Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Wikipedia enthusiasts from around the world are joining forces on 19 and 20 May 2018 :amnesty

Come across GLOBAL WIKIPEDIA EDIT-A-THON SHINES SPOTLIGHT ON THE UNSUNG WOMEN DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS AROUND THE WORLD :amnesty USA .The article mentions It is hoped that after the edit-a-thon inspiring individuals such as Alessandra Ramos Makkeda from Brazil, Maryam Akbari Monfared from Iran, and Elena Gorolová from Czechia will all have a place on Wikipedia.I have created 3 stubs Elena Gorolová ,Maryam Akbari Monfared and Alessandra Ramos Makkeda .But they need to be expanded. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe the one I posted just below this one is also from the same edit-a-thon? Is there a local page where I can post these drafts (2 more have been found apparently). Jane (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I do not know myself about thi ,I came across it in the article linked above ,yes it is about the same edit-a-thon.@Ipigott: Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) can fill us in & explain why WMUK's John Lubbock didn't manage to coordinate communications with WiR. Gives the impression that WMUK haven't a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that Amnesty has said this was in collaboration with Wikimedia [Foundation]. Even more confused now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

More is on meta here: m:Amnesty and Wikipedia. Strange there was no heads-up posted here! Jane (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what Tagishsimon is asking of me here? We didn't make a big song and dance about the event before it happened because we didn't a) want other Wikimedians to make all the pages we wanted to create before the event, and b) there were limited places on events in the UK. Lucy is on maternity leave. If you have questions, you can always email me if you want answers.Jwslubbock (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jwslubbock. On balance, and after much thought, I have no words. I hope life on your planet is excellent. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still absolutely none the wiser about what your question is, Tagishsimon. If you have some useful feedback, please do let me know.Jwslubbock (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The utility of any feedback I or others can give, depends in part on the objectives of your events, Jwslubbock, to which we're not privy. I suspect by your lights the whole thing has been deemed a success, and ticks are firmly in boxes. It would be impertinent to suggest that, from the outside, it looks like a buggers muddle. Putting that concern aside:

• It would have been courteous to have liaised in advance with the wikiproject active in the area in which you purposed to work, not because we seek a monopoly on the addition of biographies of women, but because we might have useful things to contribute.
• Such as allaying your concern that the supply of candidates for biographies might dry up if you chose to make a 'song and dance' about your event (as is normal for events - generally they're not held under bushels). We have 668 activists on our redlist. You have a list of 100. Your editathons have created, that I've found, 12 articles.
• Or suggesting that a characteristic of an editathon is the creation of a set of marginal articles which typically demand activity after the editathon: variously to correctly categorise them; wikify them; defend them, by improving them, from speedy & AfD nominations; improve and promote them from draft: status, etc ... which ...
• Is helped by a central page on which you list the work done as an index of the articles likely to need care & attention ... because clearly there's nothing worse than contributing at an editathon and finding seven days later that your article has been deleted.
• Presuming a goal was to maximise creation of articles (obviously, you've explicitly rejected that notion) you'd expect event organisers to ally themselves with a group of people who specialise in writing articles of that sort.
• Presuming the goal was to encourage people to become wikipedians, then working with an active community provides resources - people - who can help & encourage the novice wikipedians during the period where, without ongoing help and encouragement, they are more likely to falter and cease editing.
• Deliberately not pointing out to your novices (at least in your published material) that one of the most active support structures - WiR - exists, seems at best a missed opportunity.
• Limited space at London venues is not a novel problem, and not a good reason for deciding not to publicise ("no song and dance") your event
• The general solution is to encourage the virtual aspect of the editathon, so that editors in their normal locations are included. To go back to the supply question: the trick is to ensure you have an adequate supply of redlinks, rather than to minimise the number of people involved lest you run out.
• You seem to have elected to have no virtual element, that I can see.
• Pro-tip: "If you have questions, you can always email me" is always something of a shibboleth concerning cluefulness in the wikipedia world.

I could go on. The bottom line is, your football, your rules; but, equally, it does give the strong impression that you are on a different planet altogether - one which doesn't know very much about wikipedia and its working practices, one which doesn't know very much about editathons and their aftermath, one which has given no consideration to the care of new editors after the event, one which takes a valuable opportunity and organises, in what looks (from the outside, I stress) like a self-defeating fashion, a set of events which deliver minimal results and have minimal impact. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I was actually pushing to publicise the event more, but was asked not to do so by Amnesty and the programme coordinator in charge of it. It's frustrating that people who have no idea how hard this job is feel so free to explain to me how to do it. I ask you to email me because I have no idea who you are, and whether you are asking these questions in good faith or simply having a go at WMUK for some reason. I could go on as well, but I see limited utility in doing so for anyone concerned.Jwslubbock (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see limited utility in discussing the matter further, Jwslubbock. Amused as I am by the rhetorical echoing in your response, there is a serious issue here which goes way beyond the question of publicity. I see below concerted concern for the welfare of articles created in the editathon, and I see above what might be mistaken for indifference or contempt by a co-organiser of the editathon. I'm not getting any sense that things might be different or better the next time around; not even getting a hint that you agree there are lessons to be learned. I am getting a very poor impression of WMUK by dint of the event & its aftermath, compounded by this interaction; that's unfortunate, and I would hope (though no longer expect) it to be of concern to you as WMUK communications coordinator. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have come across Angela Glendenning, currently at AfD, where someone said that the article came from this Editathon. (I added a note to the talk page as the Editathon didn't seem to have a banner}. I see she's top of Amnesty's list of articles to create. I don't see that she has much chance of surviving AfD - thoroughly worthy local activist but nothing Notable. Disappointing for the newbie editor if it gets zapped. (But maybe some energetic soul here will wave a wand and find some Notability?) PamD 13:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this is most disappointing. It's really important that WT:NPR be forewarned of any editathons. If they are sufficiently clued up, the authorised reviewers can be less brutal with their rejection of new articles. The downside is that although we created a New Page Patroller right, the community in its wisdom insisted that all users, including newbies and other inexperienced users be allowed to tag pages for deletion at BLPPROD, PROD, CSD, and AfD; for one thing, not having read the instructions for accredited reviewers they won't be aware of 'move to draft' rather than outright deletion. Perhaps we need to look into a way of flagging new articles that arrive during, or as a result of editathons. Personally, I am acutely aware of these issues, but apart from occasionally monitoring the system, I don't do much new page patrolling myself. Maybe it's time to take another look at who is allowed to tag pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking, and I think what really needs to be done is have every AFD include a "Why is this article at AFD? / What to do in case of an AfD?" primer of sorts. WP:WIR has one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_AfD,_AfC_and_PROD, but if something like this was in a sort of "useful links" box, it would make AFDs less brutal for newcomers, probably. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC):::WP:GTD/WP:HELPAFD would be the ones, likely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Give primer links to AFD for those who care. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Newspapers around the world report Amnesty Edit -thon andhere Amnesty puzzled why this cannot informed here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Major Newspapers like The Hindu and Deccan Herald mention which they say will be create during edit-o-thon The project, called Brave: EDIT, will take shape with the help of volunteers, mostly college students from Bengaluru, who will compile and upload profiles of women human rights defenders such as Tongam Rina, Jagmati Sangwan, Manjula Pradeep, Aruna Sanghapali, Pavitri Manji and Birubala Rabha .I have created stubs for Tongam Rina, Jagmati Sangwan and Birubala Rabha .Other Editors created Manjula Pradeep and Pavitri Manji which is proded now. Alessandra Ramos Makkeda can be expanded from Portuguese article and Satya Rani Chadha can also be expanded along with Elena Gorolová and Maryam Akbari Monfared along with those mentioned by Amnesty.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards: It is interesting that the article in The Hindu specifies that Amnesty reduced a long list of names to only 24 in order to meet "Wikipedia criteria, including notability and verifiability of the people being written about". Despite this, Pavitri Manji is in danger of deletion. Perhaps Megalibrarygirl and SusunW would like to take a look and see if they can find more valid secondary sources. If Amnesty had informed us earlier of this campaign, we might have been able to assist more effectively. Amnesty provides more details of the initiative in 20 countries here and there is a Meta article here. Can anyone find the lists of women to be covered in the various countries?--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott One list appears articles to create and expand Here .Think it is the one but not sure. Do agree with Tagishsimon that these should have informed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards, that looks like a really useful list. Perhaps we can use it to improve some of WiR's crowd-sourced lists.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

