Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Let's standardize our Wikidata-generated lists

I attempted to add a column for # and another column for sitelinks to Law (WD) so that it would look like Peace activists (WD). But I didn't do it right. My intent is to standardize our WD lists so that they are identical in how they present information, e.g. (a) size of images (smaller is better IMHO as we basically want to know if there is an image or not, vs. how lovely it might be), and (b) column names/ordering. As creating/editing Wikidata lists is not my area of forte, perhaps someone else would be interested in taking on this task. Thanks in advance for doing so. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Rosiestep: While I am all in favour of standardization, the problem here is that editors have different ideas about how these lists should look. Not too long ago, the # column was deleted from many lists as unnecessary and there have been variations in where the image column should be placed and how large the images should be. For this reason, I am not too keen to embark on further standardization until there is clear consensus by all concerned. Perhaps more is important is feedback on what is missing from specific lists.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the # column was deleted from many lists as unnecessary. I must have missed that discussion. But I won't argue in favor of it if it's already been settled. I think sitelinks is an important column, but it's a relatively new column, I think, and I seem to have missed that discussion, too.

So, pagestalkers, what are the best practices? What are the favored ideas? What makes sense for us? Let's talk about it. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that sitelinks is a useful addition, particularly as there are more and more Wikidata entries based on outside sources rather than Wikipedia articles in the various languages.--Ipigott (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that editors have different ideas about how these lists should look. For the most-part their development has been undertaken by using an existing list for a new scope; because, for the most-part, editors have negligible understanding of SPARQL and of {{Wikidata list}}. To the extent there is variation, it seems to me to arise by the happenstance of which list was used as the source. Lists seem to vary in the following respects:

• Whether or not there is
  • an index number column
  • a sitelinks column
  • an occupation column
  • a nationality column (e.g. tends to be excluded from the 'by country of nationality' set, for obvious good reasons)
  • place of birth & death columns
• Order of columns
• Size of image - I've seen 40 and 120 px image sizes
• Selection criteria - specifically whether there is a requirement that the wikidata item has at least a single sitelink
• Whether or not autolist=fallback is used - using this provides machine-generated descriptions where there is not an en.description on wikidata
• Order of rows - seems to be by DoB except for the by-country lists, which are alpha on the fullname

Of these:

• the main drawback of the index number is that it make seeing changes in diffs difficult, since the addition or removal of a single row causes changes to all subsequent rows, and so one cannot see the wood for the trees. Unless anyone feels that the index is important, I suggest we remove it and instead include a table total at the foot of the table
• sitelinks clearly convey very useful information; difficult to see an argument against
• occupation occasionally imparts info on other things the person is known for: suggest we add this to all non-occupation lists
• nationality - seems generally useful, except on the by-country lists
• place of birth & death - not sure how useful, but doesn't seem harmful
• order of columns - probably not worth fighting over
• size of image - probably needs consensus but I agree with Rosie's take; whether or not an image exists is the most important thing. Thinking about very long lists with very many images, inflicting larger images is unfair to users with slow internet connections or metered bandwidth
• selection criteria - we have for the most-part moved away from the 'needs a single sitelink'; it didn't strike me as either useful or clever, being mainly a way of excluding EN type people who are unlikely to feature on non-EN wikis - i.e. self-defeating.
• use of autolist=fallback - seems mainly harmless & sometimes possibly useful; I've started adding it as I make changes - see e.g. Law
• order of rows - probably needs consensus, but by DoB works for me.

There do not seem to me to be any additional properties in e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42 which beg for inclusion in our lists, not least since the majority of rows will lack data for potential additional properties - e.g. educated at, award received, notable work. One exception might be a column providing a count of external identifiers on a wikidata record (i.e. VIAF, ORCID, etc) which might be a proxy for the quantity of sources of info. But it might just confuse? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I agree with your analysis and suggestions and appreciate the earlier improvements you have made to many of these lists. Your idea of including a table total rather than a number column is very sensible. Maybe we could include the total at the top of the list rather than at the bottom so that it appears on the first screen display. Just to make sure everyone is in agreement, I suggest you give us two or three examples of exactly how you think typical lists of different types should look. That will provide opportunities for any further comments before we agree on a common format.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Thanks for your understanding of the different issues and being able to describe them so clearly. Here's my feedback to your questions: (a) total (at top, like Ipigott suggests) rather than index numbers makes sense; (b) I personally prefer smaller, e.g. 40px, images; (c) I like the look of Law, if that's what you mean by autolist=fallback, (d) regarding order of rows, the Law one looks fine. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sadly {{wikidata list}} offers the summary count only at the bottom of the table. Does that still work for you? Implemented on Law as an experiment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

. Yes, that's ok, Tagishsimon; not a deal-breaker. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This may take some time. I'm taking the opportunity to rejig the sets of occupations that make up lists, in general to include subclasses of occupations, and/or exclude occupations from list A that are covered in list B. Some samples of the current look of the by occupation lists are below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Activists
• Animators
• Anthropologists
• Archaeologists
• Law
• Peace activists
• Trade unionists

• Tagishsimon: I think we can live with the total at the bottom of the list. All your examples look fine to me. I note that there were 33 names on Peace activists compared to only about 21 containing "Peace" in the description on the main Activists list. There therefore seems to be a case for establishing more specific lists within a more general category. I have suggested that we should cover Environmentalists in the coming months -- so there might be a case for adding a more specific list on Environmentalists too. I can only find about 20 on the Activists list which seems surprisingly few.--Ipigott (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Redlist removals?

In which I may from time to time suggest the removal of a redlist, as I'm going through them.

• We have Art critics (138 people, excludes anyone not specifically labelled as an "art critic") and Critics (1086 people, includes art critics). Might we remove the first of these? Wikidata knows of 22 classes of critic; it's not clear to me why one of these has special handling, beyond limited curation of the lists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think we created "Art citics" a while back became of Art+Feminism but I don't have a strong allegiance to retaining it when you can find Art Critics within a Critics WD-list. That said, we do have a lot of sports-related (and artist-related and writer-related) WD lists so hope others give their points of view on this issue. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tagishsimon: I'm not too happy about deleting any of these lists. Nearly all of them were created for a reason. The more specific lists are easier to use than the more general ones. For example, terms such as art critic may not appear in the text descriptions of critics but might appear in the Wikidata details. See also the example of peace activists vs activists.--Ipigott (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. I did come to the realisation, after posting the above, that redlists are linked to, from event pages, and so deleting them would be a very bad thing. Ian's point that whilst individuals may be found in Critics, they'll not be distinguishable because their description does not make clear that they're Art Critics is also valid. So, consider the redlist removal trial balloon well & truly shot down. Of course, there are issues about how many redlists we list ... at what point does the size of the list of lists become bewlidering ... why do Art Critics get promotion but Wine Critics do not. We can worry about that sometime later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon, Ipigott, and Megalibrarygirl:, certainly the Redlist Index has become enormous (yay!) so I wondered if in the future, we might want to have tabs at the top (clickable buttons like on our events pages) with the different categories, e.g. geography, occupation, etc. This would help with showcasing the particular lists in new ways. For example, on the Occupations page, just as we have Sports in a subsection, we could have subsections for Art and for Writing. We could even have a subsection for Critics if we decide to break those out further. And, IMO, a particular list could appear multiple times on such a page, e.g. Art Critics could appear in a Critics subsection as well as in an Art subsection. Regarding a Redlist Index page devoted to Geography, we could include the Universities, although those could also be on a separate Redlist Index page. If we enact this idea, I think it would lead to more redlists as we notice other opportunities (missing lists). --Rosiestep (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Jane is touching on the same area of thought in her post below. There's much to be said about all this, but just right now, too little time; irl getting in the way again. It needs some serious thought, and there are, of course issues. I get the impression we're all supportive of more redlists, more granular detail, better navigation. Now we just need to work through the business of figuring out the detail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Occupations

