocate splitting Woman's Christian Temperance Union into two. The conflation in that article is not good; sections on Conventions and Notable People which relate solely to the USian version without specifying that that is their scope. However I'm not sure how much text in the article is actually related to the World WCTU; what is the relationship between WCTUs in e.g. NZ and Canada with the World WCTU? But ever if the split is very lopsided, it's probably well worth making. And if national WCTUs (again, e.g. in Canada or NZ) are self-standing organisations, then perhaps we should be thinking about them having discrete articles? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You know I'd be in for a WCTU-athon. ;) Penny Richards (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Temperance could be a monthly theme? In England "dry January" is a thing ... Lajmmoore (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea! Penny Richards (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for the feedback. Let's plan for a temperance event in January. I've added it to our "Ideas" page. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Century Challenge complete

Latest comment: 11 months ago13 comments9 people in discussion

As of this morning, I've completed my self-imposed 2023 Century Challenge, by starting at least one new article this year, for a woman born in every year from 1849 to 1948. Click the link to see the details. Some years had a lot more than one article; and some articles didn't get assigned to any year, because the subject's birth year was unclear. This was fun and definitely made me to stretch a little beyond my usual sources. In that sense, it worked like the Alphabet Runs that I also like to do. Anyway, thought I'd share in case anyone else wants to give it a go. Penny Richards (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Penny Richards: superb work, well done! Very inspiring and I am tempted to try something similar. Were there any years where you struggled to find a woman to write about? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really. I just looked in different places for different years. The 1914 Woman's Who's Who of America, for example, is a great source for possibly-notable US women with 19th century birth years. IMDB is easy to search by birth year, so that helped late 19th/20th century births (not only actresses, of course; IMDB includes screenwriters, designers, directors, etc.); 20th century births are easily covered by obituaries in the New York Times, academic journals, college alumni magazines, etc. The year for which I wrote the most articles (11 so far) was 1906, because those women turned 21 in 1927, and 1927 college yearbook photos were free to use for the first time this year. Penny Richards (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

How about this? (Never been used before)

Seriously impressive @Penny Richards what an awesome thing to do! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What a great contribution you've made to WiR with all these bios, @Penny Richards. Thank you. Oronsay (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Penny Richards Congratulations on such a lot of substantial articles!

I took the first one on the list, Cleora Augusta Stevens Seaman, and made a few redirects from versions of her name, and added her to a surname list page - all little WikiGnoming stuff which can help make the article more visible. This time, none of the redirects were already linked, but it's really satisfying when you make a redirect and find that there had been a red link sitting somewhere waiting for the article. Some people, like you, contribute by making substantial well-sourced articles, while others of us tinker round the edges creating solid little stubs and lots of redirects: each to their own niche! If I hit the right mood, or a radio programme I want to listen to while doing fairly mechanical edits, I might work my way down the list. PamD 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I really envy people like you Penny (and also Roger) who set out to do something systematic and complete the work faultlessly. I'm afraid I'm not nearly as well organized. I just try to write biographies of any interesting women who come up, often Scandinavians in connection with our current priorities. Perhaps we should have a special trophy for this sort of achievement. Maybe the jigsaw trophy would do - although I'm not too sure what is meant by "Quis potest recencere" (Who can rescind?). Anyway, congratulations - and let us know what you're going for next.--Ipigott (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"quis potest recencere" is a Google translation of "anyone can edit". I can't vouch for its accuracy.

