Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Does women in red have subscription to allAfrica.com?

As we are aware, there is an issue with accessing sources for pre-2010 Nigerian contents. And this normally have an effect on the number of women topics that can be covered. I don't know how allAfrica did it, but they have online versions of the daily news reports of top Nigerian newspapers, dating to the late 90s. Even the websites of these news agencies only contain reports from a few years ago. You wouldn't even get a cached copy from Google! Although I believe older reports might be also gotten from their offices. Is it possible for wir to find a way of getting allAfrica to allow experienced editors to have full subscription to their site? The reason it needs to be experienced editors is so that there will be no copyright violation of their content. There are a number of editors of African topics who have signified interest in the site.HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would definitely support this -- I've attempted to access archived articles from AllAfrica.com before, with limited success, but they definitely have a range of stories/info on African women. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would, too. I found some sources from Botswana there that have disappeared on their sites of origin. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

We asked the Wikipedia library to get access for us. I will followup with Jake Orlowitz to see if they are making any progress. Also would remind everyone to archive links in Wayback or archive.is so that they are preserved historically and are still accessible. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Susan, I really hope the feedback will be positive. Really really looking forward to it. Even though I have had this in mind for a while, it was a conversation with Alexplaugh12 that rekindle it. Our conversation can be found here. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red in an academic article, JLIS.it

"Stepping Beyond Libraries: The Changing Orientation in Global GLAM" has been published by JLIS.it. Women in Red is mentioned on page 26. Big thanks to the authors, who are long-time, respected Wiki(m)(p)pedians: Alex Stinson, Sandra Fauconnier, and Liam Wyatt. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article. Maybe we should brainstorm on how we can improve our coverage of women in libraries, museums and archives. We could adapt our monthly achievements to give special attention to the sector in October. We might also try to arrange a tie up with Europeana in order to improve coverage of the EU countries. Maybe Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, Alanna the Brave or Antiqueight can come up with suggestions too.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting piece. It was Liam who inspired me. I met him at the British Museum and returned back to my home city determined to get my museum to emulate what Liam had demonstrated. The first large multi-lingual competition came from Liam's example competition transferred to Derby. Wikidata is great news. (I notice that @GerardMeijssen is targeting women academics in loading their citations, awards and prizes into Wikidata.) I'm away for a couple of weeks on holiday but I think that gathering our 16 sister projects around a multi-lingual contest would re-invigourate our work. They are cross translating with good results. The en:wiki achieved 15% in 2015, 16% in 16, 17% in 17 and we must make 18% this year. Roger Victuallers (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on how wikidata works - does it allow us to see what articles exist on other languages so we can translate them to en (or vice versa)?

I'm working on the idea of getting people in one hobby area to see the overlap with Wikipedia and the benefits that go both ways in the hope of attracting people who have declared interests in diversity. But I'm not sure that I have any ideas you haven't all already seen, tried, thought of etc. But I was thinking - in the same way that we partner with libraries etc, we could reach out to national organisations like Engineers Ireland (if we aren't already) and try to get their involvement to get the notable women up on the wiki (and notable men, images etc). There are libraries within these organisations and we know we are missing STEM women, historical and current (I mention that one because I know of it). I don't know if other unions would also have resources. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 23:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Antiqueight, on Wikidata you can see what other parts of the Wikimedia group have entries. It acts like an overall index. Oronsay (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-event in London

Hello all! There's going to be a 4-day Wikithon at Wellcome Collection, 18-21 October and it would be great if WiR members could get involved! I'll add specific time details soon - if this sounds like something that you would like to do, remotely or by coming along (there'll be lots of other great events about writing women back into history in museums, libraries and archives too!) then please could you add your name to the participants list on the event page to give me a vague idea of how much involvement to expect?

If WiR people would like to participate, I'd be happy to list WiR as a collaborator on the official Wellcome Collection webpage for the event too. I can write a two sentence description of the project or am happy to use one created by the community - just let me know!

Zeromonk (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Zeromonk: Looks good. Let me know if there's anything specific I can do to assist. Otherwise I'll just try to help along as articles are created. You are of course welcome to add Women in Red as a collaborator.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this event, Zeromonk. Is the theme "museums, libraries and archives"? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Ipigott, If WiR is to be involved, is it appropriate to offer the London event links to some of our WD or CS redlists of scientists? Oronsay (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's quite ok to use Women in Red redlists at these sort of events, Oronsay. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I could be around for some of these dates if required, though if we could somehow get the triumvirate of Rosie, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW over (does Jimbo have a private jet?) it would be much better. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If y'all have a private jet, come to Octocon from the 19th to the 21st and come to the panel planned around Wikipedia!!! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Ipigott, Oronsay, Ritchie333 thanks for the brilliant and speedy response! Yes, the main theme will be museums, libraries and archives (there'll also be a session on scientists) - I saw the conversation above, would be wonderful timing if we could tie in with October's WiR theme and help with some of the redlists. The artists running the programme were so excited to learn about WiR and to learn themselves how it worked as advance preparation they were looking at your redlists of artists :) Antiqueight sorry we can't join you at Octocon! Thanks all! Zeromonk (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep, Ipigott, Oronsay, Ritchie333 here is the link to the event times and details - would be lovely to see you or any other WiR folks who can come along! Zeromonk (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zeromonk and Antiqueight: Thanks for the invite, but I'll be in Columbus, Ohio, for WikiConference North America during the same time as Octocon and the Wellcome event. Sending best wishes that your events are successful and I look forward to hearing updates afterwards! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:-Excuses, excuses... Have a good time. Say hi for us.. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Announcements

Can anyone explain what has happened to the announcements on the main WiR page? They simply seem to have disappeared but I can see no record of deletions in the page's history. Indeed they have disappeared from all the old histories I have turned up. Is this once again an unintended result of Project X?(cc Rosiestep, Isarra).--Ipigott (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Ipigott, but I have no idea what has caused this. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean this? That was on the 10th, but because the page is transcluded onto the main page, it's possible you continued to see it via a cached version until more recently. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites. It's the first time I've seen them all removed at once. Time to add some new ones!--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

NASW Social Work Pioneers

A very interesting-looking source put out by the National Association of Social Workers Foundation, which I found last night while poking around online: http://www.naswfoundation.org/pioneers/.