Nice to see some work done here on organizing red lists! It would be nice at the same time to discuss occupations. I know lots of writers here are interested in various types of writers, but it would be nice to set up an overview of how we want to categorize all women in such a way that we help people find all of them. I suggest for occupation for including any occupation under a "major occupation section". I can think off the top of my head there are these: writers, sportspeople, artist/entertainers, politicians, scientists, religious figures, and society figures/nobles/consorts. Each major category needs an associated Wikidata item for occupation or position held, and then these should be able to correspond to some major wiki category, and then we should agree that all women be given a major occupation on Wikidata plus whatever sub-occupation reflects her field of work. This should be the bottom-up approach to fixing the lists, to determine on this side what we want to track from Wikidata, and not the other way around. I am seeing a lot of really weird occupations in Wikidata coming from (I think) lead sentences on Wikipedias. Jane (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea, Jane023. Tabs for subject headings are a great idea. However, I would like to point out that for me, having an index of all lists in alphabetical order is also useful. I wouldn't want to throw that away, but maybe keep it as one of the tabs. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested right now in journalists, and it would be great to have that standardized so I know I don't have to check out every woman whose occupation is listed as writer in order to find what I'm looking for. Add educators and businesspeople as major occupation categories. Also, would nurses and mathematicians fall under scientists? Would philanthropists fall under society figures? Where do inventors go? Military? And has someone else already invented this wheel? valereee (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ooh Valereee I am also interested in journalists but sadly many women lack bylines/kayrons (I don't even know how to spell kayron because I just watch these flip by on CNN or other news stations but the thing itself is never named). We now have a property for muckrack so that can be added as an id. For news journalists that are known mostly from TV, they are still writers (however strange that may seem). So I would suggest, in order, a wikidata occupation of writer, then journalist, then TV personality (if applicable). Jane (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Apropos this general discussion, here's a wikidata report providing counts of the number of women withough en.wiki articles, by occupation. Quick take-aways are, 107,163 such items have no occupation specified (encoded rather opaquely as "concept of unknown value in Wikibase"); there are 3,350 distinct occupations in the list; but there's a power law / long tail pattern. The bottom line, as Jane alludes, is that occupation coding in wikidata is primative and mostly absent. Although there are other properties we can look at - such as genre - these too will be primitive and mostly absent. So, silk purse / sow's ear territory, I'm afraid. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes Tagishsimon, I agree. The state of User:Jane023/Number of women per occupation is a huge mess near the bottom. I do try to pick at it once in a while, but it is pretty thankless work. Jane (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Can Wikidata handle multiple wikisource entries

Jane023 and/or others: If a person has multiple English Wikisource entries, it seems like you can only add 1 to her Wikidata entry, and so I've placed the extra ones in the External links section of the EN-WP biography, e.g. Elizabeth Stuart Phelps Ward. Or is there a more proper way of handling this issue? --Rosiestep (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What you've done is appropriate, Rosiestep. The wikisource sitelink in the wikidata item for the individual is supposed to point to the individual's entry on wikisource - which it does. Each of the articles on wikisource about the individual are listed in her wikisource page in the 'Works about Phelps' section (well, three of the four are, the other should ideally be added), and can optionally be added as ELs in her en.wiki article, as you have done. Optionally, wikidata can have a discrete single item for each of the works, which would point to her wikidata item, and be pointed to from her wikidata item, using a property such as 'described at URL' or somesuch. DNB articles, for instance, tend to have discrete wikidata items; but in this case it does not look as though the wikisource articles have wikidata items, and so it will remain until someone decides to 'fix' that lack. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon. BTW, nice Ted talk. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCite offers inspiration for future Wikidata projects

This blogpost by LiAnna (Wiki Ed) talks about WikiCite and Wikidata, topics which interest me a lot, and perhaps some of you. It contains a mention of and link to my presentation during WikiCite 2018's plenary (thank you, LiAnna!). In my presentation, I talk about Women in Red, the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, and more. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Women in Green - 2019 Goals

As a quick update for the new year: in 2018, Women in Green participants submitted a collective total of 27 new GA article nominations about women. For 2019, group members have agreed on two separate goals: (1) submit a collective total of 20 GA article nominations about women and women's works related to suffrage, and (2) submit a collective total of 20 "Wildcard" GA article nominations about women and women's works of any kind. All interested editors are welcome to contribute to these goals and Women in Green as a whole (there is a participant list on the project mainpage!), and the Talk page is open for questions and discussions about the GA nomination/review process. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discord link

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to join me on WIkipedia:Discord. Me and a couple of WIR members here chat here very frequently on the #general and #english_wikipedia channels. It'd be awesome if other members joined as well :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable American Women books

Came across this 5 volume book while at the Resource Exchange. They are available on the Internet Archive (requires account:) Volume 1-3 covers deaths from 1607-1950, Volume 4 covers deaths between 1951-1976 and Volume 5 finishes up the 20th century. There are other similar naming books as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a wikilinked list of women covered in the first three volumes, too. (Though be aware that not all of the redlinked women are actually missing articles, since there are a lot of naming variations between the book and Wikipedia.) TheCatalyst31 ^{R articleeaction•Creation} 04:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Help to progress some article outlines started at an editathon?

Morning folk,

Myself and Thoughtfortheday ran an editathon last week in the UK - details here

It was a great event, but as is often the case we hit some snags! I think we were a bit ambitous layering other elements into the time we had, the perenial 'IT problems' and just generally thinking that new editors would be able to get a draft ready for mainspace from a standing start as non editors.

I would love to go back to the young men and women who attended in a couple of weeks and show them how their drafts have been picked up and developed into stubs/articles in mainspace by the community. I've listed out the draft work they did here

If anyone feels able to 'Adopt a female scientist' from here and work up to the point where it can be reviewed or straight publish, can you pop your user name and a link to your draft next to them in my sandbox and drop me a note when you're done? We can then share on our participants talk pages.