Victuallers: Looks good. Let's assume it means that. We shouldn't fault Google translate. I could only find it in Virgil in the sentence "Istas autem virtutes quis recencere potest?" which Google (again) translates as "But who can criticize these virtues?" I note, however, that there is no question mark on the trophy which stands in favour of your interpretation.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ipigott, sorry, I failed to sign my post about the Latin wording. I think it is highly likely that the text was produced using Google translate or similar and is intended to mean "anyone can edit". It may well be a poor quality translation, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language could advise if we are worried. TSventon (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange to me. My Latin comp isn't the greatest, but it strikes me as more natural to use something like "qui vult, scribat". ("Whoever wishes, let em write.") -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

TSventon: Sorry for the mixup. I thought the suggestion had come from Victuallers as I was pinged here as a result of another of his edits. But as I said above, I think we can live with "Anyone can edit". Thanks for your interest. Asilvering: You probably have a point but I must say "Quis potest recencere" has a ring to it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

My sincere congratulations to both of you, Penny and Roger for what you've accomplished this year. Diff is always looking for more people to write more articles. Maybe you could write a joint one. I'm sure it would inspire others! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A ring in English or in Latin? It doesn't have any meaning in Latin, unless you accept it as a misspelling of "recensere", in which case it would mean "Who can recall?" (Latin does not use question marks unless added by a helpful modern editor, so the absence of a question mark does not indicate it is not a question). Sorry my attempt to be polite about it came off as too ambiguous. Here's what happens when you look for "recencere" in a dictionary: [4]. -- asilvering (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

New article for Muskan Ahirwar,young librarian and educator

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all

I've just finished writing Muskan Ahirwar, thanks for people who gave feedback on the draft. If people could take a look at it and maybe keep an eye on it since its about a young woman in India and may be assessed by nominators for AFD less favourably than articles about western men.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

John Cummings, I looked for Hindi sources. Apparently Ahirwar is still at school and the library has been rebuilt by architecture students. I searched for मुस्कान अहिरवार and found

TSventon (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Improvements for Women in Red

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a result of our new page presentations, we have been reviewing and adapting some of our project pages. Accessible from the icon "Ideas & planning", our Ideas page now contains a new section on "General ideas for improving Women in Red". To get the ball rolling, I have suggested that under #1day1woman we provide specifically for participants to create "One biography a week". Some of you might like to comment on this or make other suggestions on how you think we can improve the effectiveness of the project.--Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The spelling of Sarah Ann Haynsworth Gayle's maiden name

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I just created the article on the 19th-century diarist, Sarah Ann Haynsworth Gayle. I'm perplexed as to why her maiden name is spelled "Haynsworth" in some places and "Haynesworth" elsewhere. It feels like there could be a valid reason, but try as I might, I just can't find a source for it. My decision to go with the Haynsworth spelling goes against my common practice, which is to use the VIAF name (when there is one) but it matches the spelling of her journal, published posthumously. For now, I've created a redirect so that both names are covered. This is low priority, but if anyone feels like sleuthing... thank you. -- Rosiestep (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with the spelling from her journal, which matches her and her son's gravestones. Nick Number (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm perplexed as to why - doesn't need much sleuthing: she lived in the 19th century. Even in the 20th century with better record-keeping, you'll find names spelt inconsistently. Heck, even in the 21st century with unusual names or unusual spellings of common names. But in centuries past the idea of a definitive correct spelling was looser. Kingsif (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Also Google books has Extracts from the Journal of Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, published in 1895· TSventon (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

So a combination of people misrepresenting her name after her death. Spelling wise, Haynesworth sounds more realistic, so I can see why people throughout history would assume it was spelled like that, rather than the actual spelling. Silver seren^C 02:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes this. Americans (and probably others) just weren't always consistent about one particular spelling of a name in the 19th century. They didn't have birth certificates, or passports, or any other definitive "correct" version of their name. (My dissertation followed a cohort of about 500 Southern women who went to the same school in the 1810s. Adding or subtracting a silent E, like your subject did, was especially common and perfectly acceptable. Sometimes they'd spell the same name different ways in the same letter. Or members of the same family would favor various spellings.) Penny Richards (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

