Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Mary Wortley Montagu

Lady Mary Wortley Montagu with her son Edward by Jean Baptiste Vanmour

Not sure if this is the right place, but I have just donated £10 to the NPG in London for the conservation effort of the portrait of Mary Wortley Montagu [1]; from the NPG website: "Please help us bring this important portrait back to life by making a donation to support much needed conservation. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu was an eighteenth century pioneer, she travelled in Turkey and brought the science of inoculation to Britain. We need to raise £6,900 to enable the necessary conservation; once restored this significant portrait will hang in our in our Eighteenth Century Galleries alongside other key figures in the development of science and medicine." Maybe this is a news that can be worth knowing. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that's really cool, Elisa.rolle. Is the portrait on Commons? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, Yes, it's, and it's actually used on her Wikipedia page too. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Elisa.rolle! That's an interesting picture. I can see that it needs work, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Update to Template:WIR templates

Hi everyone,

I did a bit of tidying up / maintenance on the {{WIR}} series of templates. For most of you, this changes absolutely nothing, and you can carry on doing whatever your were doing. For those a bit more interested in the templates and what they do, here's what's different.

1. 1day1woman initiative

I noticed {{WIR-00-2018}} was created, so I moved {{WIR-00}} to {{WIR-00-2017}} for symmetry and good long term practice. I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00 to mention things should be tagged with {{WIR-00-2017}}/{{WIR-00-2018}} instead.

If you keep using {{WIR-00}}, it will categorize articles in 2017-related categories. You don't need to update any use of {{WIR-00}} to {{WIR-00-2017}}, since they are equivalent, but if you notice a 2018 article tagged with {{WIR-00}}, then you should update it to {{WIR-00-2018}} so articles get categorized in 2018-related categories.

Categorization update

All the pages you tag with {{WIR}} (or one of its sub-templates like {{WIR-1}}) are categorized in Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages. This is mostly useful for bots like WP:AALERTS. I don't know how much you make use of this tracking category, but I made it easier to browse the category and locate Drafts, Categories, Files, and so on. You can access those easily from the new category TOC.

Happy 2018! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Headbomb! These are important "behind the scenes" improvements. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb, for taking care of all this. I see you spent almost three hours on it all, making the kind of changes few of us would know how to implement. I'm particularly pleased you have finally updated Which template should I use? which has not been touched since around last May. I had wondered about updating it myself but then I discovered that there had been zero page views. I referred to the problem under "Template WIR-00 for 2018" on our WiR talk page but nobody seemed interested in doing much about it. Anyway, everything now looks much tidier.

One of the problems we have experienced since you revamped the system is that we have difficulty in creating new WiR templates for our talk pages if they do not fit exactly into your system. In connection with our World Contest in November, we created Template:WIR-60. You can see from the editing history that we wanted to change the logo but had difficulty in doing so. As a result, a second logo was added but this caused problems as it interfered with the date area which was accessed by the contest bot. The new logo was first simply removed but the problem was only solved two weeks later when the new logo was substituted for the old one. In order to avoid such problems in the future, it would be useful if you could leave simple instructions on how to change the image and/or the text, especially as we intend to launch more contests this year. However shoddy our old approach to talk page templates used to be, at least we could change them ourselves. It would be great if we could do so again. All the best to you too for 2018 and thanks once again for all your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Alright, I'll take a look at {{WIR-60}} and see what you were trying to do/wanted to get done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see Megalibrarygirl figured it out. The directions on how to create those templates / change the images / etc... can be found at Template:WIR#Meta template. If something is unclear, or you feel needs a little 'how to' guide, feel free to ping me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of images, can we change February's WIR logo to the one Megalibrarygirl made of Shirley Chisholm? I have zero clue about technical stuff, but I think it would be great to have a strong black woman as our silhouette for our Black women's editathon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs)

SusunW: I'm not too happy about changing the image on the template but I could change it on the invitation and on the editathon page if you could let me know which particular logo you have in mind. Then perhaps Megalibrarygirl could change it on the WIR-67 template as she did for the World Contest.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott from our archived pages I get this link [2] SusunW (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to sound fussy but I wouldn't have identified the silhouette with a black woman. Would it be more effective in black rather than white? Perhaps Sue can experiment.--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW and Ipigott: I can experiment. Sorry I've been a little quiet. Real life is kicking my butt. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl no worries. Hope things calm down soon for you. SusunW (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, SusunW. It's just been one of those weeks where I just want to fall into writing articles, not dealing with anything else. But I think things are going up. Today is also my daughter's 15th birthday, so I think we'll all have fun after school today. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've also re-ordered Which template should I use? to put the date/event in front of the template. It changes how you read the table to "When was the event? > What was event? > Use this template" perspective, rather than the old "This is a template, was is the one you were looking for?" sort of perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and women writers

Many women writers are not listed as writers on Wikidata, but as novelists etc. I made a maintenance list here d:Wikidata:WikiProject Women/Intersected women writers. This list basically searches for all women items whose property occupation is set to a subclass of "writer" but the occupation property does not list "writer" as occupation. I noticed this maintenance list brings up a bunch of poets and singer-songwriters, but I believe all of these items should have "writer" added as well. Happy New Year! Jane (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: This sort of thing must also apply to other occupations. It looks to me as if it would be easy to automate if someone would like to prepare a script.--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I would like to see this applied to sports and scientists as well. We have so many singers and actors that I am not so sure whether all film & TV actors should be actors though - I guess I haven't looked into it as much as for artists and writers. Jane (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Jane023, thanks for bringing this up. I'll work on this task. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What about screenwriters (scriptwriters), freelance magazine writers, documentary filmmakers (documentarians), poets? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and women activists

Hi Jane023. In starting to prepare for Women's History Month, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Activists, which has only 273 entries. This seemed low to me. I'm wondering if that's because activists face the same issue (intersected categories) as you describe above re women writers? For example, if someone's Wikidata occupation is limited to "political activist" and doesn't also contain "activist", will they show up in this newly-created redlist? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

exactly. If you want to use listeria to track something, then you need to make sure the items under scrutiny have the same properties you give to listeria. Of course you can use a list that breaks them down, but you need to consider all the external parties using Wikidata - we don't need to have a hierarchy of occupations, so why do it? In the case of activism, I think most notable people are active on various fronts (civil rights, taxation or employment reform, etc). Jane (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Maya Pencheva

Anyone fluent in Bulgarian to help evaluate this linguist who is at AfD? There could also be BLP problems as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have looked through it all quite carefully. I find it very strange that an article on a notable Bulgarian academic and writer is tagged for deletion after being on Wikipedia for over ten years. It looks to me as if it deserves to be kept on the basis of Pencheva's written works, quite apart from the fact that she has been an internationally recognized professor for quite some time.--Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Margarete Bause and Ulrike Scharf

I was directed to these two profile Margarete Bause and Ulrike Scharf by user GMG, but I tend not to write living persons bio; is there someone who can be interested in translating them? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You could add them to the redlist for politics. Seems there is no German category yet.Fred (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Feedback, please...