Thank you to anyone who has a bit of time to pitch in! Leela0808 (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is indeed difficult to bring completely new participants up to the level where they can write acceptable articles at editathons. For most of them, it is quite an achievement to get them to add acceptable additions to existing articles. I've looked through the drafts on your list but the only one approaching mainspace standard was Evelyn May Cridlan, which I've now tidied up and moved. I'm afraid that for the others, it would be easier for me to create biographies from scratch - and in any case I am not too keen on working with BLPs. Maybe you could provide further guidance to your participants by email, encouraging them to improve their drafts.--Ipigott (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ipigott! Appreciate the quick reply. Unfortunately I don't think posting on these users talk pages in the way you suggest will be as effective as linking to a worked up article in mainspace and encouraging them to expand it. So, the type of help I'm looking for is simply anyone who can make time to develop articles based on the work already done - some are more complete than others. The Evelyn May Cridlan one you have approved (thanks!) was written by me and is an example of the type of help I am looking for from other editors. If you (or others) don't like BLP write ups, no problem, I think at least one article (Isabel Harwich) isn't a BLP. If you dont have time or inclination to develop one then again, no problem, but that is what I was asking for in terms of support. Leela0808 (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tidied up this one Draft:Yuki Okoda, which is promising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808:This is a fascinating list that deserves to be studied. It shows exactly how much you can achieve in one day. It gives a snapshot of newbies impressions of the way forward- FE teaching of volunteers is like herding cats! You can expect them to lose focus and follow their dreams.

The secret of FE teaching is preparation, so you as the tutor appear competent. You must remain focused on what you want to achieve. The technology must work-- passwords, firewalls and wikimedia restrictions. The tutorial material must work and not just look good. What are we trying to do explain what Wikipedia in about (irrelevant), explain how to use an arcane markup language (painful) or a half developed visual editor (more painful) or the content we want in the style we want or just defend our corner. Or do we want a nice talk about the achievements of the hosting department- or just to get through to coffee. Focus- and give the students the tools they need to do the job, and monitor them to keep them on task. They are volunteers so we have a professional duty to do our job professionally so we don't waste their time.

As you know I have produced a handbook File:Women in Red Creating an article-8 Mar 2017.pdf- but no longer can recommend it- it is too broad. The grey WMUK does not stay on focus- it is publicity material that encourages the student mind to wander. We need better.

It seems that the students had access to a departmental facebook- with minibios.

• Activity. Turn these CVs into real sentences with verbs, full stops, and paragraphs. (Or cry for help- if you are not a native speaker)
• Activity. Write it in the style and general reader will understand.
• Activity. Put in references- No fancy style <ref> Book Name </ref> at this stage.
• Activity. Add wikilink brackets for every term that the general reader may need help with- and no more

I wasn't there and normally avoid WP:BLP but there obvious sections. Birth and early Education. Education. Research Career. Consequences of Research-- tell the student to stay on focus, and ignore the twiddly bits. Just get down the interesting facts, reference them, comment and question in the edit summary

• Activity. Add the standard categories[[Category:1889 births]] [[Category:1961 deaths]][[Category:Liverpool University alumni]] [[Category:People from Liverpool]]:[[Category:British women physicists]]

Real life is constraining me at the moment but I will have a look in greater depth in the next two days, lets not waste the learning opportunity, greetings to yourself and your students.ClemRutter (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808: From your list, I have an interest in working on Anne Kelso and had already collected info on her, after I added her to the List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science mid-2018. I'll see how I go editing in my research. I will, however, need to see help here with assessing the move from sandbox to mainspace. Oronsay (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808, A big thank you to you and Thoughtfortheday for facilitating the editathon. I know this takes time and commitment, and I hope there are opportunities for you to continue doing so in 2019, e.g. perhaps for Ada Lovelace day. Feel free to reach out again, either here or on my talkpage, if you'd like to brainstorm. As for the list you provided, I will see what I can find on the non-BLPs, e.g. Isabel Harwich. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Leela0808: Thanks for organising this and trying to recruit some new young editors! I hope they will stay around.

Something they don't seem to have taken on board is the importance of references, especially for BLPs but for anything else too. The article I'm looking at has detailed dates of her career, which must have come from somewhere, but no indication of where. If there's no time to complete an article it's useful to stick the list of sources into the talk page as "sources for potential article expansion", or alternatively to over-source the first line of the text by citing all available references, to get them into the article and allow other editors to pick them up to develop the article.

I've yet to find a source for the detailed cv-type content which the article creator put into what's now Draft:Angela Seeney, but I'm piecing together a few sources and I think she might just pass notability. PamD 08:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Leela0808 moved Cleone Benest to mainspace. ODNB is sufficient for notability, but there were other sources as well (and a photo!) SusunW (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a fabulous, fascinating article! Nice work! valereee (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think it might qualify for DYK -- it's got one more day since it's been expanded five times valereee (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Valereee all good, it was only moved to mainspace today, so it is effectively created today. Time in the sandbox doesn't count for DYI timeline. If you want to nominate it, feel free. I am sure Weronikagrocholska would be happy for the exposure. SusunW (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Angela Seeney now in mainspace, though just a stub. PamD 10:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Would someone care to take a look at Anne Kelso and, if acceptable, move to mainspace? There are several redlinks for her, including at her workplace, National Health and Medical Research Council. I believe it's ready, but if not, do please let me know. Oronsay (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Ipigott, SusunW - Not sure whose attention to attract but hopefully one of you can move the draft of Anne Kelso into mainspace, if you feel it meets requirements. See my earlier request, immediately above. Oronsay (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oronsay Moved; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon - Many thanks! Oronsay (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oronsay sorry, I have been off quite a bit since mid December due to real life commitments. Tagishsimon Thank you so much, you are much faster than me. SusunW (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable female sociologists lacking a Wikipedia article

Cross-posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women# Notable female sociologists lacking a Wikipedia article with thanks to Praemonitus. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

While investigating an article for Dr. Susan Myra Kingsbury, I chanced upon the following paper:

Luo, Wei; Adams, Julia; Brueckner, Hannah (2018), "The Ladies Vanish?", Comparative Sociology, 17 (5): 519–556, doi:10.1163/15691330-12341471 Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLuoAdamsBrueckner2018.

It specifically mentions certain notable women sociologists who are lacking articles on Wikipedia. Just thought it might be of interest. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 10:36 am, 19 November 2018, Monday (1 month, 17 days ago) (UTC−8)

@Praemonitus: It's even open access too! I downloaded a copy and going to extract the names. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's at https://brill.com/abstract/journals/coso/17/5/article-p519_3.xml. PamD 16:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft article for Kathy J. Warden

Hi there! I work for Northrop Grumman, and I'm working to improve a few Wikipedia articles related to the company. I've drafted a new article about Northrop Grumman's CEO, Kathy J. Warden. Here's a link to the draft article --- User:JanAtNorthropGrumman/Kathy J. Warden. I believe she meets Wikipedia's eligibility criteria and I've tried to be neutral and objective here.

