Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Draft: Michèle Hayeur Smith

I'm not sure I'm in the right place so kindly re-direct me if necessary.

I have been trying to submit an article (my very first from scratch!) about Michèle Hayeur Smith, a Canadian archeologist. I submitted a draft last September & it was immediately declined for 'lack of notability'. I have since tried to add more references etc. but I am nervous about submitting it again. Would one of you more seasoned editors be willing to look it over & suggest improvements?

I was a bit surprised that this researcher was considered 'not notable enough'. When I compare the work of M. Hayeur Smith to that of another archeologist (e.g. Kirsten Bos) or of a male athlete (e.g. Ivan Belfiore), Hayeur Smith seems at least as worthy of a WP article.

Thanks for any help or advice you can provide. Redwidgeon (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Her status as an independent scholar should not be problematic: notability comes from recognition of accomplishments, not so much from job titles. I wasn't able to find enough citations to her work (for instance by searching for her name as an author on Google Scholar and looking at the citation counts in the search results) to pass WP:PROF#C1, and the other WP:PROF criteria look out of reach. For WP:GNG notability, you would need multiple in-depth published works by other people about Smith herself, published by other organizations than her employers, and I didn't see anything like that in the references of the draft. Grants are not prizes that can generate notability. So the likeliest option for notability seems to me to be WP:AUTHOR, and multiple published reviews each of multiple books. I did find two books by her, but only with reviews of one of them:

• Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears: An Archaeology of Jewellery, Gender and Identity in Viking Age Iceland (BAR International, 2004): No reviews found.
• The Valkyries’ Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic (University Press of Florida, 2020). Reviews: Douglas J. Bolender, American Antiquity, doi:10.1017/aaq.2021.75; Shannon Lewis-Simpson, Antiquity, doi:10.15184/aqy.2021.139

So if there is a third book I am missing, with multiple reviews, or if you can find multiple reliably published reviews of Draupnir's Sweat and Mardöll's Tears where I failed to do so, then I think there might be a good case for notability that way.

When comparing to others, it might not be obvious to you why those others are considered notable, but in the case of Kirsten Bos, her Google Scholar profile shows heavy citations to her work [1], a couple dozen publications with triple-digit citation counts and an h-index of 40. Smith doesn't have that, and should not be expected to have that, because she works in a field where book publication is more important than journal publications and citations. So comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges. For sportspeople the comparison is even more strained. The people you should be comparing to are book-publishing archaeologists. Usually the notable ones have multiple books with multiple reviews of each book, and their notability is supported by WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, David Eppstein; this is very helpful & informative. Redwidgeon (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I was able to dig up, Redwidgeon, David Eppstein. For her first book, I agree that there seems to be no reviews to find, but I did find some coverage and usage of the book.

• McGuire, Erin-Lee Halstad (2005). "Archaeology in Iceland: Recent Developments". Scandinavian-Canadian Studies. 16: 10–26. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Ježek, Martin; Hansen, Sigrid Cecilie Juel (2019). "Symbols missing a cause: the testimony of touchstones from Viking Age Iceland". Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 11 (7): 3423–3434. doi:10.1007/s12520-018-0764-x. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

As for the second book, in addition to the two reviews you found, I found these.

• Steinberg, John M. (Fall 2022). "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic. Michèle Hayeur Smith". Journal of Anthropological Research. 78 (3): 403–404. doi:10.1086/720691. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic". Anthropology Book Forum. 7. August 23, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Koos, Cathy. "The Valkyries' Loom: The Archaeology of Cloth Production and Female Power in the North Atlantic, by Michele Hayeur Smith". cnch.org. Conference of Northern California Handweavers. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

And finally there's just coverage of Smith herself and her work.

• Russo, Francine (October 1, 2022). "Viking Textiles Show Women Had Tremendous Power". Scientific American. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Weber, Bob (July 22, 2018). "Spin yarn unspun: Research upends theory that Vikings taught Inuit fibre skills". National Post. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Rundkvist, Martin (August 2020). "Jane Kershaw & Gareth Williams (ed.). 2019. Silver, butter, cloth: monetary and social economies in the Viking Age". Antiquity. 94 (376): 1106–1108. doi:10.15184/aqy.2020.114. Retrieved April 10, 2024.
• Cresswell, Peterjon (February 23, 2023). "Textiles, trade, and female power – retelling Viking history through cloth". The Viking Herald. Retrieved April 10, 2024.

No idea on if any of this is enough to pass notability requirements, since it still seems on the line. But you can at least buff up the draft with these sources. Silverseren^C 01:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Silverseren, this information definitely gives me more to work with. Maybe the article still won't get published but no doubt I will learn a lot along the way. Redwidgeon (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I do think, Redwidgeon, that if you add the sources I and David Eppstein found to the article and re-submit to AfC, there's a much better likelihood of it being accepted. Silverseren^C 23:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Dodi Leal - page for Gender Studies

Hello! I tidied this draft up, which had been started and then deleted. Would someone mind accepting it through? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a longer Portuguese article at pt:Dodi Leal, written by the same editor who started the en draft. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: Thanks for bringing this up to standard. Now in mainspace, added to #303 and to List of women's and gender studies academics. As already noted, it could be significantly expanded from the Portuguese biography.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both - I agree, but I didn't have the energy! Lajmmoore (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

Something a little bit different, but I'd like to mention it now so that people who are interested can have a little time to prepare.

My choir, the Capitol Hill Chorale, has a particular interest in various strands of American folk music; to that end, our last concert of this season will be featuring works by, and inspired by, the Shakers, especially Shaker women. 2024 marks the 250th anniversary of the arrival of Shakers to the United States, and our concert will be dedicated especially to the memory of Mother Ann Lee, their founder.

We'll be hosting an edit-a-thon on the subject of Shaker women on Saturday, May 11. It's just gone live today, and I don't yet have a link to anything other than the Eventbrite registration, which is here. I have a list of thirty or forty notable Shaker women that I've developed over the years, and we'll be looking to create articles on a number of them, plus updating a number of other articles.