What are the chances of Diana Woodcock meeting WP:N requirements? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme: I don't want to sound discouraging but I don't think the Creekwalker prize (last awarded in 2010) and the others she has won are widely recognized. The main problem, however, is that I have not been able to find secondary sources (newspapers and journals, reports by critics and commentators, etc.) on Woodcock or her works. If you are able to come up with any offering more than just a simple reference to her works, it might be possible to write an acceptable article -- but I am not very optimistic. If you go ahead, I would suggest you start in draft or user space so that we can offer further advice as it develops.--Ipigott (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Ipigott - I was hoping we had a poetry expert in the project who could point me in the right direction as far as what awards, journals, recognition would be considered notable so I'd know what to look for. I think maybe a starting point may be here, and perhaps her winning the 2010 Vernice Quebodeaux International Women’s Poetry Prize might mean something, or maybe not, I don't know. Maybe she'd pass #4b of WP:AUTHOR as it pertains to her work being exhibited alongside Li Chevalier’s paintings at the Today Art Museum in Beijing, China; i.e., has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I'll work on it and see what happens. Thank you for your feedback. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

• I'm in s taxi headed to the sirport. There's a note on my talkpage re glaring typo on this invite? Rosiestep (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's in the section header: "Feburary" instead of "February" - Dumelow (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, now I see it. My bad. I will not MassMessage while traveling again. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't take it so seirously, Rosie. We all make typos. It's part of the fun. Just remebmer you saved me at laest an hour by sending it out by mass messanging. And now all our enthuisasts can start wroking on these exicting new pirorities.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott. That put a smile on my face. I was feeling badlee about it, but now, I see it as an opportunitee for improvemeant. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK and COI/paid editors

Some of you may be interested in following this discussion at DYK? regarding COI/paid editors. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:42 am, Yesterday (UTC−8)

I've read through the discussion. It seems to me that paid student editors frequently produce excellent articles about people or events related to their institution. They should be encouraged to continue their efforts as their coverage enhances the encyclopaedia. Skyes(BYU) is a new editor who has already contributed two articles on female faculty members of BYU, each clearly labelled for COI on the talk pages. As for DYK, in this case the article Denise Stephens documents the achievements of an enterprising faculty member who specializes in astronomy. The article is properly referenced and should be supported at DYK. (By the way, WIR in the discussion means Wikipedian in residence, not Women in Red.) I see that Syyes' Laura Bridgewater is also at DYK. Maybe Skyes would like to become a member of Women in Red?--Ipigott (talk) 12:17 am, Today (UTC−8)

I think it's really important to participate in those discussions there, as "consensus" can be developed that later creates problems for good editors; and to claim some are making there that a Wikipedian in residence is a "paid editor" is a ridiculous concept that defies belief. Montanabw^(talk) 18:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women List.

Hello all

I am posting a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Tha Hla here because I thought members here might want to get involved in what seems to be a debate about whether the BBC 100 Women list is relevant for notability or not. Although it is just one AfD, it seems that DGG is referring to more than one article in his statements.

Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) not watching this page. please ping if responding.

Ilyina Olya Yakovna actually DGG has made the argument in previous years when the BBC list comes out. My 2 cents is that the list in and of itself is notable, as it gives month-long focus to women's issues and accomplishments in a series of media events. As it was created to address media bias, the list was unique and relevant, and discussed in independent sources, meeting notability requirements. That being said, not everyone on the list meets WP notability requirements. For example, one year, 2015 I think, a bunch of students were included to give a broad range of experience for women of all ages. Initially, those names where additional sourcing did not verify potential for notability were not redlinked, but now they appear to be. Of course it is publicity, that is after all, how anyone/thing gains recognition, by making people aware that it exists. In and of itself, publicity is not a bad thing, as it is how one gains a wider audience. However, IMO unless there is additional information from vetted sources sufficient to create a comprehensive biographical profile without the need for original research, simply appearing on the list does not bestow notability to the individuals. SusunW (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#BBC_100_Women discussion on whether the women listed on this program are inherently notable. The list article is not in question for notability but the entries on the list are. The AFDs are in response to the creation of those individual articles whose most significant attribute is being on the list and not anything beyond that, as follow-up articles point to the list appearance. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree the list is notable--abd so does almost everyone else -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Women (BBC). Probably many of the people will be also, and I think the percentage will increase as time passes, for they seem to often include those who we would probably call "not yet notable". A question I have, is whether all those linked without present articles should be so indicated, as that is usually taken to indicate that there is potential for an article. It might be better to put the focus on the more likely-- it would serve as a better guide at editathons and for other contributors. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If one wants to nitpick, there really isn't an automatic "bye" or "inherency" on notability for anything, just precedent and longstanding consensus (such as is endlessly refined at WP:NSPORTS. But for certain the BBC 100 list is "very strong indicia of notability" and as such comes very close to that elusive "inherently notable" standard. At the very least, it is independent, neutral third-party coverage and usually can be used to find links to their evidence used in support of listing, which adds to the "significant coverage" for the individual. Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

among the criteria in WP:PROF are some that are always notable, and so specified in the guideline, including certain prizes. WP:PROF is completely independent of the GNG.

and for the women in the BBC 100, looking at the specifications given in the lists, I think that for about 1/4 of them there would be considerable difficulty in showing notability --there seems to have been an effort to include representative as well as notable. it's a praiseworthy thing to do, for a feature item in a news service, but not for an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Olympians

