Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 139

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 145

Women in Science Editathon on February 16, 2024

Hi everyone, A few instructors from University of Southern California and Boston University are having an editathon on February 16, 2024 to commemorate International Day of Women and Girls in Science. If you'd like to participate - the program dashboard is here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Boston_University/Women_in_Science_Edit-a-thon/home Thank you! 1namesake1 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Upvoting nominations at Wikipedia Library

Hello! There's a suite of potential partners that are nominated for inclusion in the Wikipedia Library - I think they need 50 upvotes before consideration, and there's many there that could be really useful. I use British Archaeological Reports often, so would be thankful to see afew votes land there too! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Women and education

Category:Women and education has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Women's education. The discussion has been relisted twice after not much participation. Please add your opinion to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30#Category:Women and education if you have one (I haven't formulated one yet, myself). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question mark on talk pages listing Women in Red (Women in Red talkpage banner discussion)

I have just come across a red question mark on the talk page of Judith Stanmay triggered by "WikiProject Women in Red". I have checked other similar talk pages and they all display the question mark. Placing the cursor over the question mark reveals a prompt saying "This article has not been connected to a particular event". While there has been extensive discussion of WiR articles in the banner shell environment, to the best of my knowledge this change has not been discussed here. In my opinion, contributors should feel free to add the basic Women in Red template without being encouraged to add an event. Many contributors are aware of our general goals but do not have intricate knowledge of our priorities. We should not introduce changes liable to discourage their support. Let's keep things simple for them. Furthermore, the presence of a question mark may encourage other contributors to assign an event which was not originally intended by those who created or improved the article. But maybe others think the question mark is a step in the right direction?--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Ipigott. IMO, it is not a step in the right direction. (a) Some editors add the WiR talkpage template without assigning a specific year, event, etc., and that is just as okay as adding a specific one. For example, newbies learn about WikiProject Women in Red, WikiProject MILHIST, WikiProject Biography, etc. at in-person events without a deep dive into WikiProject talkpage template schema. (b) I don't recall seeing discussion about adding a question mark to our talkpage template. If it did occur, would someone please provide a link? In any case, the question mark needs to be removed as this phrase (which I found on the talkpage template) This article has not been connected with a particular event. is accurate, and does not require follow-up such as a question mark would imply. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

For those interested, MSGJ has made a series of revisions to Template:WikiProject Women in Red since 12 January. I don't know whether any other talk page displays have been changed as a result.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that @MSGJ: should be asked to remove the questionmark. And perhaps we should also encourage our members to add a specific editathon, even if it's just the #onewomanoneday project for the year, rather than the generic template. PamD 14:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you asking for the whole message to disappear or just the question mark? By the way, these articles are also tracked in Category:WikiProject Women in Red articles not associated with a meetup. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

My vote would be to remove the question mark both in summary form and in expanded form. The message "This article has not been connected with a particular event" is harmless but not particularly useful, so could be cut out to save space. The category may be useful for some analyses. Other editors may have different views! PamD 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That's done now. You said we should encourage members to add a specific edit-a-thon, but perhaps this visual encouragement was a bit too strong? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly a help to see in what connection a WiR template has been added but many contributors add a non-specific banner because they think an article fits into the general goals of the project, just as they add basic banners for other wikiprojects such as Biography, Film or United States. In some cases they can easily be made more specific, for example when articles about women writers are created in connection with a monthly focus, but they are often not connected to anything more specific. When reviewing articles from new members of the project, I frequently discover that some have been using the general WiR banner for quite some time before they actually join. Indeed some think they are members just because they add the WiR banner. That all helps the project along. I'm all in favour of flexibility.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the question mark being red made it look too much like an error. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that an editor of WiR content may not be a WiR member and may not want to be associated with a particular WiR event... and that is absolutely okay for a number of reasons including the potential harassment an editor might face off-wiki. I attended 2 in-person Wikipedia Day events this month, so I'm acutely aware of potential unpleasant situations some editors encounter. The option ... "This article has not been connected with a particular event" ... is both meaningful and appropriate, so please, let's keep it, let's not require appending it (beyond -maybe- the year), and let's allow for the tracking of metrics for articles not connected with a particular WiR event. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie. I can't imagine how these unpleasant situations arise, but you don't need to elaborate. Based on comments above I removed the message "This article has not been connected with a particular event" so now it just displays the generic "This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project". Is this okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is okay. Thanks for understanding, MSGJ. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Online Biographical Dictionary of the Woman Suffrage Movement in the United States

I just stumbled across this resource while looking for someone I found referred to over on Commons (long story, half of which I've already forgotten); I see that it's been brought up before in these precincts, and that it is the subject of an article. Might it be useful to create a list of redlinks out of it? It doesn't seem as if we have one, unless I've managed to miss something. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In general the biographies are pretty detailed and list sources. As far as I can see the work is still being expanded and now runs to about 3,700. It would certainly be interesting to see how many of them we have already covered. From relevant categories, it looks as if we do not have many more than a thousand or so. I think Megalibrarygirl and SusunW might be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Several years ago I added all the people from this dictionary to Wikidata. I haven't updated it to add the new additions, but there are still several thousand names in Wikidata. It should be easy to generate a redlist if it hasn't been done already. Gamaliel (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Gamaliel: That no doubt explains why this redlist runs to over a thousand American suffragists. I see many are indeed referenced to the Online Biographical Dictionary.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Meiklejohn, Bitcoin researcher

I recently created a draft for Sarah Meiklejohn. She lead a team which demonstrated that Bitcoin was not anonymous, the subject of a story in Wired last month:[1]. Thriley (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Statistics at your fingertips

The WiR template clean-up project has had the interesting (and exciting) improvement of a table on the page of each years' catagory.

• 2023
• 2022
• 2021
• 2020
• 2019
• 2018
• 2017

There are also stats on our alphabet runs at Category:WikiProject Women in Red Alphabet run articles

Thanks to MSGJ!. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WiR categories 2023

• These provide a good basis for seeing which topics attract most articles. The alphabet runs seem pretty popular as do writers. I should nevertheless point out that many contributors follow our priorities but do not necessarily include the appropriate WiR tag on article talk pages. Indeed many never create talk pages, leaving their creation to reviewers and other contributors. Years back, I started adding missing tags myself but only for a few months. I therefore think it is also important to take account of all the new articles about women created month-by-month and year-by-year as shown in our metrics. Biographies are particularly important as they provide data on how we have been increasing the overall proportion of women's biographies. Perhaps our tip for March should specifically address the importance of creating article talk pages and adding appropriate WiR tags.--Ipigott (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