WiR nav box - time for a refresh?

Hi. I find the main WiR nav box quite handy as a quicklink to many useful pages. However I think its accessibility is hampered somewhat by its length and sheer number of links. Some sections I think can be removed or hidden by default. For example I don't find the previous events from 2015-2017 particularly relevant. By collapsing these by default we can make it easier for editors to locate the more useful information such as the current events, the help pages and so forth. I had a very quick play around with the template below. Someone with better template skills than I should be able to make it look much more elegant (the previous events collapsible would look better if the box was the same width as that above for example). I also merged the see also section (which lists pre-WiR events) with the previous events section and added the March 2018 recruitment page (April 2018 doesn't seem to exist). Possibly some of the other sections could be removed or hidden to streamline it further. Any thoughts? - Dumelow (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: You can edit the sandbox template at Template:Women in Red/sandbox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Live

{{Women in Red}}

Sandbox

{{Women in Red/sandbox}}

As we're playing, I tweaked the collapse to sort out the issue you identified. I agree that less is more & support the collapse. My other contribution is switching the order of redlists, help and admin. And than in a contra direction, I've added more information on the redlist row - I'm tend to think the link we had to the redlists was a little too tiny. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Actually, I've been a bit more radical and moved the history to the foot of the template. I'll stop playing now; feel free to revert :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I like the look of this refresh, FWIW. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I like it, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Thanks for your various improvements. The only thing I missed was a link to the main Redlists page which I have now included in the version above. Unless anyone else has comments or modifications, I suggest you replace the existing version with the new one.--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement overall. It got so “link-y” that it was hard to find what I needed. I have one quibble, though. The text for the link to the Number of women by occupation says “Women biogs per occupation”, which isn’t correct. It’s not listing the number of biographies we have, but the number of women listed in Wikidata per occupation. I suggest we simplify it to “Women per occcupation”, and then it’s all explained on the list page. Besides, I dislike using “biogs” as opposed to “bios”. My eyes keep insisting on seeing “blogs”. NotARabbit (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dumelow: I've just noticed the links to all our earlier editathons have disappeared. I often make use of these, especially when we are running new meetups on the same or similar topics. It's useful to have easy access not just to the topics but also to the participants and sponsors. Perhaps we can create a page on Meetup history listing all the meetups since we started or maybe include access from the template to a list of "Earlier events".--Ipigott (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, they are still on the template - just in the collapsed box at the very bottom. They are hidden by default but can be seen by clicking on "[show]". I think it is useful to still have them available but showing them by default creates a "wall of links" that I find hard to navigate

Tagishsimon, thanks for your edits. I like the look of the template above and think your decision to expand the number of redlink pages shown is correct - Dumelow (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dumelow: I cannot see "show" in the version above. Where is it? Can you make it more obvious?--Ipigott (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Dumelow: Now I've found it. I think it needs to be moved up so that it immediately follows "2018 editathons".--Ipigott (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. That was where I had it originally. Tagishsimon made a new proposal with it at the bottom, per his above comment - which I like. I have been playing around a bit and came up with the below amendment. I am happy to go with any of these proposals - Dumelow (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The reasons for moving historic editathons to the bottom of the navigator are 1) to prioritise sections likely to be of interest/use to the largest group of users at the top of the navigator; 2) to get rid of the ugly indented boxes. Ipigott what are the reasons why it must be follow "2018 editathons"? If, as I suspect, this detailed history is of interest mainly to the small group of regular users who plan future editathons, then it seems appropriate that it is relegated to the lower reaches which are about admin and the mechanics of the project. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I really like the help section at the top. Like Ian, do refer back to the previous editathons, but as long as I can find them, I have no issues with where they are located. Whatever y'all decide is fine with me. SusunW (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I gave the proposal a spitshine, building upon Tagishsimon/Dumelow's mockups, trying to put help at the top (since you presumably want newcomers to see that before anything) and balance the concerns for presentation above. Of note, I've reduced the section numbers (putting talk banners into administration) and got rid of a few low-values links that were redundant/could be found using the navbox (e.g. Template:Women in Red redlist header is in Category:Women in Red headers, so it doesn't need to be explicitly listed). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've synced them. Sandbox is now live. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, Headbomb: I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Soviet Union. It might need tidying up to comply with your improvements. I also noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Belarus had disappeared from the list (now readded). Maybe there are more countries which are missing? Perhaps we should have a special category for WiR redlist nationalities so that we can monitor them more carefully.--Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I created Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by nationality) and Category:Women in Red redlink lists (by dictionary). That should help. They will be automatically added by {{Women in Red redlist header}}.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Challenging deletion discussion

Hey all, there is going to be an interesting/challenging deletion discussion about the article Marlene A. Eilers Koenig. An account claiming to be the subject of the article, wants it deleted. The discussion could use either folks working to rescue the article with good sourcing, or being good allies in the deletion discussion. Sadads (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for help on an AfD

Requesting help on an AfD discussion for Karen Jessica Evans. Feel this is a Keep. Evans co-founded the first all-female outlaw motorcycle club in the United States, Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club and starred in the Discovery Channel television movie Motorcycle Women.Devilishdoll (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexicon

Found here. The front page says: "Learn about 1000 Swedish women from the Middle Ages to the present day."