I will be crossposting this with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion; it would be nice if some folks would be able to join virtually. Or live, even, if you're in the DC area.--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Marvelous to hear what your choir will be doing! I registered for the event, but there wasn't a way to indicate that I would be a virtual attendee (and no Zoom link was provided). If the registration is supposed to be only for people who will be attending in person, would you please cancel my registration as I don't want to reserve a seat and be a no-show. That said, I'm looking forward to participating remotely! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for letting me know about that. We do want to make virtual attendance possible, so I'm glad to know that there wasn't a way to indicate. I'll raise it with Wikimedia DC and make sure it's rectified if need be. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao yes, thanks for the cross post at WiR. I'll get the word out, too, during our monthly planning zoom session next Thursday. If I'm available, I'd like to jump in virtually, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Excellent - the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Catherine Emihovich

Hello everyone! I recently have been slowly editing the page Catherine Emihovich by myself. I have a conflict of interest however so if someone could help by suggesting or making changes it would be greatly appreciated. I also am fairly new to editing as well. Thank you for any help you could do! Shane emihovich (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shane emihovich I've replied on your talk page and done quite a bit of work on the article. PamD 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Note to other editors: the article concerned was created in 2008, so although the current editor has a COI, as declared, the article has established notability - Dean of a college. PamD 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dean of a college is not a notability criterion. Looking at it more, only ne source is independent and secondary, so the article currently violates WP:PRIMARY and fails WP:N. She could potentially meet NAUTHOR if multiple of her books have had multiple academic reviews, or GNG if there are more SIGCOV profiles of her in different, non-local newspapers from different times. But she does not appear to meet NPROF unless she's been cited enough for C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The position of dean should meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMIC#6 ("highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution"). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No it would not. That criterion refers to the position of president of the university, not dean of a particular school in the university. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Feminism page deleted

I notice that somebody has wiped out the entire Feminism page. Could somebody with the right skills deal with that? Thanks if you can! Balance person (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been done - surprisingly it took 22 minutes for someone to notice and revert the edit (changed at 8:51, reverted at 09:13)

@Balance person Another time you see vandalism like this, you can revert the edit yourself if you look at the "diff" or open the "page history" and click "Undo". PamD 08:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Okay. Thanks! Will do. Balance person (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

WiR template

Despite many requests for restoring the template we have used over the years for navigating past meetups, etc., nothing has been done. I have therefore restored an earlier version myself. It looks OK to me but might need to be updated for anything included over the past few weeks. You can view the template at the foot of our main WiR page. (Or go to Template:Women in Red navigation and click on Show.) I for one make frequent use of the template but was unable to find anything in the version recently reworked by MSGJ in good faith but without prior consultation. In connection with the preparation of events for April and beyond, we need to be able to review past events which are similar or relevant.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this module is behind the various new presentations of our events. By returning to our traditional navigation template, I appear to have caused our two new events for March to disappear from our Events page. I have now added them "manually" but the heading "Ongoing initiatives" now appears twice. We have called on the assistance of MSGJ to help with these problems but as yet there has been no response. I'm not sure how we should proceed at this stage. It seems to me we are increasingly near to re-adopting the approach we have used for years without major problems. Perhaps WomenArtistUpdates who has given support to some of the new features would like to respond.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I think you should rollback your changes and give MSGJ time to fix the problem. Also remember to Help:Purge the pages to check on updates to cascading templates. I wish we could all work together to make WiR the best it can be rather than fighting. That means both sides. WiRers couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, and the coders really need to get a consensus before making changes. MSGJ is really good at documenting the changes and assisting with directions and fixes. Can't we all just get along? Meanwhile, can someone please respond to the request for an update on the "One biography a week articles" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293. Who's doing the tallying? Also, anyone want to work on proofing the pages for April? Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates: Thank you for responding so quickly. I'm really surprised you believe I have been involved in some kind of fighting. Quite the opposite: I've been looking for solutions. I've followed your advice and restored MSGJ's navigation template. I see he's already resolved the Events page. As for the "One biography a week" issue, I had not seen the query you refer to but I was prepared to handle this myself unless you would like to handle it in your usual expert way.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ipigott, I am referring to the discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Firming_up_for_April. I can't remember who started the "One biography a week articles" challenge back in January. Could they take ownership? Do they want an announcement in the invite. etc... --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• WomenArtistsUpdate: Thanks for alerting me on this. I've responded on the Ideas page and edited #293. As for recognition, I had simply intended to send out suitable barnstars but you might be able to come up with a more suitable one, for example combining a WiR barnstar with #1women1week or something similar. Are you interested or should I take care of everything myself?--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