One example comes to mind. There was a family name in my dissertation spelled interchangeably in the 1810s as Proudfit and Broadfoot--took forever for me to realize it was the same name, used by the same people. Penny Richards (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Before standardization took place people wrote "what they thought they heard", especially if the writer was querying an illiterate person. One of my hardest research puzzles ever concerned James Parrick, who was variously listed as Barrock/Baruck/Barak, Parrot/Barrett, Parrish/Parish, Paris, etc. I also discovered him listed in several 18th century books as Jame/Jamie/Jamee Sparrick (which I never would have imagined), with one noting that he had a severe speech impediment. Spoken and whispered consonant pairs b/p, c/g, d/t, f/v, j/ch, s/z, w/wh, etc. were often interchanged and vowels broadly confused. As someone who has been misspelled my entire life, I totally get it. SusunW (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC) (2 u's no a)

Thank you, @Kingsif, Nick Number, Penny Richards, Silver seren, and SusunW! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

notifying this WikiProject about AfD

Latest comment: 11 months ago38 comments9 people in discussion

(TSventon kindly suggested me to ask the following question on this talk page.) I'd be grateful if someone could provide me with some information on the practice of notifying this WikiProject about the nomination for deletion of BLP whose subjects are women. I'm interested in knowing if this practice has been challenged in the past, and if so, what arguments have been used to criticise and defend it -- if anyone could point to a discussion, that would be great. Personally I welcome this practice, and the reason I'm asking about it is that it has been the subject of harsh controversy on another WP language edition in the recent past: I'd like to compare the ways in which this issue has been addressed on different WP language editions. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 it's done not infrequently (just scroll up to see some examples) but it isn't done commonly (ie, the majority of biographies of women that are AfD'd do not get posted here). Personally, I might notify the project if I saw an article up for deletion that I felt was likely to have newspaper sources from the 1990s or earlier, since there are some real newspaper wizards in this wikiproject. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't. WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women exists for people to monitor themselves. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Italian wikipedia, Gitz? Discussed earlier. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I missed that one. Outrageously sexist behaviour. -- asilvering (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Very snarky twitter thread summarising issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And to be clear, it was Camelia.boban's push for WikiDonne to have a Deletion sorting/Women feed which caused Italian wikipedia to seek to eject them from their community; whereas on EN wikipedia / EN WiR it's a standard, expected and uncontroversial part of the setup. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Camelia Boban was blocked because she insulted, period. To have or not to have a specific feed for WiR is a perfectly fine matter of discussion and that is what we were discussing. A matter so little uncontroversial that a consensus formed against the idea. Here on en.wiki you have this kind of feed? Fine, I sure don't need to demonise this choice. The consensus against on it.wiki was based on arguments that is just fascist to label indiscrimately as "sexist": this means undermining your interlocutor with a very serious accusation. Camelia didn't accept the outcome and attacked everybody with a clumsy generalisation. The same way you do. This is just poor judgement. Sexism is surely a problem for each and every wikicommunity. To label it.wiki as overall sexist is just nonsense. And it's proved wrong by its everyday life (especially for AfD concerns). Life in a wikicommunity is not always easy, especially for people not convinced to have a single one-size-fits-all solution for any kind of controversy. Seeing things in black and white is so cozy. Seeing actual people in black and white is sad. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 15:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We went through this last year. Because Camelia Boban argued against a decision by a bunch of men that WikiDonne should have a feed of AfD information, they were blocked. The decision to deny WikiDonne a feed was sexist, fullstop. Camila noting it was sexist was the generalisation that got them blocked. Which is to say that disagreeing with the people who are oppressing you makes you the oppressor as far as the IT wiki community involved was concerned. That is not exactly a new or novel pattern; dominant groups demonise the groups they dominate. It gives the impression that IT wiki is hideously sexist, when in reality its just that a whole lot of IT wiki editors are hideously sexist. Easy mistake to make. I'm sorry, but not much surprised, to see you here defending the kangeroo court which expelled them. One day, maybe, you'll stop being complacent and realise that was what went down. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that Camelia indiscriminately labelled the arguments of those who opposed the feed as "sexist" (and even if she had, I doubt that this could justify an indefinite block). Pequod, could you please share the diff where Camelia attacked everybody with a clumsy generalisation? I have carefully read both the "utente problematico" discussion and the previous discussion on notifications to WikiDonne and I fail to see where this happened. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I, too, would like to see evidence to back up @Pequod76:'s assertion. I recall going through the various pages and finding a complete nothingburger. Ideal if you would list the diffs, Pequod76. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Since Pequod76 didn't answer Tagishsimon's and my question, I'll do it myself.