The draft summarizes her educational background, career, board service and recognition based on reputable sources. I've disclosed my affiliation with the company on my profile page as well as the draft page. I've posted at WikiProject Women, and I think WikiProject Women in Red may be interested in this draft as well. I know I should not make the article live on my own, so are any editors willing to take a look and update the article for me? All feedback is welcome, and thanks! JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Rosiestep for moving the draft article into creation. Would you be willing to update Kathy J. Warden's title in the article to "Chief Executive Officer and President" in the text and infobox? This change went into effect on January 1, 2019. JanAtNorthropGrumman (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

JanAtNorthropGrumman, sure; done. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Welshwomen

http://www.100welshwomen.wales/ is a new list of 50 historic and 50 current important Welshwomen. Haven't yet checked how many are already blue links, or perhaps on cy.wiki. PamD 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps not that new - goes back to May 2018 apparently. Did we notice it then? PamD 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

We did, albeit w.r.t. a Wales Online article, not the dedicated website. But the names are the same, I think. Archive_42#Wales_online_list. Equally, Welsh Women; can't get enough of them, frankly, and there's clearly work still to be done. Rosiestep went through the historic 50, and found the following still required articles ... and it's not clear that anyone has yet been through the present-day women. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agnes Twiston Hughes, 1st woman solicitor to qualify in Wales (1895-1981)
• Rachel Sheldon Bromwich, Welsh culture/language scholar (1915-2010)
• Joan Coke, woman police constable (1914-1988)
• Jessie Donaldson, anti-slavery campaigner (1799-1889)
• Cecily Williams-Ellis, founding member, Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) (1900-1992)
• Charlotte Price-White, teacher; suffragist (1873-d)

Heather Unruh

I've cleaned this up & added an infobox but it still has an orange tag for not having an encyclopedic tone if anyone wants to a bit of work on it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the tone tag. The article is short, and in a sense each section is shorter still; but there's nothing wrong with the tone. (Don't let its tagless status dissuade you from adding to it, though.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

In response to the encouragement of this group, I am currently working on a biog of a female actor. However she has exactly the same name as another woman whose biog is on Wikipedia. So should I title my article "female name (actor)", or "female name (actress)"? The WP biogs of Judi Dench and Meryl Streep are both described as "actress" in their first paragraph, but this appears to conflict with information about the word, "actress," in the article, Actor - hence my wish to get this right. Storye book (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I always use 'actor' unless it's a trans woman, in which case I prefer 'actress'. It's an outdated term but in the case of a trans woman could cause confusion on whether offense was intended. valereee (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We appear to have articles using both conventions e.g. Nancy Allen (actress) and Amarilis (actor), although "(actress)" appears more frequent at least among the American female actor categories that I scanned to find these examples. Because we have both, I think it's something for the editor creating the article to choose. My own choice would be for the more gender-neutral "(actor)". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been checking through a number of category listings and the common practice is actress. Amarilis (actor) seems to be an exception. (The first line of her bio is "Amarilis is an American television actress.") I know Wikidata doesn't allow actress as an occupation but in my experience, in English we nearly always refer to female stage or film performers as actresses. I think we can overdo the gender avoidance game. How about governess, empress, headmistress, priestess, waitress, etc., etc.?--Ipigott (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata tells me that 1159 en.wiki article names use (actress) and 16 use (actor), for the set of records having gender=female and occupation=actor/actress. Make of that what you will. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Because I'm usually writing about 19c/early 20c women, I use "actress" as the description in the top; but I'll still write, "Mary married fellow actor John" or "Mary was one of the fifty actors who signed the petition." So I guess, for most of my articles on this topic, she's an actress, but she's also in the larger category of actors. Penny Richards (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a general lack of societal consensus about it. "Actress" is used by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and in most articles I've seen. I did find one old archived discussion on it, but no definitive guidance. Nick Number (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WHAAOE Actor#The term actress, per Storye book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My goodness, so the usage pattern on WP is so various as to leave us with a choice? Thank you, everybody for all this information - it is much appreciated. In the case of the biography I'm working on, and in view of what you have told me, I think I now know what the woman concerned would wish me to do. Storye book (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: well, here she is - Alice Marriott (actress). Enjoy. And thank you, Women in Red, for prompting me to do this. I found her in a random search for "Mrs" in the British Library archive, and thought I'd be smirking at yet another British eccentric - but the research has given me great respect for her and her achievements. So, power to the Women in Red movement. Storye book (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's an epic article, Storye book. Thank you & very well done. Hats off to you. (And she'd be chuffed to bits, I reckon.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Storye book (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

New Statesman article

That'll be Dr. Alice White - User:Zeromonk - (and friends) again - a NewStatesman article: From Chinese spies to award-winning geologists, we’re making women visible on Wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I've just posted a link to this article to a Facebook group that I administer, Women Write Wiki, based in Sydney, Australia. And I also tweeted it to my followers to spread the word. Oronsay (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

and Ewan McAndrew who organises the only monthly Women in Red meetup I know. Great coverage and well balanced IMO. Well done all. Can anyone add this to wiki articles - it should be reffed in Gender Gap IMO? Victuallers (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Victuallers: Yes, I agree. It's one of the most comprehensive articles on the Wikipedia women problem. I've added it to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Press (which is seldom viewed) but am not sure what you mean by reffing in Gender Gap.--Ipigott (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh I meant here, I should have been more thorough. At the mo' "journalists" like to say that the lack of women on Wikipedia is due to the lack of editors who are women. This argument is silly but is a nice hooky "story" so its repeated. To my mind this wiki article puts forward that myth but I feel too close to it to edit it myself. Pleased to see that WIR has been tacked on but it doesn't mention that we have a different approach of using editors of any gender because systemic bias cannot be addressed by just changing our editor's gender choice. (Altho obvs diversity is good too). Yep I know I'm preaching to the choir/converted. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be very wary of dismissing the link as a 'myth' used by journalists. Yes, the gender gap in biographies has complex drivers, but the gender gap in editors is one of those factors. It may get simplified in reporting, but that does not diminish the validity. There are plenty of academics who study Wikipedia who make the connection (cf. Konieczny & Klein 2018). As editors we should avoid being sanguine about the causes of the disparity. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Focus on suffrage

For our focus on suffrage: --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I added wording that the campaign would also include anti-suffragists. I hope that was ok. I've come across some anti-suffragists in the last few years and I thought their points of view shouldn't be left out. I was bold in making this change without seeking consensus, but I am open to the opinions of others and am ok with being reverted.
• I was wondering if we wanted to create a special logo for Template:WIR-107, perhaps a black heart with white woman silhouette or black woman with white heart? At some point, suffragists were encouraged to wear white, ergo the suggestion.

