Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Creation versus improvement

The main focus of this project is, by its very name, to create articles of women who are notable, but nobody has done the work yet. Although I've helped a bit in this area, article creation has never really been my forte. However, I am certainly interested in improving coverage of existing biographies of women to GA and beyond. I think Karen Carpenter is not too far off a GA nomination, and I am sad to see Dr. Blofeld retire as I think he was going to get Audrey Hepburn to a similar status when he got round to it; I just don't have the source material to improve it myself (yet!) Is this project a suitable place to publicise these sort of activities and see if further help is at hand? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333: Thanks for your interest in improving women's biographies. Several of those of us who create articles for Women in Red also work on article improvement up to GA. This aspect is covered specifically by WP Women in Green. Why not join us there? Audrey Hepburn looks like a great choice for further work. Great pity Dr. Blofield is not around to help us along. He was great on anything related to cinema.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I always seem to be the last one on the block to find out about the sort of things ... anyway, I have signed up there and there are definitely some articles in the Hot 100 that I'd like to have a stab at. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333: On Audrey Hepburn, you can see from User:Dr._Blofeld/Audrey_Hepburn, that Dr. Blofeld did quite a bit of preparatory work on this. Maybe it would be useful to reincorporate some of the passages he added. He also seems to have drawn on a couple of additional sources. Unfortunately, I'm no expert on films or film actresses although I agree this one deserves special consideration. Perhaps you could take a closer look at it. And if they can spare the time, maybe SusunW and Alanna the Brave can give us their assessment of how much more work we need to do on it. Unfortunately, those who added most of the content to the article are no longer active. I see, however, that MarnetteD has being doing a lot of recent work. She has been recognized for her work on movies and actors. Perhaps she would like to collaborate on bringing it to GA.--Ipigott (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still in contact with Blofeld via email (most recently pleading him to unretire and come back to no avail - I think I've collaborated the most with him out of everyone on WP) so I can always drop him a line and seeing which bits need to be merged, and what should be kept in the current article. I read one of the Hepburn biographies some years back and have seen Breakfast At Tiffany's and Roman Holiday several times, and her pan-European background is an interesting story to document. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's shocking to hear of the sudden retirement of User:Dr. Blofeld, a veteran Wikipedian and an expert in dealing with Women in Red related events. He is the one who inspired me more to create women biographical articles. I can't accept it and he is irreplaceable to run this successful project. But all the very best wishes to him in the future. I accept the fact that Wikipedians like me sometimes create some less notable biographies than improving the quality. Hope I can correct these mistakes in the future. Abishe (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Abishe: I too very much miss the huge influence Dr. Blofeld had on the improvement of the English Wikipedia as well as his success in encouraging so many newcomers, myself included. For the record, I should point out that he did not run Women in Red and was not interested in becoming a member of the project. That said, he created a significant number of women's biographies, bringing several up to GA status. Like many others, I have tried to encourage him to return but the repeated abuse he received appears to have been too much for him.--Ipigott (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Yes sorry for the misunderstanding and I thought like that because he succeeded in running the Women in Red/World Contest. I should have told like that earlier in my comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I am just having only one year experience of Wikipedia editing. Yes I accept the fact that any experienced person like Dr. Blofeld will not tolerate such unethical behaviours, abuses from others. I honour him and won't forget his Contributions to Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Like many of you, I have encouraged Dr. Blofeld to return to Wikipedia. He and I have collaborated for so many years. It's my understanding that one reason he retired was because he perceived a lack of appreciation/grant support by the WMF for his contest ideas. It's a pity as the women contest he facilitated in 2017 had an outcome of >4,000 new women's biographies in just 1 month. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a great pity the Wikimedia Foundation was so unreceptive to his efforts in connection with the World Contest. He was simply told that there was absolutely no chance of any further support for a grant as current policy is to encourage the inhabitants of the emerging countries of Asia and Africa to apply for grants and run projects there. As Dr. Blofeld is a UK citizen and lives in Wales, he is not considered suitable for grants in support of the creation of biographical articles covering countries around the world. I think this is a mistaken approach but I suppose we have to live with it. As some of you may have noticed, I have tried to draw on some of the features of Dr. Blofeld's challenges to make the current Monthly achievement initiative more attractive (flags, names of editors creating articles, etc.). Of course we can hardly expect the enthusiasm of those competing for actual prizes in the World Contest to be reflected in the monthly achievements but some of you seem to be enjoying the additional recognition nevertheless. As for Dr. Blofeld's final retirement, one of the things which really upset him was when an experienced administrator suggested having a considerable number of his early articles deleted. Fortunately nearly all of them have survived. The same administrator has also led to the retirement or withdrawal of other editors who were among the most active on Women in Red. It's therefore hardly surprising that we are now creating far fewer articles a month than we did a year ago.--Ipigott (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: That strikes me as incredibly unfortunate and shortsighted. Do you have any idea if they've changed their tune at all given the success of the project last year? If we do decide to run it again I don't imagine that it will be quite as successful, but some kind of buy-in from the Foundation might go a long ways towards changing that. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

no, the WMF is spending money on global south, and english can fend for themselves. given the productivity of german and french chapter, with their dedicated funding from banners, you would think they would want to support success. chalk up another opportunity blown for lack of support. but we can always submit to knight foundation. Warren5th (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Genealogical help with Mary Blair Moody

I always try to look for good inbound links to articles I create, lest some drive-by-tagger hit me with "orphan". As I was doing this for Mary Blair Moody, I discovered that not only was Agnes Claypole Moody her daughter-in-law, but this was easily documented using a source over in that other article. Voila, cross links between those two women.