Camelia.boban was indefinitely blocked for the following comment, which I translated into English. I underlined the sentence that was interpreted as a personal attack:

I didn't want Patafisik to open this discussion [on notification to WikiDonne of AfDs involving female BLP subjects] because I knew how it would turn out. But I must admit that I am glad that she opened it and I thank everyone who took part in it. Eventually, the discussion ended up being a 'truth-telling session'. I would summarise the various opinions expressed as follows: WikiDonne has the vocation and capacity to edit existing articles and to write new ones, but not to participate in AfDs and possibly to advocate for the articles to be kept, since one cannot rule out bias and WP:CANVASS would be intrinsic, given that it belongs to the nature of women to support each other and get hysterical when an article about a woman is deleted. This shows that for some editors WikiDonne – because of what it does, its name, its goals, because it is also a user group and an association – will always be an outsider on itwiki, 'an external project hosted by the domain'. And since WikiDonne does what all the others do within the Wikimedia movement (whose structure is ignored here, and of which itwiki itself is a constitutive element, itwiki also being a project hosted by others), I suppose you will make the same assessment of Women in Red, Wikimujeres, Les sans pagEs, etc. (in addition to the aforementioned WikiAfrica, which was perhaps named to broaden the view), 'entities that have their centre of gravity outside WP'. For me, this is where the discussion peacefully ends.

Immediately after this comment, Camelia was blocked for one week for personal attacks. The blocking admin explained that The attack is indiscriminate on the entire community and the words you used were very harsh. A few days later another admin filed a utente problematico report (which is a community discussion on behaviour close to enwiki's AN/I) and Camelia was indefinitely blocked.

Camelia registered her account in 2007, founded WikiDonne user group in 2016 and was a productive editor, with around 45,000 edits on it.wiki and 20,000 on Commons. She was and still is very active in the Wikimedia movement, e.g. as a long-standing member and former president of AffCom. She had already been blocked twice on it.wiki for (IMHO non-existing) canvassing and personal attacks almost as serious as the one I have just translated.