I'll try to work up a graphic, Rosiestep. It'll be a day or so. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with you on the anti-suffragists, Rosie. I've included them in the intro.--Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned the logo for WIR-107. I noticed higher up on the page under Add to article talk pages, it lists a template as WIR-01-2019. Are the WIR-01-2019 and WIR-107 templates the same thing? Is there a way to distinguish which should be used? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Knope7: Thanks for bringing this up. I think I must be to blame for this. When I created the Suffrage page, as it is to stretch throughout the year, I based it on Meetup/00/2018 for #1day1woman and called it Meetup/01/2019. After Rosiestep moved it to the more standard meetup designation of Meetup/107 and moved the template to WIR-107, I tried to make the necessary changes but failed to spot the article banner. I have now changed it to WIR-107. In fact, Knope7, it doesn't really matter whether you use WIR-01-2019 or WIR-107 as they both work but I think that from now on it would be more logical to use WIR-107 -- so I've now changed those on the articles already created.--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

WIR-108 #1day1woman2019

In this connection, Rosie, I see that although you changed the meetup page for #1day1woman to WIR-108, you did not change the template which is still WIR-00-2019. Maybe this is intentional in order to maintain more or less the same format as last year?--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott - I should have changed that one, too! I will do so now. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have created WIR-108, updated the WIR-108 event page to reflect this new template, and changed the revised the template on all the talkpages associated with this event. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep - I am confused. The meetup page for #1day1woman still shows both WIR-00-2019 and WIR-108. If we are supposed to be using WIR-108 the incorrect one needs to be removed and banners changed on talkpages using the incorrect one. Oronsay (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Oronsay, thanks for noticing and you are right. That task still needs to be done. I think I've made all the necessary changes but if I missed anything, would appreciate anyone else making the fix. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Separate question concerning talkpage banners, when I add an image to an article, should I add the relevant banner to its talkpage? Oronsay (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter header image

Recently joined Twitter, for my sins, and am following the Women in Red Twitter a/c. I was surprised to find that the image header shows the lead of an old version of Fran Walsh with the second & third sentences reading "She is the partner of filmmaker Sir Peter Jackson. They have two children...[names redacted]"

I thought this was the kind of writing about women -- defined by their relationships -- that we were struggling to avoid? Indeed the lead was edited nearly a year ago to remove this infelicitous effect [1]. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I see the image has now been changed, although tbh I did a double-take at the choice of Princess Stéphanie of Monaco, who, quite apart from her inherited position, is described in the lead of her article as "the youngest child of Rainier III, Prince of Monaco, and the American actress Grace Kelly. She is the younger sister of Albert II, Prince of Monaco, and Caroline, Princess of Hanover. Currently 13th in the line of succession to the Monegasque throne", before an addendum of "she has been a singer, swimwear designer and fashion model." I'm sure she has. I'm equally sure there are other candidate women who are NOT MAINLY DEFINED BY THEIR RELATIONSHIPS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed! It looks like it changes ~daily, which I hadn't realised when I noted the above. It does seem to be driving quite a bit of traffic (perhaps more than the main page, which I think might be more important for long-term editors than the great bulk of casual editors & readers). Does anyone know how the women are chosen? And on a sidenote, today's highlighted article on Evelyn Dove was getting a spate of racist vandalism this morning, which is another thing to watch out for. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Days of the year

I’m working steadily on adding existing women to the Day of the Year posts, and checking the balance of the associated anniversaries content (which then appears under ‘on this day’ on the homepage). For example, I added two events to January 13 and made some tweaks to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 13. I’m going through by day, but I’m happy to start going through the women we turn blue (prioritising the GA nominations) to check their births/deaths are listed and suggested for the anniversary section. I’ll probably get to it once a week or so. That should mean women’s biographies become more visible. Moira Paul (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start and added the born/died dates for Aletta Jacobs, Hannah Arendt and Ruth A. M. Schmidt to the relevant anniversaries pages. I saw some redlink names in the Aletta article, in the section on Dutch suffrage, so I'll add them to the relevant redlist. Moira Paul (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Moira Paul. Certainly I think we should prioritize women's biographies at the GA level, as well as suffragists. I got some pushback when working on this task myself a few months ago (adding women writers) so I stopped. Perhaps some tips/tricks might be useful for those of us who aren't as familiar with this area. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed some pushback on my first attempts too, Rosiestep, which is why I've decided to focus on GA first as it is harder for those to fail the 'notable' criteria. I'm also going to try some notable anniversaries for the 'on this day' events as I already have a list of some. I'll report back on how it is going in a few weeks and maybe add some tips here for biog authors. I also need to work out how to make a redlist - but that's for another night! Moira Paul (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who used to patrol main-page errors, where there used to be long & occasionally acrimonious debates over these (and not in any sense on behalf of those who administer this area): (1) make the suggestions well in advance so that everyone has a chance to check the article; (2) make sure the GA is truly acceptable quality for the main page (ie fully referenced, including lists of works, & not drifted into disrepair since it was last reviewed); (3) don't push too hard -- I don't believe there was consensus at Errors for having 3 women, or even 2/3 women more than occasionally back when I was last looking at this regularly; (4) make sure the bios chosen are actually likely to be *interesting* to a general reader; when I've had to choose these at the last minute myself (after something was pulled), I've sometimes gone with a short but well-referenced B-class article on someone with a fascinating story over a dull but worthy GA/FA; (5) bear in mind that there's more to balance than just the m:f ratio (era, field, region of world are the usual ones). And finally, adding reliable references to candidate articles is another way of improving their likelihood of appearing. I notice for example that Agatha Christie is queued, yet has a section tagged for lacking references, which makes it susceptible to challenge. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Would there be any interest in including a section somewhere on Women in Red identifying "Women of the month" based on the dates of birth, etc.? It may also be interesting to add something similar on suffragists and suffragettes to coincide with our month-by-month coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Espresso Addict, those are good tips. I agree with the need to balance on several axis. If there are multiple women eligible in the born/died section for a day, I'll look to suggest one or two who are may be more interesting for being less obviously known. For example, I added a woman from Africa in the January 13 page so there was someone from outside the European or North American spheres. Not sure it got there, in part due to the short timeframe. I'm starting with the GA to help me create short lists to try this with. I did briefly look at women who have turned from red to blue this month and realised it would be a Sisyphean task to go through them all! Moira Paul (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Moira Paul! People with interesting lives that the average reader won't have heard of before is exactly what the slots are there for. Winnie Byanyima, yes? Looks like Howcheng has picked it up for this year. The suggestions stay in place for future years, so those passed over might well feature next year. The other thing you might think about is checking errors a few times the day beforehand to see if anyone's found a problem, but beware it's quite intense there; it can be a bit abrasive. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't think there is consensus to NOT have 3 women either. We've run several days of all women in the births/deaths, for example. In the regular blurbs, there is a preference for topic variety, so if there are for example two blurbs about suffragettes, that wouldn't fly. But let's say you have one scientific discovery, one crime, and one war item (all involving women) that would be totally fine (assuming of course they meet article quality standards). As for notability, that's certainly more subjective, but I'll pass over decent articles in the births/deaths if it's just random noble for example. —howcheng {chat} 01:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! I think I’ll be sticking to making suggestions rather than getting into the Errors chat simply due to how much time I have. I’ve already identified the extent to which I could happily disappear down the rabbit hole on this and neglect the work I should be focussing on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moira Paul (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

FPs for January 11th

Let's see. Since last time, the Leila Usher and Sue Gardner images failed to pass. Might tweak the first a bit more, and renominate the second later. The status of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Maddison Elliott is complicated.