How do I edit the Events page? Why has this been hidden from me? I have edited that page for a number of years and am deeply unhappy with recent changes. For example, a number of Events occur over several months and would appear in the old template correctly. Now, the new-look template and changes to the Events page no longer reflect what we have done accurately. For example, Women who died in 2023 is not shown as a January Event. There is also the issue that past event pages no longer show the events happening at that time, just the future, current and most recent ones. This was pointed out by @Rosiestep in an earlier post. Why are we allowing one editor to change the way we work? Oronsay (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oronsay, The page Events is generated automatically from the main events template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/events. Instructions for updating that are at Template:WikiProject Women in Red/doc. I believe "Women who died in 2023" is not showing up in January because it spanned 2 months beginning in December 2023, which is where the event shows up in the archive. Hope that helps. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Why only one month when it's a two-month event? It didn't used to be like that in the old template, so why the change? Oronsay (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the code can only grab one month. When we hand-coded everything we could list things once, twice, or three times. That said, we chose to only list #1day1woman only once, the same with the year-long initiative. When content for the pages is "managed" centrally it saves time creating new pages and updating existing pages. If an error occurs it only need be corrected once and it is correct on all the WiR pages. Taking the really long view, after you and I are gone, the next editors should be able to pick up where we left off. Also taking the long view, if the English Wikipedia continues to grow, the server space required to house it all will just keep warming up the planet, so I think the idea is to find space saving for the good of the encyclopedia. And, as I understand it the server fees are in the multi-mullions annually. Money and resources. That's my understanding anyway. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay, many events are identified as spanning multiple months, so it can be done. I didn't realise we had any that spanned more than 1 year, so I will need to do some further work to support this. I agree it is really important that these are represented accurately. Are there any other events that span more than one year, do you know? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In December each year, WIR starts a two-month event for women who have died that year. The most recent event was named "Women who died in 2023" and should appear under December 2023 and January 2024. However, I notice that the event pages have been re-named to "Women who died", which implies that articles about any woman who has died should be added to that event. The invitation for December and January show the event correctly. So the event pages for "Women who died" need to be correctly titled with the year added AND the template should reflect the two-month duration in each case. I know that @Rosiestep is keen to retain the history of the WIR project via the template. Oronsay (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oronsay, indeed, that's a type of event we repeat every December/January. Don't know how the name got altered, but would someone please correct it? Thanks --Rosiestep (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/291. I have rewritten the code so it can now display dates which span more than one year. I will do likewise for the other "Women that died" events. In terms of including the event in lists, I need further guidance. I don't think you want to list it in each month that it spans, because then the same event will be listed multiple times. A 3-month event would appear three different times, etc. and this could be impractical for long events (such as the annual initiatives). So instead should they be listed according to the start of the event, or perhaps they can be listed separately to the monthly events. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's better. But rather than "Women who died: in 2023" I think it would be better "Women who died: 2023". The year-long events are listed separately as such and don't need to be repeated. Oronsay (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Oronsay I think I have finished all the code changes to fully support flexible start and end dates. Can you please check that everything looks correct and let me know if any other changes are required? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I regret I am not able to do the checking that you request. In any case, it is not a one-person job. I hope that @Rosiestep, @Chocmilk03, @Lajmmoore, @WomenArtistUpdates, @Ipigott and other WIR editors will help with this. Oronsay (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oronsay, I don't feel comfortable in checking code changes at this point. What I suggested several days ago was that a process be instituted describing tech changes that affect WiR pages/subpages, and that discussion ensues, and that consensus occurs within WiR membership before changes are implemented. I don't know who wants to draft that process, but as MSGJ want to make changes, maybe they're working on it. If not, my preference is to leave things the way they were as they worked well for us. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, Oronsay, but I don't feel comfortable about commenting further on this and don't want to upset WomenArtistUpdates who still seems to be a strong supporter of the new approach. What I do regret though is that we used to be able to make changes to the template ourselves. I also admire the skill with which Rosiestep was able to maintain the template over the years and ensure that it provided an effective record of progress on the project. It seems to me that this will no longer be possible and that we are now fully in the hands of MSGJ (unless other participants feel they are ale to deal with this level of coding). The only consolation is that if things prove difficult to manage as they so often did with Project X, we can always revert to our old approach which most of us seem to prefer. I support Rosie's idea of initiating a more formal decision-making process but am not happy about taking it on myself. We really need someone with more experience of such things.--Ipigott (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am glad to see that on the basis of our discussions, MSGJ has restored our old navigation template and intends to make improvements to the new version on the basis of the discussions on this page. On this basis, we should be able to proceed without further difficulty.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Looking for feedback on the new version at Template:Women in Red navigation/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have moved this request for feedback to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Technical --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Circling back to comments addressed by @Oronsay and WomenArtistUpdates regarding server space, event duration, etc. I want to address the factual depiction of the duration of a WiR event as it is an important element of our work. It is something that researchers are and/or will study in years to come because what we do and how we do it is unique. MSGJ, WiR members have been meticulous in documenting event duration (1 month, 2 months, 1 quarter, half a year, 1 year) in the "green template". If you have an automated method to factually document WiR event duration (green template, event pages, and/or elsewhere) please explain on this page what you think is a good way forward. The level of frustration by some contributing editors, evidenced on this page and mentioned elsewhere, is high because there's a feeling that you don't adhere to a basic principal of Women in Red: we do things by consensus. This takes time. WiR has never curbed enthusiasm or de-valued automation. For example, and you may not be aware of this, WiR was an early adopter of WP:WikiProject X, and used it as our starting page management system in July 2015. When it no longer worked for us, it took us months of discussions and hours of work to change to a different style. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think what is in order is to develop some simple guidelines/processes for addressing potential changes to WiR templates and/or other structural changes. This idea is influenced by Ipigott's comment in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Archive it! section regarding a recommendation for simple guidelines in other areas where we work. Curious to know: how do people suggest changes in technical spaces? Hoping our tech-inclined editors can get some guidelines started. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a section on the Ideas page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red. Ideas for changes can be presented there. If they are for a beta version of a template the creator can point to that and users can respond. That way the conversations wont be sprinkled throughout the main talk pages

I used up a lot of time arguing (persuading?) to get the data preserved (itemized tags on talk pages ). I am not so concerned as to how that data is presented in templates as long as the underlying data is preserved.

Thanks for the background on project X! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Preservation is of course extremely important. I spent the last 12 years of my career with the European Commission working with libraries and museums across Europe in projects designed to help them preserve cultural heritage by means of digital collaboration. Librarians in particular are expert at devising methods for ensuring a systematic approach to cataloguing and exchange of digital data. But at the same time, they recognize the importance of facilitating the practical requirements of users. In our case, we need an easy means of reviewing past events, especially when dealing with similar but not identical proposals for the future. You may be right, WomenArtistUpdates, that this entire discussion should have been handled on our Ideas page but as it has been such an important item here, it seems logical to continue discussion. I would therefore simply like to suggest that we support two "navigation templates", one in the interests of preservation and saving computer resources, the other to give an accessible and uncomplicated overview of everything we have accomplished over the years. As Rosiestep mentioned Project X earlier, I must say when I saw MSGJ¨s Module:Women in Red event/sandbox it reminded me of the problems we had with Project X when those involved moved on and no one was able to correct things when they went wrong. One of the major advantages of the old template is that we can all edit it without any special technical experience. If there are problems with the new one - or even the event pages displays - there's only one person able to put things right. This does not appear to me to be a sound basis for further development. I really appreciate MSGJ's enthusiasm for trying to resolve WIR problems triggered by the introduction of the banner shell environment - and some of these now seem to be working well. But I really think we should be wary of introducing changes which could lead to future difficulties. Finally, I agree with Rosie that before any major developments are undertaken, they should be discussed here, based on a definition of the problem, explaining why the current approach is causing difficulties and needs to be changed, assessing the amount of development work required, and explaining the expected advantages/improvements when work is completed. As far as I can recall, no one was experiencing problems with the navigation template and it was therefore quite a surprise for most of us that it was suddenly replaced with what we might call a technology-driven approach. Sorry to have given such a lengthy reply on this but I can assure you all that I am not trying to fight anyone but am sincerely trying to ensure our project can proceed on the best available basis. That surely must be in everyone's interest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Earlier this week, I noticed for the first time that there's a section on the WiR "Ideas" page that includes Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#General ideas for improving Women in Red (mentioned above by WomenArtistUpdates). I only came upon it by chance. Mostly, I only go to the "Ideas" page to participate in conversations regarding next month's events; I imagine this is common with other WiR editors. Conversely, this talkpage gets thousands of monthly pageviews -- from WiR members and from civil society. I suppose that our talkpage archive gets its share of searching, too. So if we want to socialize a "request for comment" regarding coordinating our work (tech, templates, etc.), there's a benefit to keeping the conversation here, vs. splintering onto a WiR subpage, or a user talkpage, etc.