In my view her block is the result of two concurrent causes. First, the extreme sensitivity and aggressiveness of it.wiki admins. They are mostly men who feel personally attacked at the mere idea of being suspected of sexism. They are also suspicious, if not hostile, to any initiative that might add contributors and content to the Encyclopaedia without going through their prior control. Second, Camelia's block originated from a genuine editorial conflict over the nature and purpose of WikiDonne. This was made clear by Civvi's comments in both the discussion on notifying WikiDonne about AfDs and the utente problematico discussion. Her criticisms were mainly editorial and were enthusiastically received by all the male admins as final proof that they were right to be angry with Camelia. But there was no justification for turning a reasonable editorial disagreement into a dispute over behaviour. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you concur, @Pequod76:? Has Gitz6666 missed a salient insult, or was that it? You continue, even in December 2023, to assert all the fault lies with Camelia, but you do not trouble to evidence your agument with diffs? If so, that's dishonourable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What happened in December 2023? We went through this last year, you know what I think about the issue. Gitz and you like to talk of "men" and "bunch of men". And it.wiki is sexist, oh yeah, sure. In my opinion, your way of addressing these things is disruptive, being part of the problem, not of the solution. I wish you the best, but I am done with you. Continuing is just bad for both parts. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Right. So no diffs, just a couple more ad hominems. Bye then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yaaaaawn. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I’d suggest being attentive to WP:BOOMERANG, @Pequod76. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't see how it has to do with me, but thank you anyway. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been making personal attacks concerning the behavior of other editors and, when evidence is requested, refusing to provide any. That can be cause for blocking you. I suggest you provide the requested evidence or retract your attacks. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer such postings to be rare here; as asilvering notes, we have Deletion sorting/Women for that. The other thing to be careful of is to make sure all announcements of AfDs here are neutrally worded rather than pushing a desired outcome for the AfD, per WP:CANVASS. But if that is done, I don't see a problem with the occasional announcement. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'd add to this that actually, most AfD announcements here aren't "worded neutrally" in the way that normally means. That is, normally "worded neutrally" means someone writes "hello, here is a discussion that might be of interest to this wikiproject". imo, doing that here would be an example of how neutral language can be used for obviously non-neutral aims (I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that someone giving an AfD notice here like that has the hope that the article is kept, and I would start to have canvassing concerns if this was done regularly). AfDs mentioned here are more commonly described a bit, such that it's clear that the poster believes the AfD topic is probably notable but that they are unable to show it themselves. That means the plea isn't a canvassing "please stack this AfD discussion" but "there is a specific sourcing problem I cannot overcome, help?" If anyone did this too often it would drive enough people crazy that they'd be asked to can it. Again (as you can see from scrolling up the page), it really isn't very common. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Tagishsimon, it's about it.wiki and the incident you've already discussed in the past, the "Outrageously sexist behaviour" -- I agree with asilvering. I'm glad to know that on en.wiki Deletion sorting/Women is an "uncontroversial part of the setup" and that occasionally posting here about AfD is acceptable -- that's the information I was looking for, thanks. I also understand that systematically informing the project about ongoing AfDs might raise WP:CANVASS concerns, especially if the automatic consequence were a series of unwarranted "keep, keep, keep", but as far as I know this has never been the case with WikiDonne on it.wiki. On the other hand, if editors of this and other projects can help find new sources and improve the quality of articles on notable subjects that would otherwise be deleted, that's all the better. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, if it would be helpful for you and you have a mind to go back through several weeks of AfDs posted to this talk page, I'm sure you'll notice in at least a few of them that some WiR editors arrive at the AfD and do not !vote keep. You will often see an editor pop in with a source or two that they found, just as a comment since they didn't find enough to want to argue for a keep. Sometimes you'll see something like "I looked really hard for newspaper articles but only found these, I don't think she's notable". You'll also see some unambiguous delete votes from people who regularly write biographies of women. I don't know if that will help you, though, in the face of the kinds of arguments being used on it-wiki. -- asilvering (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It is quite hard to understand what kind of arguments were used on it.wiki... Canvassing was briefly mentioned by the filer, but since the project was AFIK impeccable and generally behaved in the reasonable way you describe, all the discussion revolved around the question of Camelia's civility, and her alleged incivility resulted from her expressing concern that WikiDonne was being viewed with hostility by many users. I know, it's hard to make sense of this discussion leading to her block. As for me, I'd like to address this incident sooner or later by posting something off-wiki. Thank you for your help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this discussion has covered the main points:

WiR gets a feed of women articles nominated for deletion - it's absolutely uncontroversial
Infrequent posts are made on talk about women articles nominated for deletion
They get pushback from WiR if they're canvassing
They're often framed as "can you help provide referencess for"
When framed as "can you help provide referencess for" they frequently (but not always) result in improvements to the article
They often lead to WiR people !voting in the AfD
WiR people !votes are not always 'keep'; can as easily be delete.
WiR very rarely gets pushback from the wider community about its involvement in deletion discussions, but it does happen from time to time, generally in the AfD discussion

Good luck with IT wikipedia. Remember that it will hold off-wiki behaviour against you, and will frame any criticism as disruption necessitating sanction, so, fun place. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right there, but I've already been indeff'd, so I have nothing to worry about. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I bet 1€ that this is the second angle of a triangle. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 15:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the metaphor of angles and triangles... what does it mean? It would be nice if you wouldn't speak in riddles. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The only guess I can make is that you are suggesting that Tagishsimon, myself and possibly Camelia (the third angle?) have somehow coordinated for some obscure, fishy purpose. If that's what you meant to say, you've just lost 1 euro. I've never interacted with Tagishsimon before. I did not coordinate with Camelia: AFIK she was unaware of this conversation until a few hours ago when I sent her the translation of her comment that I'm posting now. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No, nothing of the sort. I will tell you at the right moment if I was wrong. In the meantime, adieu. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 00:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What can I say? Since you don't want me to understand what you said, I won't understand it. I will understand it if and when you will want me to understand it. Anyway, thank you for telling me what I couldn't possibly understand, but will probably understand in the future, if you let me. Nice :-D Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