With the 2018 Winter Olympics starting on February 9, athletes are being named to their national Olympic teams, and some of whom are currently women in red. I created articles on a few Olympians leading up to the 2016 Summery Olympics and I think there are a few reasons why current Olympians are fun to write about. The sourcing is usually pretty easy. A lot of countries maintain athlete bios on their national Olympic website which makes basic biographical information easier to find. Also, a lot of papers do profiles of local athletes after they have been named to the national team, another easy source of information. Probably the most fun thing about writing articles about current Olympians is anything can happen at the Olympics and your article may become highly viewed. Some sports have heavy favorites that are already well covered on Wikipedia, but there are likely some soon to be gold medal winning athletes who are currently without articles. The first American woman to win a medal in 2016 didn't have an article until she won gold. Once someone created an article for her it was very highly viewed. I created an article for a woman on a relay team that won gold and another for a beach volleyball player who was eliminated early but won a world title the following year. Not only is it fun to see people discover articles we write, but it also gives us a chance to get the "Women in Red" project out there when people stumble upon the talk page. If anyone has questions about writing these sorts of articles, I'd be happy to share what I have learned. Knope7 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Knope7: Thanks for alerting us. I'm sure our sports enthusiasts will be working on these. Any suggestions on how we can identify those who are still missing? Maybe we can compile a list of country-by-country red links?--Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And if you can write 1,500 characters on them, you can nominate for DYK. A list would be good, there's also articles such as Great Britain at the 2018 Winter Olympics (and similarly for other countries), that has all the athletes for that nation listed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't forget the Paralympians too, even though there often is far less media coverage of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just been looking through a few of the pages under Category:Nations at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Most of them which have been expanded to list the participants have a few red-linked women. I might have a go at some of the missing Scandinavians as the days go by.--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

One down: Molly Summerhayes. Sport isn't my thing but as I've found a reliable source listing the team, and sorted out a good set of categories, I might do another couple of stubs to recycle the work! PamD 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, rather minimal stubs, but with Emily Sarsfield, Katie Ormerod, Charlie Guest, Alex Tilley (skier) I think there are now no female redlinks left in Great Britain at the 2018 Winter Olympics. Now must get on with some Real Life stuff. PamD 20:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And now @Dodger67: I've started Great Britain at the 2018 Winter Paralympics, with three or four ("Chris"?) redlinked women. This article's time has come - and I found a source with partial team listing. Modelled it on the 2014 para article and the 2018 olympics one. PamD 21:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, @PamD:. I am happy to see there is interest in this topic. The [Name of Nation] at the 2018 Winter Olympics style articles are the best sources I have for red links. Those articles also usually have a navbox at the bottom which allows for easy navigation from one nation to the next. Knope7 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, per WP:NOLY, the athlete has to have competed at the Olympics to meet the notability standards. I think it's safe to assume the Games will take place (unless, of course, someone had the crazy idea to host it next to a country with a mad-man with a nuclear trigger-finger in charge...), so these people will take part at the Olympics. On the plus side, I think every single one of them would pass WP:GNG prior to the Games, with coverage of the individual's "journey" to get to the Olympics covered in the press and past achievements in their sport. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Lugnuts. That pretty much matches my assumption. It's a good reminder to try and use independent coverage from at least one news source in addition to Olympic team pages. It can't hurt to make it clear in the sourcing that there is press coverage of these athletes. Knope7 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic of Olympics: I thought you all might like to know that when I was looking through lists of Olympic medallists, there's only some women left without an article. 4 in volleyball 1 basketball and 1 synchronized swimming. If anyone wants to make articles on them, feel free to. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Kate Sheppard peer review -- critical feedback welcome

Hey. A number of New Zealand wikipedians, including myself, Gadfium, and Susan Tol, have been working towards bring the Kate Sheppard article to Featured status. Sheppard was the most famous of New Zealand's suffragettes who helped New Zealand become, in 1893, the first self-governing country in the world to grant women the right to vote. The 125th anniversary of this is coming up later this year, and we are hoping to feature the article on the main page at this time. We have opened a peer review for critical comments on the article before we nominate it at Featured article candidates. We're really looking for any critical commentary on the article so we can smooth the nomination process -- so pedantry is welcome! We'd especially appreciate any comments from users with experience at FAC or who have experience with FA writing. Anyone interested can leave comments here. Cheers! -- Shudde^talk 18:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Greetings from Australia! A quick search of our Trove (National Library of Australia) database provided a few additional sources that you may have already considered. Votes for women : The story of Kate Sheppard and Richard Seddon by Vanessa York with illustrations by Karen Mounsey-Smith; Zealand hall of fame : 50 remarkable kiwis by​ Maria Gill and illustrated by Bruce Potter; Sheppard is listed second in Joseph Romanos' Zealand's top 100 history-makers. Also, her Ten Reasons is reproduced in Auckland University Press Anthology of New Zealand Literature. Is the title of her 1890 pub correct? Should Woman Vote? Hopefully, some of the above may be helpful.--Oronsay (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Database of women composers

This article cropped up in my reading list earlier today. Not sure if there's any fodder for new articles there, as I haven't been able to access the spreadsheet yet. But it could make for an interesting jumping-off point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to generate a list of missing women composers from that list. I would definetly join if an monthly contest was made from it :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link, and it shows 3100 entries of women composers all over the world. I can't access the individual links, and this is not an area where I personally would be creating articles. But the possibilities for the WIR project are drool-worthy. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I had no difficulty clicking on the links. If you click on a name, the clickable link appears immediately above it. I see many of the links are to Wikipedia articles. If we create a redlink list on composers on the basis of this list, I think we will need to make sure that secondary information is also available. Many of the names seem to be covered mostly by primary sources. But I think it would be worthwhile to compile a list. There is also an interesting site which lists women composers here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao, MrLinkinPark333, and Megalibrarygirl: Is anyone interested in starting a list of redlinks on composers? If so, I would be happy to join in. There are so many names to be researched for valid sources, it's going to take quite some time. But if we aim for an editathon on classical musicians and composers later in the year, it will be very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll get the list started, Ipigott it's here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Composers) if Ser Amantio di Nicolao and MrLinkinPark333 want to add. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look...sometime. When I have other stuff off my to-do list. :-) Pinging @Pkeets: as well, who did a lot of work on the subject a few years ago. (And beat me to a bunch of articles I might otherwise have created using New Grove. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Should we divide the composers database list up between whoever is interested so we can check which ones are missing? I can go from the bottom upwards since there's over 3000 names on the list, plus a Wind Band tab as well listing compositions. If there was a way to say whether an article on this woman composer exists on Wiki or not could be helpful. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: Many of the links on the OWCD actually point to Wikipedia but not always to the English version. To find the female composers on Musicalics, you have to open this link, click on "composers", and then select "female composers". If you want to compare it with the OWCD, you can also find an alphabetical listing (men and women) by clicking on "Composers: alphabetically". Maybe the easy way to go about it is by first compiling a list of all the names beginning with a given letter and then checking to see which are already blue linked. As I am more interested in recent composers, I'll start working on the last page of female composers on Musicalics. I must say Megalibrarygirl has already made a very good start. I'll try to add to it today after I finish working on my current new article.--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yvonne M. Spicer draft article; review requested

