Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Focus

Focus for April

Ideas planning page

As April is rapidly approaching, we need to firm up on our focus for the month. The two main themes appear to be book artists (perhaps also illustrators and cartoonists) and psychologists. If all agree, I can prepare the editathon pages and the invitations. See also the ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So April will be a busy month!

• Women book artists

• Women in psychology
• CEE women to include (per CEE Spring articles lists): Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bashkortostan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Crimean Tatar, Croatia, Erzya, Esperantujo, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Romaniprobably need some more Wikidata lists for CEEan, Republic of Srpska, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, Ukraine.

We probably need some additional CEE Wikidata redlists. Also, Ipigott, I leave for Berlin on Monday (27th) but I can MassMessage invites before then if provided with links. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Rosiestep: I'll try to firm up the editathon pages and the invitation for April today or tomorrow. Re Wikidata lists, what you call Republic of Srpska (i.e. Republika Srpska) is part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria is definitely not a CEE country even though it is listed on Meta. If you look carefully at the Meta page you quote, you will see that by clicking on each country you get Wikidata lists for each country or language. Each list includes a Women section which we can use as a basis for creating EN articles. (The ones in black rather than blue still have no articles on the EN wiki.) I note however that in any case we still need Wikidata lists for Hungary and Romania. I'll add them. I think we'll need a separate editathon page for CEE as we'll need to provide background and guidance.

• Ipigott, that sounds fine. And thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I see we already had Hungary and Romania. I've added them to the template listing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Focus for May

• Remember there is the US women contest, which is for all occupations I believe. Why not have something generally in support of that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld It's restricted to destubbing. But we have a geofocus on Puerto Rico, Guam and the American Virgin Islands.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Sturmvogel 66#WMDC Women's Destubathon Contest. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mind if I suggest adding American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands to the geofocus? I can't imagine we'll find that many more women to write about there, but that would cover all of the US non-state territories except for DC, which is a special case. (Although, were one to suggest rolling DC into the lot, I wouldn't be against it.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's include American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands. I see they each have around 50,000 inhabitants so there should be a few notable women.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I regret to say that I've had some RL issues of late that mean that we're going to have to push back the contest to May. That will give me more time to get everything set up properly. I do plan to include a category for all the territories like D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc., so y'all can start your researching now for anyone from the Northern Marianas, etc. ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Sturmvogel 66. We can switch our April and May geographic focuses, and I've done so on our planning page, as the CEE Spring campaign run March 21-May 31. Question: We didn't know that Northern Marianas would be included in the contest; would you please let us know what other geographic areas are included in the contest (as "etc." doesn't give us enough context)? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically all US territories and associated commonwealths: American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, D.C., but excluding former Trust Territories like the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For those who know how to do it (e.g. I don't), could you please also draw up Wikidata redlists for any of these if they are missing and data is available? No rush on this batch, though, as the event isn't till May. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In regard to the American islands, apart from Puerto Rico, I don't think there is any point in creating Wikidata lists for the EN wiki as all the articles on women are certainly in English. If we need lists of red links, we'll have to use the "crowd-sourced" method.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Former First Lady of American Samoa Mary Tulafono and former Governor Togiola Tulafono.

Per a request by @Tagishsimon: There are very few redlinks for women in those countries. 2 women with Guam citizenship, 1 women born in US Virgin Islands and 1 death. Though you could find more results in First Lady of American Samoa (List of governors of American Samoa). And at least 5 members of House of Representatives are female according to WiP. (Check past elections too). emijrp (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

May seems better now, April would have really been a rush. As with the Dragon contest I had to hold that a month later than planned too. Time passes very quickly. Try to get the contest drawn up by early next month and then allow a few weeks for publicity.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just waiting for the women's destubathon contest page to be created (a draft will do) by Sturmvogel 66 so that I get the invites pushed out. Agree, that needs to happen very soon. Here are the lists I hope to use via MassMessaging:

• WMNYC list; Pharos will let me know if that's ok.
• San Francisco
• Los Angeles
• WiR
• Dr. Blofeld Should I send it to the participants of the Dragon contest? And the Africa destubathon?

What other lists can anyone think of? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki 2030

Dear WikiProject Women in Red and WikiWomen's User Group,

This is our time! Please join the movement strategy conversation. This is the time many of us have been waiting for for years. The WMF would love to see each and every one of us make our voice heard and take the chance to shape the future of our movement together.

Some links:

• Movement strategy portal on Meta: m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017
• As WikiConference North America is an organized User Group, our input will be shared in the Track A section: m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Track A.
• Updates: m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates
• Hashtag: #Wikimedia2030

Get involved!

• Phase 1, Cycle 1 (15 March - 14 April) focuses on: Question1, What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?

To build momentum around the conversation, additional questions have been developed as underpinnings:

• Q2: What will guide our work together over the next 15 years?
• Q3: What impact or change do we want to have on the world over the next 15 years?
• Q4: What is the single most important thing we can do together over the next 15 years?
• Q5: What will unite and inspire us as a movement for the next 15 years?
• Q6: What will accelerate our process over the next 15 years?
• Q7: What will we be known for in the next 15 years?