May I also draw the attention of WiR contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women. Many biographies of women not listed on the WiR page are mentioned here and deserve our attention. There are also alerts on related wikiprojects such as Women writers. As most wikiprojects have this feature, I don't think we need to worry about any undue interest in AfDs about women. I'm always impressed by the attention given to them by our contributors which so frequently leads to significant improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Gitz6666, The trend I've noticed is that if an editor makes a notification here regarding an AfD biography, often it comes with a request to help find additional sources either because of a WP:N issue, or because of a WP:RS issue. Even if that request isn't overly made, it seems to me that is what happens: editors start looking for additional sources to improve the article. As there are thousands of pageviews per 30 days of this WiR talkpage, there always seem to be editors who, at a given moment, stop what they're doing and try to find more sources, and/or improve the biography in other ways. While not all articles are saved in this way (of course), IMO, a very desirable outcome of posting a help request here is that additional editors try to improve a given article. As a case study, from an editor point of view, I went through this process myself in 2023 with the biography I created on Verónica Chen in 2014. Happily, the article was improved enough (more sources added by others) so that the outcome was "Keep". --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that there are daily-updated "Article alerts" lists for both WikiProject Women and Women in Red, as well as many other WikiProjects such as WikiProject Disambiguation or WikiProject Italy, which anyone can add to their watch list. These list all articles nominated for AfD, PROD, and various other events, so could be described as a "practice of notifying this WikiProject about the nomination for deletion of BLP whose subjects are women", and similarly for every other Wikiproject.

I've been meaning to mention this for a couple of days, but one strange aspect of editing on a mobile phone, as I do at some times of the day, is that it seems impossible to contribute to any "Wikipedia talk:" discussions. Presumably the lower orders who edit on mobile aren't to be trusted to join in serious discussions? Very odd. PamD 17:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@PamD does this happen even when you use your mobile browser's "show desktop version" function? -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Testing ... PamD 20:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow: I seem to have found a way that works: I thought I'd tried everything. Thanks for inspiring me to persevere. But I still get "invalid response from server" on the first natural route and have to jump through hoops. PamD 20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@PamD That one might be because there were some technical issues with the server today. I'm not sure if they've been fixed but hopefully that means you won't get the same error in the future. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I've been getting that message for weeks, not just today, if I click "Reply" in a normal conversation on a WT page. PamD 23:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Sandra Elkin

Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I just created a stub for Sandra Elkin who recently died. She was the host and producer of the pioneering 1970’s PBS program Woman. Thriley (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not directly related to Elkin’s article, but it turns out the American Archive of Public Broadcasting ([5]) has a number of Woman episodes digitized. The show might be a good resource to find new subjects for articles, as each episode features at least one guest speaker involved with women’s issues/activism. :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm all done, Thriley. Is it okay if I submit this to DYK? I assume you weren't planning on going to ITN deaths with it, since she died over a month ago, right? Silver seren^C 18:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Awesome Silver! Feel free to submit to DYK. So many potential hooks. I think an RD nom would be acceptable in my opinion in this case. Too many deaths slip through because of a late obit. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Collette Pope Heldner

Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, can anyone find coverage on Collette Pope Heldner? (First name often spelled with one 'l'). I'm finding sources discussing her as vaguely a notable artist, but not sigcov. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891: There's a nice piece about her here. And from all the hits on auction sites, she certainly seems to deserve an article.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Victuallers (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