Looks like a useful source. And there's an alphabetized list here, if anyone wants to generate one for future consumption. There are more on a list here as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Resources/Fully_accessible_biographical_dictionaries. Resources such as this used to be listed in the WiR template but they appear to have been removed. Pity.--Ipigott (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June Editathons

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR 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)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cambridge Orlando

If anyone is interested in applying to a Wikipedia Library subscription about women writers, there's a new one from Cambridge University Press named the Orlando Collection. Apply here. @Rosiestep: @Megalibrarygirl: --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, MrLinkinPark333! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, MrLinkinPark333. I've applied! It'd be very appreciative to get this access. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

From Goodknight to Good Knight

For her important diplomatic contributions to Serbia, our coordinator Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight has been knighted today by Ivica Dačić. See her biography for emerging details.--Ipigott (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Such interesting people you meet when fiddling around here. :-) @Rosiestep: congratulations! And because I don't know Serbian, I can say to you in Georgian, instead, mravalzhamier (it's a toast meaning "many years")! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, Rosie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

More congratulations! --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I've never known a Knight before! This is so cool! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations Rosie! Such an honor. SusunW (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Very cool! Penny Richards (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow!!!--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This is amazing! Keep up the great work. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone!!!!! I'm still floating in a bubble over this once-in-a-lifetime event, but I want you to know how much I appreciate all the kind words and the wiki-love. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to report this in The Signpost, so if there are any English language press mentions, please reply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

=== Background ===

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Transhumanist: Many of the categories we use link to pertinent portals. Is there an up-to-date list of those which are still active and those which are scheduled for deletion?--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lists of first women lawyers and judges

Montgomery28 has created six well prepared lists with extensive references: List of first women lawyers and judges in Asia, List of first women lawyers and judges in Africa, List of first women lawyers and judges in South America, List of first women lawyers and judges in North America, List of first women lawyers and judges in Europe and List of first women lawyers and judges in Australia and Oceania. It looks to me as if many of the individuals listed deserve biographies. Any ideas on how we should proceed?--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Montgomery28, Ipigott these lists are informative and admirable. I just added Jean Vaughan Gilbert to Hawaii in the US. However, I have a concern about the size of these lists, especially considering there aren't even any redlinks adding to the size. The one for the US is 413,120 bytes. Because of the size, it is very slow going into the edit window and very slow typing text and saving. And I have a fairly new system. Assuming these are worklists in the idea of creating articles about the names, editors are going to be having a difficult time managing input on them. Per WP:SPLIT, is there anything we can do to facilitate potential editors? — Maile (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

We have an upcoming editathon on women and the law. Not sure what month. SusunW (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Maile66: I am pleased to report that we now also have more manageable lists for those who want to compile or add to red lists. It looks to me as if most of the lists could be used directly as a basis for creating articles. I am simply amazed at the amount of useful work Montgomery28 has been able to achieve on all these lists in such a short time. I suggest we make lawyers and the law our top priority for September.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I second the kudos about the work of Montgomery28. SusunW might it be helpful prior to the editathon to have some sort of navbox with links to the geographical area lists? I realize it would be too much to make navboxes for for the sub categories. I'm thinking individual editors might be interested in more than one geographical area. — Maile (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66: I seem inadvertently to have deleted the link to all Montgomery's lists; it's here. The ones on the individual US states should be particularly useful.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, the category link is (IMO) even better than a navbox. Nobody has to constantly maintain and tweak the category formatting. It just is there ... — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott Wow! That category link is great! You are right Ian, in that the editathon is scheduled for September. I cannot wait, have already picked out my first woman (if I don't write her for indigenous women in August.) ;) SusunW (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Irene Simmonds

One more abandoned draft for your consideration. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan Gardner

Jan Gardner was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan H. Gardner. She is the "first elected executive of Frederick County, Maryland". Can anyone find more sources about her? Cunard (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in the Solomon Islands

Found a couple of resources regarding notable women from the Solomon Islands: Being the First: pioneering Solomons women and Women in Solomons politics. Some interesting material here for future development, surely. Especially for an area of the world for which we lack coverage. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I love these links Ser Amantio di Nicolao just wish we could access the book "the first published historical account of achievements by local women over the past 50 years".[1] Like many small islands' publications, it doesn't seem to be digitized. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: Or available on Amazon, far as I can tell...more's the pity. I'll do a bit more research - it might be worth dropping a few bucks on, depending on the cost of shipping. (OK, OK, would be worth dropping a few bucks on...at this point it's becoming a question of finding room in my house for stuff. :-) ) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}

I promise, we are working on the library. If we can just figure out how to do it...SusunW (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW: No rush. For me, there's enough tactile pleasure in a book that I'll probably end up buying things sooner or later, anyway. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm all about touching and even smelling the ink on a real book, but totally get the value of digitization to share knowledge much further. Besides, if I have a book here doesn't mean another editor can access it, so I'd far rather our solution happen sooner ;) SusunW (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about this book - I'm really interested in Pacific stuff, and there's a university library down the road that has a copy, so I might have to take a wander over there soon. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