We could perhaps engage a bot to tag appropriate pages. For example if an article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/296 then the bot could automatically tag the talk page with {{WIR|296}} (if it wasn't already). But a tip sounds like a good idea too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I think most of the contributors who list their creations on a WiR event page also take the trouble to create a talk page. But some of the most prolific creators of biographies of women (or biographies in general) never create talk pages for their articles or comment on WiR pages. They do nevertheless back their articles with appropriate categories which in turn lead to entries on Wikidata. From the Wikidata stats, we are able to monitor overall progress on the proportion of women's biographies. When I create talk pages for new creations on women, I don't normally add WiR tags either unless I am assisting a newbie or a new member of Women in Red. That's because I know many contributors consistently develop articles in connection with, for example, book titles, political appointments or sports. As I'm pretty sure many of them are not even aware of the project, I think it would be unfair to pretend they are contributing to WiR even if their articles happen to coincide with an appropriate event. But while we are addressing bots, there has been interest in fixing the bot mentioned on the WiR main page under "About: additional details", i.e. this tool. If you can't fix it yourself, perhaps you know someone who can. If we could get it to work, I think it would help to encourage contributors to spend more time on developing articles about women if they could see what proportion of their articles are women's biographies. I've tried it out a few times myself but it has never provided results. Maybe the time lag is too long.--Ipigott (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A redlist of potential interest: Women Film Pioneers Project

Hello folks, I was looking at the Women Film Pioneers Project, a scholarly resource about women in early film, and wondered how many of the women have wiki articles. I made all the names into a list here: turns out, most of them do have articles, but there are still a good number of red names! To my eye the WFPP has assembled enough sourcing for all of these women to have wiki articles, so it just takes some enterprising editors to come write them. I thought I'd share the list here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, LEvalyn, for bringing this to our attention. We have the article Women Film Pioneers Project and a Wikidata entry on this but it certainly looks as if we have yet to cover many of them. Just to take the As, Isabel Acuña, Muriel Alleyne, Audrie Alspaugh, Teresita Arce and Alicia Armstrong de Vicuña have not yet been covered. (They are also missing from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women of the silent film era.) Some of them might not be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia but as the WFPP biographies are well sourced, there should not be too many problems. Perhaps contributors more familiar with film could take a closer look. In any case, next time we cover women actresses or those in stage and screen, these biographies would be a useful source to mention.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have been through User:LEvalyn's WFPP redlist and updated a number of links. As well as actresses, there are many film directors, editors, critics, who would fit our Behind the Scenes: Stage & Screen event in August. Oronsay (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Wayback

I noticed an unexpected issue in Wayback, which is pretty difficult to explain, but which is noted here. Basically the wayback link being saved comes up with a totally different article. I reported it to info@archive.org and got a reply the very next day. Passing along the contact information, because it wasn't easy to find who to report a problem to, in the event that anyone else is seeing weird archiving results that need to be reported. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

SusunW: I suggest you report to issue to Help talk:Using the Wayback Machine.--Ipigott (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott. On it. Appreciate your help, I had no clue that even existed. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Stuff I learned recently

I'm putting this here because I think it may be helpful for others and particularly for anyone interested in our February focus on Black History Month. I discovered that our ProQuest search tab (not the search bar at the top of the collections) in the WP library now includes AllAfrica in its collections. Sam Walton has been working on including it for years and I applaud his success!

Also I noted that the category Category:United Nations people says it should be empty and instead one should use United Nations officials. But, the big problem with that, IMO is that many women, for example wives of the Secretary Generals, serve in "unofficial" capacities. Just as First Ladies of countries aren't typically aren't official roles, the first lady of the UN and diplomatic wives of UN personnel have an undefined role but are expected to serve as hostesses and spokespersons when called upon and are often designated as chair or honorary chair of various committees. Seems weird to not have them included in this category. Ideas anyone? SusunW (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Tough hill to climb on UN first ladies, but I believe this project can pull off anything it sets its collective minds to achieve. I have been spending a lot of time over at Category:AfD debates. On a Wikipedia issue that embassies are not inherently notable, many get deleted. Seems like everyday lately. So, if they will do that for the embassies, it could also be done to wives of the ambassadors. On the other hand ... this project is just made to pull off the difficult tasks. Good luck, and more steam ahead. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• SusunW: We have the rather wishy-washy Category:United Nations experts which includes a few women. Perhaps you could use it for first ladies and wives too. But it might be better to create Category:United Nations unofficial associates. Any opinions on this? Maile66: Thanks for your encouragement. The explanations on Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability may need to be expanded and clarified. It would be useful to have a set of clearly defined rules with examples. I see that under WP:Notability (politics) "Ambassadors are not considered inherently notable." and that "The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable." It would be useful to include spouses of UN Secretaries General here.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Ipigott and Maile. I appreciate the discussion and yes, that's why I brought it here. To be honest, I didn't have a clue what the First Lady (and that means there is the possibility of First Gentleman or whatever) of the UN was called, but I have 2 sources, one from the UN, that actually state that is the title and that it is an unofficial position but requires them to be hostess for official functions and to take care of the spouses of visiting diplomats and heads of state. The description from the UN is clearly the same as that held by the spouse of a head of state. Does that make them an expert? I don't know. I was surprised that there was no specific category or that even United Nations people could not be used. Of course the problem is that the people who discuss category deletions don't have to advise projects that might be effected, so I also wanted to bring it up here to see what position we might be able to come up with, if we created a category. It's confusing. SusunW (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• SusunW, as a belated response to this, there is a straightforward process for renaming en Wikipedia categories, which means that mistakes will be made and that they are relatively easy to correct. If there is enough information in reliable sources to create a category it could go into Category:United Nations to start with. TSventon (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks TSventon I note that we don't even have any women's categories in the whole UN section. In my recent work on Africa, I have found women who work for (not with but for) various UN Agencies, but with no where to put them. Quite frankly, it's really inconsistent, but I do not have the skills to research whether there are enough people to create categories. For example, there is no UNDP people category, but there is a UNICEF people, and there is nothing at all for UN Women, so if someone worked for UNIFEM, UN Women, etc. no where to include them. SusunW (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Susun: I think we need to progress with this. How about creating Category:United Nations people as a category in its own right, attaching Category:United Nations experts and Category:United Nations officials to it and then going on to create Category United Nations agency people, Category:United Nations associates and Category:United Nations women. Are any more needed? If no one objects, I could create these tomorrow but I'll need help to populate them.--Ipigott (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There are enough articles linked to UN Women to justify some categories, so I have created Category:UN Women, Category:UN Women people, Category:Executive Directors of UN Women and Category:UN Women Goodwill Ambassadors. I still need to do some tidying up. TSventon (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you both @Ipigott and TSventon:. I truly appreciate y'all's help because I truly don't know enough about making categories or populating them, but it seems so odd. For example my next victim (I'm still researching her and no where near ready to publish) was employed by the UNDP for 30 years and I cannot link her to any UN Category. Surely Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar, who drug me first into this discussion is not the only notable first lady of the UN. But, I can at least now add Pérez and Phoebe Asiyo to that Goodwill ambassador's category since they were the very first two women ever to serve in that position when it was still UNIFEM. SusunW (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW:, can't the woman employed by the UNDP for 30 years go into Category:United Nations Development Programme officials? As for first ladies, you could start with a list like List of spouses and partners of Icelandic presidents.