We have two new FPs. File:Masih Alinejad.jpg (8 January) and File:Hou Yifan (29762728494) (cropped).jpg (9 January).

At the moment, the only nomination of interest to us is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Carrie Chapman Catt redux, already featured over on Commons. Please remember this is meant to be informative, not a guide to voting, and don't vote just because I link something. At the same time, I don't want to "ban" anyone from participating over there. It's a pretty friendly community, even if we do have lots of arguments over encyclopedic value and procedure. Plus, lots of really pretty birds. Worth a look. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just realised that in the context of Women in Red, I should probably specify I'm referring to literal birds, not being massively misogynist. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 12:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nora Femenia

[2] Rather surprised to see that Nora doesn't have an article yet. I would have written when but I suppose I have a WP:COI as I have known her for a number of years. Is this the place to suggest an article could be possible? WCM_email 15:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster Is this the place? Not really. There are tens & tens of thousands of women - and men - who meet general notability requirements yet do not have an article. Special pleading probably confirms your COI. Maybe add her to an appropriate redlist? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

OK no worries, I'll leave it at that. WCM_email 20:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up

Thank you to the author, Stephenbharrison, for a new article published today in The Washington Post, mentioning Women in Red, plus co-founders, Victuallers and me: "Happy 18th birthday, Wikipedia. Let’s celebrate the Internet’s good grown-up". --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's also an interesting article about Primer and Quicksilver: AI Solves Gender Bias, Puts Overlooked Women Scientists In Spotlight. Have any of you used these tools to write biographies of women scientists? If so, how would you assess the level of assistance provided?--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A question on quality

Hi there,

This project does phenomenal work (in fact in terms of content-focused projects, it probably makes the most global difference). However the % of female bios, as a proportion, has only increased slowly over the years despite large numbers of articles.

I was wondering whether there was any firm thought that due to the work of WIR, the quality of bios was significantly higher - lots of male bios are 1 paragraph footballers and just-included politicians? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to doubt that any claim can be made that women biogs are of higher quality than male. I've coded thousands of women biogs for wikidata, necessitating at the least a quick glance at them; there are plenty enough 1 paragraph footballers and just-included politicians amongst them. Equally, the quality of all biogs steadily increases, and WiR plays its part in that, not least by encouraging a community of editors with sufficient skills and interests to produce higher quality biogs - as do other specialised projects, such as women's literature or the woman's classical committee. Sorry if that's a disappointing answer, but the wikipedia ecosystem is so large that any project has a relatively small impact, overall. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the quality has been studied. Articles about women on WP typically are longer and more in-depth, despite the difficulty in finding sources. However, due to those same sourcing and systemic biases, there are less notable women evident in the historic record.[3][4] However, that being said, I know of no study that attributes the phenomena to WiR. My guess would be that as more sources are required to satisfy significant coverage for women, more detail about them is learned and since women's articles appear to be more likely sent to AfD, editors take more time crafting them. But that is wholly a guess, with no basis in research. SusunW (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear: Thanks for this interesting question. As an active contributor to Women in Red since the beginning, I must say it certainly appears to me that articles created under the project are in general of significantly higher quality than the average Wikipedia biography. Indeed, if you look at the biographies listed in Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages, you will find that there are comparatively few stubs, most of the articles being rated as start class with quite a number rated C. Furthermore, thanks to the involvement of several WiR editors in Women in Green, we have succeeded in bringing quite a few up to B class. Of course only about 16,000 of the 280,300 women's biographies have talk pages specifically noting creation under the WiR project although several of us have worked on improvements to many of the others. One way in which we could further improve the quality would by means of a de-stubbing exercise under which we would try to bring a fair number of stubs up to at least start class. (Perhaps we could focus on de-stubbing in April or May.) As for Tagishsimon's work on Wikidata, it could well be that many of the women's names he has been adding have come from articles which were not created under WiR or were completely new WiR articles which were still in the process of expansion. (I have seen that some of my new bios have been added to Wikidata when I have just completed the lead.) In conclusion, I must say I would not have stuck with the project for so long if I had not believed we were making not only a major improvement in quantity but also an overall improvement in quality.--Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In many cases (maybe as many as half) de-stubbing is as easy as noticing that the article is already up to a higher class, removing the stub tags, and/or changing the classification on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessing quality via ORES

If you add the ORES tool to your Special:MyPage/common.js, you will be able to view two new lines directly underneath the article name: the ORES-predicted article quality, and the Class= rating from the article's talkpage. Note, my personal assessment doesn't always agree with the ORES prediction, but mostly, we agree. This makes updating the article page (e.g. removing the stub template, if applicable), and/or updating the talkpage templates easy-peasy, gnomish work. For "Edit summary", I do a copy/paste of the ORES prediction (e.g. "ORES predicted quality: Start-Class article Start (3.35)"). I'm looking at the article page for Women in Red and these are the two lines I can view immediately under the article name:

ORES predicted quality: Start-Class article Start  (3.35)
WikiProject fixing the Wikipedia gendergap (Wikidata). A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  

I should mention at this point that I've got Preferences --> Gadgets --> "Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget)" turned on, so the second line under the article name also includes (as you can see) the 'Short Description' from Wikidata (e.g. "WikiProject fixing the Wikipedia gendergap"). BTW, DYK that Bobo.03, who helped us set up our semi-automated recruitment project, is now working on improving the ORES AI (m:Research:Applying Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design to ORES)? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Another quick note on this that might be worth pointing out: because the underlying algorithm changes over time, tomorrow's ORES predicted class for an article might be different to today's prediction, even if the article content has not changed. Not a big deal, but perhaps unexpected for editors new to using ORES. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Halls of fame restructuring FYI

Navbox listing United States Women's Halls of Fame

Some of you have helped in creating, or adding to, the women's halls of fame lists, and their accompanying navboxes. This notice is an FYI for you all who have already been involved. I'm also leaving a note on the talk page of every list I'm updating right now. I'm going alphabetically, and as of today have gotten as far as Maryland.

I started creating some of those about 6-7 years ago, following some previous table as a guide, often using a magnifying glass to see what went where on the coding. Those tables were created as straight alphabetical lists. That format forces an editor to insert individual names into the correct alpha spot on the list. Many of those lists have over 100 names.

Now I'm looking at those lists with a eye on what is easiest for new users who might want to contribute. I'm changing the table formats to a chron/alpha format, and leaving a note on the talk page. Then the next year, it's only necessary to drop the names in at the top of the list. Entry formats are now easy to see in the edit window, no magnifying glass.

I'm also standardizing the navboxes, for what looks easiest for the casual reader. That means only one button to click to unfold the entire navbox.