Looking forward to sharing our thoughts on this page (social media/email/in-person meetings are fine, too) regarding the focus question of "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" between now and April 14th. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take the bait: 1) A less elitist, more inclusionary encyclopedia. I'm not saying throw out notability at all. Definitely it must be the underpinning, but secondary criteria that try to manipulate notability to specific fields or define people/things by narrow categories need to be re-evaluated. Accuracy must remain a goal, but it cannot be the excuse to allow negative behaviors to continue. Humans err, it is what allows us to learn. There will always be errors. 2) An actual commitment to restructuring and eliminating bullying, wikilawyering, and a proactive training, rather than policing environment must become a real goal. 3) Implementing #2 by creating actual policies that encourage creation, cooperation, and eliminate the negative atmosphere and behaviors. 4-5-6) Having tools to monitor whether progress is being made. Is diversity increasing, both in article and editor numbers? Are the policies reducing and changing the environment? If the policies are ineffective, there must be simpler means found to improve responsiveness and eliminate the bureaucracy that inhibits change. 7) Totally depends on whether an effort is made to eliminate the negative environment or not. Far too many good editors will leave if there are not positive measures taken to retain them. SusunW (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Susun answers this beautifully and reflects much of what I would have to say about it, particularly "Accuracy must remain a goal, but it cannot be the excuse to allow negative behaviors to continue. Humans err, it is what allows us to learn. There will always be errors. 2) An actual commitment to restructuring and eliminating bullying, wikilawyering, and a proactive training, rather than policing environment must become a real goal. " One thing which Susun didn't mention though is readability. For me it's one of the biggest issues with the site. Every article should have a concise, coherent summary which can be quick to learn from, The reality is that most articles are either stubs or lack a structured article with an adequate lede. A lot of articles are bloated and difficult to actually read. If you did a survey on certain articles of how many visitors actually fully read it it would shockingly low I'm sure. I think we need to start to nurture every article we have and increase the average quality. While we need new women bios and to get us over 20% we also need to ensure that every existing article is readable and well sourced. IN some cases it may mean that it is necessary to merge articles to a list, particularly on things like minor planets and species where they're only ever going to be substubs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

One person on the strategy emails came up with this as a starting point. "I know what is going wrong now and I can imagine what has to be improved so that we will still exist and be attractive in 15 years." I like it. How would you answer it? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For starters?:

1. Notability must be reviewed to take into account the disparity in coverage that women and minorities have received both historically and currently. We can not continue to bury our heads in the sand and pretend the discrepancies don't exist. We must state it and provide clear direction to overcome it.
2. Naming policy needs to be reviewed and revised to acknowledge that women's names in a majority of cultures change over time. Keeping the same name throughout an article, if this occurred, is not only inaccurate, it could be construed as POV. Compound this by trends by researchers to rename subjects after death. There seems to be a current trend to insert maiden names into historic women's names in media whether they were ever known by that or not. Then there is the whole idea that the community, rather than the person/sources, should define how a subject is addressed. Policy needs to explicitly spell out how to address name changes.
3. All secondary notability criteria need to be reevaluated. Are they serving the community by providing either too little depth to meet GNG or too stringent requirements, forcing people to fit into narrow categories which may or may not represent the totality of their accomplishments. PROF is a prime example. How many times is that trotted out to force all scientists to meet academic criteria? Many involved in technological advances are not academics. I have seen a trend to bring citation numbers and various scoring factors into discussions repeatedly. Research confirms they only work in some fields (rarely in the humanities) and that that women, due to name changes and citations trends (more men cite articles by other men) unduly penalize women in such schemes. [2] Guidelines already discourage their use, but discussion to determine whether they should be disallowed entirely needs to be had.
4. AfC should either be abolished entirely or restricted to people who have actually created X #articles, proving that they have a broad understanding of writing, sourcing and eliminating POV and copyvios, as well as sufficient interactions in the community to confirm they have adequate skill for coaching new members in creating articles.
5. All aspects of deletion need to be reviewed and revised Speedy, AfD, etc. That one will require more thought, but clearly it is broken. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The main issue for me I think is community and way things work on wikipedia in terms of editor relationships. A lot of issues facing the site, including AFDs and lack of understanding of notability which threaten future content and editors stem from this. It is crucial that editors (I mean active content producers and admins) support each other and not harrass or assume a hostile approach, even when the going gets tough. There's too many admins and people here who like to treat productive editors badly, regardless of how much they've contributed. At times when editors really need support, backup and human understanding they're often trodden by people who are utterly clueless about things but just follow "civility" rules. Wikipedia is the one site where you can work very hard for 10 years and to still be treated like a vandal at times. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: Your last two points in particular are the ones I'd focus on. AfC is a place I actually haven't visited very much, so I don't know a whole lot about how it works. That being said...I'm not sure I'm sold on the concept. It might have been worthwhile, once, but I think the fact that anyone can create a profile and start writing articles means that it's basically useless, from my perspective at least.

Deletion rules need an overhaul. Most concerningly to me, as I've mentioned on other occasions, is that I feel editors sometimes take them too cavalierly, and this leads to needless AfD discussions and too many contentious moments. If people were penalized for a pattern of misunderstood AfDs, that might go some way towards alleviating the problem. I don't enjoy making the suggestion, but it might have to be something to keep under consideration. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao I agree it needs an overhaul, just don't know how to accomplish it. I think #3 is part of the equation, but nominations is a big part and I have no solid ideas how to eliminate the unsalvagable from the actually notable. Am hoping others will weigh in. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'm not sure it's the criteria that need an overhaul so much as that people need to be more careful in applying them.

Regardless, what we really need is Foundation buy-in, or else they don't appear serious about tackling the problems. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess there's the rub, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, as historically, the WMF hasn't been involved with tackling these problems. And do we want them to take to do so? Historically, the responsibility lies with volunteers in each language community to sort out among themselves. So majority coalitions (or cabals and cliques) form and the coalition with the loudest voice gets its way. Can we continue to sustain this model till 2030 and expect a happy editing culture? IMO, no. No on en-wiki, and probably not on any language wiki. Do we know of any language wiki where the criteria are being handled differently or applied more carefully, with a better outcome? Maybe start by looking at de-wiki? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: The problem is that, for good or ill, the WMF is the face of Wikipedia to the world. So whatever we do on-wiki, people are going to look to them for question, comment, direction, etc. They need to advocate some kind of course of action, I think...that may be antithetical to the way they, and we, have operated in the past, but if we really want things to change that's what we have to expect and to hope for.