@Ipigott:, I would advise against recreating Category:United Nations people as it was redirected as the result of a CfD discussion and it could be speedily redirected again. For what it's worth,Category:Women by organization does not have any subcategories like Category:United Nations women. TSventon (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon: Don't worry. Now that you are making such useful progress on this yourself, I'll leave things up to you. Thanks for your effprts.--Ipigott (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

TSventon I will put her in that UNDP officials category, because possibly that works for an area representative. Thanks. Categories are really confusing to me. That Women by organization category doesn't have any categories for International Council of Women people, International Alliance of Women/International Woman Suffrage Alliance people, nor does Category:Women's International League for Peace and Freedom people‎ show up there. That said, I typically find categories by going to someone else's profile and copying the category from there. Searching on WP for an article is horrible (searching google and backing in is far easier), and is even worse when trying to find categories, IMO. I truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

SusunW, I have added Category:Women's International League for Peace and Freedom people and Category:International Alliance of Women people to Women by organisation. Category:International Council of Women people does not yet exist, I can put it onto my to do list. I normally create categoriesb by copying and adapting an existing category, so for the UN Women categories I followed the already existing UNICEF ones. Generally categories have to follow writing the articles they contain: are you thinking of writing something like Women and the United Nations?

I use HotCat to speed up adding and removing categories. It can be activated via preferences, see Wikipedia:HotCat. TSventon (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

TSventon yay! Thank you for the categories (scribbles name on network of specialists who can help with tasks that are out of my league). "Copying and adapting" - Isn't that the way one must work in WP? . While a list of UN first ladies and an article like Women in the United Nations would both be useful for the encyclopedia, my goal for the year is to see how many articles I can write in a straight chain from one red link to another without doubling back in a daisy chain. So far I've managed 11 and to make it harder, I started in Africa, where a lot of women work in development, thus have ties to the UN. It does take a village to write articles and I appreciate your expertise. SusunW (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

SusunW, I am happy to help, I have left some notes about how far I got at Category talk:Women by organization. I hope you will report on your chain building in due course. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

TSventon Very much appreciate your efforts. Since it's a year-long goal will give an update at the end of the year, but if you are interested now, I'm keeping track on my Welcome to my user page. SusunW (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Cyberfeminism Index by Mindy Seu

I just created a draft for the Cyberfeminism Index put together by Mindy Seu that was published as a book last year. It has hundreds of entries that may be very helpful in identifying subject matter that isn’t on Wikipedia just yet. Seu’s article currently is tagged for notability. I think she meets GNG but would appreciate others to have a look. Thriley (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The tag on Seu was outdated and has now been deleted. Maybe it would be useful to include the index and book in the article on Cyberfeminism.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely! It would be an excellent resource for that article. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced women in February

As a slight distraction from creating new articles on women, can I encourage you to join in improving the quality of existing articles, just for this one month, by helping the #Unreferenced articles February 2024 backlog drive described above?

I always thought PetScan was something terribly technical, but have discovered how amazingly simple it is to use: just go to https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ and add the categories you're interested in, with a "depth" figure to include subcategories, and click "Do it" to get a list. Look at one of those articles, find and add a WP:RS, remove {{unreferenced}} (or replace it with {{refimprove}}), add References section and {{reflist}} if lacking, and there you are. (Optional extra: fall down various rabbit holes of finding multiple references, disentangling confusions, improving articles, creating the article with which it got confused, ...).

If you input the two categories "All articles lacking sources" and "Women", to a depth of 10 subcategories, you see 4186 hits (with some very odd inclusions). Add in a category of interest, say "France" and you get 2012, or "Dance" gets 272. Using "17th-century women" gets 27 hits. I've taken time away from WiR and spent far too many happy hours with unreferenced articles of "Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom" and its subcategories (which found one rugby player because his birth village was on Dartmoor or in the Peak District, I forget which!) I've redirected one or two, sent a couple to AfD, disentangled a couple of muddles. Very satisfying, and improving the overall quality of the representation of women in our beloved encyclopedia - and the articles are less likely to be quietly proposed for PROD or AfD by drive-by deletionists once they have at least one WP:RS. PamD 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Mania Akbari

There is a request on my talkpage regarding the Mania Akbari article. The subject has asked for a number of corrections and expansions, described at User talk:Womanfeminist2024. I know we are planning to facilitate an event later this year on Film+Stage, but I'm wondering if someone has time/inclination to support/improve/strength this BLP now. -- Rosiestep (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at this. It seems to me there is a serious COI problem here. I would not be too happy about including the changes requested and find the discussion on User talk:Womanfeminist2024 pretty confused. The normal procedure for changes requested by the subject of an article or others with COI concerns is to make specific requests for changes on the article's talk page, justifying them with reliable sources. It should be explained that Wf2024 cannot use her own website and her Facebook account to replace the sources previously used. It seems to me that Dreamyshade who has contributed to the article and has been involved in her talk page discussions is well placed to make further adjustments if these are warranted and backed by reliable sources. It would be useful to document the reason for recent changes on the article's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I've just noticed that it was in fact Dreamyshade who asked for assistance. I still think she is probably more familiar with the case than anyone else but it would be useful if others could lend a hand.--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've asked the person to make specific suggestions and provide sources when possible, so that a non-COI editor (like me) can integrate appropriate corrections and additions into the article (and finding additional sources when needed). Most of the person's requests can be fulfilled in reasonable ways to improve the accuracy of the article. I just don't have the capacity to go very deep into it at the moment, so I'd like some help from another editor or two in sorting through the requests and making updates. I believe it's ok to be flexible about where the requests are made (on the user talk page vs article talk page) as long as they are visible/public, but I'll document this on the article talk page so that it's easier for a future editor to figure out. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football § List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records and women

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football § List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records and women. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC) – Request at the discussion for broader input and for the discussion to also ask if there should be a universal standard. As it is about content gender disparity, notifying here.

Maths

I was contacted years ago (likely 2017 as WiR facilitated a women mathematicians & statisticians editathon in Feb 2018) by a woman mathematician, whose name escapes me, who talked about Wikipedia's poor representation of women mathematicians. Wonder if the phenomenon addressed in this Science article was already being felt in the math world back then. I know we facilitate an annual STEM event each October, in honor of Ada Lovelace Day, which includes mathematicians so I'm hesitant to suggest that we facilitate a maths editathon before then but I do think that citation bias is worthy of discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In general, citation counts are not very useful in identifying notable mathematicians (unlike many other fields), because mathematical citation counts tend to be low. Presumably it is for the same reason that the citation cartels in your link find it easier to manipulate the counts in this field. Anyway, because the citation counts don't work, it tends to mean that we can only identify mathematicians as notable when they have more advanced forms of recognition like named professorships, society fellowships, or major awards. I don't know whether this disproportionately affects women relative to the male mathematicians, but it does probably cause our coverage of women in mathematics to lag behind our coverage of women in other fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a Maths-focussed event (or a strong nudge at Ada Lovelace day) - whenever STEM is a theme I always revert to biologists, so would welcome encouragement to step outside my comfort zone! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination of "Women foos"