Seems to me most, if not all, of these figures are likely to meet the notability guideline given their prominence within their field. And many of them - not all, but the lion's share - are women. There's also an Encyclopedia of Social Work: http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/. More fodder for exploration, surely? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Yay! I like this topic! Maybe we can use it for November or December's editathons. @Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: what do you think? SusunW (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: I like it! Maybe add social reformers and social activists to the social workers, unless adding these others would be too much? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Without sources, or any indication what their methodology is in gathering this information, I don't know how much weight I would put on the NASW write up alone. Ten bucks says these were written by an intern or an undergraduate student with no formal historical training. Full disclosure: Am no longer a member of the NASW for reasons. GMG^talk 19:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Well, I did a cursory search yesterday, and of the three I picked, two would likely pass the notability threshold (in my admittedly inclusionist eyes). (One easily so: she has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Social Work as well.) Still, your point's absolutely well-taken. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I took Bess Adams (1893-1985) as a test and couldn't find anything else at all. But if you find one that's borderline, I've still got stacks of social work text books. Lemme know and I can see what I can see. GMG^talk 19:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

As per typical for women of her time period, you aren't likely to find her in scholarly journals or book publications. She wasn't famous, but Bess Adams looks plenty notable to me. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] SusunW (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Which of the newspaper clippings, in a local daily, makes her pass GNG? None of the awards are any significant/notable and the last time I checked, receiving an alumni achievement award or holding a middle tier executive position is neither an indicator. I appreciate the aims of the project but to cling to anything and everything is a bit...... And, iff that's the only available sourcing, I will dispatch it for AfD. ∯WBG^converse 01:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric aggressive attempts to intimidate people and discourage participation are generally neither the means nor method that builds collaboration or influences people to share your POV. That local daily has won three Pulitzer Prizes, all during the period in which Adams was featured. In the days of print journalism, editors evaluated which articles to print and which to leave out based on import and costs, so there were controls to publishing notable stories. After the birth of the internet, that changed, so while your bias against local sources may hold for post 1990-media, historians would refute your assessment of the value of local media. Academics place value on local newspaper accounts of historic events. The awards she won are not necessarily notable, nor are awards of any kind required to meet GNG. The articles were chosen for the detail they give, i.e. parents' names, schooling, employment history, etc. What is required is significant coverage in RS, over time, in sufficient detail to develop a complete biography which shows that the subject did something unique or of note. Since juvenile courts arose in the United States in the Progressive Era, Adams was one of the first generation of workers in the juvenile courts. At a time when few women worked, she was the director of a state agency and served in every office, including that of president of the Alabama Conference of Social Work. Easily satisfies GNG and there are also articles (which I cannot access or assess) about her in almost every year of Alabama Social Welfare between 1938 and 1966. SusunW (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, I apologize if I came off as aggressive.I do not agree that local media prior to the birth of internet, was much selective and my observations does not either support it.(Obviously more selective than what happened after internet-boom but nowhere as selective as national media outlets of prominence, which is somewhat obvious).Also, as much as it's a fact that the sources can be used to verify information about her, I disagree that significant coverage in a local daily musters passage of our GNG guidelines.The director of any state agency, (sufficiently broad) will fetch routine local coverage.And, that you have raised the pint of academics, I fail to find a single one, who was interested enough to study upon one of the first generation of workers in the juvenile courts and who held office At a time when few women worked.And as to your latest source, I will take the opportunity to remind you that we need independent sourcing. ∯WBG^converse 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As Exemplo347 said on a occasion, Since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling.All of the clippings can be easily used to add details about the career of Bess but IMO, neither of them individually nor the summation of all clippings, propels her past our notability guidelines. ∯WBG^converse 14:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, your lack of understanding of historical research in general and women's history in particular, which did not emerge as a field of academic study until the 1970s, is evident in the statement that no one has written about her. I apologize if I came off as aggressive, but will continue my aggression? I think the conversation needs to end and I shall not engage further. Thank you for your opinion and anecdotal observation. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

SusunW, I am at a loss to understand as to how relevant, the age of emergence of the field of study about women's history is.

There have been ample dissertations, where academics have chosen important local-characters from times of Civil War, from times of Reconstruction era et al to document the broader scenario or specific character-sketches.

And, obviously, you have the right to disengage at your will. ∯WBG^converse 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem that I've been seeing going around Wikipedia recently (especially in AfD) that local sources aren't "reliable sources." GNG only specifies that the sources must be reliable and describe the subject with enough information to write about them. SusunW has here, adequately shown how local sources are plenty reliable, especially before the age of the internet. Local topics are actually quite important to building a robust encyclopedia that won't be biased towards just the most populated areas of the world or the most popular topics. As to your comment Winged Blades of Godric, quoting Exemplo347, we often at Wikipedia choose a random name off a list, learn about that person and then write about them. That's what redlists are for and it's really a lot of fun. I've learned about interesting and notable people from all over the world doing this and would highly recommend the practice! Most of my over 400+ articles I've created were made in this manner. For example, I would never have learned about the first woman Afghani helicopter pilot Latifa Nabizada, or about the amazing railroad doctor, Sofie Herzog. These are just two amazing people I would never have met without taking a random name off a list, finding sources and then writing about them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, thanks for chiming in:-)

If you read carefully, nowhere did I state that local sources aren't "reliable sources." and have instead explicitly written that as much as it's a fact that the sources can be used to verify information about her. Any such notion, as their reliability in AfDs ought be plainly wrong.

What I wish to state is that the bar of sourcing for establishing notability and that for verifying information is (or shall be)not same.Whilst, (supposedly) four pieces of quite-significant coverage about a subject at NewYork Times would be sufficient for meeting GNG, the same number won't be sufficient, for a local county-daily or so.It ought be something more, which shall be evaluated on a per-se basis, by editorial consensus.Four is a number, taken at my own whims and may not represent anything ideal. BLP1E is excluded:-)

As to taking names off randomly and writing, what I mean is starting articles, in the hope of sources, (Example:-He held such an important position, he must be notable.So, let's start it!!.....A week later, there 's a comprehensive search and all that is located is remote routine coverage from non-independent sources or in local dailies et al) without anything concrete in hand shall be avoided.

Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Winged Blades of Godric, that's not what GNG says. All it says is that there need to be a number of RS backing up the information. The sources can be extremely local and that doesn't diminish the quality of the source or the information. In fact it's really important, as I said, in building an encyclopedia that intends to be broad in scope, that we don't discount the value of local sources of information. There is no weighting of information based on population size of the city of the newspaper in the GNG guidelines. The New York Times is not necessarily "better" than the El Paso Herald Post as a reliable source of information. They can equally be used for establishing notability. Dailies, as SusunW are not all the same and neither are they low-standard sources that deserve less weight in determining GNG. There's rigorous journalism done at most dailies, especially in the age before the internet. I'm really puzzled why you don't understand this distinction. Creating an encyclopedia that only cites what has come to the attention of the New York Times or the Washington Post is going to be substandard. If you think we should "weight" sources based on population size, then you're free to bring up such a discussion at the appropriate talk page. I suppose we've highjacked this thread quite enough! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, my point is precisely we should "weight" sources based on population size.To keep it short, as coverage-area decreases, the distinction between notable and non-notable events (which are made to look notable, by giving coverage) is bound to dimininish. I think that there have been some discussions in these aspects but with nothing close to a consensus.As to GNG, as DGG once remarked, it's something that can be reasonably skewed to supoort any opinion, as to any article, even in dire-opposites.I agree with you, as to our disgression and will continue the discussion but somewhere else:-) Thanks for your valuable opinion and participation. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Weam Al Dakheel

Hi all

I think it would be really cool to have an article for Weam Al Dakheel, who is the first female news anchor in Saudi Arabia, thankfully there are lots of sources available in English language press. I'm a bit nervous about doing it myself as I don't understand the cultural significance for Saudi Arabia well.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Women's Interest Groups: Institutional Profiles

Another resource which I found doing some research, partially digitized here. Might be useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Despite its emphasis on Roman Catholics, one of the best sites I have found for women in religion is Women Priests. Explore some of the headings such as Women deacons or the Timeline.--Ipigott (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Vivian Arend

Just retrieved this from draft status. Looks OK to me, but I'd appreciate another couple of pairs of eyes. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Overtly discriminatory notability criteria

I usually couldn't give much of a stuff about sports (and especially about North American-only ones), but I stumbled across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatiana Rafter and was pretty concerned about what I found. Apparently the notability criteria for hockey ((WP:NHOCKEY), while having the usually lenient sporting notability criteria for male players (essentially any player who has ever played one game in any significant league), require that women players have to have played in the World Championships or they don't meet them. As a result, you've got people lining up to say that a regular professional player in the main women's league in the US isn't notable. This isn't about this one woman: I've just never seen such an explicitly discriminatory criteria before. Any suggestions for how this kind of thing could be tackled? Discriminatory guidelines really don't bode well for addressing underrepresentation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, the caliber difference and the visibility of women's hockey/NWHL in general is what makes the NWHL players less notable than NHL players. The NWHL is a 3 year old league, 5 teams, with a 2.5 million dollar budget, which more or less bring it to par with the NHA. The NHL is over 100 year old, has 31 teams, and is considered the premier hockey league in the world, with revenues in the $2.5 billion range. While NHL teams are exclusively North American, it draws players from all over the world because no other league compares to it. Norway women don't train for years hoping to be part of the NWHL. While the NWHL may want to be the equivalent of the NHL for women, if you compare its status amongst in women's hockey, it falls short of the status of the NHL in men's hockey. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated statistics on percentage of biographies about women on Wikipedia

Hi all

I'd like to find the current statistics for the percentage of biographies about women for a proposal I'm working on. Is there a simple way to get these? I mean for English and other languages. I assume there's some kind of Wikidata query that can be run?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@John Cummings: We post this info every week in the introduction at the top of the main WiR page. The stats are those given on WHGI. Currently 17.80% of the bios are about women. You might also be interested in the Denelezh stats. Let me know if I can help you further. Good luck with your proposal.--Ipigott (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Ipigott: the Denelezh stats are perfect :) John Cummings (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Willy De Bruijn

I just created an article for Willy De Bruijn, born Elvire de Bruijn. I would appreciate it if some people here could go through the article and check whether it is written correctly and accurately, and with enough sensitivity and respect. It's my first article about a transgender, and it would be a pity if I inadvertently made some faux-pas. All help is welcome! Fram (talk) 12:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fram:: Thanks for seeking our advice. At first sight, I would suggest more attention to the pronouns. I think Another Believer may be able to help you out.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I was (I believe) pretty consistent (female until the change, male afterwards), but this has been mostly changed to all-male throughout[7], but with a few female pronouns overlooked so far, explaining the current inconsistency. Fram (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks pretty well sourced, and nobody should be tagging or deleting that. Just make sure book sources have page numbers (otherwise it's impossibly time-consuming to find the text that verifies the prose). Maybe go for a DYK? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, overall. I'm a bit unsure about "he realised that she wasn't like other girls". A note at WikiProject LGBT studies wouldn't hurt, if more eyes would be helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I brought all pronouns in line, no more "he ... she" or "he ... her" clashes I hope. Fram (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Vote 100 - the Scottish suffragettes

Hi all, thought I'd run something by you. The University of Edinburgh are looking to formally celebrate the Vote 100 centenary with a physical and online exhibition in late November/early December telling the story of the Scottish suffragettes. This would include creating and improving articles on the Scottish suffragettes with an editathon and a launch event with display cases of the physical materials. We're partnering with the Library and University Collections for the first time and so the discussion has been around the availability of sources for some of the Scottish suffragettes as there are numerous items related to letters and telegrams written to and from Frances Simson and Christabel Pankhurst which the University of Edinburgh Archives have agreed to release to Commons and Wikisource. In addition we have matriculation records, graduation records and more for a number of others. These archival records have hitherto not been published as far as I know so the question would be whether, as part of the event, participants could have explained to them the need for reliable secondary sources, help create the reliable source as an entry on the university website/Library blog as a scaffolded activity then cite this source in a Wikipedia entry. I realise this is rather unorthodox but I was interested in the Wikipedia:Archives as sources page and how we could maximise the involvement of the Archives and the availability of sources to improve Wikipedia in the process as I think working with the archival material could be a real hook for participants. Any thoughts on this do let me know, Stinglehammer (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ewan, for keeping us informed of your plans. I assume that when you refer to suffragettes, you also intend to cover suffragists. As you know, there are categories on both: Category:Scottish suffragettes and Category:Scottish suffragists. Your archive material should provide opportunities to enhance many of the articles included in these categories. Of course you might turn up some interesting new names, leading to new articles. You might be able to find additional material by searching the web but I see there is a book specifically devoted to the subject: Leah Leneman's The Scottish Suffragettes. It might be useful to use a copy for reference. There is also interesting background on Scottish suffragettes in Gemma Elliott's “Women who dared to ask for a vote”: The Missing Memoirs of the Scottish Suffragettes, which includes some revealing sources. It provides substantial background on Elizabeth Thomson and also mentions Edith Hudson, the only Scottish suffragettes I have identified without a Wikipedia biography. I suppose in due course you will be creating a meetup page, allowing some of us to become virtual participants or simply offer our assistance. One of the easy ways of making your materials accessible would be to display as many as possible on Commons with an easy to find category. Good luck and keep us informed of developments.--Ipigott (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright workshop in South India