Further searching turned up Blair Moody and Blair Moody, Jr., which of course caught my eye because of the name. Blair Moody is actually named Arthur Edson Blair Moody, and was born in New Haven, Conn. where Mary Blair Moody lived. Coincidentally Mary Blair Moody's father was named Asa Edson Blair. Blair Moody's parents were Arthur Blair Moody and Julia Downey Moody, and not only was Arthur Blair Moody in the insurance business (like Mary's husband was) but he was born in 1871 in Buffalo, NY where Mary Blair Moody lived at the time.

Bottom line, I'm absolutely convinced that Blair Moody's father Arthur Blair Moody is Mary Blair Moody's son. This would make for some additional nice article cross connections if I could source it. Right now it's just WP:OR. I found an insurance industry newspaper that connects Arthur Blair Moody to his father, Mary's husband, but I'm not sure how much that helps.

Any ideas on how to source this? My Google Fu is failing me on this one. --Krelnik (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Krelnik 1880 census shows Arthur E. 1936 death records show Arthur Edson Blair Moody son of Mary and Lucius W Moody. Obit [1] SusunW (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Bonus doc, Mary B.'s obit shows he was her son. [2] It would seem based on this information, Who you are calling Blair, is Jr. and who you are caling Blair Jr. is III. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that Sr/Jr/III discrepancy, but for whatever reason the other documentation about the Blair Moodys doesn't follow that. I'm guessing once JR started calling himself Blair Moody all bets were off. I've threaded the Arthur obits into the Blair Moody article and into Mary's article to support the connection. I'll add this obit for Mary to her article now - I had no idea she was a fellow of the AAAS, that hadn't turned up anywhere else! --Krelnik (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, the AAAS Fellowship in the Buffalo obit for Mary may not be correct, I can't find any other reference to that, and none of the other sources on her mentioned botany. I think the obit writer might have flubbed that. Little matter, it's still a good source to add. THANK YOU SO MUCH! --Krelnik (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope Krelnik it looks correct. She discovered a new orchid, for one thing. [3] SusunW (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that there are two different organizations called AAAS, both of which have fellows, and for both of which being a fellow confers notability via WP:PROF#C3. This one is the American Association for the Advancement of Science but the more distinguished of the two is the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Weird. I think I figured it out. I did have the right AAAS, but when I look up people named Moody or Blair in their historic fellows DB here I can find her son and daughter-in-law but not her. It appears they misspelled her name in that database as "Mary Blair Moddy" (that name with quotes gets zero hits in Google). Looks like she got the Fellow nod in 1911 when she was living in California. Thanks again everybody. --18:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Krelnik anytime you need research help, just ask me and I'll give it my best shot. I am worthless with technology, but research is my forte. SusunW (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Pema Browne

Can anyone help with this? It looks like it should be possible to expand this article but I'm having no luck finding any sources; perhaps they're predominantly in offline publications, or I'm looking in the wrong place. I've declined the A7 / G11 tag on the article, which should keep the deletionists at bay for a bit, but not forever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you Ritchie333. Searched all my usual haunts and find no sources other than trivial mentions. It may well be that the NY state newspaper database[4] will have coverage when they come back on line after this weekend. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Susi Kentikian

This Featured Article is having its status reviewed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Susi Kentikian/archive1. If folks could take a look and offer a comment on whether it should be kept or delisted (or fix anything that they see needs fixing) that would be great! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we need sports specialists to look at this one.--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Jane Whyte

I have created Rescue from SS William Hope (please change the title if it is no good) about a brave Scots woman (a crofter's wife) who in 1884 rescued 15 sailors in distress. I have created a redirect Jane Whyte to the article, doing things like this rather than creating an article about the woman herself, maybe regarding WP:BIO1E too stringently. If anyone thinks it would be preferable as a brief biography, please swap things round. The references have a bit more detail about her life, but precious little. Thincat (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

RPS Hundred Heroines

The Royal Photographic Society has launched a campaign to highlight influential female photographers. Might be a useful resource for this project. – Joe (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly looks as if this might be worthwhile following up. There are already lots of nominations. For example, the first few include Abbie Trayler-Smith [5], Carol Allen Storey [6], Carolyn Mendelsohn [7], Cheryl Newman [8], Danyelle Rolla [9], Fatemah Behboudi [10]. These and other deserving candidates should be added to our red list of photographers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Photographers.--Ipigott (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Odd how this happens. I was just thinking that for December we might do photographers as it has been a long time since we did them and people take photos around holiday time. :) SusunW (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What it feels like ... to be a Wikipedia expert

Here is a nice article about a Wikipedia editor in Scotland, Dr Sara Thomas, who is also Scotland programme co-ordinator at Wikimedia UK, with a mention about the work being done by Women in Red. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You are very good at picking these up, :Rosie. It's always good to see positive press coverage on what we are trying to achieve.--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

✔︎ Like, Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

30 mujeres que impactan

I found this page while looking for information about a painter from El Salvador: 30 mujeres que impactan. Looks like there might be some fertile ground there for someone who has an interest in Latin America and the ability to speak Spanish (which latter I do not possess). --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata and the WiR project

I have spent a lot of today clicking through to see what Wikidata existed on women who have been added to the #1day1woman project for 2018. I found quite a few did not have "female" selected and about half a dozen without even "human"! I'm not an expert at Wikidata, so generally only add the info I consider easy to do. If there's a boost in statistics, you can put it down to me. At this stage, I've been through the June, July and August 2018 names. If anyone wants to jump in and help, please do so, but let me know so I don't waste my time revisiting each name in Wikidata. Should we use each monthly project's talk page to record that the "female" entries have all been done? Oronsay (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay: Thanks very much for your efforts to add "female" to Wikidata in connection with new women's biographies. We are certainly aware of this problem and several of us have participated in trying to correct it. On the more positive side, recent statistics show that the proportion of women's biographies on Wikipedia which are not coded "female" on Wikidata is comparatively low. See for example the Denelezh gender gap stats from Wikidata. As you may know, there is a bot which picks up many women's categories on biographies in order to add human and female to update Wikidata. Many of the articles not initially covered frequently lack such categories. But please keep up the good work. It all helps. I don't know whether you use the WEF gadget allowing you to edit Wikidata while editing Wikipedia articles. If not, you might like to try it out. Thanks also for all the informative women's biographies you have recently created.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just checked your Wikidata contribs and see that you have indeed been using the WEF gadget. I'm glad to see you find it useful.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Point well made, though, Oronsay that some of the articles listed in the #1day1woman project for 2018 lack a "woman" category, and that the ramifications of this is that they aren't quickly tagged as "female" on Wikidata.