What's been missing, though, is a defined "process". Things have worked okay till now without it. But now it's time to develop it. There are on-wiki talkpage models for these sorts of discussions (Request for Comment pages, Articles for Deletion, Administrators Noticeboard, etc.). What can we take from them and apply to us? I agree with Ipigott regarding a "request for comment" for coordination-related work should incorporate several project-management-style elements, e.g., "... definition of the problem ... ". Maybe a KEYWORD in the header? Maybe an icon at the top-right, as a visual? Let's open a discussion and develop a process in a new section. Ipigott, as you have professional experience in this area (broadly-construed), would you be comfortable in getting this started? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosie, for your confidence in my abilities and for agreeing with the approach I suggested. While I would be happy to contribute to any discussions, I would feel happier if the initiative could be launched by an administrator.--Ipigott (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential subject to write about

Came across an interesting subject that may or may not warrant an article: Cissie Watson (sometimes spelled Cassie Watson). She was apparently the first female boxing referee ever -- in 1934. A woman officiating important sporting events that far back seems like something significant - although surprisingly I only find coverage exclusively from a span of a few months in 1934 and 1935 (making me hesitant on whether she is notable considering WP:1E). Here's some sources I located: Green Bay Press-Gazette, Western Daily Press, The Daily Telegraph, Liverpool Echo, Daily Mirror, The Expositor, Edmonton Journal. Wondering what the folks here thought about this, and whether I should start an article on her? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can see, BeanieFan11, no one has yet attempted to create an article on Cissie Watson. I suggest you go ahead and let us know if you run into any difficulties. Thanks for your continuing work on covering women in sport. It's really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I'm aware no one has tried to start Watson an article. I certainly can start it, but I guess I'm just a bit concerned about whether it will stand if, e.g., brought to AFD. There does seem to be a fair argument that this could potentially fail WP:SUSTAINED, considering that the only coverage is from August 1934 to February 1935 (even if international). As such, I brought it here as I'd like a few opinions on whether she's notable or not. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This question sent me down a rabbit hole. I found a few more clippings on Watson that I am happy to share. I also found Belle Martell who was a referee in California in 1940.[2],[3],[4],[5]. I think both of them are interesting candidates for articles, and I would be happy to add to articles on them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think WP:SUSTAINED is a problem for Watson based on the attached clippings. They all seem to be about her first day of refereeing in August 1934, five published in the UK in the next couple of days, then two reports published months later in Canada, which don't mention when she refereed. That possibly says more about how Canadian newspapers filled space in 1934 than about the importance of the event. The British Boxing Board of Control said she was not licensed. TSventon (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This got me thinking: could I find any other women referees in sports that early? I was actually able to locate a good number of them. Here's ones I've found (not sure if any are notable, just listing if anyone wants to research further): Barbara Scott (boxing, 1931, [6]); Norah Lattey (tennis, 1909, [7]); Mrs. Butler (association football, 1919, [8]); Helen Clark (association football, 1920, also coach, [9] [10]); Ruth Harrison (billiards, 1932, [11] - this Ruth Harrison?); Lillian Merrell (gridiron football / basketball, 1908, [12]); Sophie Henry (gridiron football, 1908, [13]); Betty Bushey (wrestling, 1931, also "world's champion woman wrestler", [14]); Mademoiselle Curabet (rugby, 1926, [15]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Open letter to protect Wikipedia and other public interest projects in the Global Digital Compact

I don't know if this open letter, published today by the WMF, is of interest to our community. But sharing it nonetheless. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Voting ends 9 May for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

A friendly FYI: The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open through 9 May 2024:

• Information for voters: https://w.wiki/9sYC
• List of all candidates: https://w.wiki/9PsY
• SecurePoll link to vote: https://w.wiki/9sYD

Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Preparations for May

It's usually around this time of the month that WomenArtistUpdates prompts us to start working on preparations for the following month. But she hasn't edited since 9 April and seems to be on a wikibreak. Would anyone else like to make a start? If not, I'll see what I can do myself in a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If you can make a start @Ipigott I can help out later today or tomorrow Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's see who else responds today, otherwise I'll make a start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: I've tried to develop Press Women but as you can see it's a real mess as I have no idea what MSGJ has been doing in connection with our meetup presentations. Unless I can go back to our old approach, I'm afraid I can no longer create meetup pages but would be happy to look through those created by others. Rosiestep might nevertheless like to look through the story so far.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear, I can't see how this new approach to creating our monthly event pages is a good idea. WiR has no coordinators, no grants. Historically and purposefully, our volunteers have kept event pages simple to replicate so that any editor can do so. Ipigott, IMO, returning to the old approach makes sense. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a different way to do it - where are the instructions @MSGJ? I don't have much time to learn something new Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WAU wrote down the instructions (see here). There are 6 steps. I have sorted 305 for you Ipigott — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do we have to do this? Why can't we do it the previous way? Where was consensus for this change? Doesn't this just already make an extra burden for the already small organising group? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's actually easier, because the previous method had a lot more than 6 steps. But yes, you can do it the old way, of course — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reworking things, MSGJ, but I am not happy with this kind of "automation". In the old days (i.e. up until about three or four years ago when I handled everything myself), I was able to create two or three new meetups together with an invitation in about half an hour. I was simply able to copy earlier creations and make any necessary adaptations -- a one-step process per meetup over which I had full control. I had intended to do the same today but was surprised to see that the copy/paste approach was no longer possible. This morning I spent more than half an hour struggling with #305 to no avail. I have considerable experience of Women in Red but how would new members be able to cope? But if automation is the way to go, I hope WomenArtistUpdates will be back before the end of the month to sort things out and add one of her striking images to the invitation.