And maybe also this, perhaps backed up by this. Lots of interesting details to be added to the article. It looks to me as if the article on Knute Heldner could also be expanded (but perhaps I shouldn't be mentioning it here).--Ipigott (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Write-ups by the galleries that host an artist's work are not independent coverage. No matter how much info exists from that coverage, if it's the only source of SIGCOV then the topic just isn't notable. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings, but I doubt she meets WP:NARTIST. As the article says, this is essentially tourist art, with a vast number of variations on a few subjects - Swamp Idyll etc. That the auction estimates mostly fall between $500 and $1500, for original oils by an artist born over a century ago, doesn't really suggest notability. Those are local gallery prices for local working artists. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod, for sharing your professional experience but it seems a little strange to me that an article on Knute Heldner is found to be acceptable if one on Collette needs to be dismissed. The two seem to have been very closely related in their work. The recognition Knute received at the time could well have been a result of his gender. In any case, there certainly seems to be enough material to put together a solid biography. Let's see how things develop.--Ipigott (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not professional, but specialized, in Wiki terms. On a very quick look, they don't seem to be "very closely related in their work" at all - or rather (now I've looked on the web) he does some similar pics to hers, but they only form a small part of his work. His notability might also be questioned, although the "invaluable" site estimates go up to $35,000. And as we know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Victuallers we now have a solid stub.--Ipigott (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Women in Red Tee shirts in Africa

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

tweet. Where can I get one? Victuallers (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

So cool!!!! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Katherine Coffey

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hanna T. Rose, currently at a poorly-nominated AfD, won the Katherine Coffey Award, and this describes Coffey as "one of the outstanding museum leaders and administrators of the nation". I can find a brief note with pic and her archived papers, but not much else. Presumably there will have been obits etc in US sources - someone might like to follow her up? She has a Wikidata entry, which sources her birth and death dates (1900-1972) to an interesting-sounding book Women as interpreters of the visual arts, 1820- 1979 (ISBN 9780313220562). PamD 09:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Cindy Woodhouse

Latest comment: 11 months ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Woodhouse has just been elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations and we have no article on her (or Joanna Bernard, who was the interim chief before her). Anyone up for writing about her? Here's some news article about her for sources! - Yupik (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is about Canada - you need to say this. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Strange that you didn't think the post immediately previous needed to say something about how it was about the USA? -- asilvering (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not really, for an artist nationality is in theory irrelevant, whereas Cindy Woodhouse has a quasi-political office, for which it is obviously much more relevant. Strangely, Ipiggot just found something strange in the section above, when to me it clearly isn't. Strange indeed, or a narrowing groupthink perspective? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Er, the relevant nationality in this case would be "First Nation", which is in Yupik's original post, bluelinked and everything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Er, Er, Er, I said "about Canada", avoiding nationality issues. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Her Wikidata record has her nationality as First Nation. Anyone can add to what is on there or on W'pedia. Victuallers (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

?? Is there a point there, Victuallers? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Its a statememt of a contribution to Wikipedia and this project that others can improve Victuallers (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As a Brit, I recognise "First Nations" as a Canadian term. Agree that there is a massive tendency from some Wikipedia editors to assume that everything and everyone is in the USA unless otherwise specified: a nice example being here where someone had carefully piped United States Census Bureau to appear as "Census Bureau" in the lead sentence of an article, presumably on the basis that there's only one census bureau, or only one which matters, with no other indication of nationality or location in the lead sentence. Ho hum. PamD 20:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me, Yupik, as if she certainly deserves an article rather than a redirect. There's a page on RoseAnne Archibald who preceded her and all earlier national chiefs are covered. Yeeno and yeungkahchun might be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have turned the redirect into a stub/start class article for Woodhouse, but it could certainly use more work - especially since there's a fair bit about her in CBC articles that for some reason I was unable to access. ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

RD nomination

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Ellen Holly needs a few more citations in the prose and filmography in order to be ready for WP:ITN RD (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Ellen Holly), and I figured some here may be interested. Cheers, Curbon7 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

~~Done~~. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops spoke too soon. I resolved the tags but not the filmography. Embarrassed to say it but after all this time I still really don’t know how to revise tables like that so I can’t really help. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Amy Padnani