All - Maybe we should ad a "friendly reminder" in the Outcomes section of each of our events (including #1day1woman) for editors to remember to add at least one "woman" category to the articles they create/improve? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this is interesting. What type of "woman" category should I have added to Mary Burger in June and Mary Walker in July? Let me know so I can do this in future articles. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

They are both in Category:Barrel racers, which is a woman category, as apparently Barrel racing is too tough for men (or something). but it is not linked to a women parent cat, which it should be. Not sure if WD knows that - probably not. But your point is a good one, as there won't always be an appropriate woman category. Perhaps there is a case for a "Category:Women not otherwise categorized as such". Johnbod (talk)

Ah, yes I see. Well, my mentor Montanabw and I pretty much have control over all the categories at rodeo. The men don't need barrel racing as they have the other 7 rodeo events all to themselves, LOL. :) You make valid points. I hope montanabw will weigh in. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. And thank you Rosiestep and Ipigott, for your insights, particularly that it's the "woman" category that transfers as "female" in Wikidata and about using the WEF gadget. Agree that it's probably time for a "friendly reminder". I also found a very few that didn't have Talk pages. Unfortunately, I didn't add them as my focus was on the "female" issue. I assume we have the right to add the WiR banner to any page listed in the #1day1woman project for 2018, as the banner says "created or improved" and that includes adding a photo? That WiR branding will ensure that any that face AfD will be picked up in the WiR alerts, giving us a chance to keep them. Oronsay (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I just looked at Marian Osborne who was added to WiR's current project, Women writers in July, i.e. not newly created. She has 3 "woman" categories but wasn't shown as "female". Perhaps Wikidata hasn't linked all the "woman" categories - hers are Canadian. I've left her sex-less in WD for the moment so you can see what I mean. My self-imposed job is still worthwhile! Oronsay (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay, I see what you mean. I think the reason why there was no gender assigned is that the Wikidata entry for Marian Osborne was created by an editor (Jura1), vs. by a bot. At least, that's my theory. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, one of Wikidata/Wikipedia's little mysteries. I'll keep on editing. Oronsay (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

AI generating articles on scientists

Hello. Someone on Discord linked this article that talked about an A.I. project called Quicksilver that is generating articles on scientists without Wikipedia articles. On Quicksilver's website, there are a hundred generated articles, some of which are women scientists. I was wondering if anyone wanted to go through them and maybe make articles/redlist from them. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

See #Quicksilver above, as well as Draft:List of Wikipedia articles created using Quicksilver. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Quicksilver

Quicksilver is a software tool, which is doing some amazing things right up our alley! Read about it here: Using Artificial Intelligence to Fix Wikipedia's Gender Problem, Wired. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is being covered in the next issue of The Signpost. The draft is here. I'd encourage anyone interested to amplify the story with how it pertains to a project like this one that is devoted to addressing redlinks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

From this it looks as if there is indeed a trend towards including more Americans. It will be interesting to see to what extent it can used to feed our crowd-sourced red lists. I would also like to see how many Quicksilver suggestions have actually resulted in articles on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that Jesswade88 has used Quicksilver in her work of creating women scientist biographies, but it would be best if she verifies that herself. Last month, she (Jess Wade) received "honourable mention" in the 2018 Wikimedian of the Year award, for her "year long effort to write about underrepresented scientists and engineers on Wikipedia". Bravo, Jess! --Rosiestep (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well Jess has certainly been setting an inspiring example as can be seen from her recent coverage in the press. It would be interesting to find out to what extent Quicksilver has helped her to identify deserving women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If you follow that link it takes you to a list of 100 candidates-for-inclusion. Here they are (feel free to pick out the women): Adam R. Boyko, Adrian J. Luckman, Ami R Zota, Andrea C Gore, Andrej Karpathy, Arun J Sanyal, Auriel A Willette, Barbara A Cohn, Beth Y. Karlan, Charis Eng, Christiane K Kuhl, Christina D Economos, Crystal L Mackall, Danielle M Dick, Daria Mochly-Rosen, Daniel W Cramer, David C Van Essen, David L Glanzman, David L Strayer, David M Diamond, Emilio Ferrara, Deirdre R. Meldrum, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Erin D. Michos, Felicia Knaul, Gabrielle A Nevitt, Evelyn N Wang, Gregg C. Fonarow, Harriet Kluger, Heidi Larson, Harris Cooper, Helene Benveniste, Jack L Gallant, James E Galvin, Hope S Rugo, Jane E. Salmon, Jay L Alberts, Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser, Jeffrey Saver, Jennifer A. Pietenpol, Jerri D Edwards, Joan T. Merrill, Jocelyne Bloch, Jonathan P Godbout, Joseph W Kable, John H Noseworthy, Julia Clarke, Karen B. Strier, June J. Pilcher, Karen H Lu, Kathryn J Boor, Karen R. Lips, Kevan Herold, Linda S Pagani, Lina Obeid, Lisa M Jaremka, Lisa Mosconi, Maria G Dominguez-Bello, Margaret A Honein, Mark Sagar, Mary Beth Spitznagel, Melanie J. Welham, Matthias Scheutz, Michael H. Bowling, Michael Levin, Michael R Bruchas, Michio Hirano, Michele Marcus, Miriam Adelson, Nita G. Forouhi, Monica Kraft, Patricia A Jennings, Patricia D Hurn, Penny M. Kris-Etherton, Pieter Abbeel, Polina V Lishko, Raul Gomes Nogueira, Randy D Blakely, Rita F Redberg, Robert A Stern, Robert W Gereau, Samantha B Joye, Selena E Bartlett, Staci A. Gruber, Sigrid Veasey, Susan L Cutter, Susan McCouch, Susan Manzi, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Teresa K Woodruff, Susanna C. Larsson, Todd E Golde, Tony Wyss-Coray, Tuomas Sandholm, Victoria Talwar, Wendy A Suzuki, Wenyao Xu, Wendy M Troxel, Leanne M. Redman, and Laura E Niklason. Jane (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, only Teresa Woodruff was created from Quicksilver.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I created Teresa Woodruff. But I think more of these were created from Quicksilver. The Wired article was published on August 3. When was the list published? Because several where created since August 4. I started this list to keep track: List of Wikipedia articles created using Quicksilver. Please add to it! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Eddie891, PaintedCarpet, Warren5th, and Victuallers: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I created Laura E Niklason solely using the information and sources from Quicksilver. Will add it to the list. PaintedCarpet (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just created a stub for Nita Forouhi, inspired by the Quicksilver list (I looked for a woman who wasn't based in the USA, starting with initial "P", and she was nearest), but I didn't use their sources, finding my own by Googling. It looks as if Quicksilver is biased to popular media mentions of scientist, and thus to scientists who have featured in popular media: the refs provided didn't include her profile page at her employing university, but a lot of news items. So it may be that Quicksilver will be likely to lead mostly to articles on American scientists who crop up on TV and in the newspapers.