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Women foos

This just appeared on my talkpage. I think we've had a conversation here before regarding categories that contain the the word woman/female, but it may be worthwhile to revisit the discussion now that so many categories are being considered for a shift. -- Rosiestep (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already replied at length calling for existing categories containing "women" and "female" (used for most sports) to be maintained. As far as I can see, the nominator has little experience in writing about women. Although the list of categories nominated for change looks pretty long, there are in fact hundreds more, for example all those under Category:Women writers by nationality, and similar listings for artists, photographers, etc., etc. Just imagine the havoc changing them would cause.--Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

m:Celebrate Women

The m:Celebrate Women page on Meta is the central noticeboard for all women-focused wiki events happening in March in celebration of Women's History Month. All language Wikipedias and all wiki Affiliates are able to post details about their editathons, etc. If you're interested in learning more about it, or have suggestions you'd like to share, there's an upcoming meeting on Monday, 19 Feb 2024 at 16:30 UTC. Interpretation will be available: English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. Registration required. (I've registered.)-- Rosiestep (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

grey STEM women needing bluing

I say 'grey' because their names are commented-out in the wikicode source of #IfThenSheCan § Depicted. Arlo James Barnes 06:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Arlo Barnes. I see we can find out more about them here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but...

1. The article should perhaps mention that this is not a world-wide list but a list of women currently working in the United States (the list Ian has linked shows them all with a US location)
2. That list would be useful as a link - I struggled to find a complete list of the women, even on the project's website
3. Rather than have a separate list greyed out, wouldn't it be better to include them as red links (or even just plain links if, like Graduate Research Assistant Megan Prescott, they don't appear to be "notable" in WP terms) in the A-Z sequence, perhaps with a couple of words of annotation to show their field of research? Or at least put some sort of note in the "Depicted" section to say "List of women depicted who have Wikipedia articles", to explain why there aren't 120 women showing there?

And are you sure that Tiffany Kelly was a 2006 pageant winner in Massachusetts? Her bio suggests she grew up in New Orleans. Megan Prescott looks to be another unlikely link - the article on the English actor and body-builder doesn't mention that she became a scientist.

The website seem very clunkily designed: there's a PDF page about each woman, but it doesn't look as if you can link to it directly, only click from their gallery page e.g. https://ifthencollection.org/megan . PamD 08:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should have something stating that our list is just the ones with pages, perhaps we could call it "Notable entries", along the same vein as "Notable alumni".

I don't think it would be appropriate to include annotation for each of the 120, especially not the non-notable ones. The page is already almost entirely primary- and non-independently-sourced so including such info sourced to their entries would exacerbate this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Good catches on the mistargets and the geographic scope. As for the rest, perhaps breaking the list into smaller groups (such as those best known for science, for tech, for engineering and for mathematics respectively) could help it read better? Arlo James Barnes 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure now that IPigott's list is a list of the 120 - it seems more to be a list of their 125 "Ambassadors". Where is the actual list of the 120? Not easy to find, but you must have found it somewhere! PamD 08:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure the lists are not the same? 120 was meant to read as ~120, I think, more like "ten dozen" or "six score" would sound... in any case, I found the list already created at Wikidata. Also, for me the URL you linked above redirects to https://ifthen.widencollective.com/portals/ut0fbkg8/MeganEPK... Arlo James Barnes 08:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, PamD. It's always useful to double-check any blue link that turns up in lists like this. As with any list of potential candidates for biographies, I simply assumed that before creating an article, contributors would look for at least three reliable secondary sources. But the short introductions from the American Association for the Advancement of Science should certainly provide a basis for further investigation. It seems very enterprising to me that the AAAS have designed this initiative "to further women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by empowering current innovators and inspiring the next generation of pioneers". Let's see if this discussion triggers any interest. It might also be useful to include the list or individual names in crowd-sourced redlists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Science. We could also include the list the next time we have a focus on scientists.--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is an archived list of 120 statues and a video celebrating 121 women here. The current version has only 118 names. I haven't checked which ambassadors don't have statues. TSventon (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Rather than the WayBack version, try this - it's more responsive. I thought I had come across all this before. It was probably in connection with the editathon in March 2022. That probably explains why quite a few of them already have articles. We can expect the next Women in Red focus on women in STEM around October. We should remember this resource.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott I gave the archived version to show that there were exactly 120 (planned?) statues in 2021. The current list only has 118 names. TSventon (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, TSventon. I had not realized the historical significance. But whether there were 118, 120, 121 or 125, it's still a useful resource. Unless some of those currently linked point to the wrong person, we now have 49. As we have 125 short biographies, there are still 76 we can consider for articles. Feedback regarding notability on the IfThenSheCan talk page would be useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added some links to the article talk page for reference when this discussion is archived. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed this lady "Monica Rho (born 25 October 1955) is a Costa Rican former professional tennis player". No mention of science, or the US. The group seem to be early/mid career, so we shouldn't worry too much if many don't have articles imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have added Lyda Hill to the list of names in the article and to the Wikidata list, which previously had 119 names each. This was based on the archived list that I linked earlier. TSventon (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed Nicole Jackson (birder) as the statue represents Nicole Jackson, CTO. TSventon (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The AAAS intros are not independent, so would not contribute to GNG, unless that's not what you're saying? JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Ipigott is saying that using the information in the AAAS intros may help in finding independent sources. TSventon (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I notice that the statues have 2D barcodes on their bases, which seems to show that they have serial numbers - this example links to https://ifthenexhibit.org/#ambassador_C-21, and this one to https://ifthenexhibit.org/#ambassador_A-10. Arlo James Barnes 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks like codes A to D were the circles in the garden and then there were further statues inside (code T). TSventon (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14#Category:African-American_women_lawyers

Please comment on this discussion.--User:Namiba 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Promoting diversity on Wikipedia with the Equity Portal