Hello, Yvonne M. Spicer is an African-American woman STEM educator who just became the first mayor of Framingham, Massachusetts, and the first African-American woman popularly elected mayor in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. She has many other firsts in her bio as well. She seems like an excellent candidate for the Women in Red Project. I have no personal or professional relationship with her and have written this as part of my resolution to expand the representation of women, especially women of color, on Wikipedia. Comments and edits appreciated, thank you.

Aatist (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've accepted it, but it could use more references in prominent and less local sources if they exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice work, @Aatist:. I added her election as mayor to the body of the article as well. The lead should be a summary of the contents of the article, so anything mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned later in the article. That also gave me a chance to add a citation to the Boston Globe. It appears the Boston Globe has mentioned Spicer multiple times, so that might be a good resource if you are looking to expand the article in the future. Knope7 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Frances Hooper

Frances Hooper was created by PoetVeches and tagged CSD by Diannaa for copyvio. PoetVeches has made an effort to correct that, but could use some help. Hoping someone here can help out. — Maile (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 I did some copyediting and added several sources. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. Kind of fun/good when we can help out a new editor. — Maile (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Call for endorsement of Wiki Loves Women

Hello everyone

We submitted a grant request for Wiki Loves Women to be run in Tanzania and Uganda this year.

Please consider reading what we propose for this new episode : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wiki_In_Africa/Wiki_Loves_Women_2018

And if you are supportive, please take a couple of minutes to endorse it ;)

With our thanks !

Anthere (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Anthere: This looks like a great project, especially as it specifically aims to improve the coverage of women. I hope WiR participants will be able to help. Good luck!--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

thanks :) Anthere (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Anthere: Before I forget, I thought I should mention that Arusha, Tanzania, is home to several international organizations, including one of the two main branches of the UN's Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. Last year the MICT played an active role on International Women's Day, inviting students to visit their facilities (see here). If they intend to do the same this year, this might provide you with an opportunity to arrange an editathon.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed ! Very interesting. I pointed out the info to Maryam ! Merci Ipigott ! Anthere (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks for letting us know.--Nattes à chat (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Florence Wyman-Richardson

Sometime I wonder how the implicit downplay of women on Wikipedia started. One more example from today: Florence Wyman-Richardson is a Women's Suffrage Leader, among the founders of the St. Louis Equal Suffrage League and its first president. She happens to be also Hadley Richardson's mother, Hadley Richardson was Ernest Hemingway's first wife. When looking at Hadley Richardson's page, her father, James Richardson II, who it appears was only famous for his suicide in 1905, had a page, meanwhile,Florence Wyman-Richardson, one of the early workers for the St. Louis Symphony Society, organizer of the St. Louis Equal Suffrage League, and founder of the Piano Club, did not have one, up until today when I wrote it... --Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Elisa.rolle! Hmlarson (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Witches

Hi on the francophone wikipedia within the project les sans pagEs we are currently working on an interractive map of witches (dcurrent and past). First step is to enter all known witches on Wikidate and then to pull the results on a map, which will give another angle to the information provided on Wikipedia. I wondered if any of you is interested in participating? The first results are here SPARQL query here Wikidata timeline Maybe we could have a joint contest some time on witches? We could also use update Histropedia with the results as there is allrady a witchcraft timeline here. Waiting for advices suggestions of how we could do this on a multilingual basis.--Nattes à chat (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat, can you clarify if this refers to humans, fictional characters, or both? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nattes à chat: You might be interested in our Category:People executed for witchcraft which lists 147 pages. The equivalent German Kategorie:Opfer der Hexenverfolgung lists 200 names and there are 84 under the Swedish Kategori:Personer som blivit avrättade för häxeri. Maybe you should create a similar category for the French version.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott; thank you for this. In French we have Catégorie:Personne condamnée pour sorcellerie, listing people condemned for witchcraft.

Yes, I see you have 40 names there, many of them foreigners. I was surprised not to find Jeanne d'Arc in that category. We have not yet had an editathon on witches but it might be interesting to plan something in the months ahead. Perhaps we should first give you a few months to develop you own coverage in French.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Well Jeanne d'Arc was accused of witchcraft by the British, but they did not succedd to condemn her for that apparently. She was condemned for hearing voices and wearing men's clothes,(en) which was forbidden. Giving me a few months would certainly be the best thing, then we would have an extensive working list--Nattes à chat (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep for the moment this relates to real humans, but I will go on to list fictional characters later (although one cannot put them on a map). has there been a WIR initiative on witches in the past? If yes, the working list would be very useful.--Nattes à chat (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat, no, haven't done that topic (yet). --Rosiestep (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Increase in women-related articles nominated for deletion

Anyone else noticing this? Hmlarson (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is much more likely for a dubiously-notable new article about a woman to be nominated for deletion than an article of similarly dubious notability about a man. (This applies whenever the article as written does not clearly demonstrate notability, even when the subject is actually notable.) Fortunately, when the subject actually is clearly notable, this is usually reflected in the outcome of the discussion. But the result is that, even if the discussions themselves are totally fair (unclear but that's a separate question) the borderline men get a pass by never being discussed while the borderline women don't, and therefore we end up setting the bar higher for women than for men. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmlarson It appears to be that way to me too, which is why I asked earlier if there was a way to compile statistics on it. The answer seemed to be it would have to be manually done month by month, which isn't why I work on WP. And yes, David Eppstein, I agree with what you are saying. The bar not only appears to be higher, but it also fails to take into account the barriers that women and minorities had to overcome to even get to the bar, which makes the fact that they reached the bar even more notable than it would for someone who had all the advantages. It's an ironic situation, but WP is a reflection of the larger society, which has been extremely slow in addressing these issues. SusunW (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree SusunW. I noticed the Article Alerts for WikiProject Women in Red do not include those for WikiProject Women. Is that intentional or can we do some cross pollination? To compare the numbers:

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts

Hmlarson (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this increase is, in part, due to WP's call to reviewers to get on top of the backlog? I do agree with David Eppstein. Also it is not helped when online directories of women are not readily accepted as credible sources of women's notability. Hmlarson, I assume the WIR alerts are just that, i.e. alerts for articles that have been tagged WIR. I guess we want to "protect" our own efforts as a priority. Perhaps some of us can check the larger alert list from time to time? Oronsay (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing new about the deletion of women's biographies. While a few of them certainly don't make the mark, many of them do. Thanks to Hmlarson, I picked up Isabella Macdonald from the alterts on WP Women and was absolutely amazed to see that one of the very earliest women's biographies on Wikipedia had been tagged for deletion, despite the fact that this woman was the wife of Canada's first prime minister and the mother of a premier of Manitoba. What next!!!--Ipigott (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It is also common for editors to fall into the mistake of thinking that women associated with even-more-notable men can't be notable themselves, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yup to all of the above. One of the things I run into at NPP are people patrolling the patrollers; seems like every time I go over there, the next day I am bombarded with people angry that I passed something as well as anyone upset if I felt an article was actually suitable for a Prod tag... also, at NPP, prod and CSD is very easy; reviewing to pass is far more time-consuming (and hence getting flak for passing an article is particularly annoying). Even an inclusionist such as myself can fall prey to the "I've never heard of that" phenomenon. (Anyone ever hear of Bandy? Yup, I got "schooled" on that one... sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In the "thinking that women associated with even-more-notable men can't be notable themselves" vein, there's an AfD for Janet Asimov. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

• I've created a page for our March editathon: Women's History Month. Please expand/edit as necessary.--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not usually involved in edit-a-thons and don't plan on being particularly involved in these, but I want to point out that WP:The Wikipedia Library has some great sources that editors involved in the edit-a-thon may want access to. I think edit-a-thons should take more advantage of this if possible. I'm not sure who isn't and who is familiar with that resource, but as it can take a month or more between applying for access to a source and getting access, it might be a good idea to recommend people interested in being involved to apply for access to sources they will use soon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm an account coordinator at TWL. I'd only add that new editors usually aren't qualified for TWL accounts; there are minimum edit histories required for most partners. And qualified editors should choose carefully among the offerings available. Don't just hit "apply" on a bunch of sources that you might maybe want to have a peek at. The partners don't give us infinite numbers of accounts to distribute, so coordinators (who are volunteers, of course) have to make the best matches possible. We look at what you've been working on. if you mostly write about 20th-century athletes, I'm definitely going to ask what you plan to do with access to the Loeb Classical Library or the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, for example. We also expect that editors who already have access to these resources (through academic libraries or other channels) will use that access instead. On-campus editathon attendees may not need TWL much. -Penny Richards (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In French media: "Les «femmes en rouge» de Wikipédia, l'histoire d'un vide encyclopédique"

Merci beaucoup to Victuallers for pointing out on our Ideas subpage that there's this article about WIR, in the French-language version of Slate, published January 18th. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Derby editathon

I came across International Women's Day Wikipedia editathon on new page patrol and moved it to the project namespace. I'm not sure if WIR has it's own conventions for naming/templating these events? – Joe (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe: There are already quite a number of editathons in connection with Women's History Month. You can find them at Category:Wikipedia meetups in March 2018 and Category:ArtAndFeminism 2018. Maybe WiR should also be adding its activities to these lists. Have we any special plans, Rosiestep, Victuallers, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW?--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh I know about that. Its a keen newbie. I will try and tidy it up - I'm helping. Victuallers (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Victuallers: That's nice to know. Have fun! And please let us know if you are involved in any other meetups in connection with Women's History Month. We should announce any tie-ups on our March WiR editathon page(s). As far as I can see, we'll be covering the usual Art&Feminism but with special attention to "Women's Images" and "Boundbreakers". I'm not sure whether these are to be handled separately or whether they should all come under the same heading. Maybe we should simply have one WiR editathon in March and call it "Women's History Month"? I think that might make it easier for all concerned. If we can agree on what we're going to call it, we can start to announce it fairly soon.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Katherine Maher & Lucy Crompton-Reid in Feb 2018

I like your idea. The images are easily included and we could re-run the theme again later in the year. I went to listen to Katherine Maher speak on Saturday about the Future of Wikipedia. She mentioned our project and she uses the figure of 14%. Can't disagree, but I'm not sure we could measure it until it was about 15.5%. The early period was so tricky to measure because either Wikidata wasn't there, or Wikidata had poor coverage of the gender of the biogs. Boundbreakers could either be merged or run later as well. Victuallers (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think referring to our March offerings under the umbrella of Women's History Month makes sense. On that one page, we can do a good job of introducing A+F, explain Boundbreakers, as well as talk about the importance of contributing images. And we can offer plenty of redlists.

Victuallers, Very glad to hear that Katherine mentioned Women in Red. Any pics of you and her at that event? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Katherine talking to Marianne (red hair), me, Josie Fraseer (and a hundred other peeps) at Wikimedia UK event

Victuallers: From all the other photos on the Newspeak House event, it looks as if it went off very well. Not an empty seat as far as I could see. But there seems to have been far more men than women despite three women speakers. I've tried in vain to find Katherine's slides or the text of her presentation. Do you happen to have the links?--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a shot of us two together. Closest I can find is the one I've included here and you'll see that I have women on both sides. shot I have been tweeting is of Katherine, the WMUK CEO and the WMUK Chair and they are all women. When I was WMUK chair we founded the charity and it was led by seven blokes. So although the female membership is still small there is no glass ceiling apparent. Oh and I've seen Katherine's talk being tweeted. I'm sure its on commons somewhere. I'll look for it. Victuallers (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lists of red links

Hi Headbomb - I see what you're trying to do with the template and the index page, but both seem to have problems. Are you able to sort them out? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: playing around with it. I'll know more once I figure out a navbox issue. The recursive loop should be fixed though.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I initial tried transcluding Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index in the navbox, the idea being that you'd maintain one list and both the index and the template would get updated at once, but the syntax/code to do this proved extremely ugly and very user-unfriendly, so I aborted that plan. My ultimate solution was to axe that section of the navbox and put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index instead, which can be accessed through WP:WIR/REDLIST. I feel there's little value in listing all individual redlists on the main navigation template. However feel free to revert me or suggest alternate ways to facilitate navigation for redlists, if this is not to the project's liking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Looked it over, Headbomb... agree with what you did... result is awesome! Thanks for taking this on. And what a great problem we should have: finding the right place for our hundreds of redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The World Contest user-created redlink lists