I spend so little time on other-language wikis that any comment I would have on that point is useless, sorry. I am, basically, monolingual. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Beattie-Smith

Sarah Beattie-Smith, a Scottish politician and news personality, is up for deletion198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Nigeria

• Copied over from: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Nigeria

@Rosiestep and Theredproject: Nnamdi Ezikwe library at University of Nigeria are holding their A+F event on March 27/28. I pointed the organizer there to this list and they might be using it. —M@sssly^✉ 12:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Masssly, and thank you for pointing the A+F organizer to Women in Red. Hope it's a great event! Happy editing! (cc: Theredproject) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Works by women

I have started a few lists of works by women using Wikidata: films (3000+), paintings (150+) and improved books (700+). Not all at WiR are biographies! ;-) emijrp (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC) A few more works: architecture, plays, poems. And bios: laureates, polyglots

Great lists, Emijrp; thanks. Handy to have someone who has a SPARQL clue amongst us at last ... so that's how you do a join :).

Can you find any redlink for women from or associated with American Samoa or the Northern Mariana Islands - see the tail-end of Focus for April, above. I tried for AS, but drew a blank. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Emijrp: Thanks for the "works" lists. The one on paintings looks particularly attractive and will no doubt lead to many new articles.--Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Emijrp! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've passed along the list and a call for editors already involved in visual arts topics over at WikiProject Visual arts. This is the talk page notice. As there is a crossover between the two groups, we may get some sympathetic editors involved, particularly with the pre-1800 paintings. freshacconci (✉) 16:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Alice Ming Wai Jim

I stumbled across this article. I have a conflict of interest so I'd prefer not to touch the article. However, it's currently an orphan and there are a number of copyedits needed (removing the "Dr." used throughout for example). All non-controversial edits that should take a minute or two, if anyone has the time. I haven't checked sources or language usage but a quick glance tells me it's fine otherwise. freshacconci (✉) 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I did some cleanup but it is still a fairly large copyvio from her faculty bio. It was very promotional, as bios are designed to be.198.58.162.200 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let others deal with the copyvio. Hopefully it can be rewritten rather than deleted. freshacconci (✉) 18:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

She had no categories or talk page banners to indicate that she was a woman, so I've added various. And created a minimal Wikidata entry, so one way or the other she'll now be picked up in stats looking for bios of women. PamD 18:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

April events at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2017 worldwide online editathons. Participation is welcome in any language.
		"Psychology" "Book Artists" "CEE Countries"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) ----Rosiestep (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Laia Martínez i López

Laia Martínez i López, Spanish poet, is up for deletion. There is a Spanish Wikipdia page for her that may be of help.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nasty woman

Yes, the article Nasty woman is up for deletion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Anita Short Metz Grossman

Anita Short Metz Grossman, pianist, composer and mentioned by name during the House Unamerican Activities Committee, is up for deletion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC) Big text

Eline McGeorge

Norwegian artist Eline McGeorge, who is in three permanent collections, is up for deletion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll find me weeping in the corner if you want me. ffs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn. To be fair, there really were no significant sources writing about her. I had to break out the jackhammer and the TNT to find the permanent collections.198.58.162.200 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Guetty Felin

I'm pretty sure this was a bad AfD, in that the person is notable. Does anyone who reads this page have the power to take a "look behind the curtain" and to restore a draft if applicable? Ser Amantio di Nicolao? I see decent refs in Google News and Books, and she had a film at the Toronto Film Fest, so I am encouraged.198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, that's like the kind of AfDs you used to see in 2005.

"Ok, there are a lot of foreign language sources around (the subject is from Haiti and they speak French there) and maybe something can be found there."

"Has only 34 followers on vimeo, and I've never heard of any of the secondary sources that mention her. The one source in the article references a video by her that has 6 likes on vimeo and 101 views on YouTube."

"In a few years it may be notable, for now it isn't." "It"? Did that person even read the article?

These are all poor rationale for deletion, and although 7 days had passed, only 3 !votes (and only one actually addressing guidelines) -- this should have been relisted, not closed. It wasn't listed in any delsort lists for anyone to actually find it. Really poor decision on that administrator. Should go to deletion review. freshacconci (✉) 06:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

One big point against it, to me - it was created by its own subject. I'd rather, given that point, see someone recreate it with new sourcing - it's personal, maybe, but that's one of the few things I'm not overly-fond of. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Bholat

Michelle Bholat, a notable Latino physician in California, is up for deletion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

WiR Hebrew Wiki logos & icons

Check these out these cool new icons and logos developed this month by the Hebrew Wikipedia! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Shout out and kudos

I want to call everyone's attention to some quiet, mostly unnoticed work being performed at List of Canadian women artists‎ by Big iron. I'd watched for a while as names were added, mostly historical figures. I was surprised that there were so many articles on historical Canadian women painters and when I checked, I found that Big iron had created all these articles, dozens of them. As someone who focuses on art topics and who joined Wikipedia specifically to address the lack of Canadian art topics, I'm in awe at this level of quiet commitment and, as the kids like to say, sticktoitiveness. I had not encountered this editor prior to this, but I now see that Big iron has contributed to previous edit-a-thons, so clearly I'm the one out to lunch on what's been going on. Apologies for potentially embarrassing Big iron, but I believe good work should be acknowledged. freshacconci (✉) 18:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, Big iron!