I see I've been added to the List of Wikipedia articles created using Quicksilver automatically - would that have happened even if I'd never heard of Quicksilver, or did it come about because I linked from the Quicksilver list in the first place? PamD 13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@PamD: I added you to the list. I added everyone to the list. I am hoping that people will add themselves as we go on. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Ah, apologies for thinking you were a bot! It happened so fast. PamD 13:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

here is another one Draft:Heidi Larson. the tool does not link to the right article name (middle initial without period), but the sweep of popular press is useful. global north centric, and oblivious of notability criteria, such as "endowed professor". Warren5th (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

and also Draft:Wendy Suzuki. Warren5th (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

At least one, Leanne Redman, has been tagged for speedy. I'm not scientifically-minded enough to defend it, if anyone else would like to. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Redman passes WP:PROF #C1 and #C5, but the article did not make her notability plain to lazy patrollers. I have made some small cleanups and untagged it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David. At least with WP:ACPERM this sort of thing is now comparatively rare. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Awesome, thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I just added an incoming link to Leanne M. Redman - please remember to check for these women in citations so you don't create orphan articles. As I recall, the reason these 100 were selected was not just citations in popular press, but also in Wikipedia, so for those candidates with over 100 citations the chances are you will have potential incoming links. Thanks everyone for working on this - modern science is not really my thing, so I prefer not to touch this stuff. Jane (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

At least three of these new articles have now been deleted, for (as best as I can tell) no good reason. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Some possible food for thought... Andrea Gore passes WP:PROF#C5 at the very least with a named chair, and also WP:PROF#C8 as editor-in-chief of Endocrinology. Leanne Redman passes #C1 and #C5 as argued above. I'd say that Wendy Troxel passes #C1 with 8 publications having triple-digit citations and a quickly-estimated h-index of 23. Her Quicksilver page also strongly suggests a pass of WP:PROF#C7. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

They were deleted under WP:G5 due to User:Warren5th being a sock. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That should mean, then, that there would be no objection to recreating them, at least on grounds of notability. Any way of getting a complete list of articles by User:Warren5th that have been deleted? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Deemed a sock by "behavioral" evidence in an investigation that hasn't technically been closed yet. And at least one of them (Leanne Redman) had been improved by another user (@David Eppstein:) to make notability clear. Perhaps this was proper, in an according-to-Wiki-Hoyle sense, but it is still extraordinarily irritating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right...I don't disagree. It's quite annoying. I mean, I do understand the reasons behind it, but still... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao and XOR'easter: There's a full list on xtools. To be honest, I think Beetstra may have been a little hasty in deleting all of them. Many were edited by other users in addition to Warren5th/Slowking4 and therefore not G5 eligible, IMO. – Joe (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. Unfortunately, I won't have time to work on this further until tomorrow at the earliest. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Thanks very much. I have admin tools and can, if I want to be WP:POINTy, revert some of the deletions. But I, also, won't have time today. Nor tomorrow, the way things are shaping up. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I was planning to go through them and (resisting the urge to point) ask Beetstra to undelete the ones that I think were bad G5s. But I also don't have time to do it tonight. I guess we'll see who gets to it first! – Joe (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The articles deleted by Beetstra from the Quicksilver list include Polina Lishko, Leanne Redman, Wendy Troxel, Christina Economos, Victoria Talwar, Susanna Larsson, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, and Andrea Gore. Gore, Talwar, and Redman, at least, are blatantly notable (named professor and in Gore's case editor in chief of a major journal), Redman was ineligible for G5 as I had made substantive edits to it, and Bibbins-Domingo was similarly ineligible because of significant expansion by JC7V7DC5768. Beetstra also deleted the talk page for Evelyn Wang, where I had left a DYK nomination, but not the article itself, deleted-by-redirection Beth Macy (journalist and author), and draftified Draft:Wendy Suzuki and reverted it to an earlier version. Other articles not from the Quicksilver list subject to the same treatment include Draft:Esmeralda Mitre (actor), Patricia Teherán (singer and composer, significantly expanded by Richard3120), Marion Mitterhammer (actor, significant back-and-forth editing with GreenMeansGo), Annika Blendl (actor), Sibyl Jones (Quaker), Ophélie Bau (actor), Oriana Sabatini (actor), and Loni von Friedl (actor). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? Well, Mitterhammer at least has been in some 40 or 50 films and has three non-English articles. I don't remember what I did there, but it looks like I probably picked it out of new pages feed. GMG^talk 21:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Patricia Teherán above... I can't claim that I carried out any "significant expansion" of her article - I did some minor copyediting of Warren5th's article, and asked the editor Shadowowl to merge his almost identical Patricia Teherán Romero article to the former, which he did. Ms Teherán, however, is most definitely notable - famous enough to have had a telenovela biopic (Tarde lo conocí) based on her life and screened on primetime national TV in Colombia. Her article also had reliable sources, including from the country's leading newspaper El Tiempo. So I would be strongly in favour of restoring her article. Richard3120 (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Slowking4