Hi, Please see m:CIS-A2K/Events/Copyright workshop: South India. We specially encourage female contributors to apply to help reduce the gender gap. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Integrating our articles into Wikipedia

Like everyone else, after I create a new article, I add links to it in various other wiki articles. Recently, I started adding the biographies I've been creating to disambiguation pages for the person's given name and surname and I've seen a marked spike in page views as a result. I have not been adding the biogs to date pages (birth year; death year), but I'm wondering if that would yield even more page views? Wondering if any of you have tips/tricks for maximizing page views. Though this has never been a concern of mine, I'm starting to recognize its importance. Better late than never. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps obvious, but I also:

• Add links to occupational lists (e.g. List of archaeologists)
• Look for a "notable people from..." section of the article on the subject's birthplace
• Look for a "notable alumni" section of the school/university they went to
• Search for the subject's name to find pages where they're already mentioned and turn those into links
• For scholars, search for references to their work and add an |authorlink=

I don't know if these actually help bring views to the page, but they can't hurt. – Joe (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent advice all. I always try to do this, not only to drive page views to the article but also to head off someone who is looking for a reason to drive-by-tag the article in some way - marking it as "orphan" is a common such thing.

Two other opportunities: first don't consider just their birthplace, but other cities/towns/counties with which the person was long associated. Second, if the person is deceased and the burial cemetery has an article, add them to the "notable burials" section. This is a good way to link together people who are associated with the history of that town in a way that encourages serendipitous browsing. I've even created articles for cemeteries that clearly merited one, just so I could add my person to it!

I'm sort of an advisor to another editing project that does focus on page views as a way of motivating their editors. They had a programmer friend whip up a script that scrapes through the official page view data, and aggregates the numbers for all the articles their team has worked on. Its quite encouraging to be able to tell the team - "You've helped create or improve articles that have been read 3 million times in the last year" or however the numbers pan out. They also watch for news stories that might encourage people to read the articles they created and sometimes post graphs of the pageview spikes that occur on "their" articles. --Krelnik (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Very good suggestions, Joe Roe and I try to remember to do the first four of them, but not sure what you mean by searching for refs to their work and adding |authorlink=. Can you clarify on this one please?

Krelnik I am intrigued by your role as an 'advisor to another editing project that does focus on page views as a way of motivating their editors'. I'm wondering if the script you mention could be used by Women in Red to give us the same information as it does for this other project? It would be really nice to learn more about this if you feel like sharing. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rosie. Regarding the fifth one, I usually find that most of the search hits for a scholar's name will be citations to their work in a references list, rather than direct mentions in the body of the article. All the citation templates support making author names into wikilinks using the authorlink parameter, so I try to do that. Sometimes only their last name will be included in citations, so it helps to search for their last name plus the title of any major works. Hope that's a bit more clear! – Joe (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thanks, Joe Roe.

Looking forward to hearing back from Krelnik first, but, @SusunW and Megalibrarygirl:, maybe we should consider creating a new essay? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Rosiestep! I'll be happy to start one this week. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I will check with the folks in that other project and see if their stats thing is something that could be shared. Oh I didn't specifically call out Joe's comment about authorlink=, but I should have. This is something I've done a ton of. Not just for scholars, it can be good for any sort of writer, if something they've written has been used as a source. --Krelnik (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep The tool used by that other group is on the internet, but it hasn't been built with multiple users in mind. I can share the URL for it privately to look, but I don't want to link it here because its not built with random visitors or search engine bots in mind. But basically it's a PHP app that scrapes the Wikipedia stats data, and then correlates it against a list of articles, editors and tags created by that team. So for instance a given editor can actually go in and get an aggregate stat of how many times the articles they created have been viewed in the last 7 days, 30 days, 1 year and all-time. It works across different language Wikipedias too. The author has a github set up but hasn't posted this particular piece of code. I've pinged him to see if he might put the code up so we could stand up our own version. --Krelnik (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes are something we haven't mentioned. If you look at the bottom of two articles I did Lometa Odom and Bazoline Estelle Usher, you'll see navigation boxes for (respectively) the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame and Georgia Women of Achievement. These are great ways to generate cross-links between bios. Don't forget to add them when appropriate, and we should also be looking for opportunities to create new navboxes of this sort. Don't forget to watchlist the templates for these and look for opportunities to update them. For instance, halls of fame usually have annual induction ceremonies when new names can be added. This is a bit of maintenance work that can have a huge impact by creating both redlinks and cross-links between existing articles. I recently found some links in the WBHOF template were going to unrelated people with similar names, and fixed them so they would properly turn red. --Krelnik (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on that tool, Krelnik. I don't think I'd be a good fit for looking at it if you shared the URL as I'm not very technical, but perhaps Victualler might be interested, and he's certainly more of a techie than me.--Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding images and entries to the Year pages of Wikipedia

I saw @Rosiestep:'s twitter post this morning (Wikipedia's Year pages/ lack of women's images). There is also the usual gap for entries for women per birth year. I am volunteering to go thru the List of female scientists in the 20th century and add entries and selected images to birth year pages for the women listed.

There is also a List of female scientists in the 21st century and I assume other lists of women by century and occupation. Any other volunteers? MauraWen (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, MauraWen. I had posted this in another section, but moving it here as it's a better fit... --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to add more here, relating to something I just posted on Twitter. I'm currently adding the women's biographies that are associated with my WVS position into [year] articles, and it's annoying to see how few -if any- images are on those pages compared to men's photos, e.g. 1799. I'm adding a few, here and there, but want to stay focused on my task of adding women's biographies into the correct pages so I haven't given this the attention it deserves. Hope others see this as important and give it some attention. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I have several women's biographies to add to the deaths section of 1894. As it stands now, the page has 26 images of men; and 0 of women. #systemicbias --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep. I did not think of deaths, I will add those also for the female scientists. Are you primarily interested in adding images to the Year pages, or do you want all the 20th century female scientists added? Also, should we be encouraging editors who are creating new scientist profiles to add them to the 21st century list of female scientists? Is it important to have all 21st century scientists on that list? MauraWen (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am a bit confused. I was referring to what you just posted on twitter. Was there something else posted in another section that relates to Year? Either way, I think its all covered now. MauraWen (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MauraWen, I've moved the original section on this topic down here to keep the subject matter together. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding adding biography links to additional lists, I think it's important to add them to every appropriate list page. Currently, we don't have consensus on how to define "every appropriate list page" for articles within our scope. But stay tuned as Megalibrarygirl is going to start an essay page on this very topic, and of course, we can all contribute towards that effort. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have followed these discussions with interest. My own contribution to attracting attention to the women's biographies we create has been to enhance category coverage (especially categories for women's occupations by country) and, even more important, to create lists of women for the more important occupations. See, for example, Lists of women, Category:Women by nationality and Category:Women by nationality and occupation. Unfortunately, many new articles about women are not given the necessary categories and fewer still are included in pertinent lists. From time to time, I try to update the lists, not just with names but with pertinent information, but this takes up considerable time and effort. May I encourage you all to help us along.--Ipigott (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rosiestep and Ipigott: I was adding entries and images of women on Year pages yesterday and I noticed that as I was increasing coverage of women to those pages, I also was adding primaily white women from America, the United Kingdom and Europe. The list of 20th century female scientists is predominantly white women from UK and the U.S. I am going to slow down, and look beyond this list to find women of color, women with nationalities that are underrepresented on the Year pages. More diversity overall on the Year pages, for both men and women, is a good plan. MauraWen (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Update. some guy removed two images of African American women right after I added them, and he is being fussy (my opinion) about my txt edits. I'm not sure how to handle this kind of response/reaction, it has not happened before. MauraWen (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • MauraWen, I encountered the same behavior. :( --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirects (or hatnotes or dab page entries)