If there's a list that is not in table format, I'm leaving it as is. If the state hall of fame entity is no longer active, I'm not updating because nobody will be editing. I can't imagine anybody having an issue with this. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Maile66: You have obviously been putting quite an effort into all this and the results are impressive. I note that you are trying to make things easier for new editors. In this connection, although I haven't written many articles for American halls of fame, it might be useful to point out that I often hesitate to add names to table formatted lists as it takes quite a bit of time and trouble and frequently leads to upsets requiring further editing. For example, I am far more comfortable about adding names to the List of women's rights activists than to the table formatted List of feminists. I wonder if others share this view. If so, for the halls of fame lists, it might help to allow inexperienced editors to add suggestions for new names (with the necessary details) to the relevant talk pages. I realize, of course, that formatted lists have several advantages, especially sorting based on the individual columns. Furthermore, if lists are to be promoted to FL, they usually need to be table formatted (although there are exceptions). Fully formatted lists are also certainly more attractive for those consulting the encyclopaedia but they are not so easy to edit.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott Thank you for the suggestion. But for the halls of fame, it would be unproductive to suggest names on the talk page. The names come from the individual state organizations. Each year, the lists are updated according to whomever the state organizations install into their individual halls. For those who are uncomfortable adding names to tables, they will move on to other articles and lists. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Women's March on Portland

*whew* I finally got around to finishing Women's March on Portland. I've requested a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, and invite project members to take a look before I nominate the article for Good status soon. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I've received feedback from one editor, along with some unexpected accusations of being dismissive and possibly having a COI. So, if any other WiR members care to come review the article and talk page discussions, that'd be very helpful. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Number of conversation threads

Is there something you can click that'll show how many different conversation threads we've started on the Women in Red talkpage? Also, total number of posts on this talkpage? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• 1,464 threads to date - I'm afraid I had to go through the archive pages one by one for this stat; not otherwise available AFAIK
• 12,419 edits - see the Page Statistics link at the top of the page history
• 494 distinct editors - ditto - and has many other interesting observations, such as first, last & max text added are all Rosiestep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tagishsimon. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be the most actively edited WikiProject talk page by far. I also see I have been the most active editor, followed by you, Rosie, and Susun. There have been 495 different editors on the talk page and there are 341 page watchers (on the main page and talk page). The talk page currently has an average of about 100 page views per day while the main project page has about 150.--Ipigott (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

And all of that in 3 1/2 years. Wow :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Impressive Victuallers (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists

Discussion at the mo about African American suffrage leaders on #wikiwomeninred Twitter. There is an open invitation to come to this page to discuss how we can help Victuallers (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two organisations mentioned but still redlinked on the topic African-American women's suffrage movement and the article itself is Start class. US suffrage is not an area I'm well familiar with except to recognise women's names from tv shows and the like...It was a different animal to the Irish suffrage movement (as was the UK movement really). But I will see if I can find details to add or photos, or names to redlink. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 23:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Also I notice Women's suffrage in the United States is very white photographically. Perhaps this needs an update? ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've just been looking through our WiR presence on Twitter. Quite impressive. With so many people following our activities, it's surprising none of them seem interested in becoming members. Admittedly, it's much easier to respond to messages on Twitter itself, but all the same... Thanks to all of you who are participating. It all adds to our achievements.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

---

I'm excited to see the ancient world on the slate, but surely it's a chronofocus, not a geofocus? – Joe (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

First Ladies/First Spouses/First Partner

Comment encouraged on this, as we go forward with women's article. CookieMonster755 has moved articles for consistency of name. I have no problem with consistency, or CookieMonster755's intent. We are living in a changing world. I named the ones for Hawaii and California as "First Spouses" for that reason. Lo and behold, California's new spouse has now renamed the office to "First Partner". No kidding. The ones recently involved in this move that I created were:

• Spouses of the Governors of Hawaii moved to First Ladies of Hawaii. Note, Hawaii's Governor Linda Lingle was a woman, but divorced at the time she held the office.

• Spouses of the Governors of California moved to First Ladies of California

• List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Texas moved to First Ladies and Gentlemen of Texas

CookieMonster moved some others by simple correcting "Lady" to "Ladies". As I say, I have no problem with the consistency, but a discussion first might have been productive. Perhaps on the articles' talk pages. Nevertheless, I think this is a good point to reach a naming consensus here. There will be men in the "First" position in the future. Any day now. At some point, we will have a woman president of the US. Bill Clinton once suggested "First Laddie", and others joked around with "First Dude". Believe me, in California, "First Dude" isn't that far fetched.

In all seriousness, what do others think we should standardize as the naming convention, to accommodate the changing horizon on first spouses? — Maile (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, California has a First Partner now, which has the merit of including a spouse of any gender, or a non-spouse in an equivalent social role (aha, and we're back to socialites). Non-spouses have served in the role of "First Lady" in the past--it has not been unusual for an adult daughter or other relative to fill the "official hostess" role (see this article on the various US examples at the national level). So it rather depends on what the list includes. It's a strange position, isn't it? Hard to choose one right word for such an amorphous role. I'd say Spouses makes more sense than Ladies for a title, though, if the subject really is a list of spouses. Penny Richards (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I am okay with either First Ladies (and First Gentlemen) or Spouses of the Governors of... or an alternative title. I moved the pages for Wikipedia title guidelines on consistency. CookieMonster755✉ 22:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Penny Richards makes a good point. There have been non-spouses who have served the role of "First Lady" or "First Gentleman", so it might be appropriate to avoid spouses if that is the consensus here. CookieMonster755✉ 22:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Then what's left is "First Partner". Maybe Jennifer Newsom is the future in how it's referred. I don't think we should change "First Lady" of countries, and just stick to the American states and its territories. As I was writing the original post above, it did occur to me that we are living in sometimes rapidly changing times. How long before same-sex partners, or LGBT partners leading a state? Or any variation? Food for thought, anyway. I don't have a problem with your moving the pages, but it did seem a good opening to have this dialogue. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Inter-Allied Women's Conference, 10 February 1919

Anyone know where I can find this: Inter-Allied Women's Conference also known as the Suffragist Conference of the Allied Countries and the United States? It was a parallel peace conference to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 because women were not allowed to participate in the "official" conference. I know I have written articles about women involved in the conference, but I can't find the conference itself. It is not written about in the Peace Conference article, the International Council of Women article, the IWSA article, the WILPF article, the French Union for Women's Suffrage article, nor any of the "dates" lists. If it doesn't exist, which I cannot imagine, clearly it needs to be created. It was sponsored by the French Union for Women's Suffrage and the National Council of French Women (which has one sentence about it as does the League of Nations' article).(in Italian) and chaired by Millicent Fawcett (whose article also doesn't mention the conference).[5] I find lots of material,[6],[7],[8], but I know I have run across it before and just wonder if it is titled something I cannot figure out? SusunW (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There's Women's International League for Peace and Freedom#Second International Women's Congress for Peace and Freedom, Zürich, 1919 and 1919 International Congress of Working Women, but neither of these might be your target. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tagishsimon, I have no idea what mad skills you used to find those. Searching on WP is often a crapshoot for me. :/ Neither are the correct one, as you speculated. Obviously the Zurich one wasn't hosted in France and the other, though in France opened on 29 October 1919. Mayhaps @Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl, and Ipigott: can help me find (or not find) this one. I swear I remember a newspaper article with lined out women from each country who participated in this conference. SusunW (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a similar memory, but it turns out to be Women at the Hague - 1915, wrong country. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that's my issue, Tagishsimon similar theme and circumstance. Guess I need to add it to a redlist and circle back if no one has created it after I finish the article I am working on. SusunW (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