I have been pinged a couple of times in this discussion. I will her make the following statement: this sockpuppet thrives on their article creations, they continuously participate in article creation drives for the purpose of making as many trophies as possible. The SPI on Warren5th is 'for the record', this is absolutely Slowking4 by all means of behavioural evidence (which I will not disclose on-wiki). That we are discussing this here is part of the evidence that this is Slowking4.

I have no problem with editors recreating their articles, but it needs to be from scratch. Remove as much as possible of their material, revert all their top edits, do not undelete their created articles unless there is a quite significant rewrite. This editor is editing in violation of their blocks (now ban).

I agree that this 'is still extraordinarily irritating' and I am sorry that I did not pull the trigger earlier (but I wasn't sure yet) as to keep the disruption to your work minimal. I hope we can work towards a way to stop this disruption from the core. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Would there be any objection to recreating the articles as they were, but not replicating the history? I.e., I can call up the most recent version before deletion, copy it, and recreate it under my name? That way the work is salvaged without anything being handed back to the sockpuppet. Forgive me if this is a sort of obvious question, but I don't deal much with AfD's. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I have earlier been considering to revdel the content of ALL of their content edits, but that may need to be included in policy. I would in spirit be WP:DENY (don't leave trophies, which their mainspace edits are), and we would be deleting the user's edits per our banning policy, but I've never seen revdel applied like this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Problem is that their material is still there (if the article has not been completely rewritten). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Problem is that you have violated the clear requirements of G5 and are now making excuses for failing to reverse your actions. Do we need to escalate? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is need to escalate .. I will revert deletions is there are significant edits by others. I now see that Special:Nuke ignores that (where I thought that it only deleted pages where the editor was the only editor). I am going to check further deletions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Flaws in the Quicksilver approach

One aspect of the way that Primer went about their work has been getting under my skin. I made a note of it at Draft talk:List of Wikipedia articles created using Quicksilver, but that's a bit of an obscure corner, so I figure a pointer from here to there is warranted. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Another recent article on Wikipedia's problems with women

Although this draws on a number of previous publications, Where Are the Women of Wikipedia? by Stell Simonton on HowStuffWorks summarizes the major issues confronting women editors. You may or may not agree how significant they are.--Ipigott (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"They also did not like the "fighty culture" and contentious arguments over editing entries, plus they found the atmosphere misogynistic.", completely agree with this point and the reason why I decided to "retire" (if necessary I'm willing to help, especially to maintain women and LGBT articles, but I decided not to contribute anymore new content). I do not need to be part of the "fight club" Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a great pity, Elisa, that you have given in to these pressures. Just think how many more new articles we could be counting each month if you were still collaborating. You could have been one of the top contributors to our Monthly achievements. Are you sure you wouldn't like to give it another try?--Ipigott (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sincerely, I'm feeling way better now. I'm researching, I'm developing my own website, and there is no one that is costantly trying to kick me out. Almost daily I found points were Wikipedia is "lacking" (just yesterday, the bio of a gay writer, he has died in 2016, but his page was not updated...), but nope, I do not want to give reason to the "fight club" to join forces against me again. Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elisa.rolle: Well it's good to see you are now spending quite a bit of time improving existing articles (including one of those recently mentioned here). It all helps. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, just from today research: Clara B. Spence, founder and headmistress for 31 years of Spence School in NYC, adopted two children with her partner, Charlotte Baker, making them one of the first single-sex adoption families. Ms Magazine writes that Spence "is an important, overlooked woman who was a major player in the political, educational, business and social arenas in Gilded Age New York." Hope someone will cover this lack of Wikipedia Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll add her to my work page anyway and when I'm not half asleep I'll see if I can add her to the wiki. If someone beats me to it, so much the better.. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 00:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)  Done

I read the above article. I have experienced conflict with all types of editors since I started creating articles in October 2016. Both genders, anonymous editors (not trolls), longtime editors, admins, etc. I work in a low traffic area, mostly rodeo. The usual attitude to rodeo is that it's not important. The same day I submitted a world champion and hall of fame bull to mainspace last year, it was put up for AfD. The male editor didn't even check, and it was in WP:NRODEO. I just had another male editor enter one of my bull organizations into the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers page without even asking me if I would split it or discuss it first. The point is I have many stories about other editors being aggressive in getting their way on articles I had originally written. But also, there is a good side that kept me going. I gained a mentor early on who assisted me. She also was a longtime editor whose talk page had many stalkers, and I got to know other editors that way too. And two of them were absolute gentlemen who have come to my assistance many times since then. One just came to my defense yesterday. I've also encountered many other male good eggs along the way. Writing about rodeo, there are a lot of statistics that have to be researched; it takes longer. I'm writing women's articles, but I will never be one who creates dozens of articles a month. I recently filled a rodeo redlinks list with the world champion barrel racers, btw. I'm hoping I did the right thing. Please note that writing stubs for barrel racers is actually less helpful to me than creating a full article. If you write a stub, there still is so much more work to do, that I might as well have written the whole article myself and gotten the credit for creating the article. p.s. I'm going to write a little guide to rodeo article creation over there; I discussed it with megalibrarygirl. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Too many Pat Turners