So that we don't lose track of them, I've added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest/Missing articles/Oceania. Only one, Hilda Kari, has been covered in Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl - While I'm grateful that Ipigott has added the redlinks to the World Contest redlist, I'm wondering if, for the sake of naming convention/consistency, are our crowd-sourced redlists being shifted to "The World Contest" as part of the name now? --Rosiestep (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: The World Contest lists appear on our Redlinks index under By geographical region. Several of us spent considerable time and effort putting them together for the contest. The problem is that the World Contest lists draw heavily on our other lists by nationality or region, both the Wikidata and crowd-sourced ones. I think it would be quite a lengthy task if we wanted to adapt them to WiR crowd-sourced lists while avoiding duplication. Maybe we could embark on this one continent at a time, perhaps in connection with future geofocus priorities.--Ipigott (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, certainly I recognize that crowd-sourced redlists require a huge effort, and I thank you for adding the names to the list so they don't get lost in the shuffle. The inquiry directed to Sue, as our Librarian in Residence, was rather about WiR redlist naming conventions from an ontology perspective, specifically, what is the most direct/controlled name for a WiR redlist? I think we all agree that crowd-sourced redlists should be named differently than Wikidata redlists, dictionary redlists, and so forth. I also think that how we use the lists (contests, monthly events, and so forth) is a separate point from how we name the redlists. I think it's best to hear Sue's perspective before anyone starts moving/renaming/splitting. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I see absolutely no problem with having duplicated links between the Wikidata and crowd-sourced pages- all the more attention drawn to articles that need creating. (And the more the crowdsourced lists get used and developed from these kinds of sources, especially in places like the Solomon Islands, the better, being that Wikidata has always been totally useless in this part of the world.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: The World Contest list was largely compiled from crowd-sourced lists. Some of the smaller pacific island countries I actually pulled from red-linked articles already on Wikipedia. Many of the names from other countries I pulled from our crowd-sourced lists and stripped the sourcing. As for naming conventions, that's not my area of specialty as a librarian, though I can definitely look into it. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Megalibrarygirl. Appreciate it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl and Rosiestep: By contrast, I happen to have quite a background in the categorization field since the mid-1970s but it seems to me this is more a matter of pragmatics than linguistics. Dr. Blofeld, in particular, picked out lots of names from the Wikidata lists for the smaller countries, supplementing Sue's excellent crowd-sourcing efforts. We tried to offer at least a few names for every country in the world so as to encourage global coverage. I think there are two things to be taken into consideration here. The first is the need to be prepared for further contests, whether repeats of the World Contest or, perhaps more probably, contests on continents or regions. Although Dr. Blofeld is no longer active, we might be able to organize support from other WiR participants. The second is our continuing expansion of the wide range of redlink lists specifically for Women in Red. One way forward would be to try to put together a genuine crowd-sourced list for Oceania, drawing on Sue's World Contest work but also drawing on (or linking to) other crowd-sourced lists. I think this would be particulary useful for Oceania as the inhabitants are generally English-speakers with the result that the Wikidata lists are not very helpful (except perhaps for sports). But the deciding factor is time. Can we afford to devote effort to this in parallel with all the other work we have lined up from month to month? It looks as if we would need to do quite a bit on New Zealand which, thanks to the World Contest, is now empty. We could, of course, solve the immediate problem by simply creating a WiR crowd-sourced list of the Solomon Islands. Maybe that is the most sensible thing to do. As Sue has been by far the most active contributor to our redlink lists, it would be useful to hear how she thinks we should proceed. (Sorry for this rather confused, lengthy reply.) --Ipigott (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott and Rosiestep: In order to add more to various countries, I usually do a search on a particular topic related to that country, then start checking if the names of likely notable women are in Wikipedia yet or not. It's the kind of work that I like doing from time to time, but it's not necessarily fun for everyone to do. It can be a little tedious, though it's also very rewarding. It has the advantage of finding potential articles that wouldn't turn up on Wikidata. I don't mind doing these kinds of searches at all. If anyone sees there's a need for an area to be filled in, all they have to do is ping me and I'm on it. I'm not always attentive to what is missing since I tend to be doing a zillion things at once, but as soon as something is pointed out to me, I'm happy to fill the gap. Perhaps I should set a reminder to go through the lists on a monthly basis and prune them, add to them, etc. That might help a lot. :) (Setting reminder right now...) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

New index page

I’ve been working on a new organization of the Redlist index, and there’s a draft version ready to check out at User:NotARabbit/another sandbox. I felt it was more effective to combine the crowd-sourced and the Wikidata lists where possible; I did so by labeling the links accordingly. (This may speak to what some of you were discussing above.) I’d love to get feedback about this arrangement, and how to improve it. — NotARabbit (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I really like it, NotARabbit. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ooooh, NotARabbit! I like! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Me three! Really like this NotARabbit SusunW (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit: As we all agree this is a considerable improvement, you can go ahead and replace the current list on WiR. Well done and thanks for your enthusiasm. It's great when a new member comes along and shows us what we should have been doing from the start.--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, such enthusiasm! It’s nice. :-) I’ll transfer it to the index page. NotARabbit (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Kircher

I just declined this draft. Are there more sources out there that could be added? Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: There are certainly other sources but those by Janet Abbate are significant. She is also mentioned in other books covering Los Alamos. You have to remember that most of the publications from those years never made it to the Internet. That does not mean her work was not significant. It looks as if she was something of a pioneer in her field.--Ipigott (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Abbate reference that is already in the article? She is barely mentioned in the book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: You should look more carefully at the sources you are supposed to be examining. Abbate was behind the widely referenced interview and also included what in my mind is quite an important snippet in her book. She was also the one who conducted the interview with Tsingou mentioned below. The first question Tsingou asked was: Have you also been in touch with Mary Kircher?, clearly indicating that Tsingou too thought her work was significant. I would welcome comments from SusunW on this.--Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the interview, but I did not memorize who conducted it. It is my understanding that an interview on a wiki cannot support notability. To be honest I'm skeptical of the sourcing of Mary Tsingou. And I certainly don't think we can make a case for notability based on the order of questions in the wiki interview of Tsingou. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure why you are being so condescending toward me. I brought the article here to seek input on improvement, and I am explaining my view of the current sourcing of the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Calliopejen1: Sorry about my rather direct reaction. I certainly appreciate your bringing this to our attention.--Ipigott (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and as such oftrn heavily discounted for notability. I often delete them from business-related articles as a type of on-wiki PR. Not saying that is happening in this case but the problem of sourcing to the subject herself remains. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Having re-read the AfD comment, I partially agree: a lot of the article is sourced to an oral history. But the issue is that it's too close to the subject, i.e. PRIMARY as noted above; not that it's an oral history per se. The key part of the NBIO guideline is support from independent reliable sources. An oral history of a national institution (LANL) published by the institution is definitely in RS territory. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just seen from here that she was signed on at the same time as Mary Tsingou whose biography is based on a similar source.--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, I've looked in all my usual places, Hathitrust, archive.org, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive, Muse, jstr, and am finding nothing. As you say, it is quite likely that sources in her time period are not digitized and I would have no access to any physical copies here. SusunW (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Anne Shymer