Some of you might be interested in WikiEdu's new Equity Portal. I think it's a great approach to helping editors recognize missing content. Will (Wiki Ed) writes that the approach to it was inspired by Women in Red and that put such a big smile on my face. Thank you, Will! Let's continue to collaborate! -- Rosiestep (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep Thanks Rosie! I helped build this tool - feel free to reach out to me if anyone has any questions. We also have a training module that explains how to tie any of these equity lists to a Dashboard. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Will (Wiki Ed): It certainly looks like an interesting new approach but I was unable to find links to the "equity lists" or other indications of how the tool works in practice. It is not clear to me whether it is designed for general use or just for the WikiEdu environment. If the latter, it would be useful to find out where it is being used and which instructors and students (with Wikipedia user names) are using it. One of the problems with WikiEdu is that while many students gain considerable competence in editing and in creating new articles about women, very few continue participating at the end of their course. I hope the new tool will provide additional incentives for them to continue contributing to Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Will (Wiki Ed): - I don't have any qualms about students who stop editing when they finish a course. Hopefully it's a long life and they start up again when they feel inclined to do so at another point in their life. I think some of them might have forgotten their usernames, or want to leave that experience behind, and they pick a new one, so who returns is not easy to track. They key, IMO, is that they had a good experience. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, Rosie, but some of them produce such good work that I think it's a pity they give up so soon. Quite a number of their first articles are up to B class from the start. (Maybe they just have good instructors.) That said, I'm happy to say that I have been able to encourage quite a few to become keen contributors even after they leave university and some of them are now successful contributors to Women in Red. If they don't receive much encouragement from outside the classroom and the WikiEdu environment, it's not surprising many don't continue. The reason I'm interested in their user names is simply to let them know I am ready to help them along. As much of the WikiEdu support is off-wiki, it's not always easy to find out what's going on. But, Rosie, if you feel that my interest is out of order, I can simply stop liaising with WikiEdu students and concentrate on other new contributors. As you can see from my user page, requests for assistance keep coming in.--Ipigott (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, no no. I wasn't addressing your interest or anything that you are doing. My point is simply that if someone, e.g. a student, stops editing at one point in their life, there's always the chance that they return later on. Eternal optimist. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott It's intended for the whole community. It works just like Women in Red, but the focus is on different demographic descriptors. Links are at the top of this page. Some of the tables have been removed due to lack of sourcing on Wikidata. I'm working to resolve this. I also agree with your point about retention. It would be wonderful if we could get more people to stick around. Always open to ideas. Thanks for your thoughts! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Will (Wiki Ed): Thanks. The redlist on Medical condition would certainly be useful the next time Women in Red has a focus on disability. I see the only other item which produces a listing is ethnicity. Any idea when the others will be available? And have you any specific plans for introducing them to the WikiEdu environment?--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott Feel free to use that medical condition list. I can also adapt it for a more specific population if that would be helpful. Wiki Education is encouraging program participants to use these lists in courses for which they would be relevant. I would love to run a course around these lists, but I don't have one scheduled currently. As for the other lists, you can see them all on this Wikidata page. Restoring the other pages may be difficult because a user took issue with the lack of sourcing on Wikidata. I can point you to the conversation if you're interested. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Angela Chao

I recently created an article for Angela Chao, who recently died in a car crash. Her article has been tagged for speedy deletion because it was deleted nearly ten years ago. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As the criteria for G4 include "substantially identical to the deleted version", and all the three sources are more recent than that deletion, it does not appear to be eligible for G4 so I have un-speedied it. PamD 09:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Brown, W. Gertrude - advice sought

I am trying to get a version of the encyclopedic entry "Brown, W. Gertrude (1888–1939)" by Sadye L. M. Logan.

• https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-1070

Is this something that is available through the Wikipedia library portal? I've been clicking around, but no joy. Thanks for any assistance. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, yes it is accessible via Oxford Research Encyclopedias in the Wikipedia library. TSventon (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks TSventon! I just needed to be more tenacious and targeted. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sad news for completionism

I found this link via our Twitter talking sadly of Vami iV who is now deceased at the age of 24. Vami IV's user page highlights Wikipedia:Writing about women and he was a keen contributor to Women in Red. Words fail me. Victuallers (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, per his obituary on WP:Deceased Wikipedians, he wrote 167 biographies of women, primarily from South America (an already underrepresented backwater of the world as it is). There aren't nearly enough words to describe the pain caused by his loss. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed this very sad and sudden loss. I first came across him when he became a keen contributor to our World Contest back in 2018.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sooo sad. Like you, Victuallers, words fail me. RIP, Vami IV. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Gender bias and Eurocentrism - the blind spots of Wikipedia"

This article, "Gender bias and Eurocentrism - the blind spots of Wikipedia" (Lea Beliaeva Bander, 18 Feb 2024, via catalannews.com) may interest some of you. It addresses content and editor gender gaps. Rosiestep (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thank you User:Rosiestep Balance person (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

As a "white male with high studies...", it makes me feel guilty too, even if I don't contribute to the Catalan wiki. But I have been trying to help my Catalan friends along with their research proposals. Although Catalan is not the national language of Spain, together with German, the Catalan wiki was one of the very first language versions to be developed after English.--Ipigott (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ksenia Karelina

I just created a draft for Ksenia Karelina. She’s a Russian American who was recently charged with treason by the Russian government for giving $50 to a nonprofit that supports Ukraine. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:1E may apply here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Newbie hoping to "turn a red link blue" - advice appreciated

Hello all! I'm working on a class project that involves making a significant contribution to Wikipedia. I decided to pick a red link off of one of WiR's lists and create an article. I think I'm making pretty good progress so far and I do feel that the woman I have selected is notable. However, I am having kind of a hard time finding sources which clearly align with Wikipedia's policies about third-party sources. I have found (and was planning to use) a bunch of interviews, but it seems those don't necessarily qualify as reliable sources; publishers' websites don't often qualify; etc. I'm worried that my article won't be well-supported enough to get accepted. Any thoughts on how to go about this?

I picked my red link from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Science Fiction and Fantasy

It's pretty obvious that this person has a very extensive career and has worked with a lot of major companies/on large projects, but then if all the sources are either a) from her or b) from her employers, what do I do? Can I even proceed? Or - am I overthinking things re: my sources? E.g. is a publishing house website a valid source for a list of publications? I'm so confused!

Sorry this is a little rambly! I just really want to do a good job :$ KRKwrites (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites: Hello! If you have a draft on Wikipedia, could you share it with us? Or give us the name of the author? It will be easier to help if we have some specifics to work with. A lot of these sources are okay to use in certain circumstances, like non-controversial information such as the names of books, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Right duh! Sorry about that. I was avoiding mentioning the name because I was worried about being seen as cheating on my assignment LOL, but in hindsight that makes this post too vague. :')

I've been working on it in my sandbox. I'm going to post it as a proper draft/submit it for consideration before I submit my assignment (i.e. within the next few days) but since I need to be able to prove/document that I made "significant contributions" it seemed easiest to get it together in my sandbox first so I could copy all the content over to a new article in one block.

Other people can see my sandbox though, right? It's here if so: User:KRKwrites/sandbox

If not, her name is Abigail Larson, she's an illustrator.