Also, Freshacconci, a friendly FYI that with this edit,[3] I removed a bunch of bluelinks from WP:WikiProject Women in Red/Art#Canada and some of these could be added to List of Canadian women artists if they aren't already all accounted for on that List. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Freshacconci: Thanks for reminding us all of the enormous amount of work undertaken by Big iron on all things Canadian with ever greater emphasis on women. Literally thousands of articles have been added, all clearly presenting information substantiated by valid sources. As someone with connections to Canada myself, I am always happy to see new biographies on Canadians, particularly all those in the cultural sphere. Great work, month after month...--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I must chime in as well with the kudos for Big iron. Though I also must admit that I never pay attention to the nationality of subjects, merely the content. Would never have occurred to me that Big iron's work was focused on Canada. What I know is that the articles Big iron produces are sourced, with clear notability. Having recently expanded a stub of a Martinican woman Big iron wrote, I was pleased to see that others are taking note of the good work being done. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

WMC Women in media 2017

The Women's Media Center has released their 2017 report on gender gap and women in the media. It can be found here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this Megalibrarygirl. The stats are dismal and certainly make an interesting underpinning for my argument that women's coverage in media is typically focused on the frivolous and rarely in-depth. SusunW (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

3rd annual Women Wikipedia Design on March 30th

Oh my goodness... just saw this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#Women Wikipedia Design and the event is occurring in 3 days. What now? We could reply that we're over-extended with our other March events; we could create a userpage and just participate March 30th; we could run an event March 30-April 30; or maybe there's another option? I'm traveling so won't be much help but didn't want to ignore the request, and, of course, this was one of our most impactful events ever held. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I always enjoy architecture, but I think that given we already have 3 events on the board for next month adding another is probably not feasible. Maybe our best bet is just to post the link to their event here and encourage participation on that day? SusunW (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've made an announcement on our main page and also joined as a remote participant to help with follow-up. I suppose they are already aware of our red links. I don't think we need a special user page. They've done a pretty good job themselves.--Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Stuff at AfD

Needs more eyes and comments:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Rowe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ngedikes Olai Uludong
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleni Antoniadou

Avvy Go

Toronto Lawyer Avvy Go is up for deletion.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Added some more references for notability and did a bit of reorganization. --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Prime example of why our notability requirements fail women. See my rant above at WiR @ Wikimania Montreal. GRRRRR! SusunW (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if this is a notability issue, in the sense of notability requirements failing women subjects. The most basic of google searches shows that Avvy Go clearly passes our current requirements. The nominator did not attempt WP:BEFORE or if he did, he didn't understand what he was looking at. The Order of Ontario was the 6th google hit when I looked. The first page of hits clearly shows notability with the quickest of scans. I've ranted about this elsewhere, but the nomination was again improper: not only had he not done due diligence per WP:GNG (since he said there was no evidence of notability) but he stated that the article "seems to promote legal clinic". Even if that was true, it's not a legitimate reason for deletion. Promotion and self-promotion are not, never have been, accepted reasons for deletion except in cases where it is a blatant ad, in which case it's speedy deleted. This whole AfD falls under editors being trigger-happy on new articles and delving into areas where they are not familiar -- is the nominator Canadian? Knowledgeable about law? Familiar with issues around immigrants and the law in Canada? I'm the former, but I know very little about the latter and would be very hesitant to nominate an article on a law topic for deletion. But I can clearly see as a layperson she is notable from just, you know, reading. freshacconci (✉) 16:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Freshacconci LOL "from just, you know, reading"... SusunW (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Posting deletion notices here is like a "red alert". It gets results.198.58.162.200 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Freshacconci: Yeah, well, I'm a Murrican. I'm not from no damn Canuckistan, and I don't have no interest in no damn orders from no Canadian states. We don't believe in dem kinda honors here; all men is as equal as God intended. (Begins chanting "USA, USA, USA" under his breath.)

...ahem. What I meant, rather, was that a.) I'm an American, and b.) I'm not a lawyer, and even so the mention of the Order of Ontario would have been enough, in this case, to convey plenty of notability to my eyes.

Which is the nub of the problem, really. People either aren't reading articles closely before nominating them for deletion, or they're unclear on the purpose of the deletion guidelines in the first place. And because repeat offenders aren't properly sanctioned, there's no control in place to keep the problem from festering. In this case I think the nominator acted in good faith - he/she returned to the discussion to agree that things had changed, and that he/she was no longer interested in voting for deletion - but that's not often the case, and I think that's the problem that needs to be addressed.

@198.58.162.200: Yes, and it's wonderful. But how much of the work that's going in to saving articles from deletion could be put into new article creation instead? It becomes a time sink, and that's concerning to me.

USA, USA, USA... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

At theis stage of the game, it's all about classic consciousness raising and resistance. Change will come, but slowly.198.58.162.200 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao It IS a time drain, but that being said, posting notices here to bring them to the project's attention has been effective in improving many articles. It's not *just* that we keep them from being deleted, but we work together to improve them (and let the deletionists know we are aware of their sloppiness). Where one is from has no bearing, IMO...it's that reading thingy ;) For the record: I travel on a US passport, but haven't lived in the US in over 10 years. Mexico is our home...for now... SusunW (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) Remembering that we can't write all the articles, the net positive of being involved with AfD'ed articles, especially those of newbies, is that newbies might be buoyed by our positive attention. (2) IMO, every improvement to the article -no matter how inconsequential to the AfD discussion- helps, e.g. add cats, improve the lede, create an additional header, tidy up the formatting. Yes, most AfD articles need more sourcing, but every improvement could also be viewed as a teaching moment for the newbie. (3) Eventually, if someone thought it was a good idea, we could make up a checklist/template/rubric for AfDs within our scope. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: and @SusunW: Oh yes, you're quite right - I didn't mean to imply that it's a waste of time. My point was more, "alas, how much time we have to spend on this that could be spent generating content instead". It's unfortunate that it has to happen as much as it does, but I'm very happy with the result. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If you'll pardon the analogy, I see it like this. We are trying to build a good and balanced house. Periodically people come along and say a certain brick does not belong. We might go in and fix the brick, or we might replace the brick. In the end, both the quality and the strength of the foundations are stronger. Ultimately I don't think it matters if we as Wikipedians are working on a new layer of the brick walls or repairing the foundation. Both activities go towards building a solid and balanced structure.198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Love the analogy! SusunW (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Me, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• If editors do not follow WP:BEFORE then sanctions may be pursued. A recent example was a user who nominated articles about footballers for deletion – weak stubs such as Shahidul Alam (footballer). Even though those articles were low quality BLPs, the editor was sanctioned at WP:ANI, "...indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day." Another option is to challenge the offender's right to review new articles. Per WP:NPR, "...it can be revoked at any time by an administrator without any process or prior notice in any of the following circumstances ... The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in new users being offended or discouraged.". Scope creep currently has this right so if you think they are not sufficiently careful please warn them and then take further action if the behaviour pattern persists. Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I had seen passing mention of that first instance, but hadn't looked at it in detail. Glad to see that sanctions are being enforced sometimes, at least. It's something worth keeping in mind. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears the sanctions for the first example were enforced because of the volume of AfDs, not for failing WP:BEFORE. This is something I've seen before. Editors badly nominating articles for deletion tend to fly under the radar unless they're going through several a day, particularly in a narrow topic. The bad AfDs I've encountered through this project haven't fallen under that and everyone assumes good faith on the nominator's part (as they should, of course, however badly nominated is still bad). freshacconci (✉) 16:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Namita Banka