Having created your article, especially a biography, please integrate it into the encyclopedia by making redirects from every other name by which the subject might be referred to. This has three benefits:

• The reader is more likely to find her, whatever version of her name they've found which brings them to look for her
• Red links in existing or future articles will turn blue, if they use a different form of her name than the article title. In particular, lists of award winners such as Fellows of the Royal Society tend to use the fullest form of someone's name, but also any another editor may have referred to her by any variation of her name.
• Future editors are less likely to accidentally create a duplicate article because they didn't search carefully and missed the existence of this one, having used a different version of the name.

In some cases instead of a redirect you'll need to add a hatnote to an existing article, or add an entry to a disambiguation page.

At minimum, make a redirect from every version used in any of your sources, or any variation or pseudonym mentioned in the article, including the full name used in the lead sentence if it's not exactly the article title. Consider second (and further) given name(s) present or omitted, birth (and other) surname(s), abbreviated forms, all likely combinations thereof. Versions with and without diacriticals, or capitalisation of elements like "de/De". If she published or is ever referred to using a middle initial (Jane T. Smith) then use that too. If she's hyphenated, link from the version without hyphens. If she's thought ever to have used a hyphen, link from the hyphenated version. Redirects are cheap: be lavish with them.

I sometimes look at WiR lists of articles created and go through adding redirects. Looking at the recent Emily Pitts Stevens, a footnote mentions that she was sometimes called Emily Pitts-Stevens or Emily Pitt-Stevens: lo and behold the redirect I created from the first of those turns blue a redlink in the article on Caroline Nichols Churchill. Result! Then there's Mary Downing, which says "best known by her pen name "Christabel"." - but there wasn't an entry at Christabel until I made one yesterday.

To make a redirect to article "Foo", create a new article with the title from which you want to redirect and type #REDIRECT [[Foo]]. That's all. Or use the tool in the "Wiki markup" part of the editing interface, or do whatever Visual Editor (which I don't use) offers. It's dead easy anyway, and helps make your newly-created article more accessible. Sorry if I seem to keep boring you all about redirects, they are indeed a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, but they are just so useful! PamD 15:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, PamD. These are all good points to remember, and we should include them in our upcoming Essay. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

‘The Finkbeiner Test’

Though published in 2013, I was previously unaware of the article and found it to be interesting. Do you think we should incorporate the Finkbeiner test in our essay on writing about women in general, scientists in particular? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep:: Not this article but perhaps excepts from this Nature article.--Ipigott (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

GSA artists' database

The General Services Administration maintains a database of artwork commissioned under the auspices of the United States federal government; a list of artists can be found here. Like many sources, it's far from perfect - for one thing, there are a lot of artists in the list for whom biographical information is not available, either on the website or elsewhere. But it makes for an interesting starting point - there are a lot of people on the list I've never encountered before. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao for keeping us informed, but lists of names without any references are not very useful. Someone would need to see whether there are indications of sufficient notability for our purposes.--Ipigott (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't refer to it as the WMF anymore

In case you were unaware, here is guidance about how to refer to the Wikimedia Foundation, its departments, and so forth. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Suggestion

(1) We need an article on Working class autobiography. There are a number of books on this subject: [8]. (2) Some of these history books are themselves notable, with many book reviews, as are the historians who wrote them. (3) There is scope for articles about the authors of nineteenth century working class autobiographies due to coverage in the aforementioned books. Some of these are female. (4) Examples would include the authors of Aunt Janet's Legacy to Her Nieces (Janet Bathgate, 1895), A Childhood in the Fens about 1850-1860 (Mrs Burrows, 1931), 97th Birthday Reminiscences (Elspeth Clark, 1941), A Little of My Life (Lucy Luck, 1926), The Autobiography of Mary Smith, Schoolmistress and Nonconformist (1892). (These examples, and Catherine Horne, might be the only examples from the first half of the nineteenth century). (5) I can't commit to do these myself. James500 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could start by adding something to the articles on Autobiography and Proletarian literature. Separate articles could certainly be created on the authors and works you mention, providing they are backed by appropriate sources. There seems to be quite a bit on Janet Bathgate. Not too sure about the others. We should also add pertinent names to our crowd-sourced redlist on writers.--Ipigott (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC). Repinging with the correct user name.--Ipigott (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WiR Monthly achievement initiative

As there was far less interest in the monthly achievement initiative in September than in August (when it was launched), we have decided not to repeat it in October. We are thinking of coming up with something new to attract new participants in a month or two. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. In the meantime, perhaps some editors like the idea of adding flags, user names, etc., to the lists of articles they create. We could of course offer this option on our normal meetup lists. Anyone interested?--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes please, on the flags--they're easy to do and visually efficient. Penny Richards (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Actress Kathleen Kerrigan

I have created a stub article, Kathleen Kerrigan (actress) in response to seeing Kerrigan's name on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Actresses - US. I don't know how to get the red link removed from that page, since that link actually goes to "Kathleen Kerrigan (Q11297117)". Perhaps someone who knows more about the list than I do can remove the red link so that some other editor doesn't see it and start to work on another article about the same person. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata is now linked to the new page. The redlink will be automatically removed from that table in the next day or so, if I understand the process correctly. Bakazaka (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bakazaka. I wasn't sure how that worked. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ambitious Toronto women in religion event: 1000 Women in Religion Project