Right now the draft in my sandbox is pretty thin because I got derailed looking for style guides/templates/etc. and trying to figure out markup :') But yeah, you can see there that my sources so far might not meet Wikipedia's requirements. KRKwrites (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites Hallo and welcome, and thanks for joining us. You say in the first line "Hugo award-winning": so go and find a source for that, either the Hugos official website or news coverage of the awards that year, or both. That will help demonstrate her notability. (And note that section headings don't use caps except for first letter and proper nouns!) PamD 21:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, @KRKwrites, I'd found your draft by simply looking at your contributions list! Nothing much is hidden in the encyclopedia. PamD 21:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm picking up on that! It's a little overwhelming tbh! And I thought the Wikipedia rabbithole ran deep on the reader side... :') KRKwrites (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Hugo Award is a major award, so that should be a strong demonstration of notability - add as much as you can find @KRKwrites and reviews of their work Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh reviews are a great idea! I wouldn't have thought of that. Thank you! KRKwrites (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess where I was a little confused was around whether the Hugo's official site counts as a "third party" site in this instance (since they're the granters of the award) - because I need to have at least some acceptable "third party" sources and right now I'm not sure I have any? But I will also try to find news stories! Thank you! And thanks for the tip about the headers. KRKwrites (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites The official Hugos site is independent of Larson (in the way that her own website or her employer's or agent's is not) and the most reliable source imaginable for her having won an award- you need to specify which award, which year. It wouldn't be an independent site for a statement such as "The Hugos are the world's leading scifi awards", but it has no particular bias towards Larson or any other winner. PamD 23:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense! Thank you for explaining it like this, that has really clarified the policy for me :) KRKwrites (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trying for 4th time... the Hugo Award is confirmed in The Guardian and can be linked to Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist, which gives another source. SusunW (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW I found the Guardian piece but was leaving it to the student editor to find that for themself as part of the educational exercise, now we've pointed them in the right direction! PamD 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I love how working on here gives us better insight, PamD. My thoughts were that if I gave an example of a RS it might give the editor a boost. Then of course, that peaked my interest and I had to see what else was out there. It's the way my brain works, I gotta know. Next time, I'll wait to see if they're stuck. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

SusunW, I think that in this case it was quite difficult to find sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG, so it was helpful to share what you found. I looked and didn't find anything, but possibly I didn't try hard enough. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, TSventon. Thank you. Good to know the search issues weren't just mine. I never know if a lack of sources found is because I am in Mexico and my search results are different. But in general, I find that sources on living people are much, much harder to locate. It often requires "creative searching", i.e. with some other term, like "X from Timbucktoo", "X, draws", "X, illustrated", etc. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Another piece here is that "Illustrator" is in and of itself an occupation that doesn't seem to lend itself to getting a lot of media coverage, or inspiring academic analysis. Inherently, most illustrators are working on other people's projects, drawing other people's characters, etc. So my thinking was kind of along the lines of: is any illustrator "notable"? Are any illustrators worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? If no, then why is "Illustrator" a category on this redlist?

To answer my questions, I took a look through Category:Illustrators and decided that yes, clearly illustrators can be notable. In my view, winning a Hugo makes one pretty notable in a field where the vast majority of people go unrecognized for their work. I also looked at GNG before selecting Ms. Larson as my topic for my assignment, and left GNG under the mistaken impression that I had more than enough sources based on the number of interviews I had discovered to clear the GNG bar. It was only after I dived deeper into Wikipedia's criteria/standards for sources that I realized interviews were not adequate sources.

Anyway, based on the way that reference lists seem to look for other illustrators who already have Wikipedia pages, I believe I should be okay to move forward. It's not necessarily that Abigail Larson herself is being discussed in great detail by multiple independent secondary sources, but the work she's majorly contributed to is being written about and she is often mentioned by name in those pieces. So hopefully I will clear the bar. KRKwrites (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

KRKwrites Writing on WP is truly not simple! But, yes, I think you are fine. You might also try searching with her name followed by "artist", "art", "drew" "sketched", etc. in quotes. Perhaps you can wade through articles on archive.org for additional clues. Bottom line is that no, significant coverage does not need to be established in a single article, it can be a conglomerate of statements in multiple sources, but with the RVA magazine piece and the book from Universidad de La Laguna, you have enough to meet the GNG bar, IMO. Any other sources just build on that. (A note on inclusion in a redlist: Someone may verify that there is a claim of notability, as in this case and add them to a redlist. That does not mean that that someone confirmed that there are enough reliable sources to write a bio.) Good luck. SusunW (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

P. S. take out the .MX that sometimes appears in my searches if you cannot access links I gave you. SusunW (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The Society of Illustrators annuals often have in-depth profiles of some of their artists (for instance their gold and silver award medal winners). I think those provide significant coverage, of those artists, at least. And I think all of their hall of fame illustrators are likely to be notable. But it would be preferable to have more than one in-depth source. In the specific case of illustrators for science fiction and fantasy books, often they have monographs published of their works, and an introduction from that (if written by someone else) or a review of the book might also count as significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Profiles by an org of members of that org would not be independent, though. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay They would be suitable sources for factual information. They would not necessarily contribute to notability, although the fact that the organisation had given them a particular rank or honour (thinking things like FRS) would contribute to notability and the organisation would be a reliable source for that honour. PamD 22:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course! But if the focus here is on helping a new editor establish notability through GNG then we should always be clear which sources we're recommending for rounding out a bio and which actually matter for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help! I actually had already found the Guardian article about a week ago when I started identifying sources, but since it mentions Ms. Larson only in passing, it didn't really alleviate my concerns about sourcing everything besides the Hugo. I'm feeling better about sources now though since everyone here has given me great advice :) KRKwrites (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Generally it is a good idea to find sources which establish notability before starting to write the article, as advised in Help:Your first article. A major award indicates that a subject is "likely" to be notable, per WP:ANYBIO, but it does not guarantee notability. TSventon (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

KRKwrites This from RVA Magazine, which my websearch confirms has an editorial staff (Jeremy Parker (publisher) R. Anthony Harris (vice president) John Reinhold (editor-in-chief), Andrew Necci (creative director)), this in Spanish, and this book might be helpful as RS to build notability in RS. SusunW (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll admit that I got pretty overwhelmed trying to sort through all the intro stuff and get my head around the different policies and rules. I also kind of assumed that someone being on the redlist in the first place meant they'd been sort of "vetted" for appropriate notability before being put there, but I guess it is a crowd sourced list so I shouldn't have assumed that. I also (when I started writing) was under the mistaken impression that interviews counted as adequately secondary sources.

Anyway, this artist has actually won a few different pretty big awards and has done work on some major productions, so I think she's pretty notable - I feel less confused now about how to identify good sources thanks to the help of all the comments :) KRKwrites (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites: I went ahead and made a Wikidata item with her various authority IDs. If the article does get moved into mainspace, you can link it by clicking the "edit" link next to "Wikipedia" toward the bottom of the item's page. Nick Number (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! :) KRKwrites (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hi there, KRKwrites. I'm coming in on this rather late but I have looked at the latest version of your draft and it seems to be coming along quite well. I see you intend to provide more details and will no doubt want to follow up on some of the suggestions made above. Please let me know when you are happy with the draft and I will try to help with moving it to main space. Abigail Larson is certainly notable enough for inclusion. It's good to see you found Women in Red and I'm glad we have been able to help you out. If you would like to become a member of the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, thank you! I was actually trying to figure out if there was some way I was supposed to register for the project haha. I swear I'm normally better at navigating websites than this LOL, turns out there's so much more going on behind the scenes on Wikipedia than I ever could have imagined! There's many many many pages to shift through as a new editor so direct links to important things like this are super helpful to me (and my ADHD haha). KRKwrites (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