Namita Banka, the inventor of a bio-harvester toilet in India, is up for deletion. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrote a lot of the text and added more sources to make notability more clear. --LauraHale (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone involved with AfDs needs to repeatedly point out that being promotional or even self-promotional is not a valid reason for deletion. If it's an ad, we speedy delete. Lately I've seen too many AfDs where people simply say "Delete promotional". I can only hope that closing admins discount those !votes but it has become quite common. I addressed this in the AfD discussion here but I think we all need to remind editors (politely) that tone issues are for fixing, not deleting. freshacconci (✉) 11:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What is needed is a set of two or three supportive administrators who look at all the speedy deletions on articles written by new editors, especially biographies. I'm pretty certain a fair proportion are of people notable enough for inclusion. Articles could be revived, if necessary as drafts, so that experienced editors could help them along.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kept. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Amita Dhanda

Indian lawyer Amita Dhanda is up for deletion. Some good refs exist in Google Books.198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Eleni Antoniadou

Eleni Antoniadou is up for deletion. For background here is an article about her in Le Figaro.198.58.162.200 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kamilla Osman

Kamilla Osman is up for deletion. This article in the Toronto Star is good background.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Edith Ingpen, Australian architect

Somebody should take a look at the deleted Draft:Edith Ingpen. An Australian architect who seemed somewhat notable to me. The draft was declined and later deleted. I noticed the article, put it on my watchlist, but never got back to it before it flashed by in a deletion log entry. --Hegvald (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)I

The language needs work, but it has potential. I haven't undeleted it yet, but I'm happy to do so if anyone would like to take a look at it and do some smoothing out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not in favour of conscription, but please bring back the draft. I see it cached on Wikia and it looks like it has a hope for survival.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, so looking into the history, what happened is that it was declined as a draft within 10 days of it being created. The person who declined the draft is now permanently banned (not blocked) from Wikipedia for paid editing. Declined under the usual "yadayada" of writing style and notability. There's something a little questionable about a paid professional writer being able to kill a first-time editor's effort on writing style. It's quite a lengthy article and had sourcing. Then it was abandoned and finally tagged as speedy delete. I think if you restored it, there surely would be people with Australian sources on this project who are willing to help. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Maile66: I've restored it in draftspace. Please feel free to go to town. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a shot at it and it's clear that she is notable and that good sources exist. Archival newspaper articles should be available if youhave access to a database. If someone can spend fiteen minutes on it then publish it...198.58.162.200 (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted a message on Draft talk:Edith Ingpen as a precaution. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• This article has now been worked on, and has been moved to article space: Edith Ingpen. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Overt sexist commment

Sławomir_Biały commenting in the AfD for Michelle Bholat: "since the article is about a woman, and the articles about women are held to lower standards of notability on Wikipedia, I think it can be kept based on just barely meeting some of the notability criteria."198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

An (arguably true) statement about the institutional commitments of the WMF, and the de facto lower standard that a cabal of AfD-of-women participants have created, instead of being discussed rationally, is dismissed as heresy, escalated to a noticeboard, with vicious personal attacks thrown in for good measure. Methinks thou doth protest too much; you're proving my point.

But I think a more constructive way forward is to acknowledge the disparity. I think it should even be written into policy. That's the essence of affirmative action, which is a good thing. I struggle to see how acknowledging the de facto existence of a form of affirmative action on Wikipedia is "overtly sexist". Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I love how the MRAs fulfill the stereotype. In the AfD I predicted he'd frantically write up a paragraph to blather on about his pet theories, his aggrievements and his self-victimization. In any case, I'll leave it at that. I've met so many of these types in real life and it's always the same. freshacconci (✉) 01:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• So, our young friend reported myself and 198.58.162.200 for personal attacks. Of course this is funny as it fully demonstrates my point above about self-victimization. However, as I finished writing my response, he withdrew his ANI as an admin redacted my statements at that AfD, as well as 198.58.162.200's. It's particularly shabby to redact the comments without allowing us to respond in any way. But I guess this just goes to show how systemic this problem is at Wikipedia, making Sławomir Biały's comments all the more ironic as his gripe about the "lowered bar" supposedly afforded women is actually demonstrably the lowered bar of Wikipedia and its systemic sexism.