While we're on the subject, would it be possible to salvage the user-created redlink lists from the World Contest and add them into that structure? They're easily forgotten about tucked away where they are, and for a lot of countries they're seriously more useful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know any easy way of doing it, but here's the link in case someone can sort it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, Rosiestep: I agree that many of these links are useful, especially those that were specifically created for the event. That's why I provided a link on the Island Women editathon page. On the other hand, a considerable number of the names were actually taken from the WiR redlists, including the Wikidata lists, often with sources added. Maybe the best way to handle this is first to clean it all up (deleting the blue links) and then provide WiR links to the six "continents" with explanations. I also think we should keep and maintain the existing World Contest structure, as we could well launch new contests this year or next, once we find someone who is willing to handle the grant applications. I'll sort out the links to the continents and add them to our lists of redlinks in the next day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning it up makes sense, but it'd be nice if it could be put somewhere prominent - the Wikidata lists are totally useless for countries that don't have good coverage in other languages either, and so having target lists for those countries (i.e. all of Oceania) really relies on the user-created lists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife: I have now added the World Contest "continent" links to our main WiR page under Worklists "By geography". I will also add them to the main WiR template. I have left a short explanation under the "By nationality" section. I hope you think they are now prominent enough. I fully agree with you that the Wikidata lists are not very helpful for the English-speaking countries.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean Ann Larson

Can anyone here see a way to make Jean Ann Larson worth keeping? I don't want to question the notability of articles about women mathematicians, especially in a month when we are trying to create more, but to me her career looks utterly undistinguished. Another editor (who I believe to be a known sockpuppet) keeps trying to add minor local teaching awards to the article, which to my mind only accentuates the lack of actual notability. But my preference, if possible, would be to find something of note to say about her, rather than tearing it down because it doesn't already say any such thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein, the article name should probably be changed. Jean Ann Larson is a health care executive who got a BS from Wichita State, an MBA from Thunderbird Graduate School and a PhD from Pepperdine.[3] Jean A. Larson, subject of this bio, got her BS and Masters at Berkeley and then a PhD at Dartmouth.[4]. I'll work on it either later today or tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein This is a hard one. There are many Jean Larson's. But, I am fairly certain she is this person [5]. Apparently she was co-creator of the Drake/Larson Theory of Finite Linear Spaces (1983), along with David A. Drake.[6] The work led to others solving the problem of whether linear spaces on v points existed or not for v=30.[7] If you look at the bottom of the first link, there are articles by others discussing her work, but I cannot access any of them from Mexico. I also found other lists of her publications.[8] [9], [10] This work states that she is a prominent researcher in partition relations (p 69). This is pretty fascinating to me, as it traces the links between academics and their educational progeny. It also shows that she not only participated in international conferences,[11] but she organized them (p vii). I do not remotely understand her research and do not feel comfortable trying to add information about it to her article. According to the link I found yesterday, she was the first woman PhD to graduate from Dartmouth, which only fully admitted women in 1972. (My guess is that she was one of those 150 women who were a part of the exchange program, as she graduated in 1972).[12] She was also apparently the first graduate student advised by James Earl Baumgartner.[13] Perhaps with the links above you or someone else who has a better understanding of what she does can flesh out the biography? SusunW (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that does help. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow! David Eppstein the article certainly looks much better now and I feel her notability is established. I'm pretty good at research, but don't usually write about topics which I cannot summarize because of lack of knowledge on the topic. (I just don't buy that theory that anyone can write on any topic.) Thank you for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Resources for new editors

With March fast approaching, we know that there will be new editors trying to create new articles. If they find Women in Red, and if they find our template, {{Women in Red}}, they'll be able to see the links I've just added there in a "Help" section. These links were included on the meetup page for our 2nd editathon back in 2015. They might not be the best or the most current so please be bold and help curate as they are only meant to be a starting point. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie Victuallers (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Each of these contains useful information for new users but listing them all together in the WiR template may well cause more confusion than assistance. You may have seen in my detailed responses to John Cummings where I have suggested putting together a simple one-page guide for new users of WiR. I think Susun's essay on Writing Women's Biographies contains some excellent tips but it is not really suitable as a first introduction. Something along the lines of Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia would be useful, especially if it could be adapted to "Ten Simple Rules for Writing Women's Biographies on Wikipedia". I also think the File:Editing Wikipedia brochure EN.pdf is useful, especially from page 8. There's also a useful list of printable guides at Wikipedia:Training/For students/Resources. Perhaps John Cummings would like to assist in drawing on these for providing the basic essentials for new users at physical and virtual editathons.--Ipigott (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'd be very happy to put some things together, I'd like to avoid PDF and stick to wiki pages and possibly videos where ever possible. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

To be sure, what links are included, where they are housed (subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources?; new subpage?; something else?) and how the link(s) to them is/are displayed on our main template ({{Women in Red}}) needs sorting out. The important thing, IMO, is to have "something" "somewhere" which is easily accessible by a newbie. I'll ping Megalibrarygirl, our Librarian in Residence, as, I think we can all agree, "resources" are her forte so she can help think this through from 60,000 feet (18,000 m). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Ipigott, SusunW, and John Cummings: I started this page so that we can have a bare-bones type essay with simple rules about the most important things. Please feel free to add. I'll do a little work on it as well today on and off. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Megalibrarygirl! I added some brief info. Am having electrical work done, so gotta get off the computer. SusunW (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Good start. I'll also add to it.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Ipigott, SusunW, and John Cummings: I like how the essay is shaping up. We can add "see also" to link out to more in-depth discussions on these topics so that the 10 things essay stays lean. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott, SusunW, and John Cummings:, I agree; keep it lean, and add links to See also. I've added a few words here and there to the essay. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The KISS principle is best for this application. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability of beauty pageant winners

Hi, Lonehexagon posted the following on my talk page and unfortunately I don't have much time to discuss. Any thoughts from anyone here?