How about this one? A chemist of unclear significance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems so odd that there is so much detail in the Lusitania piece, but I can not find much to verify those details. Her aunt sued (tried to?) Kaiser Wilhelm for her death. First husband doesn't appear to be a nobleman. 2nd husband had estates in Jamaica? but was born in New Jersey, per the marriage record. [2], [3], [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] [11], [12] SusunW (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I started an article last year about her sister, a screenwriter named Maibelle Heikes Justice, in case any of those links are useful, but I don't think they said much. I left her redlinked in case someone else could find more. Penny Richards (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Penny Richards There may be enough (just) to do the article, though it seems so odd that more cannot be found. (Could always be my location). But, right now my plate is full and I am stretched to the limit with 2 GA reviews going on. Hopefully someone can help with her. SusunW (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Far-right groups in the UK - help needed

In the wake of last year's Manchester Arena bombing and 2017 London Bridge attack. Certain splinter far-right groups were formed and held marches including the Football Lads Alliance. I've been trying to create / expand existing articles on these groups. I would be grateful for contributions to this discussion which appears to be placing an impossibly high bar on both WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The underlying reasoning being applied seems to be "if you say anything at all about these groups it equals an advert" which is just nonsense. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I also created a re-direct for the People's Charter Foundation. From their list of beliefs, FAQs: Do you support women’s rights? We support human rights for all, including women. As an organisation opposed to cultural Marxists, we do not support feminists who push concepts such as “patriarchy theory”, because all they want is destruction of the family unit. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

TVF: I will probably post at the talk page when I've worked out the specifics/if I have time, but I am struck by the comment that "Just because you can prove something happened doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia". That is true, but it seems to be extended absurdly in this case. WP:NNC explicitly states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article ... Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." As far as I see it, if the Football Lads group is notable (and I believe it is) then information about rallies and major activities are probably worthy of inclusion if reliably sourced (it is, after all, a grassroots campaign); the statement about only 200 people turning up etc is significant and I'd probably include it. That sort of information will potentially be interesting for commentators and useful for future political scholars. --Noswall59 (talk) 10:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC).

Draft:Clara Moyse Tadlock

Anyone want to take this one on? Is this a viable article? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Tidied & moved to mainspace. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Frances Florence Lowe

Yet another... Any takers? Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this one is a lost cause. There are no sources in the draft to go off and I can't find anything at all online. Not even in this seemingly exhaustive list of SOE agents. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

British Library librarians

Some missing here: Caroline Brazier is soon to retire as Chief Librarian, to be replaced by Liz Jolly. Claire Breay is Head of Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Manuscripts, ie in charge of probably the world's best manuscript collection - her predecessors Janet Backhouse and Michelle P. Brown have articles (though not Scot McKendrick immediately before, who also deserves one). Caroline and Claire are Friends of the Wiki btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Abandoned drafts on women

Copying the following advert here from WP:Women, in case there are more page watchers... I've recently postponed G13 deletion on the following drafts about women, if anyone is interested in adopting them:

• Draft:Marie F. Court Vazquez (Puerto Rican artist)
• Draft:Marianne Fassler (South African fashion designer)
• Maria Eklund (Russian conductor)

Thanks, Espresso Addict: I'll try to tidy Eklund up over the next few days and move it to mainspace. There are plenty of sources in Swedish, including press articles, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Maraea Rakuraku (Maori author)
• Draft:Gu Byeong-mo (South Korean writer)
• Draft:Thania Paffenholz (German academic)
• Draft:Ellen Ceisler (American judge)

Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made some improvements to Rakuraku. She looks notable to me (three award-winning plays, and some other incidental news coverage). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Thanks for your additions. But I don't think we can expect those who created these articles to resubmit them. Most of them disappeared from Wikipedia over a year ago. The best way to save them seems to be to tidy them up and move them to mainspace. If you do not feel like taking this one any further, I'll try to get back to it tomorrow and see what I can do. She certainly seems notable enough.--Ipigott (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved it to mainspace. But other improvements are still welcome. In particular, the new article Maraea Rakuraku has been tagged as an orphan and I'm a bit at a loss for pages that might reasonably link to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

David Eppstein deorphaned file. Linked to List of women writers. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also Gu Byeong-mo already exists and I think the draft doesn't bring much more, so that one can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Female candidates

There are a lot of women in primary races in several U.S. states tonight. Running for office alone is not enough to confer notability, but many candidates will receive enough press coverage to make them notable. I will call attention to Mikie Sherrill, who before tonight had a redirect. I am receiving some push back. There are over 9,000 news articles mentioning her on google and many articles are calling her race one of the most watched in the country. If anyone would like to help me improve sourcing, I would appreciate it. Knope7 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have a rough time, to be honest. The usual consensus at AfD, if the candidate doesn't meet WP:NPOL, is to discount coverage relating to the election as WP:ROUTINE. So you're looking for preexisting notability before they stood for office. Even then editors tend to set a high bar. It's quite difficult to get any biography of a candidate for office to stick. (I'm not saying I agree with this, it's just my experience of AfD). – Joe (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the second part of this is the problem. I had a look at Deb Haaland earlier - until yesterday the article was a redirect to the article about the congressional elections in New Mexico. Quite apart from any other consideration, she's a former chair of the state Democratic Party, which to me should a.) confer automatic notability, and b.) have resulted in an article, not a redirect. Often, I think people are focusing on the candidature to the exclusion of all else. Plenty of failed congressional candidates are state legislators, after all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Another side of the issue is that a small-ish number of additional participants at AfD make a significant difference. If you aren't familiar with AfD, the most vocal participants (myself often included) often speak past each other as they (we) work with very different assumptions, so don't worry if some one (or ones) vocally disagree with you. Also, don't sweat it if editors seem rude or haughty, just give as good of a reason as you can and be ok with it if others, including the closing editor, disagree. Also, consider watching your Project deletion sorting lists, for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, so you can find the AfDs that might most interest you. /PSA Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WiR list of tools and technical support