My RL partner wants me to get one of those "Lord, give me the confidence of a mediocre white man" t-shirts. I told her that as a mediocre white man I actually have very little confidence so it doesn't really fit, but I may change my mind. freshacconci (✉) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm drained, so I can't say much at the moment. But please make sure you all visit this AfD and particularly the hatnoted conversation (i.e. hidden away) that is "off topic". It's all quite unbelievable. And I'll be having a conversation in the morning with my partner to make sure I've never been dismissive or lacked understanding in any way when she's told me about ways she's been treated by men. I just got a big dose of that tonight, the condescension, the gaslighting ("it's not saying what you think it's saying"), the false equivalences. Where's my fucking hat? freshacconci (✉) 04:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Women are underrepresented on Wikipedia, and it is an undeniable fact that considerable resources are currently being spent in libraries and college campuses all over the world to increase representation of women. This is a widely used approach (see affirmative action) to increase representation of an underrepresented group by stacking the deck to favor the group. Affirmative action specifically does not treat the two groups "equally", nor is it the goal of affirmative action to do so. I believe that this is a mistake on your part, as well as that of the IP, who asks "Do you find it hard living in a contemporary world where men and women are equal?" Surely men and women are not "equal": apart from being false in a literal biological sense, even in the metaphorical sense this is intended, if men and women were equal, then why should there currently be efforts underway to increase the representation specifically of women on Wikipedia? The "equality" of men and women is a line straight out of the so-called "men's rights" movement. (Also, I note with amusement the irony of being called "condescending" in a post that refers to me as "our young friend" ;-) Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "friend" is definitely sarcasm but if you're over 25 I'll be gobsmacked. freshacconci (✉) 13:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant, but this strikes me as a rather prejudiced comment. What if I had said: "If you're a man, I'll be gobsmacked". Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd shrug. freshacconci (✉) 15:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The implication here seems to be that I am either too dimwitted to be over 25? or that you're too dimwitted to be a man? Neither of these prejudices seem to bother you. Yet the observation that notability guidelines are applied unevenly makes you fly off the handle into petty name calling. (So far, I note the following prejudices in your comments: "MRA stereotype", "our young friend", "if you're over 25 I'll be gobsmacked", "adolescent conspiracy theories", and "self-victimization". None of which have any actual basis in reality. You are welcome to add more to the list if you wish to reply to this in the same spirit that you have been carrying on.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I think you've got it covered. Having said that, this page is literally the wrong place for two dudes to have a pissing contest, so I'm going to refrain from further postings on this specific thread (i.e. our back-and-forth, as amusing as this is). freshacconci (✉) 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

I see a lot of individual announcements of AfDs on this talk page and I wanted to point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting is doing great work and has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women subpage as well as subpages for many other topice, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact. I don't see that this subpage has been mentioned on this page's talk archives, and I want to make sure that everyone interested is aware that this exists. Further, feel free to contribute to the sorting of AfDs, it isn't too hard. There are a large number of people active at AfD who watch the sorting subpages as much or more than other pages. I also want to point out that when interacting at AfDs, in my experience, reputation and attitude matters. People are more likely to participate in AfDs when they see participation by people they trust and when the conversation is respectful and there are not too many long comments or too many comments by one individual. It is, of course, hard to resist making such actions when an article you care about is being discussed. But in my opinion, being a consistent, reliable, and respectful participant improves the chance that those who agree with you will chime in. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smmurphy! I have seen that list. It can be very helpful and I appreciate it. I have a question: how is it generated? I've seen some AfD's for women's bios that weren't listed there. Thanks for the feedback! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't generated automatically. It is a two step process described in Template:Deletionlist or in instructions at the top of each "deletion list" under the heading: Adding a new AfD discussion. There are also scripts used to make it easier to add pages. I've actually just decided to try to figure out how the scripts work and start using one to help sort deletions when I comment on one. I don't use Twinkle, but my understanding is that most AfDs are created using Twinkle by new page patrolers, and there is a script for deletion sorting with Twinkle, but it doesn't seem to be widely used, as most AfDs are completely unsorted. Thus, most sorting is done through the hard work of User:Shawn in Montreal. User:Coolabahapple, and User:Gene93k among others. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smmurphy and Megalibrarygirl, when going through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logs i try to remember, if the afd concerns a woman, to check the talkpage for a women project so that is is listed on a women project alert list eg. a WikiProject Women writers banner on the talkpage will bring it onto that project's alert list. i confess, i have not been adding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women list but will do so in the future. ps. as i have made such a basic mistake for so long could you please send me a big fish, as a wikikit i won't mind as they are yummy Coolabahapple (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

pps. will be checking all some of the afd logs over the next few hours and add any women afds i find to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women list, hope this helps. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

News: All the wikis will be in read-only mode for about 20 to 30 minutes...

I'm on a list who received this via email so sharing it with you: --Rosiestep (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
"Hey all, this is Erica from the Technical Collaboration team at the Wikimedia Foundation.
I hope you won't mind if I use this list for a heads-up about something that may impact activities that several of you may be planning in April and May (notably editathons, training sessions, etc.) . All the wikis will be in read-only mode for about 20 to 30 minutes, starting around 14:00 UTC, on both Wednesday, 19 April and Wednesday, 3 May for a planned datacenter test, as detailed on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Server_switch_2017 (by the way, translations are really welcome there). This also means that there will not be MediaWiki deployments during the weeks of 17 April and 1 May, FWIW. There will be more announcements in other venues soon, although I do encourage you to share the news with anyone who may be interested among your wiki-friends (and this is why I put this info in an email, so you can quickly forward it to anyone). Thanks for your understanding and see you around,
Erica
Elitre (WMF)"

Eleni Antoniadou

Eleni Antoniadou is up for deletion. Deja vu: relisted after it closed a few days ago.198.58.162.200 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

WiR sind auch Berliner

WiR leads the pack

In connection with this year's 2017 Wikimedia Conference, WiR representatives gave a clear demonstration of American women power in this morning's pro-motional activities, leading the pack in a sideline event through the streets of Berlin. "I never thought I would make it," said Rosiestep on receiving her Aprilscherz trophy. "But once you get the hang of it, you simply can't stop! WiR sind auch alle Berliner!"--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This is excellent and well deserved news. Congrats to Rosie and Women in Red. Victuallers (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Very, very cool. SusunW (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks, ipigott --Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

KIea Pineda

A difficult one. Klea Pineda was repeatedly recreated by the same editor; having been deleted as the result of a deletion discussion (here), it was eventually salted. That same editor then recreated it, again, as KIea Pineda. I have deleted that one as well. Thing is...she might actually cross the notability threshhold - looks like she can just barely make it based on her television acting career. So I have no qualms about unsalting Klea Pineda, as long as someone's willing to write a reasonably well-crafted article about her. And it will need to go to deletion review, I think, given the circumstances. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned article