I was also wondering if it would be useful to have an additional event in May on "Nobility". I have noticed several editors take an interest in creating articles about women who were either members of royal families or prominent nobles. It would also encourage a wider international approach. In this connection, we have a Wikidata redlink page. I think it would be useful to have at least one more event in addition to the alphabet run. Geofocus is also up for suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

'Nobility' seems like a great idea. A suggestion for geofocus: I love 'islands' as a theme as they are everywhere. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take an alphabetic approach to islands, starting in May with islands beginning with A, B or C? I think it might be a good idea to eliminate islands that are also countries or else we'll be covering Australia, Bermuda and Cyprus once again. I'll see if anyone wants to take up the "automation" challenge on this; otherwise I'll put something together using the old approach in two or three days time.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate that you are willing to create the pages, Ipigott. Using the old, accepted, widely-used approach is fine. As for placing a restriction on island nations, it could limit participation, so I don't know if that's an optimal way forward. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In previous years we have focused on Central and Eastern Europe each May in collaboration with Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024. Perhaps some of this discussion would be better on the Ideas page? Oronsay (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to see things are now moving forward successfully on the Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

translation contest 2024

Hi I really loved the translation contest. Is there going to be another one soon ? Nattes à chat (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Me, too, Nattes à chat! Thanks for the suggestion. There were a lot of participants and a lot of new/translated articles for that event in "April-May-June 2022". Maybe we could do it again June-July-August 2024? WiR does events planning on our "Ideas" page, so I suggested it here where comments and assistance are warmly welcome. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2024

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307 Online events: New: Press women | Alphabet run U, V & W | Central and Eastern Europe Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024 - contest with certificates of participation and prizes The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th Tip of the month: Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Requested move at Talk:Umm Fahad#Requested move 28 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umm Fahad#Requested move 28 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft article on artist Bonnie Rychlak

In the spirit of narrowing the gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles, I spent a significant amount of time composing a page on the artist, curator, and writer Bonnie Rychlak. As I think has been established with numerous references, she has had an illustrious career in all three areas. However, I am having difficulty getting it accepted and finding it hard to believe that she has not met the notability standard, as one reviewer claims. Any assistance would be much appreciated to clarify exactly what needs to be done at this point to publish this article. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As previously advised the public collections (if they are notable) need sourcing. Having an illustrious career is not one of Wikipedia's criteria I'm afraid, see WP:GNG or more pertinently WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Even if notability can be established, the large amounts of unsourced material needs to be removed or properly attributed to published sources before any draft can be accepted. Also the WP:INUNIVERSE international art English is a problem. Write in plain English. Phrasing like "strongly illustrative of this invitation to plumb unassailable depths" is evocative but meaningless filler. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. Also the assumption that there is a "gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles" is probably wrong, as far as artists of the last century or so go, not least because of projects like this. If a proper survey was done, I'd expect it to show that it is easier for a female artist to keep a page than a male one. Obviously, historically, known artists are mostly male, but that's different thing. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that there still is a numeric gap in our coverage of modern artists, not so much because of Wikipedia editor behavior, but because of the greater tendency of men (artists included) to self-promote rather than just producing good work and hoping someone else notices, and the way this sort of self-promotion interacts with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps this is something that could be clarified by a careful analysis of data, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, we all have our stereotypes! I very much doubt anybody hoping to make a living in today's art industry thinks that "just producing good work and hoping someone else notices" will do it, though it is usually regarded as the job of the galleries and agents etc to lead the promotion effort. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Categories for deletion/merging

Hi everyone! As many of you have written articles that are in categories for Sámi people, I feel I should let you know that there has been a spate of deletion and merging going on since last year in case any of you would like to chime in there. Of the ones that have previously been upmerged, they have been merged into incorrect categories in spite of the mergers being told that they were not correct, making findability a major issue (for instance, Skolt families != Finnish families, which is what it was merged into). So, so far we've lost the categorization for Skolt families and the few individual families that were in it, Sámi associations, and now this weekend they've put up Sámi schoolteachers and Sámi educators for merging. - Yupik (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

And shortly after I wrote that, Cat:Sámi textbook writers got put up for splitting.... - Yupik (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Coverage of me in The Guardian (UK)

Hello folks, I posted about my global challenge on Twitter & got in touch with a couple of journalists, one of whom wrote this piece about the project: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/05/uk-academics-wikipedia-project-raises-profile-of-women-around-the-world - its quite short, so sadly doesn't include the various ways I mentioned how important this project has been to mentor me, support me and inspire me. I hope others here can see relfections on the conversations we have on this talk page in the article. Deepest thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What a fantastic piece @Lajmmoore! Thank you so much for all your efforts to raise the profile of WIR’s goals! I appreciate it so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Like Congrats! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the amazing work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just came across the article and wanted to come here to say congrats! I love seeing Wikipedia portrayed in a positive light in the media. Hopefully this will inspire some new editors to join the project. Unexpectedlydian^♯4talk^‽ 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well done, @Lajmmoore, what a great article. Thanks for all your work! PamD 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore: This is just the kind of publicity we need. Not only have you demonstrated your own enthusiasm and creativity but you have shown how important it is to have more contributors, especially women, helping to improve our coverage of women. Great stuff! Especially as everyone worldwide can access The Guardian"".--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@LajmmooreThe Guardian piece and you just got mentioned on Radio4 Today newspaper round up 7 40 am Wednesday 6 March. Great to have this public acknowledgement MerielGJones (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, heard it on Today (BBC Radio 4) too: I thought the tone was a bit patronising/bemused, but still great coverage! PamD 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Very inspiring. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Lovely piece, Lajmmoore. This is inspiring in so many ways. Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Such great coverage @Lajmmoore, you are an inspiration! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh well done you @Lajmmoore! And thanks for flagging that up; I read the Guardian daily, but somehow missed that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Late to the party (as when am I not?), but congratulations and well done on all of this. I had hoped to listen to the As It Happens interview when it aired on my local NPR station, but I...er, have been asleep whenever it's on this week (a recurring issue...hence my lateness, with apologies.) I shall seek it out online instead. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

My daughter just let me know of this piece - really fantastic, and well done you! Dsp13 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations @Lajmmoore, Best wishes. I saw the news on the Wiki X page. So glad to be part of the WikiProject Women In Red Taoheedah (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

As It Happens on CBC

& I was also on Canadian radio yesterday, about 17 minutes 20 secs in: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/16047110-cancelled-culture - if there's more features, I'll share them here. Thanks everyone for their kind words Lajmmoore (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Just listened: that's a great interview! Well done. PamD 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

That's really kind Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I was impressed by your pleasant voice and your relaxed responses to the questions. I'm not too sure whether I agree that you are not notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone like Victuallers who knows you better than I do could make a start.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I heard her (too brief?) appearance on Radio 4 this morning and tweeted it. I havent seen the Guardian bit yet. Always bit wary of writing stuff for mates. Jess Wade had a BEM and Rosie had been knighted before they got wiki articles I think. An obvious link would for someone to add Lucy to our Women in Red page which is very out of date and make a redirect there. Am I inspired by Lucy .... umm I'm just trying to emulate her woman for every country! Finding women for all the small island states looks very tricky. Still I did Vietnam today and I did Ethiopia and Eritrea yesterday... I'm amazed that I learn such random stuff ... did you know that there is a coutry in Africa who speak Spanish, who have had the same President for 40 years and he gets 97% of the votes despite moving the country's treasury into his own bank account! Oh and back to the subject..... well done our editor in Leeds. Victuallers (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I meet the notability requirements @Ipigott! Well done on your global challenge @Victuallers Lajmmoore (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WiR mainpage update