In connection with the Toolhub section above, I've created a draft of list of tools and technical experts. I hope you will all help to improve the list and/or make suggestions on how to develop it further. I'll wait a few days for reactions and then email the editors listed, asking for their own reactions and their willingness to provide further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would also be useful to know if there are any other tasks for which we need technical support or new tools. I believe Rosiestep was interested in more statistical analysis work. I was wondering myself if it would be possible to enhance our Wikidata redlink listings by drawing attention to women for whom there are GA or FA articles in other languages. Or perhaps we can simply draw on GA/FA biographical articles on women in other languages in order to see which ones are still red-listed in English. But I'm not too sure how this could be done.--Ipigott (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some info, but I think the usefulness is zero for people who have never worked with this stuff before - this is where in-person meetups are so much more efficient at transferring such knowledge! Jane (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this, Ipigott. I added two to the list. Would it be ok to make the page a WiR subpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Thanks for contributing. I certainly created it as a WiR subpage. Before I move it, I'll ask all the editors mentioned if they agree to being listed. They might also have useful additions of their own.--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Toolhub

FYI, m:Talk:Toolhub#WikiProject Women in Red. (cc: @Camelia.boban and Nattes à chat) --Rosiestep (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, Rosie. It would also be useful for us to maintain a list of tools. Maybe we could start our own tentative list, perhaps together with guidelines. We might be able to obtain advice and suggestions for technically-oriented experts from other language wikis such as Jane023, Emijrp and Envlh, as well as from Wikidata and MediaWiki. It would be useful to have a list of technical editors who are willing to help us (and others) with the creation and development of tools we need. Among those who have assisted us recently are Isarra, Tagishsimon, Headbomb and Maximilianklein. Pigsonthewing and John Cummings may also be able to assist. I've no doubt forgotten quite a few others.--Ipigott (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Earwig wrote some of the bots, I think. Definitely recommend talking to him about that sort of thing as he's quite knowledgeable in that department in general (maybe you're missing some you should be using, too). -— Isarra ༆ 10:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, The Earwig has also been a great help. I'm sure there are many more. I was just mentioning those I could remember off the cuff. Let's see how this evolves over the next day or two, then we can start searching in more detail. Maybe Victuallers can help out here too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems like there is a tagging system that might allow Women in Red to have a list of tools. I'd also recommend looking at the Wikimedia Resource Center, it may be useful to document resources here also, (I think the separation between tools and documentation is very fuzzy). John Cummings (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree about the line between tools and documentation. Actually what is even more interesting than the tools themselves are the workflows used by Wikimedians, no matter what project they work on. Has anyone here experimented along the lines of a Wiki dojo? It is a humbling experience and very educational. I think it is important to indicate what we would like to have in tools (e.g. the "ask" has been around for years) and don't have yet. We always bemoan the fact that the editor base is declining, but the lack of tool builders is more dire I think. I often feel like we are the last ones using a land line while all over the internet people have switched to cell phones with built-in navigation apps. Jane (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, folks. We've made a good start with these comments. Note, too, I've been in off-wiki communications with Harej (WMF) about how to develop the list. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, let's wait for feedback from Harej before we start on the tools. It would nevertheless be useful to have the names of any other technical experts here.--Ipigott (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just remembered Bobo.03 who has developed our recruitment tool.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the absence of reactions from Harej, I thought it might be useful to start compiling a list of tools and technical support experts. I realize this needs further work but I thought it would be useful to make a start before we forget about it. It would be interesting to know whether this is the kind of list Camelia.boban and Nattes à chat had in mind.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi we talked a lot about an interractive calendar mapping all events gender gap (or even all wikimedia events ) like this one: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Events_calendar on meta but also this one on the project page of les sans pagEs: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Calendrier. Shouston was also involved. I have made a report of my attence at the conference in Berlin here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiWomen%27s_User_Group#Wikimedia_conference_2018_in_Berlin--Nattes à chat (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles about women submitted through AfC

I review articles and I try to focus on the submissions about women that have been sitting in the queue for a while. They tend to be the articles that need work, or they're on subjects with borderline notability. Since the editors who created the articles don't know to add them to to the list of new articles here, should I add them myself? (Just accepted articles on Rabia Nasimi and Sylvia Barack Fishman.) I do add the WikiProject Women template to the talk pages. Thanks, Julie JSFarman (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

JSFarman That's a hard question to answer, as some people prefer not to participate in editathons and have had strong negative reactions. I believe that if you tag them with WP:Women or one of its affiliates, it will be counted in our matrices on women's articles, but someone more technical will need to confirm that. You might want to just post a link to our editathon page and invite them to add the article or join the project. Your work is appreciated! SusunW (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, Thank you! I will definitely add the invites/links. JSFarman (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

JSFarman: Your work in trying to revive draft articles about women is much appreciated. Many of them are created at editathons or are the result of refused submissions. As you probably know, adding WikiProject Women on the talk page is certainly a help. If the articles are threatened with deletion, we are then notified. If the articles are biographies, it also helps to add one of many subcategories under Category:Women by nationality and occupation (not forgetting the parent category for non-diffusing categories). In many cases you will find that once they are in mainspace, most of the women's biographies are automatically picked up by bots and listed in the "Metrics" for the month. Two or three times a month, I go through the AlexNewBot WiR list and add all pertinent articles about women's works, associations, sports results, etc., to the Metrics list. If in your article reviewing you come across articles which need specific help to save them from deletion, you can also let us know here -- providing you think they cover topics which are important enough to be supported by secondary sources. If you think that notability is really borderline, then it would probably be better not to include them. Thanks again for your interest and support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Viola Katherine Clemmons

Another interesting draft that may soon be deleted for lack of editing activity. Should it be moved to mainspace as is? Improved? Other? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks notable to me. It's still a bit choppy, but it might be mainspace-ready. XOR'easter (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