I created Sarah-Jane Murray, but I'm having trouble finding articles to link it to. Maybe editors in this group or just editors visiting this talk page in general could help. SL93 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It could be linked to Baylor University -- List of Baylor University people, under faculty. I didn't add it myself as I wasn't able to determine what faculty, college or department she belongs to. She seems to be involved in a few areas but I can't determine her home department to list her. Apparently she was nominated for an Emmy award. That could be mention in the article (points to notability) and then linked to the Emmy page or the specific category if it has an article. freshacconci (✉) 14:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I added the Emmy nomination. The only problem is that the Southeast Emmy Awards only has articles for the 2010 and 2011 winners. I'm considering creating an article for at least the 2013 winners and nominees to fit this in. SL93 (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Added her to Ted Baehr - she has written for his Movieguide. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Also added her to List of translators into English.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and edits to the article. I also didn't know about her until I decided to browse through requested articles. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem with metrics for April

There seems to be a problem with the day-to-day metrics for April. Only six new articles have been picked up by the bot since the beginning of the month although many more are listed on AlexBot. I seem to remember emijrp was making some adjustments to the logic in respect of categories. Could this be the problem? I've also noticed the prolific Beatley has been adding lots of women in sports but has not been activating the categories which would identify them as women.--Ipigott (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Weird. My bot has added like 70 female items to Wikidata in April. emijrp (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

the prolific one is User:Sander.v.Ginkel. of the 18000 up for deletion, i will save around 1000. there is a bot that adds back categories, (i.e. [4]) but it's mostly the kindness / impatience of strangers. should not really count these moves as new. Beatley (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There are over 100 articles now. emijrp (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I now realize what has happened. If Beatley has been working on S.v.G's articles which have been moved into draft space, they would not be included in the metrics as they are still listed in Wikidata as articles on the EN wiki. Thanks for looking into it emijrp but everything does indeed seem to be functioning correctly.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Two articles that are in trouble

• Jadwiga Szubartowicz editor Konrad Czub has been editing primarily on the Polish Wikipedia and could probably use some help, especially on wording this for notability.
• Kristina Pimenova has some related issues. And BLP Noticeboard. It has been on Women in Red/Metrics/October 2016.

— Maile (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• • I hope someone can help out. I would love to pass the DYK review for Szubartowicz. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

SL93: Jadwiga Szubartowicz seems OK to me now. She has been widely covered in the Polish press.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. I passed the review. SL93 (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WiR @ Wikimania Montreal

WiR @ Wikimania 2015

WiR @ Wikimania 2016

In 2015, you came together and gave input to @Roger and me regarding a submission proposal for Wikimania Mexico City, "How to Pick Up More Women", which led to the announcement of "WikiProject XX", which morphed into the eponymous WikiProject Women in Red. You gave input again in 2016, and I presented your comments and our work at Wikimania Esino Lario. Roger and I are coming to you again seeking your input regarding a submission for Wikimania Montreal (August 2017); the submission is due by March 30th. Don't censor yourself! We're not seeking perfectly-argued bullet points. Anecdotal comments or images to include or etc. are welcome. We would love to have your input. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Our draft submission here.
• More about Wikimania 2017 here.

Let me start the ball rolling.

Rosiestep Victuallers I don't want to sound pessimistic but if you are to present ideas for future strategy, I think you need to bear in mind some of the factors which have been dampening enthusiasm in recent months. They include harassment (resulting in the loss of some of our top contributors), an increasingly perfectionist approach (discouraging several editors to abandon DYK) and more general (unexplainable?) reductions in article creation across the EN Wikipedia. It also seems to me that several enthusiastic creators of succinct articles on women in sports have been discouraged by some 9,000 articles by S.v.G being taken off the main space. Whereas this time last year, we were able to report substantial improvements in women's coverage on the EN Wikipedia, we are unfortunately no longer progressing as quickly as the Wikipedias in many other languages. Any strategy to provide a basis for further progress should therefore look for solutions to these problems. The most obvious (if accepted) is the contest approach which Dr. Blofeld is developing. Perhaps attention could also be given to providing a more welcoming and supportive environment for newcomers, especially women. I am constantly disgusted at the number of articles by new editors which are speedily deleted despite rules to the contrary. I would also suggest that more attention should be given to translating (or preferably recreating) articles on women covered in other versions of Wikipedia. The situation could possibly be facilitated in part by drawing on Wikidata details along the lines used by the Welsh wiki. It would perhaps be useful to try to encourage more sponsors to support interest in the various sectors on which we focus during our editathons. Recent experience with the BBC and Newnham College should be taken into account. On the more positive side, you could emphasise the developing progress in quality rather than just in quantity, especially the general trend in WiR to create Start or C Class articles rather than stubs, and to take some of these to B, GA or FA. The emphasis on destubbing is also to be welcomed. Perhaps this could be more specifically based on stubs created through WiR. But last and not least, I think the main achievement of WiR over the past year has been the ever wider coverage of women in a number of sectors and occupations which would otherwise not have received attention: photographers, Jewish history, United Nations, indigenous women, polar women, nursing, labor activists, philosophers, archaeology, food and drink, aviation, anthropology, black women, etc., etc. It might be useful to quantify the number of new articles created for each of these groupings.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on the current problems facing editors on wikipedia. It's disgusting in fact some of the articles which make it to AFD because of lazy patrollers. I'm particularly concerned about new editors who start notable subjects, but the articles are poorly sourced or structured and a patrollers confuses it with lack of notability. I thnk it's time patrollers were sanctioned if they nominate articles which are kept enough times, but I can't see that happening. I think the women contest and possibly launching the 100,000 Challenge for women might give WIR a boost and open up new doors, but the current number of articles being produced is still decent, though not reaching its potential yet.