• I believe that pageant winners are notable people, but unlike sports players I feel they're often considered "not important" enough, even though pageants are extremely important to a large part of the population, including mostly women. I was wondering if you knew of a way to get pageant winners added to Wikipedia's official notability guidelines? That way you don't end up with situations like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cherise_Haugen
• TIA, MurielMary (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

MurielMary The link to that AfD is typical of nominations on pageant participants, in my experience. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants has not developed other guidelines and uses GNG for notability according to their page. The problem one will encounter is that while a pageant may be notable, unless the individual contestants have continued to be covered in the press or other independent, non-promotional sources continue to note their accomplishments, they fail GNG as a WP:SINGLEEVENT and often are WP:BLP1E issues because outside of the pageant win, the remainder of their lives are lived as private individuals. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I really appreciate everyone who has weighed in on this. I understand this is outside of the guidelines and pageant winners need to follow GNG to be included, but I'm just curious about everyone's opinion. It seems to me that a sports star will be considered notable enough for a page even if they don't stay involved with sports after they retire. Just in people's opinion, do you think major pageant winners are inherently notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lonehexagon Sport, is really an industry, in that they have managed to establish ties with mainstream media, albeit there are differences in the coverage for women's events and men's events. Media biases are reflected in WP, as the platform mirrors societal biases, thus mainstream sourcing may or may not be available for women's accomplishments. As WP requires verification of notability in curated or edited sources—no fan sites, promotional materials, blogs, etc. are acceptable to establish notability. Many sport stars, even in retirement, remain active in promotional endeavors, broadcasting, etc., and those activities reinforce that their notability was not fleeting. For pageant winners, it would seem likely if they participated in a widely recognized national or international pageant, which can be verified by mainstream coverage in journals, books, or newspapers then the person likely meets GNG. If you are wondering why I put so many qualifiers in, it is because WP operates by consensus. My personal opinion is irrelevant. Recent AfDs targeting pageant winners have questioned whether they are inherently notable and unless that changes, it will continue to be a problem for creating articles on them. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I do agree that media bias can be a huge factor in situations like this, and that's not something Wikipedia has a lot of control over. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red in the press: an interview with SAdN by OXY

Nice interview regarding WiR member and Time magazine honoree ("one of the 25 most influential people on the internet"), Ser Amantio di Nicolao. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all these bits and pieces enhance the picture we have of one of our most active members. In conclusion: Rosie 40, SAdN 21. (Number of hours per week spent on Wikipedia.)--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well...I do have choir rehearsal sometimes. :-)

Thanks very much...especially to Rosie, for her nice comments in the article. I know I've been a bit more active on AWB stuff lately, but that's temporary - once I've cleared some of the backlog I intend very much to get back to writing articles. The 2018 list of Virginia Women in History honorees dropped recently, for one thing...even if nearly all of them have an article this year. (I was pleasantly surprised by that. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Woot! Lovely piece. Cannot thank you enough for all the help and support you give us at WiR and me in particular Ser Amantio di Nicolao. It definitely takes a village to nurture articles on WP and your willingness to always help me with issues is much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, SusunW. Anything I can do to help. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red in the news

Nicely done new article by Radio New Zealand: "Archival Activism: the Editors fighting Wikipedia’s Sexism Problem". Thank you for all the questions. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Susan Tol's initiative on Kate Sheppard is progressing well and that, at my suggestion, MurielMary has now also had time to go through it. Perhaps SusunW could have a look at it and let us know whether she agrees with me that it is ready for GA. It has already been peer reviewed. As for the article, it gives a good overview of Rosie's enthusiasm about Wikipedia in general and WiR in particular. Looks to me as if the write-up could be used in connection with future interviews or somehow incorporated into Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight.--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've had a look at both Ipigott. Made mostly minor edits, a comma here or there, and a few copyedits for smoother text. I think it should pass GA. I love the article from the Wireless and the fact that it highlights the problems of media and sourcing bias in writing women's biographies. So glad Rosie represents us so well and bravo, Susan Tol on a job well done. SusunW (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all! And thanks for all the help and advice along the way! Susan Tol (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback on creating Karen Salt

Salt lectures at Nottingham and is the director of the Centre for Research in Race and Rights. See [14]. She has twice been on the panel for BBC radio 4's In Our Time, which is a pragmatic indicator of impact in the field. Many of the recent biographies I have created for women historians/writers have been those I can listen to on radio 4, and then found missing from Wikipedia.

I'm a little stuck on publications, as she appears to have written articles and chapters in collections, but never written her own book. She's not been given a professorship, her title is currently "Assistant Professor in Transnational American Studies". In recent articles I've been hassled about writing articles for women academics who are not "full professors", and frankly I could do without annoyance of wikilawyering the case to keep for women I find obviously notable.

Should I create this one? --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fæ: Unfortunately, it is not enough to draw on sites such as the one you have linked to. The short biography there has no doubt been written by herself. You need to use secondary sources such as newspapers, journals or award citations. I have not been able to find much on her but this seems to indicate a modicum of recognition. You might find these Simple Rules useful as a guide.--Ipigott (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Discouraging. I'll focus on my latest Commons project. --Fæ (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger Atsme📞📧 13:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fedora Alemán

Just saw this come up on the NewPages list. It looks like a straight machine translation from something, most likely the Spanish Wikipedia article. My immediate feeling is that she meets the notability requirements; however, I haven't the time right now to do anything with it, and my Spanish is so far below par as to be useless. (As is my German, on which Wikipedia she also has an article.)

Anyone else like to take a look? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping Ipigott :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Megalibrarygirl: Thanks for pinging me. I can try to tidy it up a bit but I never actually do "translations". If I find an interesting bio on one of the other Wikipedias, I look for sources and write my own version in English from scratch. I find this not only gives a far better result but it also ensures that the sources used are still accessible. So often the ones from the other language version have become dead links. In this case, I can see that there are a number of reasonable sources such as this obit. I'll see what I can do today and tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to do the same, but I at least include the references from the other-language articles in my search for potential sources. Often this helps me find foreign-language sources that I would have been unable to find directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I do the same, as often I find, especially on Spanish WP that the sources do not meet English WP requirements. However, I have also found that some do and oftentimes those deadlinks have been stored at archive.org in the Wayback section. The article looks great Ipigott! SusunW (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I've now spent quite a bit of time on Fedora Alemán. But I've discovered 1832 Heritage has already created two more based on raw machine translations: Lotty Ipinza and Débora Pérez Volpin. I've left a message on his talk page explaining the problem. I'll see how things develop over the next day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Meantime I've had a look at the revised article, Ipigott, and it looks great - thanks for working your magic! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Women in History: Lawyers and Judges