In connection with the Parliament of World's Religions (November 1 to 7), there are plans to write Wikipedia biographies of 1,000 women religious leaders, drawing on the involvement of religious scholars, high school students and journalists. The event's co-chair, Elizabeth Ursic, provides details of her Wikipedia plans here.--Ipigott (talk) 09:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this update, I tried searching for notable Nigerian women Christian pastors, whom I could write on, and to my greatest surprise I found NONE! As a matter of fact, the only other two I saw was Bimbo Odukoya and Margaret Idahosa. Although, I was able to find some other women pastors, but most got coverage because their husband was a notable pastor. As a Christian myself, I think this is one area Africa is really behind as I can't think of any women pastor that became notable on her own (I'm aware of the likes of Joyce Mayer, etc who are notable in their own right). I'll search for women leaders and adherents to African traditional religions, hopefully the case will be different in that dimension. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: I don't know if this is of use to you, but there are some biographies of Nigerian figures in the Dictionary of African Christian Biography, here (please note that they are sorted by country but not further by gender). Not sure how many of them might meet the notability standard. More broadly, I have found a number of women religious figures from Africa in various sources over the years - offhand I recall some founders of independent sects, for instance.

For anyone who might be interested in assisting with this initiative, I might point you also to The Westminster Handbook to Women in American Religious History. It's a fascinating, albeit somewhat flawed, resource; I've used it to create a number of articles, and I know there are plenty more that can be mined from its pages. It also indicated to me that this is an area in which we lack a significant amount of coverage, as there are numerous firsts and church founders I discovered in there who lacked articles on Wikipedia. It also showed me that this is an area in which we will most likely need to turn to books for sourcing; there's a dearth of online material available for many of the figures in the book. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I have noted the source, I also went through some of the feminine names. I'll go through them thoroughly soon. You always have solutions (sources) for the most difficult sourcing problems. That is a trait I want to imbibe. I'll create at least one prominent woman from this list in this "Ambituous" event. Ps: As October draws nearer, I still have the blogsite for film practitioners from other countries that you gave me sometime ago. Hoping to use it in Oct/November. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: It's usually because I've found them and meant to do something with them, then set them aside and forgotten about them. Just call me a "snapper-up of unconsidered trifles", I guess. :-)

Happy to be of use, always. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott I just want to let you know that I have sent an email to the organization as it was stated in the link you provided that the way to join is to contact them through aar.sbl.womens.caucus@gmail.com. I look forward to getting a reply from them. Regards. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

HandsomeBoy: Thanks. We have also been in touch with them. It looks as if there is a good chance of a tie-up with WiR.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am in touch with the organizer. I suggested that they post something here and also, perhaps, on our Ideas page. I also gave them information about our social media, gave them contact info for Wikimedia Canada (for local assistance), and I offered to speak with them in a phone call (well, Google Hangout or Skype) if they wished. I provide more details as they become known. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi. My name is Colleen Hartung. I am the chair of the 1000 Women in Religion Project. The Women's Task Force of the Parliament of World Religions is partnering with the Women's Caucus of the American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature on this project meant to highlight women's contributions to religious, spiritual, and wisdom traditions worldwide. This is in line with the 2018 Parliament of World Religion’s focus on the dignity of women in the world’s religious and spiritual traditions. The 2018 Parliament takes place in Toronto, November 1-7. Over 6,000 people are expected to attend this event. The long term aim of the “1000 Women in Religion Project” is to add over 1,000 names and contributions of religious/spiritual/wisdom women to Wikipedia. We are working to do this by soliciting names of women who do not already have a biography on Wikipedia from women attending the 2018 Parliament, women who are members of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature and women within their various networks. The members of the 1000 Women in Religion Project Committee are fledgling editors with varying degrees of success at getting our articles published. We have developed tutorials to help other women become editors. We are reaching out to our networks to create opportunities in college classrooms to train and solicit new editors. Our project is a major initiative of the Parliament’s Women’s Task Force and in conjunction with the Women’s Assembly on November 3, we will be announcing our project and then facilitating a presentation where we will inform and train interested women. In short, we are gathering the names of notable women in religion and spirituality, we are writing biographies and we are recruiting and training women editors. Here is the link to the Parliament’s Women’s Task Force page and a description of this project as well as the link for submission, https://parliamentofreligions.org/parliament/womens-task-force/1000-women-religion-project --Dzingle1 (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Dzingle1. Thanks for posting here and on the Ideas page. Here are some links that you and your team might find helpful. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Lists:

• Crowd-generated list that anyone can edit of notable women in religion who don't have an article on English Wikipedia, preferably to include at least one reliable source.
• Bot-generated list of women of religion who have an article on some language Wikipedia but not on English Wikipedia

• Essays:

• Writing about women
• How to run an in-person Wikipedia editing event
• Primer for articles for creation (AfC), nominated for deletion (AfD), or proposed for deletion (PROD)
• Primer for creating women's biographies
• Ten simple rules for Women in Red

Eiraku Myōzen

I knocked this together quickly from the Recent Acquisitions page at the Sackler website; it seems ripe for expansion, but I don't know a lick of Japanese. Anyone who does, please feel free to take a look and expand it - she seems to be quite an interesting figure. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Virtual Community Event - Gender Equity Report -- Oct 9th at 1555 UTC

What are the most pressing issues currently facing the Wikimedia movement with respect to advancing gender equity? What strategies are effective for closing the gender gap in content and contributors? What work has already been done? Join us for a community presentation on October 9 to hear how 65 prominent leaders of gender equity projects responded to these and other questions. We'll discuss highlights from the recently published report, Advancing Gender Equity: Conversations with movement leaders, share ways that you can support gender equity projects in your communities, and have space for discussion. For an overview of the project, check out the recent blog post! Event logistics:

• Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018
• Time: 1555-1700 UTC (please join 5 minutes before the hour to allow for troubleshooting technical issues)
• Information about joining the event, along with discussion questions, are posted here.

