Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Margarita Lazareva

Those covering tennis may be interested to learn that Margarita Lazareva is redlinked 97 times!--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Well to be fair she did have an article but is currently deleted. I'm not 100% sure if she passes WP:NTENNIS per point #5 "won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments or any of the WTA 125K tournaments." --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

She might well fail on WP:NTENNIS but as she's mentioned in over 200 press articles, it's difficult to believe she failed WP:GNG.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Pre-loaded templates for women's biographies using Wikidata

Hey. I was talking to someone who has run several Wikipedia edit-a-thons around writing women's biographies. Thinking about that, I was wondering if it might be possible for someone to create something like Template:Mbabel for women's biographies to give new editors a basic structure. (And then have this translated to other languages, particularly Spanish and Catalan.) The template pulls from Wikidata information to write basic sentences with basic information. --LauraHale (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I knocked up a super quick and not very pretty version of this (mostly to familiarize myself with how templates work). {{Mbabel-WIR}} and {{Mbabel-WIR/gen}} if anyone wants to take a look. Those more experienced at this than me: please feel free to edit. Those who host lots of edit-a-thons, feel free to let me know what is helpful and unhelpful to have preloaded. You can also test the template out on my sandbox--click on Margaret Cousins. --Nonmodernist (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What I would like to see in this connection is a template for articles created by new users after the editathon or educational training is over. Well over 90% of those who reach a high level of editing competence fail to continue contributing after the event. But the articles or talk pages which carry the template would need to be monitored by mentors or other enthusiasts in order to ensure the new contributors learn how to achieve mainspace standards.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist:, moment of extreme mental blanking... how do I get the template to load for a draft article? I was trying with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7524 but I couldn't remember how to make it load. :( And the original documentation doesn't make it obvious either. --LauraHale (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: In your sandbox or similar userspace page, insert

{{Mbabel-WIR|1 = Wikidata id}}

replacing "Wikidata id" with the ID itself. This will generate a redlink; clicking on the redlink brings up the preloaded template. But it will only work with a redlink. If you try Q7524, you'll get a link to her existing article instead.

Ideally in the future WIR would be able to generate redlists from Wikidata with those template redlinks in the first column (see, for example, how The Met's WikiProject uses Mbabel, displaying redlists where redlinks preload their excellent template), but that's beyond my current skillset. --Nonmodernist (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist:, thanks heaps! :) When I did this one, it didn't load lots of fields. Is this because the fields are missing for the ones being used? Or some template error? Otherwise, it looks pretty awesome. :) --LauraHale (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale:, you're welcome! I went back and made a bunch of changes so that the infobox will pre-load better (especially the image and birth/death dates). The example you link above is a combination of not much data in Wikidata and the template not loading certain data... so for example, the infobox isn't loading her birth date because Wikidata only includes a year. Not sure how to fix this, tbh... --Nonmodernist (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: Ah. I tried with a different person, Lidia Falcon and saved it and things worked. (No references because none in Wikidata.) Only major weirdness was a death month of April, and Falcon is very much alive. (Really want to create an article about her, but need more time before I start on that.) I really appreciate the effort on this as it is really useful. :) At some point, I need to get it translated to Spanish for Wikiesfera . --LauraHale (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: Fixed the April death date issue. The infobox template isn't grabbing her birth date and I don't know why, but from what I understand, {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} isn't supported on English WP the way it is on other language WPs. Thanks for the feedback and let me know if you come across any other issues! --Nonmodernist (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nonmodernist: Thanks for this useful tool. I must say, I completely misunderstood what the template was designed to do. I've now tried it out with Q12300362 and I did indeed obtain a basic structure for further work. It looks to me as if it could certainly help new editors create biographies and might also help more experienced editors create short informative articles. I'll now experiment with it a bit more.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ipigott! As I said, this is my first time working with templates and Wikidata, so I welcome any suggestions or anyone interested to edit the template themselves. I can already see some difficulties in translating the data to the pre-loaded draft (for instance, how to handle the language around date of birth or death--"born on" is correct if there is a full date, but "in" is correct if only the year is listed). But it's a start, at least. --Nonmodernist (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is interesting, Nonmodernist, and could be very handy for newcomers. I played around with Linda Grant DePauw (Q27235441) as an example (didn't save). Some things I really like are that it uses headers with standard names (makes for a good go-by for newcomers), and has the "Authority control" template included. If I could suggest adding one more thing, it would be the DEFAULTSORT template, which is something that newcomers don't understand at first. Thanks for creating the template. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosiestep. I have added DEFAULTSORT, though it will need to be checked manually on each new draft to make sure that surname and given name are loading from Wikidata. I've noticed that a lot of Wikidata entries don't have both categories filled out. --Nonmodernist (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion: you may want to use {{Infobox person/wikidata}} in the same way that Template:Mbabel/MET uses {{Infobox artwork/wikidata}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Peel. I just switched over to that method in the template. --Nonmodernist (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Discrimination against women in science

Here's an interesting follow-up article from Vox on the Katie Bouman black hole case. It calls for many more Wikipedia articles on women in STEM. Lot's of interesting stats.--Ipigott (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Mid-April featured pictures update