Just saw this blog post used as a reference in an article. Looks like it might be of some use...it has some material about women from non-American countries, especially places where we could use some extra sourcing. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, maybe we could do a "Legal Women" editathon in the future? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Rosiestep: That would be awesome. I have a redlist of women in law (judges and lawyers). :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm down for that too. Did several legal eagles in the World contest. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Heck yes. Will prod me to finish off the law women I dug up for The World Contest. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, The Drover's Wife, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I added it to the ideas section on the Ideas page, but feel free to be bold and move it to whatever month you think might be a good fit. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I moved several recent suggestions to months, as it seems important to get them on the calendar. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

International Women's Day Oxford 2018

In case you weren't aware, Mvolz (talk · contribs) has created Wikipedia:Meetups/UK/International Women's Day Oxford 2018. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Very cool,thanks Redrose64 for letting us know. SusunW (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks, Redrose64. Hi, Mvolz, if you'd like to make the "International Women's Day Oxford 2018" a "Women in Red" event, just let us know and we'd be glad to offer whatever assistance you might request. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

There's an AfD relevant to this WikiProject here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Joseph2302, she seems notable enough to me. Maybe it's not necessary to mention articles here which are already included under our Article alerts, unless of course the discussion needs stronger support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Safiya Bukhari

Hi everyone. I started working at the end of January on Draft:Safiya Bukhari as part of the prisoners project, but it fits for Black History Month too! I was wondering if anyone could check it out and see if it appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability? From brief looks at AfC... I'm just not sure a Black woman revolutionary activist will be "notable" enough for them, even though it seems fairly obvious to me that she is notable. Unfortunately most sources talking about her are leftist newspapers/journals/books and not more mainstream sources. ohmyerica (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohmyerica I believe she is notable and that there are sufficient sources to confirm that; however, I would caution that sources BY her can only be used to supplement information from curated sources. All of these are mainstream press from the Associated Press agencies:[15], [16], [17], [18]. There are also sources on jstr like p43 and muse [19]. With the mainstream press and the pieces by Herb Boyd and Joy James, I think you are fine to move it into mainspace. I also found an obit: [20] SusunW (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. We can also add a fair use pic. Do not get stuck in draft - its pretty good at the mo'. Come back here and we will move it to main space for you. Lots of good stuff gets lost as our gatekeepers can be a bit nickpickety. Victuallers (talk) 09:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't get back here sooner! So what exactly do I need to do? ohmyerica (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You appear to have written "What should I do" under a section that explains what you need/could do. Can you be more specific about which bits you need help with. Victuallers (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohmyerica Like Victuallers, I'm unclear on what you need us to do. Were it an article I was working on, I would add the AP sources to the article to confirm that there are indeed mainstream sources on her and then move it to mainspace. If you can move it yourself, you should. If you cannot, just ask here and someone will be happy to do it for you. As you didn't ask for it to be moved from draft, it isn't clear what help you need. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was confused by "come back here" and didn't realize I could move the page myself! (I did, thought it appears I need an administrator to merge the draft history. It's weird--I did use the "move" tab to move it, but it's saying I did a copy and paste move.) ohmyerica (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't need a history merge, Ohmyerica. You moved it correctly. – Joe (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the default tutorial

I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. I hope that it will help new users. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Help:Introduction is good but I'm not too happy with emphasis on Visual editing from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

From varied experiences running meetups and whatnot, I no longer send anyone to any of the plain-text starter pages unless they already have an account and have at least dipped their toes in the water. I find many newbies are overwhelmed and put off by a deluge of plain-text guidance. Instead I send them to the Wikipedia Adventure, which I think does a great job of orienting people by way of a walkthrough. I wish we highlighted it more. Alafarge (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re usability of source in Annalisa Crannell

In one of the new WIR-68 articles, Annalisa Crannell, there is an ongoing discussion of the usability of one of the sources, an interview with the subject posted by the Women in Maths community, from which the article takes two quotes from the subject about her education. See Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell and Wikipedia talk:Did you know#More BLP questions, this time regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein I responded on the link. Seems very reminiscent of that short-lived wordpress ban last month to me. SusunW (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see the DYK is now OK.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Awareness of Wikipedia

I found the recently updated version of Wikipedia awareness interesting and pertinent to our own WiR interests. In particular, efforts to increase awareness of Wikipedia in India by means of a video in Hindi are likely to increase interest substantially (cf. progress in Nigeria). Recent figures show that over three quarters of people in India have never even heard of Wikipedia. (Surprsingly Wikipedia is best known in Spain (91%), better than in the United States (87%) and Britain (83%.) I think we should actively try to follow up on this initiative, possibly by including India as a priority in our future editathons and keeping abreast of any physical editathons in India itself. Maybe Rosie or others involved in Wikimedia planning could liaise with those involved to emphasize the need to include women in the Hindi-based initiatives to promote Wikipedia. We could also try specifically to involve Indian women students in propagating information about our activities and the support we offer.--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think an Indian Women event in May or June might be a good idea. I'll see several editors from India (from various language communities) in April and could gain some support. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good. Keep me posted. I hope it doesn't take them too long to release the video.--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This toolkit might interest you regarding gender gap efforts in India. Of course, there's also the great work being done by the CIS employees. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You are awesome

There's a discussion at VPM about changes to the English Wikipedia during the last few years. In a list of mostly negative or contentious items, WikiProject Women in Red was called out as a shining example of successful collaboration. Thanks for your work, and for inspiring everyone around you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent news! I enjoy the collaboration within WiR. --Oronsay (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing thanks for letting us know! For anyone who wants to read the thread, it's here. I'm really excited and heartened to know that people see us in a positive light. And thanks to Andrew Davidson for your awesome words. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Andrew Davidson, for your lovely words. We do much over here and it's heartening for our community to be recognized in this way. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Faith H. Wainwright

Hi Folks. Can somebody please write an article on this lady. There was an article, but it went in a sock cleanup. Faith Wainwright is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and eminently notable. scope_creep (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Red Planet

Maggie Lieu is currently on the Blue Planet but is on a shortlist to go to the Red Planet. This might upset her mother so please help Maggie with her predicament. Andrew D. (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)