Even with contests though, the bulk of the work is produced by a small number of hard working people. We'll see how the contest planned goes if approved. I think the rewards would have to become more frequent after that and we find a way to run contests which are largely autorun with a bot checking articles to make them sustainable long term. That might be a way to lure in more regular contributors than we currently have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

As of March 2017, Wikidata includes 2,653,023 male biographies and 530,490 female biographies.[1] That is a gender ratio of 5:1.

I did this derivated image from the Pioneer plaque drawing for the Biography section in the All Human Knowledge page (which now I announce it is fully Wikidata powered). I am also working in a subsection for women, but it is still in a pretty early stage (comments are welcome). Just in case you want to use any of this stuff in your slideshow... emijrp (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Emijrp for your stats for the whole of Wikidata and an image which really brings out our lack of coverage of women. The gender ratio for the EN wiki seems to be even worse - almost 6:1. We have Women in Red, Women in Green, Women in Blue and now Women in White!--Ipigott (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Going on what Ipigott has described above, might it be good to perhaps discuss some of the problems editors are facing at the conference? In order to retain editors, we need them to feel safe. I remember when I was fairly new at content creation. I read and re-read the notability guidelines over and over again before I submitted anything. I was petrified I might do something wrong. Eventually, I got the hang of things and gained confidence. What if what we need is something like a Wiki Boot Camp for editors? We could have online training that could be in "person" or perhaps self-paced, kind of like Free Code Camp. I think that offering something like this may help our newbies out quite a bit. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for all the comments; don't stop!

A request: can someone please create an additional "woman in white" image based on current en-wiki Wikidata male/female biography ratio, which I think is 16.83%? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I think it is almost the same ratio? For Wikidata: 2,653,023/530,490 = 5 (5:1) or 83.3% male, 16.6% female. So 16.83% is almost the same when expressed in the picture. --emijrp (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (When I say 5:1, I mean for every 5 male bios, there are 1 female bio. Though I could say too 6:1, meaning for every 6 bios, there are 1 female bio. So using the percentage is less confusing. Summary: Enwp and Wikidata have almost the same percentage ~16%, the same gender gap.)

Emijrp - Oh, yes, ok... now I get it. Thanks for clarifying. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I know I sound like a broken record, but I think we must at every opportunity bring up the issue of sourcing and the inability for us to do our jobs if journalists don't do theirs. We have got to figure out a way to dialogue with media about the way that the present women in the press—a quote here, a quote there; a sentence that noted X was involved in X action; a fluff piece about what they were wearing, who they were with rather than their accomplishments, ad nauseum. The deletion discussion below on Avvy Go, totally illustrates the issue. I found literally hundreds of articles about her, written by CBC, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star,etc. but none give more than a sentence or two about her, calling her a noted lawyer. How is it possible that a woman who has received the Order of Canada has such poor coverage? We need to bring up the issue at every venue to create dialogue and get people thinking about what we can do to change this. SusunW (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: You're not wrong, but I don't hold out hope that it's going to happen. Put it this way: I see a lot of the press admitting that they make mistakes in coverage when they happen. I don't see a lot of them interested in learning the lessons from those mistakes. (To wit, with apologies for veering into recent events: it's a matter of, "Oh, my God! Trump won! How did we not see this coming! Now we must fight him!" vs. "Oh, my God! Trump won! We told people, and they didn't listen to us! Why didn't they listen? Why don't people trust us anymore, and what can we do to regain that trust?" I see a lot of the former, and not a lot of the latter. Which suggests to me, more broadly, that a lot of the press really isn't interested in uncomfortable self-reflection at the moment. I have a lot of thoughts on this subject, believe me, but as this is neither the time nor the place I shall refrain from further discussion.)

There's another issue, too, and this is one I've raised in conversation with various people off-wiki over the years. While occasionally we get some kind of press coverage for an edit-a-thon, a lot of the press coverage that I see about Wikipedia, at least in my local paper of record on the rare occasions it pops up, is more along the lines of "hah, here's a stupid edit war", or "look at these people beating each other up online over a stupid little point". Even the more positive articles have an undertone of "wow, look at the nerds". What I would much prefer to see is a focus on the fact that we're all of us, basically, everyday Joes and Janes, with jobs, and hobbies, and families, and normal trappings of life...oh, and we just happen to edit Wikipedia. And then the undertone becomes, "...and so can you, naturally."

So...again, you're not wrong. But I don't have much of a hope things are going to change any time soon. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added one of the pics above to our submission - thanks. Our slot is here. I think we have mentioned that we are NOT a women's only project, we are NOT an en:wiki project, we are NOT just on Wikipedia but we are on Pinterest etc. What have we missed? I think a map showing the %age articles by women would be useful. I know we have missed some of Ian's important points. Fix it, and if there is a chance you will come ... then give us a vote. Victuallers (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your endorsement for WiR's Wikimania submission

Victuallers and I are finishing up the submission for Wikimania and we would appreciate endorsements on that page, or suggestions for improvement on this talkpage. Also, Ipigott, if you have the time and inclination to do the translation to French tomorrow (April 9th), that, too, would be appreciated. The deadline for us to change our submission's status from "Open" to "Completed" is April 10th. Thank you, --Rosiestep (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep I've been travelling all day to day but will try to get to it tomorrow. It would have been better if you had given me a few days' notice. Do you just want the abstract in French or the whole page?--Ipigott (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Just the abstract; thank you, Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep: It's here. Let me know if there's anything I've misunderstood. Hope it's not too late but we have visitors for Easter here in Denmark.--Ipigott (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott. Victuallers and I appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages

Contributors here may be interested that an RfC for a policy on gender neutral language to become a default for Wikipedia policies, help and guidelines is open for votes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RfC to adopt a default gender neutral style for policy, guidelines and help pages. The proposed policy is limited is scope and so excludes articles, talk pages or any discussion by individual contributors. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)