What Rosie's been up to

Wikipedia and Hollywood come together for Los Angeles edit-a-thon [13] SusunW (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Another WiR press mention! :) --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: It seems to have been very successful. It would be interesting to see which articles were created. Perhaps you could post them on Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/American Woman 2018. Then we'll be able to make any necessary improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott: Yes; by all accounts, it seems to have been very successful. Here's the partial list of articles created/improved: Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/American Woman 2018#Outcomes. Bravo to co-facilitator, StaceyEOB, and the other awesome Wikipedia LA User Group members who helped make the event so wonderful, @Calliopejen1, JSFarman, and Penny Richards. Navigating around LA on Friday afternoon and evening (there were two events) is not easy; the traffic is a showstopper. But so many people came nonetheless to learn and to engage. It was such an honor to walk away from this knowing that we helped create new Wikipedians in one day. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It was fun, and good to see everyone! I'm not in any of the coverage (except my hands and laptop, briefly, in the NowThis video), but I was having a grand time editing in such a fun atmosphere, with lobster rolls and prosecco. I started Tecla Vigna while I was there. I think I took a photo of the board full of cards showing what articles were underway, I'll track that down. Penny Richards (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: At least 13 new articles were created on the 18th and 19th by Psyduck3, all of them on women volleyball players. As she has only been an editor since February, that's really impressive.--Ipigott (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Nude recumbent woman on homepage of Commons today

I know why this is a featured image on Commons and I understand the conversation about placement, see perm link to the homepage of Commons. This is not the last time we will have to deal with this. I am curious though what you all feel here, since I agree with arguments that such images should not be promoted to the main page, if only to keep the community (people like me) motivated to contribute. So yes it's fine to contribute positively, but no it's not OK to try to pester longtime contributors (I am making the assumption that only Wiki(p/m)edians are even aware that Commons has a homepage). Since you all care about the DYK queues (again I assume only longtime contributors are even aware that enwiki has a homepage) I thought you might weigh in on the discussion on the file's talkpage. File is here: c:File:Nude recumbent woman by Jean-Christophe Destailleur.jpg. Jane (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone will read the observations on the image's talk page. It would probably be more effective to address those who select images for display on the Commons main page - if you can find out who they are.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - I added a note at the village pump here. Jane (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I see from here that it is possible to substitute images which are considered unsuitable. But of course this must be done well in advance.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I stopped engaging with DYK when this appeared there:

• ... that the Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture (pictured) is nicknamed "The Queer with the Leer" and "The Fag on the Crag"?

And nobody involved in vetting was willing to admit that there might be a problem with it. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that POTD is equally tone deaf. When you look behind the curtain, there is surprisingly little quality control in what gets onto the main page.

Roll on knee-jerk cries of "WP:NOTCENSORED!", though... – Joe (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As there are such close links between Commons and Wikipedia, I think this is probably a matter for Wikimedia. Rosiestep may be able to suggest how to address those who might be interested in introducing safeguards. It seems to me that if we want to encourage participation by women editors, we should take more care that they are not offended.--Ipigott (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The featured picture candidate discussion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not overly familiar with commons, but seeing all the comments voting "support" with no reasoning whatsoever (some even with comments that are oddly objectifying, such as the winky face used by one editor) is disappointing. Nanophosis (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks to me like it was accepted as a FP in 2013. Its Potd template was created in March 2017. It looks to me like any accepted featured picture (!voted here) can be promoted to the front page by anybody (instructions here), although all Fpods are already line up through the end of 2019 (see category here). The full list of featured pictures are here - if anyone wants they can look through them. Looking through upcoming Fpod's and the list of FPs, I don't see that this issue will reoccur any time soon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It is an image that conveys no encyclopedic information whatsoever. Commons may have different criteria for what their images are good for, but it makes no sense to put it on the front page of an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Of course commons is very sparsely populated with people who care about this stuff at all (I believe the enwiki DYK has a larger following, but I have no way of verifying this besides gut feeling). The problem is that when people ARE offended (such as in fact occurred in this case), the offended person gets slapped for trying to leave the remark "this image is impolite". I totally agree with that remark! You can love or hate the image, but promoting it to the Commons homepage (remember the dewiki hairy vagina controversy?) is just being impolite, I think. Jane (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

See also this article for the "image filter" background: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-03-21/Technology report. I voted against the image filter, and stand behind that decision. Not all problems like this need to be solved with technology. I think we should talk about it though. Jane (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons mainpage isn't an area where I have expertise, but perhaps SandraF (WMF) would have thoughts on this as she works primarily for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course Sandra is welcome to chime in, but this has nothing to do with structured data. It has everything to do with what the image actually shows. A similar nomination process exists for the enwiki homepage POTD by the way, and the discussion is here. Jane (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Jane is right: this is not very related to (the potential of) structured data on Commons. I can imagine that, as soon as structured data gets deployed on Commons, you might want to start a discussion whether we want a property to flag such images. This would however also already be possible today (e.g. using a template or category). SandraF (WMF) (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Women in Green – call for participants

Hello all – I'd like to invite you to join Women in Green, WikiProject Women's article improvement department. The department has not been an active project in the past, but we are now working on kickstarting new collaborative work between editors to improve existing articles about women and women's works. If this sounds like something you're interested in, please add your name to Women in Green's list of active participants! You can check out more details of our discussions so far on the Women in Green talk page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Members of Women in Red might also be interested in collaborating on improvements under the Women in Green collaboration proposal we have been trying to develop. It also offers opportunities to take our WiR creations even further.--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for lighting a fire under this initiative. I think we can all agree it is important. Many Women in Red contributors, including me, improve articles each month, and document them on Women in Red event pages. This is just one example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018. We could easily add subheaders for Outcomes (New articles; Improved articles) to track/record Women in Green's progress. Or maybe we could record the article on a Women in Green subpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep: Personally, I think the Women in Red event pages already provide a great centralized space for editathon participants to post their outcomes (whether created or improved!). Subheaders could be useful, but I'm thinking the creation of extra Women in Green subpages might just overcomplicate things. It seems to me that Women in Green would be most useful acting as a space for editors to focus on bringing articles up to GA class (although there may be different goals, pending on discussion). Maybe Women in Green could support Women in Red's current work, for example, by helping editors interested in submitting their newly improved articles for GA review (e.g. providing additional proofreading, copy-edits, etc.)? I'm excited to see where this conversation goes. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave each month I try to improve something within the scope of the editathon topics. Usually I post here asking if anyone is interested in collaborating on something that appears will be a GA because we have sufficient sources. I would love to see a review process develop in collaboration with Women in Green. SusunW (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

April 7: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#12)

From: Katherine Maher

I apologize that we have not had a formal update the last couple of weeks — with Wikimedia Conference, the associated Board meeting, and our regular annual planning, I dropped the ball. The good news is that — as you have probably seen and heard — a lot of discussions are taking place!

This week, I’m experimenting with a different type of update: now that the conversations have launched, I will be sharing fewer bullet points about the process, and more paragraphs about the overall work that is going on around the movement. As more conversations happen, I hope future updates will continue to be substantive, sharing key themes and discussions as we see them emerge.