Well maybe, Roger, you would like to make a start updating the main WiR page. I agree with you, it does look rather dated. Perhaps Rosie could also help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I wish it were, but website design isn't my area of forte. Do we have any website designers around? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much the design as the content. Couldn't we put something together on the history of the project?--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC Scotland (radio)

Hello, I was on BBC Radio Scotland just now at 11.41 (that's 2 hours, 41 into the programme) talking about editing, and plugging the event above. This is the proramme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wzcf (with Stephen Jardine) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Guardian: Comment is free piece "hive heroism that changes history"

& there's a comment piece published by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/08/the-guardian-view-on-wikipedias-female-volunteers-a-hive-heroism-that-changes-history - this specifically mentions Women in Red! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Another interesting article, with a few curious extensions. These "print" items are easier to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a bizarre statement that "Louis XIV's elephant is among Women in Red’s additions", but I can see no mention of WiR in its talk page or edit history. Very odd.

It seems to have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot, but why? Does that bot detect words like "she" and "her" (it was a female elephant!)? If so, I wonder how many ships are claimed for WiR! PamD 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikidata Louis XIV's elephant was human (and an elephant). TSventon (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

PamD Human was added by a bot to Q124610027 here, then Q124610027 was merged to Q1326205 here. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Also Éléphante de Louis XIV (now a redirect) was also added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot. TSventon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• On another bit "Unsurprisingly, in such a culture, [in the OED] Walter Scott was quoted about 15,000 times, while Jane Austen’s wit made a mere 700 appearances" - could this be because Scott's 27 novels (a good 4-5 times longer than Austen's on the bookshelf, far more if all his works are included) are full of Scottish dialect words, while Austen's vocabulary is famously and deliberately restrained - I think shrubbery is one of her OED appearances though? No, it must be sexism. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Despite this and several IWD articles based on Wikipedia Needs More Women, I have not yet detected any noticeable change in new articles or new contributors. It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect there won't be much immediate change, but hopefully this coverage and encouragement will get women thinking longer term about ways to contribute Lajmmoore (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore, I am a bit late to this post, but I only just saw it, and I want to let you know that I read this ‘hive of heroism’ article a few weeks ago, having never heard of WIR, nor having ever edited wikipedia. And I immediately signed up. That day was a hot Australian Saturday, it was in the morning and I had made some vague plans to go outside and enjoy the weather. But after reading the article, I forgot about the weather and didn’t leave the house for the entire weekend. And here I am. I’m absolutely obsessed with editing and creating articles about amazing people. So, thank you for making the effort to get the word out. AdaWoolf (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for saying so @AdaWoolf that isso wonderful to hear & you've got the hang of it so fast (I was so much slower). Team work makes the dream (of gender equity) work! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@AdaWoolf Brilliant! Thanks for telling us. It looks like you found your feet here really quickly! I see Ipigott found one of your early drafts at AfC and accepted it to mainspace. If you find yourself at a lull in your own article creation in the future, I hope you'll consider helping out at WP:AFC. Lots of drafts on women there that need a bit of a nudge to make it to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would be interested in helping out with those @Asilvering.I will go and look into the process. AdaWoolf (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women lists all the articles on women (as defined by a bot, so not always totally accurate) that are waiting for reviews. Many of them really won't be any good, and probably not notable enough to be worth saving. But about as many could probably make it to mainspace, but the editor who drafted the article is new and didn't catch on as quickly as you did and they don't understand what's missing. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

CNN INTERNATIONAL

& I was also on the CNN International show, Isa Soares Tonight (this evening at 7.40pm-ish) - I have a link to the segment and I've been told it will be up on social media soon. This time I mentioned Women in Red by name! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a link to watch here: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/03/08/exp-international-womens-day-wikipedia-moore-live-030802pseg2-cnni-world.cnn - I was extremely nervous! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Weekend - BBC World Service

& I was also invited on Weekend for BBC World Service this morning - you can listen here, about 50 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172z37rh4rq6rg It's challenging to include everything you want to in live conversations, but I am hopeful some of this week's coverage will have got more people thinking about our project Lajmmoore (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore I can't find you in that link at 50 mins, have dipped in at various other points too and not found you! PamD 12:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi PamD - I think I put the wrong one down - it's this about 44 mins in. I changed th link above Lajmmoore (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hero of the Week - Pod Save the UK

& a UK-based podcast called Pod Save the UK named the project as "hero of the week" (link to a X post is here) & this is the episode (link) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff post

I wrote a bit about the project on the Diff blog too - thanks for all your kind words over the past month (& past five years) Lajmmoore (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

International Roma Day Edit-a-thon (April 1st – 15th, 2024)

Hi all! Wikimedia Serbia is once again hosting an international edit-a-thon in honour of International Roma Day this year. This year though it lasts two weeks. In addition, English Wikiquote is included and there are at least six local editathons if any of us speak those languages! If you notice any Roma topics or people missing from the edit-a-thon lists, please feel free to add them! -Yupik (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this @Yupik - I really enjoyed it last year! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure, @Lajmmoore! I hope as many people as possible can participate this year, since I won't be able to to the extent I want to. Will you be participating? - Yupik (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yupik - I've only had time to add one article, but here it is Philomena Franz. What an amazing woman Lajmmoore (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore You don't seem to have added it on the results page. Mine seems to be the only new en.wiki article listed, plus two Improved articles. PamD 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that! Ooops! Thank you Lajmmoore (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Inspired by @Lajmmoore: and by the fact that tomorrow is the last day, I've created Melanie Spitta: I looked at the "People" list from the editathon to find someone (a) not in en:Wiki, (b) present in a language I can at least partly understand, (c) female, and (d) initial S-T (if there was one), and found her! PamD 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much Lajmmoore and PamD! <3 -Yupik (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yupik Is there a talk page banner for the editathon? I added a manual note, but wondered whether I was missing something! PamD 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But that's a good suggestion for next year! - Yupik (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Would it be okay if someone was bold, and created it (talkpage banner), and we started adding it to applicable talkpages? Seems like a good idea for tracking, branding, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should probably come from the editathon organisers? Though it would need to be in lots of different languages. I don't think we need a WiR-specific version (actually en.wiki isn't even listed as one of the "Supported by" wikis on the participants page. Odd. PamD 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just sent email to the organizers to suggest having a talk page banner starting next year. Thanks for the suggestion! - Yupik (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of wrapper templates

Now that we no longer use a separate template for each event, I have nominated the 300+ wrapper templates for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 29. This will not have any noticeable impact, because they are all unused. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Great move, MSGJ. I bow to your expertise. It's been a privilege to participate in this project over the years but I now see that there's not much scope any longer for those of my age. Happy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rather unfortunate outcome. Very sorry to see the depth of your discontent, Ipigott.