fyi, KRKwrites, Larson has an entry at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, and according to the database, has also won Locus Awards in 2021 and 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, thank you! I have no idea how I missed this! This is actually a huge help; even aside from the awards, a bunch of these titles aren't listed on Larson's own website. I owe you one! KRKwrites (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be helpful if the redlist pages also provided some topic-specific tips. As Beccanyr points out, in science fiction and fantasy, the first place I would look for potential sources is ISFDB (where we find out that she sometimes used the pen name Abital I. Larson). I'd also try Locus Magazine, where we can see that she was nominated for a Prix Imaginales (fr). If she were an author, I'd also check the usual sources for book reviews: e.g., Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and School Library Journal. pburka (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a really great idea. Thank you for the tips and for pointing me to some more useful sources! KRKwrites (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites There's a WP:WikiProject Science Fiction, which is flagged as "believed to be semi-active" but might still be worth having a look at, to see what sources are used etc in their Featured Articles. Unlike many projects they don't seem to have much in the way of advice or guidelines on writing articles in their area. ... Ah, just spotted this which might be useful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction/References PamD 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If you want to go the extra mile, I found some creative commons photos of the subject on Flickr. This license isn't compatible with Wikipedia, but it might be worth leaving a comment asking if the photographer would consider releasing one or more of them under a more permissive license (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0). pburka (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Great idea! I also need to contribute to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata as part of my project. KRKwrites (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, well, I'm a dummy and managed to accidentally post my article in namespace instead of as a draft/AfC. *facepalm* I hurried to add the AfC marker to it so hopefully it gets moved to draft for approval, not just deleted. It's still saved in my sandbox though so it could be worse!

But - I'm finally done with my article (for now)! I worked really hard on it, so fingers crossed it gets approved and not deleted. I already have some additions/changes in mind, but I've already missed my assignment deadline, so I had to bite the bullet and post!

I just wanted to come back here and thank you all SO MUCH for your help and for weighing in with opinions, resources, light scoldings, etc. I especially want to give a really huge thank you to everyone who went to my sandbox and made little tweaks to what I was working on. I love that I can see what edits are made so I can learn from my mistakes.

In other news, I think I'm hooked on editing Wikipedia, LOL. *sneaks off to look at tasklists* KRKwrites (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

KRKwrites there are a couple of things that need to be fixed, both easy mistakes to make. Firstly you have copied the content of your sandbox to the new article, rather than moving the page, which preserves the history, including contributions from other editors. Secondly the page is Abigail Larson in article space, rather than draft:Abigail Larson in draft space as you intended. The published article is slightly different from User:KRKwrites/sandbox. Ipigott, you offered to help with publication, what is the best way to fix this? Is a history merge needed? TSventon (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There has been considerable progress on the article. I've tidied it up and left it on mainspace. Good to see our suggestions led to significant improvements. As she mentions the article was created in her sandbox, I see no need for bothering about a history merge.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your tidying and for all your help! If a history merge isn't too much trouble, I'd actually be thrilled for that to happen - like I told TSventon, I was actually pretty bummed out to lose the record of everyone's contributions. KRKwrites (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

So sorry about that! I didn't realize that moving the page was possible, I certainly would've done so if I had. I was kind of rushing to post (my assignment is overdue LOL) so I just used the most "straightforward" method I could think of (clicking the red link on the list I used and going from there) instead of looking into it more carefully - that's my bad. I was actually really bothered about losing the history showing the contributions from those who helped out in my sandbox, but like I said I was rushing and didn't realize there was a move page function. The draftspace thing I realized immediately but couldn't figure out how to fix, LOL. KRKwrites (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

History merge

I'm glad to see such a nice article, KRKwrites. Now, we also need to deal with the WP:History merging issue as the article you created in sandbox didn't get moved into article space, instead it was a copy/paste. Don't worry; this can be resolved... and it's part of the learning experience! Though I'm an admin, I don't have the tech skill to do complicated merges. Wondering if we have an admin here with more tech proficiency than me to deal with User:KRKwrites/sandbox / Abigail Larson? I know I can count on Drmies when I'm in a pinch, but also pinging @Gamaliel and Victuallers who might have experience with this sort of thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict), I have added a WP:Request for history merge. Page moves are another thing which is not obvious to the beginner. TSventon (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Rosiestep, kleine moeite, groot plezier. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

And this is why you are my hero, Drmies. Much thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not so happy about this myself, Rosiestep. Unless Drmies has some magical way of taking care of things, I'll have to see how I can somehow retrieve all the editing I did on the article earlier today. It took quite some time and effort to deal with all those lists of works, etc. See version of 10:06 today. I suppose I'll have to check all my other edits too. As far as I could see, only one edit by TSventon had been missed and I re-added it myself. I suggested above that it was not necessary to make such a merge as the first edit summary explained that the new version was based on the sandbox version.--Ipigott (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't realize that some of the edits were not included in the history merge. Thanks for stating that there's an issue with it, Ipigott. Let's see if Drmies can resolve it, or someone else. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I agree that it wasn't that necessary: they were all KRK's edits anyway. But you can look in the history and just revert to the version you think is best. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Don't worry, Rosie. I've been through this twice before. History merges with sandboxes or with other newbie drafts are not a good idea. I'm sure Drmies has handled this correctly for the purposes of article history. I'll probably just have to spend more time on it again tomorrow. Without all the careful attention to works, it probably shouldn't be B-rated but let's hope it survives for the time being. Now I just hope to spend a relaxed Sunday evening with my wife but I look forward to working on SusunW's latest article tomorrow. Never a dull day!--Ipigott (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh no, I'm sorry for the mix up. :( You've been such a huge help - enjoy your time with your wife and hopefully things get sorted! KRKwrites (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• When I finally found time to go back and update Abigail, I found to my delight that Beccaynr had spent a considerable amount of time and effort restoring essentials from the version before the heritage merge and making further improvements. I really appreciate all the help.

KRKwrites: You should not feel in any way responsible for any of this. On the contrary, you really deserve the barnstar from Victuallers for discussing the best way to go about things with us and then implementing our advice. I hope your work on the educational assignment did not come too late for credit from your instructor. Allow me to wish you well with your studies in Toronto in the hope that you will be inspired to create more women's biographies from time to time. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in red redlist header

So glad to have you join us, @KRKwrites. If it’s ok I would love to have some advice from your POV as a new editor. The red link list you used actually has a box at the top that mentions, "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify." But obviously that warning is not prominent enough, you’re def not the first person who didn’t see it. Do you have any ideas for how we could change it to be more noticeable? Thanks for any thoughts you may have. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Innisfree987! I think it would be really helpful to have that sentence as a separate point in the header (and maybe bolded). I think it's kind of easy to pass over right now especially if you're kind of skimming, and the rest of the box contains kinda non-vital intro information, if that makes sense. It doesn't jump out as being a warning.