SusunW, I think redlink it for now. There might be something about it in Women's Suffrage a Short History of a Great Movement, by Millicent Fawcett but I can't view it; Megalibrarygirl can you access it or get a copy of it? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't access that copy either, Rosiestep but various versions are on archive.org. [9] SusunW (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@SusunW and Rosiestep: there are also editions on Project Gutenberg here Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• SusunW: I think you might be referring to the suffragist interests in connection with the Paris Peace Conference. You'll find quite a bit about it all here. The conference began on 19 January 1919 but discussions continued for almost a year. I see from this that there had been plans to hold the women's conference at or near Versailles but they finally opted for Zurich. More details here. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott. I'm going to line these out in our 1919 in women's history doc as there are obviously several. The one I am looking for started in February. Apparently women from the Central Powers could not attend it, so the women held a another conference in May in Zurich. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

SusunW: There is indeed a reference to a February 1919 conference of suffragists from the allied countries only here: "Fidèles jusqu’au bout du conflit, voire au-delà, à cette ligne, elles condamnent la tenue du Congrès international de La Haye, dénoncent les activités du Comité qui en est issu, stigmatisent avec violence les rares féministes françaises qui s’y rallient, refusent plus tard d’intervenir auprès du gouvernement français pour adoucir les conditions d’armistice et convoquent en février 1919 une conférence suffragiste internationale qui ne rassemble que les pays alliés."--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That's the one Ipigott! Now to figure out if the petitions presented in April in Paris were the result of *another* meeting or the February meeting. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

While adding the info to the timeline, I ran across this image [10] totally frustrating that it says they are "12 named women" who attended the 1919 International Congress of Working Women so what the heck were their names? Maybe someone more familiar with photograph retrieval @Adam Cuerden and GreenMeansGo: knows how to ferret that out? SusunW (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I've started the pages. Anyone who is willing can jump in. I huge gale just blew in and I have no power, so am working on battery. Hopefully, I have enough of a beginning that it won't get prodded if I lose power completely. SusunW (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm back. That was bizarre. Temperature dropped like 20 degrees and power went out. Lots of wind, lots of falling oranges. We are out of hurricane season, what the heck? SusunW (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What indeed. I presume you've by now come across In the Drawing Rooms of Paris: The Inter-Allied Women's Conference of 1919; perhaps get in touch with Mona Siegel for a copy of the paper? She seems to have cornered the market on this subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

And something contemporary: International Woman Suffrage: October 1918-September 1920 --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon you rock! Had not found that, but with the power outage, my schedule is really off today. Will try to peruse it tomorrow. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I have shot an e-mail to Dr. Siegel (and added her to our redlist of Gender Studies academics). Hopefully she will provide a copy. The story of the French archives ending up in Russia reminds me of the quest to locate the archives of the International Archives for the Women's Movement, which were looted by the Nazis and ended up in a secret Russian archive. I am curious if this French archive shared a similar fate? The contemporary source you found confirms that the conference spanned the timeframe from February - April and gives me more names of participants. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating story; new to me. God bless archivists, Glasnost & Perestroika. Yup, I hope she comes through; I suspect she has lots of apropos informationat her fingertips, and, probably, pointers to additional sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, woot!! Dr. Siegel sent me the paper, she also has a book that will be published later this year with a chapter on it. She confirmed that the French feminist archives were also looted by the Nazis and ended up in Russia. She said, "They were repatriated to France in 2000 and are currently at the Archives du féminisme in Angers, France". I *knew* it! SusunW (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, that's excellent. Good work, SW. And there are still 13 days left before the 100th anniversary of the start of the conference. It's good to see life being breathed back into their efforts a century later. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao and Women in Red on CBS News

Well done! — Maile (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Our member, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, is interviewed by CBS News and Women in Red gets mentioned! Wow and thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it that time again for me to reread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Pruitt and wonder what went wrong? GMG^talk 14:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thanks for the notice - glad you enjoyed it. :-) It was fun to do, I have to say, albeit completely nuts from a scheduling perspective.

@GreenMeansGo: What went wrong? Oh...lots of things. :-) I remember that discussion fairly well, actually. (Weird feeling, at that.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I keep telling myself I'll give it a few more months before trying again. GMG^talk 22:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Jean-Baptiste Singry - Joséphine Mainvielle-Fodor.jpg

Newest restoration. It replaces a fairly awful old image, and plus, it's for a Women in Red article: No 1253 of March 2018. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 23:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden: Great restoration but why is she now facing in the other direction?--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am also intrigued to see that the original image was said to be a photograph of an original lithograph by Joseph Lanzedelly der Ältere while the restored version is attributed to Jean-Baptiste Singry. But I suppose the BNF is likely to have the right artist!--Ipigott (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a thing they used to do where they'd make new engravings off of old engravings. And, because of how engravings are made, in a lot of cases where the person thinks they can get away with it, they're flipped as a consequence (the engraving plate is a mirror image of what's printed, so if you reproduce the printed work on an engraving plate without flipping it, which is easier, the print flips.) Since she's French, we can probably presume the French engraving is original.

Presumably it is a photo of an engraving done by Lanzedelly (1830) which was labelled as an original but the engraving he created was a copy of a previous one done by Singry in 1815 (according to the dates given on each image) ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 13:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. And, for that matter, given the time between them, it's possible the original plate had been destroyed by then, so there was a genuine need to have it re-engraved. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 15:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you look closely at the old image, you'll see something that's plausibly "Lanzedelly" on the lower left, roughly where Singry's credit is in the new version. The heady days of poorly-enforced copyright, eh? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 13:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll be nominating it at FPC, by the way, but WP:FPC seems to be in one of its random slumps, so I'm waiting for some of the older nominations to be passing first. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 13:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Costume designs by Eugène Du Faget for the original production of William Tell: Laure Cinti-Damoreau as Mathilde, Adolphe Nourrit as Arnold Melchtal, and Nicolas Levasseur as Walter Furst

In a similar vein...

Honestly, I thought this was going to be an easy set of three images, of which I was asked to do Nourrit, and wanted to get Laure Cinti-Damoreau in an actual role as my WiR work for the set, and thought I might or might not do Nicolas Levasseur, the weakest of the three. But after I did Nourrit, I noticed his pose seemed a little odd and unbalanced... then realised that the dark splodge on the left of his image was the rest of Cinti-Damoreau's shadow... And once I realised THAT. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs} 03:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)