Once again I am in need of technical assistance. Pat Turner goes to a Canadian rower. Which seems to me not probably the most prominent person with this name. That is linked to Patrick Turner (which in turn refers to an article on Patrick Alasdair Fionn Turner) and Pat Turner (trade unionist), which in turn links to Patricia Turner. Since I just created Pat Turner (Aboriginal activist), it seems to me that a disambiguation page is in order, but what to title it? Were it me, I would rename the rower's article and probably title Pat Turner as the disamb page, but not sure about that. Can someone help? SusunW (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You certainly need a Pat Turner disamb page, displacing the rower. The Patricks might be left perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Working GMG^talk 18:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 18:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it should perhaps subdivide the list to group the Patricias and the Patricks. Or even have these lists on separate pages with Pat Turner simply pointing at the two pages? Patrick Turner is an American football player and Patricia Turner is an academic - I'm not sure if either is really primary. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, John Smith appears to include "J. SOMETHING Smiths", but not Jonathan Smith or Johnny Smith. Then again, that's a massively popular name in comparison. Not sure what the best way would be to balance intuitiveness with accuracy when dealing with such a small pool of candidates. As far as I see so far, Patricia Turner and Patrick turner are the only ones where the COMMONNAME dice rolled the way it did. GMG^talk 21:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just amended the Turner (surname) page to reflect GreenMeansGo's changes. Oronsay (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy link Turner (surname) -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

And this is precisely why I ask. I would never have thought of adding links to the surname page, or splitting out Patrick/Patricia/Patty, though a cursory search now tells me there are other who may well end up being created with those names. Again, thank all of you who jumped in. It takes a village :) SusunW (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a good example of why WP:Disambiguation is one of the dark arts on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Rise Up for Roe

I'll just leave this here if anyone is interested. Another Believer? Thankful for any and all help. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RD of Aretha Franklin at ITN

Please assist in improving this page to meet ITN standards. The article may need improvement in referencing. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

On it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now the top item on the "In The News" section on the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Request review of guide on Creating rodeo biographies

I recently suggested a new redlist for women in rodeo. For now, all but two of the women are barrel racers. Currently, the top level of rodeo, who are notable, are only barrel racers, as the other 7 events are only open to men. However, there are articles on women that competed during the golden age of rodeo that include notable women in other events. Even some of the early women barrel riders competed in other events, like world champion barrel racer Wanda Harper Bush (I am working on her article now), who is in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. I will be searching for more women to add to the redlist.

I finished a first draft to go along with the new redlist on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Rodeo. The article is still a draft in my userspace for now at User:Dawnleelynn/Creating Rodeo Biographies. I will be adding the article to the Help essays on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Resources page when the first draft is complete. I will link it from the Rodeo red links page of course. I am asking for some to review the draft for clarity and copy edit. Especially if at least one sports savvy person could review. Feel free to correct obvious edits directly in the article. Comment in the article or talk page as appropriate for anything else. I would appreciate your help very much. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

p.s. I put in wikilinks to existing barrel racer articles in the guide so that there are examples to look it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Anne Thompson (film critic)

It seems to me that anyone tapped to fill Roger Ebert's shoes, even temporarily, is apt to be notable, but I'm not sure I'll have time this weekend to really get into this AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2018 - Scholarships and Submissions - Closing Soon!

[[

File:Thompson Library from west.jpg|frameless|right]]

Proposal submissions and scholarship applications are closing soon for WikiConference North America! Both are due by August 15.

You may submit proposals here. For submissions, we are looking forward to seeing proposals for presentations, workshops, roundtables, panels, and more. We also have an academic peer review track this year.

You may apply for a scholarship here. Scholarship applications are open to Wikimedians who live in North America and actively contribute to a Wikimedia project. Scholarship awards are US$500. The Wiki Education Foundation is also providing their own scholarships for presenters participating in the academic peer review option.

WikiConference North America 2018 is taking place in Columbus, Ohio, from October 18-21. Our host is the Ohio State University Libraries, which provides a great opportunity to work with the local libraries and cultural institutions. Visit our website for more information. Thank you! On behalf of the WikiConference North America organizing team, Rosiestep (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC) (Grantee Emeritus)

The deadline has been extended to August 22. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red on the radio

Dr Sara Thomas gave this interview from one of the Edinburgh meet ups on Women in Red - She starts talking at 12 minutes. Listen here Victuallers (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User template

The user template works now at Data and Meta as well. Handy for people who have one central userPage there and/or another one at Wikidata. Klaas `Z4␟` V 18:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Let's add Template:Draft to all drafts

Since WIR makes a lot of use of the Draft namespace, comments would be welcomed. The idea is to make resources more accessible to editors creating drafts (e.g. links to find sources, one-click links to trigger Citation bot / disambiguation solver, etc...). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Faulty WiR membership registration

Can anyone fix "[[User:{{subst:REVISONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISONUSER}}]]" on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Members. It's one of those pages I can't edit. Perhaps Isarra?--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed with [11] Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red: 16 languages

A friendly update... I just saw a link added on Wikidata for the Norwegian-language version of Women in Red. That means there are currently 16 language versions, including EN-wiki. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Very cool! SusunW (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

They are all linked from the LH column on the main WiR page. Great to have the Norwegians. They are very productive.--Ipigott (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem

Another piece on the gender gap: it can be found here. It approaches the question from a somewhat more scholarly direction. I'm not convinced I agree with some aspects of the thesis, but I present it as something which nevertheless might be of interest. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an argument I have long made: "My analysis suggests that criterion of notability restricts the women who succeed in obtaining pages in Wikipedia to those who mirror “the ‘Great Man Theory’ of history (Mattern 2015) or are “notorious” (Lerner 1975)." WP doesn't include necessarily women who were important to the development of women or history, but ones who media found acceptable to write about because they fit the mold of the heroine or are famous. I don't however agree that having more women editors would change the outcome. Logically, if sources do not exist or are buried, no one is likely to write about notable women. Anyone can write about women given the access to source materials. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed (with your point - I have yet to take time to read that article) - but the issue of getting sources or enough reliable sources to show notability for a woman who isn't deemed interesting enough or notable enough by the main stream media is a problem which more women editors can't solve (alone). If women aren't written about they can't be remembered and they can't be remembered if they aren't written about. So the goal has to be, in part, to get papers written about these women, articles in newspapers, coverage on media, books etc. A small change in the notability rules might help too but I'm not clear on what that would be. With those, coverage in Wikipedia would be able to improve which would in turn reach people to recognise that women are notable too, slowly but surely improving visibility as a feedback loop. But right now, it's a bit of a vicious cycle. There isn't great coverage so there can't be articles in the Wiki... ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 15:24, 21 August 2018

@SusunW: You've hit upon the critical point, I think - it's about sourcing. This particular piece strikes me as a bit of blaming the messenger - "Wikipedia isn't changing because it doesn't want to". Well...no, that's not entirely true. Sourcing for a lot of articles is just as tricky.

I wonder if anyone has made a broader study of encyclopedias to see what the ratio of male to female subjects is? As an example, I used a biographical dictionary of notable 20th-century Tajiks last year when I was working on articles for the November contest. I created, as I recall, 52 articles...I'm pretty sure I covered all the women in the dictionary who weren't represented on Wikipedia. Now, I didn't do a formal count, but it looked to me like that amounted to maybe 20%, tops, of the entries in the source. So...an encyclopedia where 80% of the subjects are male and 20% are female. And I'm sure it's far from alone. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)(UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, Ser Amantio di Nicolao! :) @Roger and I talked about this from Day1 (Wikimania Mexico City, 2015) and again at Wikimania Esino Lario, 2016. We quoted Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1949): "It is not women's inferiority that has determined their historical insignificance; it is their historical insignificance that has doomed them to inferiority." And we brought up the abysmal percentage (3.6%) of women's biographies in Ramón Armando Rodríguez's Diccionario biográfico, geográfico e histórico de Venezuela (1957).

Sourcing is the #1 issue we must contend with as, historically, people wrote about women (see SusunW's comment above) only if they mirror “the ‘Great Man Theory’ of history (Mattern 2015) or are “notorious” (Lerner 1975).". --Rosiestep (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There was an academic paper on a Scandinavian encyclopedia/biographical dictionary that as I remember found a slightly higher ratio than WP (presumably most/all subjects were Scandinavians) but still I think around the 20% mark. But then given the history of patriarchy, what can one expect? Some people seem to think the WP "target" should be 50%, but to my mind that is just unattainable, without a massive abandonment of neutrality, as in the Welsh WP. An imbalanced ratio is an inevitable result of a history of patriarchy. Talking about "the ‘Great Man Theory’ of history" is pretty much nonsense - no theory of history can theorize away the reality of past patriarchy. I'm pretty sure any realistic target today is below 25% (far higher than the current % of women legislators, national academicians, CEOs of top companies etc etc in major countries). In a century it might be different. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think 20% is probably a high number for encyclopedias which aren't limited to women. Traditionally, I'd place it around 5-10% from my research, but again, women's studies as an academic field has only existed since the 1970s, so uncovering histories of women is a fairly recent phenomenon. I remember reading that when the Women's Liberation Movement began, the history of suffragettes had not yet been written, thus most pioneering feminists were unknown. I agree Johnbod 50% is unattainable, as the historic skew cannot be erased. It happened. SusunW (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's right. A conventional Scandinavian encyclopedia might be expected to give a slghtly higher number than one from most regions, I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I've not been comfortable with percentage targets for Women in Red, and prefer the idiom, "move the needle" without establishing a target. Just think... What would happen if someone established a wikiproject, Men in Red, and created thousands of new stub biographies about men using Wikidata redlists. Theoretically, it could not only wipe out the gains we've made but could put women's biographies in a deficit. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I expect you're safe there! But do the %s really matter, so long as women's biographies can be found when wanted? On WP, you only see what you search for, or click a link to. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you Rosiestep. The percentage to me is irrelevant. That we focus on improving the coverage of minorities, be that ethnic groups, gender groups, or whatever, makes the presentation of humankind's history and development more balanced. That is crucial to my mind, arbitrary percentages in "acceptabile ranges" means nothing. Integration of minorities is crucial as well, as it doesn't change perceptions if one only finds women/minorities "when wanted"; links to events in which they participated changes the perception that women and minorities were not involved in world events. SusunW (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What an interesting debate and a thought provoking piece. What has been concerning me is that "systemic bias" has become to be associated with "the bias within our editor base." Some may look at the high percentage of "white blokes with articles" who were at the battle of Waterloo and blame that on the bias of white bloke editors. However there were a lot of white blokes at Waterloo. That percentage would not change if every wiki editor was suddenly a black female. There is no causality between those two facts. The systemic bias of history was there before Wikipedia was created. Blaming that bias on the current customer base of Wikipedia makes a great narrative but I just don't see that its true. It would appear that some say that, we can only write history if we have a perfectly representative group of editors. Editor diversity is good but perfection is not achievable and thats OK because its not essential if we have editors who are (mostly) trying to correct the historic systemic bias. If we blame our editors for being white blokes who caused "systemic bias" then that is counter productive. Sure, men have a stronger interest in pornography - but is this really relevant? The success of the Wikipedia project has shown me that we can create something that experience tells us we would never be able to organise - but we did. We didn't use Professors. We didn't assign experts. Wikipedia is better than us. We can improve Wikipedia with an imperfect group of editors - and we do. There is no reason why we should not aspire to "move the needle" because its a good thing to do. We don't need to find out whose fault it is to fix it. (p.s. The Welsh Wikipedia now has over 50% women biographies, but I am not aware that they have more female editors.) Victuallers (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You made me laugh Victuallers with that lot of white blokes at Waterloo comment, but I agree wholeheartedly that there is no causal relationship. I have never found blame to be of much use. It may make one feel better to point fingers away from oneself, but it certainly doesn't actually change anything ;) SusunW (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Victuallers: "Blaming that bias on the current customer base of Wikipedia makes a great narrative..." And there you have it. It's all about the narrative. It sounds a whole lot better to say "this will not stand!" than to say "well, here's a thing, and people are working to change it, but it's taking a while". Doesn't matter if it's counterproductive to our purposes.