Hope to see you there! (Sent on behalf of @Alex Wang and Marti Johnson). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations, Rosie, on devoting considerable time and effort to this venture. I found the presentation on Barriers to equity particularly revealing. It seems to form a sound basis for future action. Hope all goes well on 9 October.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Very cool! I hope to attend. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Alessandro Strumia

This may be off-topic for this discussion page, but the article on Alessandro Strumia looks to be a bit of a controversy magnet (until the brouhaha flickers out, as it typically does), and members of the community here may wish to keep an eye on it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian women activists

Do any of you know about an online WP:RS for Indian women activists? Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: Perhaps this is partly relevant. There are several others on the Feminism in India Site: [9], [10]. I recommend the background info here. Perhaps you should contact them directly, maybe japleen[at]feminisminindia[dot]com . Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott. I'll pass on the information to the person who requested it. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Wikipedia contributor behind 2.5 million edits"

Nice article in the Washington Post about Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Mentions Women in Red. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Don't you just love the desk in the picture? At least two of my WiR articles were used in its creation, though you probably can't see much of them at that resolution. I still have the rosette around here somewhere - perhaps I should wear it to WikiConference North America? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was certainly a very interesting article. I'm glad he mentioned Pohick Church as one of his favourites. I enjoyed reading all the detail he has managed to put together. With a more informative lead and one or two more illustrations (e.g. of the altar), it could certainly be promoted to GA. Now that Ser Amantio has been covered by the Washington Post, I expect we'll see other newspapers take up his story in the near future. Good publicity for WiR too. As for his Wikipedia-papered workspace, I could make out the name of Joanna Quiner. It would be interesting to know the subject of the other WiR article.--Ipigott (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: It's Catharine Carter Critcher. I think you can potentially make out a vague shape on the vase in the background that's the photograph in the infobox. I'm glad - that one's particularly special to me for a number of reasons. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 12:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, bring the rosette; that should be fun! Will you be there for all 4 days? I was fascinated by the découpage. I wondered if it was an optical illusion just for the photo. But if it is real, how was it done? Who did it? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Not all four, no. I'll probably try to fly in sometime Friday...maybe Thursday night. Haven't decided yet. The flower was, indeed, real - maybe I'll photograph it for Commons tonight. :-) It's made of fairly thin sheets of paper - looks like they came off a plotter printer, though I'm not certain. Thin but sturdy; I doubt it will rip easily, though traveling with it might be troublesome. It's backed with a safety pin. It was done by the photo editor at the Post, who set up the backdrop for the shoot as well. Very nicely done, all 'round. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, in that case, maybe leave it at home so it doesn't get damaged. Note, I'm leaving the conference Saturday at 5pm and flying to Belgrade to speak at the international book fair on Monday morning. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just created Maria José de Castro Rebello Mendes (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Diplomats)

Hi, I'm just notifying people here to let you know. I'm not that good with categories on English Wikipedia, or that automatic assessment. Could I get some help? Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 00:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tetizeraz. I enjoyed reading this very nice article. Thank you for creating it. I made a couple of edits, and I added information to the talkpage. You might consider integrating it into Wikipedia by adding it to: Salvador, Bahia#Notable residents, Rebelo, 1891#Births, 1936#Deaths, WIR-00-2018. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Rosiestep! I noticed on the talk page a red link to Template:WIR-OO-2018. Not sure what it is. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Tetizeraz. It should have been Template:WIR-00-2018. I fixed it. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you again Rosiestep! :) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!

I'm posting this message here as there is special provision for covering the gender gap.--Ipigott (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

MacArthur

This year's MacArthur "Genius" awards just came out [11]. We have articles on most of them, and I just added the awards to some existing articles and created a new stub for Livia S. Eberlin, but we still appear to be missing articles on Lisa Parks and Rebecca Sandefur. I'm out of time for Wikipedia article creation until at least this evening. Anyone else want to have a go? Improvements to the new Eberlin article would be welcome as well, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Just started a stub for Rebecca Sandefur that could also use some improvements. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And Lisa Parks (media scholar). Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There is also Becca Heller, who hasn't got an article (Becca Heller) - Dumelow (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed her because the source I used listed only academics. Added another almost-stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

WAM 2018

Is anyone interested in being the Wiki Asia Month liaison this year? WiR has supported the initiative since its inception. As I have a heavy national/international travel schedule between now and mid-December, I won't be able to do any follow-up myself. This is the information they left on my talkpage. Thanks in advance for your consideration to support this event in whatever way you choose. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2018 is now 26 days away! It is time to sign up for WAM 2018. Following are the updates on the upcoming WAM 2018:

• Follow the organizer guidelines to host the WAM successfully.
• We want to host many onsite Edit-a-thons all over the world this year. If you would like to host one in your city, please take a look and sign up at this page.
• If you or your affiliate wants to organize an event partnering with WAM 2018, Please Take a look at here.
• Please encourage other organizers and participants to sign-up in this page to receive updates and news on Wikipedia Asian Month.

If you no longer want to receive the WAM organizer message, you can remove your username at this page. Reach out the WAM team here at the meta talk page if you have any questions.

I think it would be a great pity if the EN Wikipedia was not represented on WAM this year but like you Rosie, I already seem to be bogged down in several other initiatives requiring attention during the same period. As far as I can see, responsibility for the EN wiki does not require much effort. Perhaps Alex Shih, who has admirable Asian connections could take it on. If not, how about Megalibrarygirl?--Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to help once I read more about how this works. Alex Shih (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih I'm happy to help you out, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih I can help too, especially with the wrap up part. That looks like it'll take a lot of work.--Mcampany (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih: We should be able to provide additional support from Women in Red as one of our objectives for creating women's biographies in November will be by prioritizing Asia. We could put together a page similar to the one we posted last year.--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys, sounds awesome. Since the page was set up already it should be straight forward to get this rolling. Alex Shih (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alex Shih: I see that you and several other participants have been using the page created for Asian Women's Month in 2016. I have just created a new page for the 2018 event. The link for participant registration is the same. Those who have already registered do not need to re-register. Alex, please develop the page as you wish and let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Award

Hello, Just noticed this award list (of Giants in the field) and Lovelace Day is coming up, anyone want to complete the list with BLUE links? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I added them to the list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Computer_science#US with a couple links for the Meetup 96 on STEM to also see. The second Tuesday in October is upon us. StrayBolt (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Any OTRS agents here?