Also, for new editors such as myself, it might be helpful to include links to Wikipedia's pages outlining notability requirements - in theory these are things people can familiarize themselves with without being directly linked, but in reality there are dozens upon dozens of pages for new editors to try to parse, so pointing right at the most relevant ones might be useful. KRKwrites (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Really, wikipedia in general should just have a big note before all other intro material saying "article subjects must demonstrably meet Wikipedia notability guidelines" with a link to N. So many new editors start out with completely non-notable topics from the get-go, and of the ones that actually bother putting in any effort writing and sourcing their article that can amount to a lot of time wasted trying to follow various other policies that ultimately won't matter when the article is deleted at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In this connection, JoelleJay, I should point out that our two major guidelines, Ten Simple Rules and the Primer both start with a strong emphasis on notability.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@KRKwrites, Innisfree987, JoelleJay, and Ipigott:, I have given Template:Women in Red redlist header its own subsection in the hope it can be improved in some way. At the moment there is a link to WP:N, but that only works if a new editor clicks on it and reads it, which many won't. Could we add something like If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. TSventon (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

While Rosiestep is probably the best person to be consulted on this, I would suggest replacing

• This list of red links is intended to serve as a basis for creating new articles on the English Wikipedia. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify.

by

• This list of red links is intended to help with finding candidates for new articles. Please note however that many of the red links listed may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources.

This may not be the best formulation but I think something along these lines would help newcomers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I would add is that the template is -like all things wiki- open to improvement! Let us make it clearer. We can try different variations on the message, and seek input periodically. We're in it together. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I boldly expanded the Ten Simple Rules essay to include a section [2] about 'Questions and guidance' that includes encouragement for new editors to visit this talk page; I think the initiative undertaken by KRKwrites to post here worked quite well, and adding more encouragement for new editors generally may also be helpful, particularly for the somewhat complicated concept of notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all, I have updated the redlist header and tweaked the Simple rules. TSventon (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles created by banned editor tagged for deletion

I removed the deletion tags for several articles created by a banned editor:

• Tarsy Carballas
• Eduarda Dionísio
• Marietta Tuena
• Anne-Katrin Altwein

It’s a terrible waste to delete perfectly good articles even if they are created by some banned editor’s sock. They all need some expansion but appear to meet notability guidelines. Thriley (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The sock in question was blocked not merely for being a sock, but for mass-creating inaccurate and badly written articles about living people, for translating material without proper credit, and for uploading images that violate our requirements for non-free content (see the long-term abuse report for details). It is not merely expansion that they need. If you take them in hand and prevent them from being deleted, be sure to check every claim in the article and every source used by the article for accuracy and reliability, check whether they are copyvio translations of some other sources, and check whether all images are properly licensed and sourced. It might be easier and produce better results just to let them get deleted and rewrite them from scratch. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

These ones in particular seem to just be partial translations of articles from Spanish and German Wikipedia. There do not appear to be factual errors. Thriley (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If it's not credited to its source, as the Tuena one appears not to be, it's a copyvio. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Marietta Tuena is correctly attributed in the first edit comment. The only one not attributed is Eduarda Dionísio. I agree however that all four articles are candidates for deletion and that the tag should not have been removed. As far as I can see, although they were created three or four weeks ago, there have been no "substantial" edits since. As they are translations, it should not be difficult to re-create them.--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Then make substantial edits to them: the articles still satisfy WP:CSD#G5, and I will delete them in a few days unless that changes. Banned editors are not allowed to edit, so they are not allowed to create "perfectly good articles", and the only known enforcement mechanism for that is deletion of the articles. "Banned" means "your good edits will be reverted"; we revert bad edits and delete bad articles independent of whether a user is banned. —Kusma (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:BANREVERT, Kusma, which says This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. Deleting articles with nothing actually wrong with them is just making Wikipedia worse. I consider that little different from vandalism. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to punish people we consider bad. Silverseren^C 06:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I volunteer to revert good edits by banned users even if I don't have to. Wikipedia is a community who builds an encyclopaedia, and we protect this community by not allowing banned users to participate in building the encyclopaedia. Allowing banned users to participate is just making Wikipedia worse. —Kusma (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren The same page says "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion.", so all this sock-puppet's creations should be speedied on sight. There is nothing to stop a conscientious editor from then creating new articles on those topics, perhaps as translations from other Wikis. There is no point in giving a blocked editor the satisfaction of seeing their creations surviving in the encyclopedia: that would be a reward for socking. PamD 14:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

These all seem fine, I don't see how it will improve the encyclopedia to delete them. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I have now made a significant addition to all four articles. Silverseren^C 00:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Linda Aslaksen AfD

Can someone with tech know how check and see if this one is set up okay please? I want to comment on it but I don't want to mess things up. Thanks. Rosiestep (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, you had not followed all the steps at WP:AFDHOWTO, I believe I have now fixed it. Rosiestep are you going to explain that the subject is eligible/ineligible for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE? TSventon (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for handling the needful, TSventon. I've added my comments. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, TSventon. It's the first time I have tried to initiate this procedure. I certainly tried to follow the steps I found under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I was not aware of the further set of instructions you mention. Perhaps there's a case for making things clearer. From the notice at the top of the article, it certainly looked as if everything was OK.--Ipigott (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the process is not user friendly, but if anyone who wants to nominate an article for deletion, there is a sentence in the lead at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion which says If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. The link leads to three manual steps to follow, highlighted in yellow. If you are new to AfD, there are other links to check. There is also a tool called Twinkle, but I have not used it myself. TSventon (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon@Ipigott Twinkle is great, does all the necessary stuff. PamD 14:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrapper templates

I suggest to replace templates like {{WIR-00-2018}} with {{WikiProject Women in Red|2018}}. The reasons are:

• Clearer name when reading the wikicode.
• Not many editors outside this project may be familiar with the acronym WIR. This may give the project more exposure.
• Conform to more standard naming for WikiProject templates.
• Don't need to maintain a separate "wrapper" template for each event - can just use one template with the meetup number.

There would be no effect on the display of the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Fine by me. I've noticed quite a few similar transformations along these lines are happening "automatically".--Ipigott (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Just to update. All these hundreds of separate wrapper templates have now been replaced with {{WikiProject Women in Red}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The template redirect {{WIR}} was discussed on the ideas page, and I wanted to ask if people would like these uses to be replaced with {{WikiProject Women in Red}} or just left as they are? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WIR will now be automatically converted to WikiProject Women in Red, so we have the convenicne of the shortcut and the benefit of the full name in the wikicode — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in chess

I should perhaps have gone to WT:WOMEN but this page appears more active, so... I made this edit yesterday after seeing it raised on one of the social media. The image is hosted on Commons so I thought nothing more is to be done. But today, I am thinking I should let y'all know in case you know better. Should that image or others of similar origin be used? If no, can/should they be removed from Commons or from the history of our article/s? Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The image in question showed an unidentified woman playing chess at a tournament, apparently selected only because the photographer thought she was "hot". We could ignore that bad provenance and use a better caption if we thought the image added significant value to the article, but I don't think it does. And as we don't know who the chess player is, or whether she consented to have her photo used in this way, there's also an issue of personality rights here. I think you were correct to remove it.

However, this does not rise to the level of something that needs expunging from the article history. As for removal from commons, you will have to take that up on commons; we can do nothing about it here on en.wikipedia.org. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)