Every time I get interviewed about my editing (please pardon the shameless plug), I try to make the point that what's incredible about Wikipedia is that ordinary schmoes like me are getting a chance to change the canon of knowledge. I look at some of the people I've written about over the years, such as Joanna Quiner - of whom I'd never even heard when I was in college, and I took an entire semester's class on nineteenth-century American art - and talk about the fact we're finally able to write them back into the historical narrative, as they deserve. We're not just creating an encyclopedia - we're recreating a canon of knowledge, and that's mind-blowing. It's not a years-long or even decades-long project...it's going to take so much longer than that. But it's happening. I can see it happening. And it frustrates me that so few journalists seem to be willing to talk about it in those terms. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I share your frustration about the difference between "gendergap" (lack of female editors) and "gender gap" (lack of female bios). Of course they are inter-related, but this is not quantifiable, as far as I know. It's true about mothering, nursing, wifely and daughterly household duties, etc. These are about as notable as the three S's for men in the morning (Sh**, Shower and Shave). I get mad about the lack of coverage for working widows though. In the Netherlands, formerly women were not allowed to own property unless they were widows. Legislation is very slow, much slower than the women's movement, and e.g. as of today only female homeowners are taxed for water from the waterboard agencies when they live without a male in their household like father, husband, son or boyfriend. Even the pension funds "merge" women into their husband's pension funds when they work for the same company (can be tricky on the occasion of divorce or remarriage). Royal mothers tend to be included on Wikipedia for the products of their womb when it is unavoidable, e.g. members of royal houses with more than 6 kids living to the age of adulthood. Such pages with a "was the wife of xxx" lead are fairly dry and formulaic, generally with some amazing portrait, followed by a list of progeny and punctuated by a helpful royal family title template. Never mind that these women often led extremely productive lives and founded all sorts of interesting societies - if it didn't exist long enough to make it into "easily accessible" reliable sources, it didn't exist. In my work on 17th-century art I find time and again that the largest collections are recorded as being the work of one man, when one often finds the widow living quite a bit longer, and sometimes decades longer. It's as if the dead husband returned to life at the estate sale of his widow to collect kudos for the collection that only he formed and curated. Of course it doesn't help that that the collections were called by the name of the husband and the wife is rarely called by name but only as "widow of xxx". Such mixups have caused a mess with debates about possible sitters for pre-19th-century portraits, many of which have been untangled by (mostly female) art historians in the past century. Even Rembrandt portraits have been renamed in the last century because it finally occurred to someone that portraits might be inherited through the female line. So I also disagree that the notability is an issue. The problem is learning to navigate the sources and the period notability through the ages. I like the article graph showing the relative popularity over time of the same women. This is also something I have noticed with women artists and I think I once presented a slide about this, how the women on a list of "Top women artists" from 1750 drop off a similarly named list in 1850, only to reappear in 1950, etc. Jane (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"First Women UK" photography exhibition

An article in local newspaper about a sheep-dog handler led me to read about the "First Women UK" exhibition of photos by Anita Corbin at the Royal College of Art (until August 22nd, free, 12-5 every day - should you be around London). I can't find a list of her 100 subjects, but there's quite a lot of coverage of the exhibition and the photographer. I need to get on with some real life stuff so mustn't let myself get carried away into writing this one ... Anyone interested in writing about her, or the exhibition? We could piece together a partial list of those in the 100 from these sources (and check whether they are in en.wiki, and if not whether they should be - the sheepdog handler isn't but perhaps doesn't really make the grade?) Perhaps the only way to get the full list is to go to the show or buy the £40 book! PamD 16:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And the National Portrait Gallery have bought 7 of the portraits (possibly more by now), which is one of the WP:NARTIST criteria. PamD 16:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Anita Corbin gets a mention in Women_photographers#UK_women's_agency. PamD 16:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tweeted to Anita Corbin, requesting a list of the 100 names. By searching, I have compiled a list of 38 of them. Where should I upload a redlist of these women? Oronsay (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

My list now has 47 names, of which 12 are not yet on Wikipedia. Oronsay (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Has Nancy Honey's 100 Leading Ladies project already been covered? Portraits and interviews of influential senior women in Britain? There is a Complete List which I will look through in a day or two. Oronsay (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay: Please include the names of redlinked notable women photographers on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Photographers. Thanks for your efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott: Afraid it's not 100 photographers but one who took photos of 100 senior women. I guess I add to CS lists under appropriate occupations. Oronsay (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Oronsay. Yes, indeed. Sorry for the confusion. (But maybe those who took their photographs are also worthy of note?) Perhaps you can give us a link to your list, showing those who already have biographies and those who do not.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I have put a full list of names at Talk:Anita_Corbin#First_women. Note that today is the last day of the exhibition at the RCA's Dyson Gallery. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)