Out of curiosity (and curtesy), have the changes to the templates actually damaged the project – apart from the time spent creating and subsequently trying to preserve the previous method (as well as the considerable effort invested in altering it)? Does the new system now work properly? Are the project participants generally satisfied with its use and outputs? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)br>

PS: Notwithstanding unresolved bugs such as: Warning: event {{{1}}} is not recognised (seen here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No, MSGJ, you may not delete them. They are historical documentation of our work. You don't seem to understand that Women in Red is not just the articles we write; it is also a community that has accomplished something remarkable. You do not have permission to erase our history. Instead, mark them as being preserved for historical records, or some such. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How thoughtful of you, Cl3phact0. to step in any ask for explanations. It's not so much the templates or the changes in relation to events and meetups but rather the fact that someone who had not shown any particular interest in Wikipedia's coverage of women suddenly decided to modify step by step our previously successful method of handling the project and its activities. I certainly recognize MSGJ's success in contributing to improving the banner shell environment but I did not expect my encouragement of his technical approach to extend so deeply into the basic setup of Women in Red. I realize that you are one of a few younger contributors who feel. the changes are welcome. I am beginning to think that it is probably because of my age (now 81), that I am not able (or willing?) to cope with the new environment. My recent attempt to help Rosie by creating Press women for May was a disaster which certainly did not serve the interests of the project. Rather than upset enthusiasts like you, I thought it better to avoid potential disagreements and conflicts in the knowledge that there are now a sufficient number of new more competent enthusiasts who will no doubt be to ensure the future success of the project. As always, I will of course be happy to help anyone who would like to draw on my experience but I have decided to not to create any more articles about women myself. I sincerely think the project could benefit by encouraging younger participants to deal with tasks such as welcoming new members and maintaining Showcase, Press and Research listings ()if these are still considered useful. I will continue to be active on Wikipedia as I have many other interests. I very much appreciate you interest, Cl3phact0, and have noticed how much you have been doing to support the project. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Brittany Spanos

I've gone back and re-worked the Brittany Spanos draft in the hope that we might get the article over the line before the conclusion of the S & T Alphabet run. The original references (of which there are way too many for a stub/start class piece) have been preserved on the Talk page (where I've also included a section: Past discussions relevant to this article). I've given this about as much as I can, and I'm not sure what the best practice is now. Should the article now be submitted via AfC, or can we just go ahead and publish per usual? (Pinging Stifle and Dsp13 out of curtesy.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for putting this work in, Cl3phact0! I'll leave it to others to answer your question here. Dsp13 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone? (Now we're in a month to think about press women!) Dsp13 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Indigenous women at the 60th Venice Biennale

Reading this Guardian article I noted that neither of the indigenous women artists it mentions have articles (in any language). They are Rosa Elena Curruchich (WD) and Sarah Ortegon HighWalking (WD). Curruchich passed away a few years ago. I mention them in case anyone is looking for inspiration. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I just started a stubs on Rosa Elena Curruchich Sarah Ortegon HighWalking and additional content and sources can be found online. They both meet NARTIST criteria 4 for inclusion. Please feel free to improve the stubs for those who are interested! Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rater tool & talkpage templates

Hello all. Does anyone else use the rater tool and if so, have they noticed that it doesn't seem to pick up the event specific templates any more? Is there a way to fix this? It's slightly annoying to do it manually all the time Lajmmoore (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lajmmoore. Yes, I constantly use it. Same as you: I've noticed that Rater doesn't let me add WiR specific templates to article talkpages. So first I use Rater for all other Wikiprojects; then I go to the article talkpage and add the WiR template(s). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Lajmmoore and @Rosiestep. I use Rater all the time but have never used it to add WIR templates, I've always done them manually. I know from any Aussie editor who knows the creator/maintainer of Rater that they are not always available to make changes. I will raise it with my mate and see what can be done. Just warning that change is unlikely to be instant. Oronsay (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Best month for two years

I'm not sure how many of our participants are interested in statistics but some might like to know that our Metrics page shows that in March over 1,960 biographies of women were created. Not since March 2022 have there been so many. It's also good to see how many new members have been signing up: 22 in March, 18 in February and 21 in January. It all looks very encouraging.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is great news, Ipigott! Thank you for bringing it up here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting on these figures, @Ipigott. It's very good to see growth in both numbers – new members and articles created. Oronsay (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Metrics wow reporting 2,005 new articles for March. This may partly be a result of Meta initiatives in Africa and Asia in connection with biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Seconding that! DrThneed (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

And a third from me. I love good-news statistics. Penny Richards (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Redlink index

A month or so ago, I joined this WikiProject and almost forgot about it. I would like to help, but opening the redlink index just breaks my browser and I don't know what else to do. :( Please help! — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse you don't need to write about women who are on the redlists - any woman who isn't featured on Wikipedia is fine by us! I often create biographies for women who aren't on lists already. If you're looking for ideas, some lists have (CS) in brackets - these are crowd-sourced so don't usually have the big Wikidata driven tables. This is music & this is LGBT - do those open better? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lajmmoore, they open better, thanks! I will add these pages to my watchlist. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Behind Every Good Man

I just created the article on the 1967 short documentary Behind Every Good Man (es) on the Spanish Wikipedia. It could be of interest to the wikiproject, given that it stars a trans woman and is an early example of the representation of transgender women in American cinema. --Peridotito (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Peridotito Do you know there's a template for that kind of link? {{interlanguage link}} or {{ill}}. {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es}} produces the same effect as you did above: Behind Every Good Man. Or more sophisticatedly {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es|lt=''Behind Every Good Man''}} for Behind Every Good Man, with "lt" being "link text", the version you want displayed. There are various other complexities available, eg if the English wikipedia title would be different from the existing one in the other wikipedia. As I understand it, when the article gets created in English wikipedia the code is automatically simplified into a plain blue link. I'm not a film buff and read very little Spanish, so I'll leave it to others to answer your actual question, just thought I'd offer some info about a perhaps little-known template! PamD 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