We just received (ticket:2018100810000834 ) a plea for an article. Our standard response would be to point them to the place to request an article, but I hate to do that because it's my impression that place is close to a blackhole. The subject's obituary is [here. I'll confess I'm not persuaded, but maybe another set of eyes will reach a different conclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much of anything to work with other than the obit, which is neither here nor there for the purposes of notability. If some of the claimed awards can be independently verified, she might have a shot. But at the moment, I couldn't tell you that they're not outright fabrications. For at least the ones cited to the International Society of Poets, as grandiose as it sounds, this appears to be a Maryland bookstore, which previously ran Poetry.com, which appears to have been a website of some dubious repute. The rest, again, I found no corroborating sources at all. In a search for "DaVinci Diamond" 2007 International Biographical Center, her own obit is the fifth result. GMG^talk 16:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no such award as the "Ambassador of Knowledge" from the University of Cambridge, I am very doubtful of the claim to an "Honorary Doctorate from Cambridge University in England" - very few are given out and only to those highly distinguished in their fields. The International Biographical Centre is a Who's Who scam. The " United Cultural Convention" (which awarded her an "international peace prize") is a "pay for awards" type scam. The "International Association for Finance Planning" doesn't seem to exist apart from in similarly inflated obituaries and "who's who" entries. Not for us - Dumelow (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. Oh well.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata link to deleted Wikipedia articles

I've just learned that approximately 13,000 women's biographies have been deleted from EN-WP but their link to EN-WP article on Wikidata hasn't been deleted. If/When that happens, our metrics will dip. Some of the background conversation is here. I've requested information via email from a source regarding how many men's biographies are also affected. Plus would like to know percentages. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me as if some of the links on Wikidata have indeed already been deleted. The evolving data can be seen on Denelezh's evolving graphs. It looks to me as if the decrease reflected on Wikidata for women's biographies on the EN Wiki is only 3,824 (although the percentage of women's biographies seems to have dropped to 17.64%). Of course this may decrease further if more attention is given to ensuring that Wikidata links to the EN wiki no longer include draft articles, etc. As far as the WHGI stats are concerned, the overall percentage of women's biographies as a proportion of all biographies (now at 17.82%) is still increasing. This is no doubt because links to the EN wiki are also being removed from Wikidata for all other biographies (and not just those about women).--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds (thousands?) of those will be Sander.v.Ginkel articles that should remain as redlinks, since most of them will be notable enough. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You are probably right about SvG. Many of his articles have been saved from drafts but there are still thousands needing attention. Over 10,000 were moved to draft and then deleted. See here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: The change is reflected in the WHGI stats for 9 October which show a net drop of 3,250 in women's biographies as a component of an overall reduction in biographies of 5,450. The Denelezh evolution stats do however show an increase in the number of women's biographies of 565 between 1 and 8 October as a component of an overall increase in biographies for this period of 1,499. There was therefore an increase in new biographies of 37.69% which would normally have put the EN wiki in third place, making it one of our best weeks. Now that the backlog of unedited drafts on Wikidata appears to have been eliminated, we can expect our stats to improve from week to week.--Ipigott (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of notability criteria

Dear all, just a neutral pointer that there is a discussion about a proposed change of WP:PROF going on at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposal_for_addition_to_specific_WP:PROF_notability_criteria that would appear to be of relevance in particular to those writing new biographical articles of academics for Wikipedia. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting the Timeline of Women in Science

Hi all -- I think now would be a good time for some more editors to revisit the Timeline of women in science page. Myself and others have added quite a lot of new content over the past couple of months, and it would be helpful to hear different perspectives on what still needs to be improved. I know I struggled to find any Central/South American women scientists to include, so additions in that area would be great. Current discussions on talk page: is it time to remove the "limited globalization" tag? What kind of role do mathematicians (or physicians) have in the history of science? Should the individual biographies include a link to the Timeline as a "See Also"? Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Any perceptible changes at Women in Red since Donna Strickland's Nobel on October 2nd

I'm being asked if there's been a perceptible change at WiR since news broke out about Strickland not having a Wikipedia article till she was awarded the Nobel in Physics on October 2nd. For example, have we seen a significant change in number of newly-created articles, number of articles within our scope at AfD, number of new members, etc.? Thanks for any asap replies. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: There have not been any significant changes. Indeed, the number of new articles this month is more or less what might have been expected. Although we have a focus on STEM, up to now there have been only 17 new articles (although non-participants may well have created more). Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, last week the proportion of new women's biographies registered on Wikidata was higher than usual between 1 and 8 October, reaching 37.69%.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are you getting that 17 new article number? I consider myself a participant and have created I think 18 new project-related articles this month so far. Is there somewhere I should be listing them so they get recorded? Maybe a missing project banner on the talk page? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I guess that Ian's figure of 17 (now 18) for STEM new articles is from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/96#Outcomes_(articles). Neither Eva Miranda nor Mary Bradburn are listed, so perhaps you don't add to that list. Could explain the stats. PamD 07:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize there was a specific meetup this month that was relevant for my contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I see also that neither the oldest nor the latest of the articles listed on that project page (both by different editors) had got the {{WIR-96}} talk page banner (fixed that just now). Altogether not easy to keep track of WiR's successes! PamD 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And, David Eppstein, you didn't add the project banner to the talk pages of the articles I mentioned above. I'll leave that to you to do, in case you made a deliberate choice not to associate the articles with the project. PamD 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Ah, your post above explains - edit conflict. PamD 07:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I tagged my articles and added them to the list, except for Becca Heller (on-topic for WIR more generally but not for this editathon). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks PamD and David Eppstein. Glad to see we are now up to 35 new articles on STEM. Triggered by the Strickland case, there is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). The proposed new wording looks like a step in the right direction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad they are updating WP:PROF. The essay the AfC reviewer wrote is fascinating User:Bradv/Strickland incident. Are we going to add the A, and make it STEAM? :P Fred (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

How about weekly additions to drafts?

Ritchie333: Would it be possible to automate weekly additions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Drafts, highlighting articles recently turned down? Alternatively, we could perhaps create lists covering one month at a time. This would allow us to check out the work of recent editors and help them with improvements. With all these articles being refused, there must be hundreds of hew editors who just give up.--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: The code can certainly run again and again and regenerate an up to date page. It would remove entries moved to mainspace, and those have been deleted since. At the moment, it would have to be a manual process as I don't have a bot. Unless Cyberpower678, MusikAnimal, Enterprisey or one of the other bot regulars wants to take the code and use that, I'd have to create one and find a server to run it on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333: Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps Headbomb, emijrp or Magnus Manske can help with this? It would be great if we could save 20 or 30 new bios per week.--Ipigott (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding server, Ritchie333, try Toolforge? That's what the bot operators you pinged use anyhow.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much having a server to play with; rather it's just I don't actually have a bot account. I think you need to go through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval even if the program updates one page a week. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Good old Ronhjones is updating his bot to automatically update the draft list. This will hopefully include configuration of search terms and false positives. Some sample output is available at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox4; unless there are any objections, I think we should run with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that old. Just because I've retired... :-) Another trial at User:Ronhjones/Sandbox3 - fixed the date format of last edit to be yyyy-mm-dd, and no time part. The page is not sorted (it "arrives" sorted by wiki, by namesort). We can sort it by the last edit date if desired. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)