Last week, more than 350 Wikimedia community leaders from 70 countries and many different stakeholder groups converged on Berlin, during the annual meeting of movement affiliates, the Wikimedia Conference. This year, leaders from movement affiliates were joined by an additional 200 leaders from across the Wikimedia movement to participate in a program track focused on movement strategy. In addition to participating in some in-person discussions about our shared future direction, volunteers also discussed ways to help spread this effort across their activities and groups.

You may be wondering — where are the minutes from our meetings in Berlin? Great question. Unusually for our community, the Berlin strategy track was almost entirely analog, with markers and paper and sticky notes. The facilitation team is in the process of digitalizing all of these materials, from session notes to summaries and final statements. You can keep an eye (or watch) on the Sources page[1] to keep track as additional materials are posted - and jump in to respond and discuss as appropriate!

The discussions in Berlin are just one of the many ways people across the movement have been able to engage in the strategy process since my last update. Approximately 50 volunteers and groups are helping coordinate discussions and several on-wiki discussions are already underway. This cycle (the first of three) will run until April 15th, so there’s still a week to share your thoughts - please do!

All of these are opportunities for you to contribute your thoughts on the question, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" For example, if you think we should go to deep space (after all, we've gone to the Moon[2]), tell us more! Have a quick thought you want to contribute? We want to hear it! Check out the participation page on Meta-Wiki's movement strategy portal for more information on where and how you can engage in this global conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617

As conversations continue, we are busy following along. Summaries of the on-wiki discussions are being posted on Meta-Wiki,[3] along notes from 64 recent discussions (and counting!)[1] We are thrilled to see the many different ways and places our community are finding to have this important discussion about our future. As key themes emerge across communities, I hope to share them here.

About communications: recently, Nicole provided an overview of the progress and plans for Track A during our monthly activities and metrics meeting.[4] We are also working on a blog post announcing the official start of the movement strategy process. In addition to these communications, we’ll keep updating these weekly updates. We appreciate all the positive and constructive feedback we have received on these updates so far, and invite you to send us more on-wiki.[5] As we know, the more communications about what is going on, the better.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this process. I have to confess that while I’ve been excited about these conversations, I wasn’t fully certain how everything would go once we launched. There is a big difference between having a lot of notes on a whiteboard, and actually starting a free-wheeling, global, multilingual community conversation with such a wide and diverse group of people. Three weeks into the launch of the first discussion, I’m genuinely humbled by what everyone is bringing to the conversation. This community is brilliant, our vision is inspiring, our challenges are great (and exciting), and we have so much opportunity ahead. I’m grateful to be able to work alongside you.

Schönes Wochenende! (German translation: “Have a good weekend!”)

Cheers, Katherine

PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6]

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_to_the_Moon [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Summary_14th_to_28th [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities_meetings/2017-03 [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/7_April_2017_-_Update_12_on_Wikimedia_movement_strategy_process

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosiestep (talk • contribs) 09:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Jamie A. Thomas

This biography of a female academic created as part of a Black Lives Matter-based WikiEd course is up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie A. Thomas (Anthropologist). – Joe (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New article with same name as previously deleted one

I fear I may have blundered by allowing an article on Marie Porter to be created in the namespace of a previously deleted one and I don't know what I should do about it. The current article is about an Australian, where the previous one was Canadian. Should I be asking an admin to move the new entry to a different name? Please help.--Oronsay (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Where's the issue? Unless it's the same person and was deleted for non-notability, there's no problem with creating an article at the same name of a previously deleted topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm with The Drover's Wife on this Oronsay. Regardless of whether the file has been deleted before, or if it is a different person or not, if the person is notable and you have sufficient sourcing to verify the information, who cares? Any number of reasons a file might have been deleted in the past--copyvio, inadequate sourcing available at the time, etc. If you can do it now, then do it ;) SusunW (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks The Drover's Wife and SusunW for your advice. Warning was posted by AnomieBOT, so I checked on their talk page and found:

"Regarding old AfD multi, please note: If you are here because AnomieBOT added old AfD multi to an article when the old AfD was about a different person with the same name, just remove it. The bot has no way to tell whether it's the same person or a different one."

Don't know why I hadn't thought of looking there before!--Oronsay (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Rounding up redlists

I’ve been adding redlists to the index; details are at the index talk page.

NotARabbit (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have duplicate list pages? I bookmarked Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/State encyclopedias of the United States, because I thought it was the recap page. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m trying to weed out any duplicates, but I’m sure I’m missing some...like that one. Hmm, that might actually be a better page to link the index to, instead of each state individually. I’ll go do that. NotARabbit (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that page only duplicates some of the states. I’ll leave the index alone; there are two lists each for Texas and Virginia, and even one for El Paso. My goal is to make the index as complete as possible, even though other pages may overlap it. NotARabbit (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit I just ran across "Category:Women - Ohio History Central". www.ohiohistorycentral.org. that probably should be added. One of the sources I find useful for coming up with these databases is Godart (ALA Government Documents Roundtable) state library databases. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 Perhaps some other members can make up new lists from the databases you’ve found. I’m just trying to organize and consolidate those lists that already exist. And there certainly are lots of them! NotARabbit (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

NotARabbit Thanks once again for your efforts. I see you have added the Wikidata lists on Technologists (2 names), Prisoners (2 names), Laos (1 name) and Aruba (2 names). I decided not to include these as I did not consider them to be useful. You never really know what these lists are going to produce until you create them. Sometimes you discover they are not worthwhile.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I was aware of how few entries were on those lists, and I remember your cautioning me earlier about adding them, but I decided to add them anyway. The data on Wikidata is constantly changing and growing, and more may show up in the future. (I think that technologists should actually be added to another list, and that will happen eventually.) But I also thought these lists would highlight some areas we might want to concentrate on. For instance, the total of Laotian women listed at Wikidata is a whopping 14. We could really use some good crowd-sourced lists for Laos, or a Wikidata drive of some sort.

Laos isn’t the only country we have inadequate cover for. I added two “dormant” Wikidata lists (adding the links but commenting them out for now because they’re empty). One was for the China Academic Library and Information System (CALIS) ID. Again, there are only 11 women in Wikidata with a CALIS ID. I don’t know what WiR has done in the past as far as Asian countries, and there are some formidable language challenges, but there must be more women we can find. NotARabbit (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)