University of York Open Research Awards

The writing women around the world challenge keeps on giving, with an Open Research Award from the University of York! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Marvellous to see your hard work being recognised. Congratulations! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about notability - Australian scientist

Hello, not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, please. The page for Josephine Cardale has a notability flag. I am still adding publications from her Trove search results, but I'm concerned by this flag. Could you please advise? Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, notability seems to be established. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Magdalena Hinterdobler

Your help with finding additional references for the Magdalena Hinterdobler biography would be appreciated. I learned about this opera singer from conversations with Gerda Arendt. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rosiestep: There's also positive critical comment by Brachmann which I've added. There's probably more in the German press but I think this already makes it a keep.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

Hello WikiProject Women in Red:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Netiporn Sanesangkhom

Netiporn Sanesangkhom a Thai activist died in a hunger strike it needs expansion. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for Collaboration on a New Article for Michelle Valberg

Hello, Women in Red community!

I am currently working on a Wikipedia article about Michelle Valberg, a Canadian nature and wildlife photographer known for her extensive work documenting Canada's landscapes and wildlife, particularly the Arctic. She is a Nikon Ambassador, Canadian Geographic Photographer-in-Residence, Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographic Society, and an International Fellow of the Explorers Club in New York City and was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada in 2022 for her contributions in photography and philanthropy.

Despite her significant achievements and contributions, I have noticed a lack of comprehensive coverage about her on Wikipedia, particularly highlighting her role as a woman in a field that significantly intersects with environmental conservation and cultural documentation.

I have been working on an initial version of the article, focusing on her career, achievements, and philanthropic efforts but would greatly appreciate any assistance to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards in terms of neutrality, verifiability, and depth.

Here is the link to the article: Draft:Michelle Valberg

Any contributions or advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for helping to improve the representation of women on Wikipedia and looking forward to your valuable feedback. Bojamon (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bojamon As a reviewer I would be happy to accept if you submit.Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I have just submitted it for review. I appreciate your support and willingness to accept it! Bojamon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Bojamon, you have delared a WP:COI, but not (that I can see) the nature of it, which you should do. She has a what on Lake Whatever? "house"? Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! There was something originally there, I don't know what happened. Bojamon (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Teresa Lavina

Found this via Wikipedia:Teahouse#I_need_some_urgent_advice. Draft doesn't look glaringly bad, if someone is interested in getting into it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft article on Hush WAACs for a quick check

I went to add a woman who was a WW1 cryptographer and discovered that their entire WW1 unit was not on wikipedia. I've created a draft, and have three sound sources, plus leads for more. I'd appreciate a quick check that I've created an article that won't be deleted, given I normally do biogs.

Draft:Hush WAACs

Once I make it live, I can then hang at least two more biog stubs off from it, and connect it to the wider topics of WW1 and cryptography. EEHalli (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've moved this to mainspace and added a few categories and links. I'm thinking I could put it in for a DYK nomination. EEHalli (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What a great story. Thanks for sharing here. I just made minor edits for consistency. Hope the DYK goes ahead. Oronsay (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Several of the women in the list on the page have potential to become women in red biogs, and I've saved them to my trello board of wiki pages I want to do, but I suspect it will be a while before I get to them. DYK seems to be going well. EEHalli (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone check User:John Cummings/Articles/Gehad Hamdy before I publish it?

Hi all

If someone could check User:John Cummings/Articles/Gehad Hamdy before I publish I'd really appreciate it, the article was previously deleted so I want to try to make it as bulletproof as I can before publishing. Please feel free to just change the draft.

I've also written one for her organisation User:John Cummings/Articles/Speak Up, if anyone wants to look at that as well I'd really appreciate it also :)

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a good source for any of the awards. A lot of those sources don't have any sigcov. I would call it a tossup, leaning delete at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Having been previously deleted it would be advisable to submit it for review at WP:AFC to get more opinions and constructive criticism. Theroadislong (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Gehad Hamdy is not only previously deleted but Create=Require administrator access protected. TSventon (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

in which case WP:AFC is definitely the way to proceed. Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There aren't any independent sources giving substantial coverage to the subject -- everything is either from orgs she's affiliated with (including orgs giving her awards) or quotes from her. I would vote delete at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon thanks very much Hi Theroadislong thanks I'll do that Hi ScottishFinnishRadish thanks for looking at it, I'll see what else I can find, I'm kind of amazed that so few of the people listed in BBC 100 Women are missing articles now, its great. What other coverage do you think would be needed to make it notable? Can you explain why the vital voices source is no good? (sorry if its obvious, BLP isn't my usual area)

Question for everyone, do you think User:John Cummings/Articles/Speak Up would meet notability? Its the same sources, but I'm wondering if the difference in notability guidelines between orgs and BLP will allow it to be accepted. John Cummings (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The notability requirements for organisations, WP:ORGCRIT, are stricter than those for people, WP:BASIC, so it would probably be easier to focus on Hamdy if the sources are the same. Sources for organisations have to have significant coverage to contribute to notability, while there is more scope to combine multiple independent sources to establish notability for people. TSventon (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon, thank you for your advice, so just to be super clear, you don't think the organisation meets notability requirements currently either? John Cummings (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't tried to check the notability, if you have read WP:ORGCRIT you will see it is quite complex. As the founders article title has been salted it probably makes sense to use WP:AFC here as well. Also it would probably be useful to list the three or four best sources (reliable, secondary and independent of the subject and offering significant coverage). Otherwise a reviewer has to evaluate 22 sources, many of which will not contribute to the notability of an organisation. TSventon (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi TSventon thank you for the advice, where do you suggest I list the best sources? As the first few refs in the article or something else? John Cummings (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings I would suggest a list on the article talk page. Someone here may have time to check 4 sources, but not 22 or more. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

TSventon thanks again for the advice, I would say these are the strongest sources

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-75af095e-21f7-41b0-9c5f-a96a5e0615c1
• https://www.cairo24.com/1077396
• https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/can-social-media-help-fight-against-sexual-harassment-egypt/

John Cummings (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings My initial feeling is the BBC article is probably too short at 99 words. openDemocracy and Cairo24 are reporting what Hamdy and a Speak Up volunteer said, so they are not independent. TSventon (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again TSventon. John Cummings (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)