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Women Do News are trying to get this through draft review, but not having any joy. Can anyone here help? Dsp13 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

That project has a really tough task because if there are only a few articles written about the person but many written by them, it becomes so hard to surface the former in searches. You can’t even exclude their workplace (to try to remove the bylines) since most secondary coverage would mention it. It’s a conundrum. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Religion series

Latest comment: 11 months ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone, volume 3 of the Women in Religion series, written by many members of the Women in Religion WikiProject and edited by its co-founder, Colleen Hartung, has just been published. See here: https://parliamentofreligions.org/womens-dignity/women-advancing-knowledge-equity-2023/

Is this a source that can be listed in the Research section here? If so, tell me so and I'll add it. We're very proud of this volume and are happy to share it with the WP and WIR community. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Figureskatingfan. I see it contains eight biographies and is available online here. Her earlier books are also available online (see below). Can you point to any reviews of the books in this series? As for adding it in the Research section, I think it may be more useful simply to look more carefully into those covered in the book: Teresia Mbari Hinga, Pamela Ayo Yetunde, Jennifer Howe Peace, Iyekiyapiwin Darlene St. Clair, Barbara Lewis King, Elisabeth Ursic, Audrey E. Kitagawa, Dolly Dastoor. Looks as if you are well placed to create an article on Elisabeth Ursic, especially as you have listed many valid sources. But maybe you want to avoid a possible conflict of interest.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

While I'm here, I see those covered in Claiming Notability for Women Activists in Religion (available online here) are Mae Eleanor Frey, Janet McKenzie, Miranda E. Shaw, Beatriz Melano, Bertha Mae Lillenas, Yvonne V. Delk, Ida Weis Friend, Shundo Aoyama Rōshi, Margaret Peoples Shirer, Ellen Margaret Leonard. Now see they have all been covered.--Ipigott (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Those in Challenging Bias against Women Academics in Religion (available online here) are Carolyn Tennant, Mary Burt Messer, Isabel Apawo Phiri, Stephanie Y. Mitchem, Traci C. West, Chanequa Walker Barner, Mary Milligan, Paula Kane Robinson Arai, Agustina Luvis Núñez, Greer Anne Wenh-In Ng.--Ipigott (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan: As our Research section is mainly concerned with technical and more general problems in connection with the coverage of women on Wikipedia, collections of biographies are not really suitable for inclusion. It might be useful to make sure those redlinked above are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/1000 Women in Religion and on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Religion. You could also include something about the publications on the Women in Religion talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@Ipigott, thanks for the response. The Women in Religion Project is pretty good at doing the above on our project page. All three volumes are great resources to create and improve bios, so if anyone would like to assist with turning the subjects in the volumes from red to blue, that would be great. Here's our lists of red links from all three volumes: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion/Women in Religion series. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Have made a start on Agustina Luvis Núñez. Will expand tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott, that's great! Where's the thumbs-up emoticon when you need it? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan

SusunW (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan: The article on Luvis Núñez seems to be coming along quite well but it would be far more effective if we could include a photograph. Could you or one of your group ask her to provide one for us. Maybe Juliany González Nieves from Puerto Rico can help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan: I've finished working on Agustina Luvis Núñez. In addition to a photo, it might also benefit from an Infobox. With all the info available about those still redlinked, I could easily cover more of them myself but I think I should give you and others from your group the opportunity of working on them yourselves. In any case, I do not usually write biographies of English speakers as there's a whole army of Wikipedia editors able to cover them. I prefer to cover Europeans from Scandinavia and the continent of Europe as well as Latin Americans (like Agustina). Let me know if you think I can help with any of these.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott, I think you've done a swell job. There's been some talk about a future Women in Religion volume focusing on non-English speakers, although the majority of us in the WikiProject only speak English. There are scores of women in religion that would fit your interests, though; just look at our redlists for them. In other words, there are lots of ways to contribute. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Bundled AFD

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jahn, which bundles seven women canoeists who competed at the 2020 Olympics together to be discussed for deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)