The five images listed at #Featured pictures update have all passed, save the Jacinda Ardern image, which was voted to pass, but is waiting on OTRS. There are currently no new ones in the queue, although I should have a two-image set related to Colette (and Maurice Ravel)'s opera L'enfant et les sortilèges soon, and I can't say what others are doing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 05:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, the new WiR-related FPs are:

• 
  Célestine Galli-Marié in the title rôle of Carmen
• 
  Julia Margaret Cameron (15 April)
• 
  Nelly Diener (15 April)
• 
  Lucy Arbell (14 April)

Adam Cuerden: Thanks for keeping us updated on such good progress and for all your efforts. It looks to me as if the article on Julia Margaret Cameron is now close to GA. I'll bring it to the attention of wp:Women in Green.--Ipigott (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great! She's probably one of the most famous Victorian British photographers, so she definitely deserves the GA.

In other news, as I said, can never predict what others will do. This amazing photo of Rei Kawakubo's designs dropped onto FPC today, thanks to User:Rhododendrites. I shan't link the nomination so I can properly praise it, but I don't think it needs our help. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Spanish women in more recent history

Hi. :) After about two months, I have more or less finished two series of articles.

One of the reasons I wrote these articles was to more easily identify Spanish women that should have articles about them. If anyone has time and might be able to generate a red links list for me of women mentioned on these pages who appear notable? I'd totally take them out for tapas in Madrid or otherwise just be very grateful. :) --LauraHale (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Laura: I'll of course be looking at the Francoist Spain articles in detail over the next few days. I remember only too well myself the difficulties Spanish women experienced in the 1960s. You're doing a fantastic job on the history of women in Spain. And I'll take you up on those red links for tapas. But now that it's getting hot in Madrid, rather than the mesones in Calle de Cuchilleros, how about El Espinar (can see this one needs work) in the Guadarrama? They serve excellent tapas in Cebreros (once a bar, now apparently a restaurant). Great place, great people. And you can witness the scenes and scents from Hemmingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls in the pine woods above the village. Hope to see you there soon.--Ipigott (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, Never been but always happy to see more of Spain. Madrid isn't hot though right now. We're in a cold and wet spell. :) (Really happy with how this series turned out in general though at some point, I want to revisit as a few articles like the CNT, POUM, PCE, Seccion Feminina and Women's Rights ones feel weaker than the others. But 29 articles is still massive amount of writing. Much less repetition this time too I hope as I worked hard to not do that.) Been told El Espinar has excellent non-vegetarian options. :) --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

LauraHale, your articles are a tour de force of the like rarely seen in these parts. What an excellent & exstensive job. Thank you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As to redlinks, I'm wondering if it might be useful to do a fairly exhaustive job, along the lines of the template here ... I'm minded to put all of the redlinks through a spreadsheet & produce wikitables sliced & diced by type, with good alpha-ordering, and cross-referenced to the source article(s). It might well take me a few days to do that, but I think it's worth it, not least since there are organisation and publications which also would benefit from articles. Ian, I think there will be more than enough work to be done in doing a close read of Laura's articles - if you're happy (and Laura agrees), I'll gazump you for the redlist task, but leave the two of you to deal with the tapas issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Great to hear you are going to prepare a dedicated red list. I like your "junk" table but I think it would be useful to include any sources you can find. But even if you can't find any, I think it would be useful to list all the names. Some of our members are aces at discovering forgotten newspaper articles, library archives, etc. I don't know how fluent you are in Spanish but if you need any help, let me know. In the meantime I'll start going through the Franco era articles.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon and @Ipigott:, Any red list would be useful and I'd be grateful. I know some people are in Wikidata already like Lidia Falcon and some have articles on Spanish Wikipedia. (I just am hesitant to translate some of them because I don't think the quality is there, and often there are lots of unsourced sections.) The names of women sometimes is an issue as sources are not necessarily consistent. (María Dolores Casal Sanchez and Dolores Casal are the same person.) There are some incredibly useful sources about women from this period including todos los nombres_, enciclopedia.cat, pares and Fundacion Pablo Iglesias. In many cases, these are often people who disappeared and that doesn't have implied notability attached. And working through trying to write some of the names I have wandered across, I am uncertain of notability. María Helena NG is one example but I had another one on my user space I can no longer fine that appears on the margins. Determining notability is one of the reasons putting a red link list together for me has felt challenging. In a regime where women were actively erased and marginalized, where newspapers rarely mention women and definitely don't mention women's issues (like abortion, rape, contraception), I am unsure how do that other than academic texts or newspaper articles after their death as a result of the work of relatives much later. Or they were notable before the Civil War. --LauraHale (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Laura: I am not at all knowledgeable about history, and I am enjoying learning about this slice of Spanish history from your article. I have added Wiki links for a couple of items that I was not familiar with, assuming that I am a good proxy for a naive reader. --IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Focus on the United Nations

Until now, interest in United Nations women has been rather disappointing. There are in fact lots of interesting women involved, including many from the smaller developing countries. Now that I have expanded the crowd-sourced list, I hope some of you will take up the challenge.--Ipigott (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Well, when I initially made the list, I only had the Special Rapporteurs which I had sourcing issues with. Your update to the list by adding permanent delegates might help article creation. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: You did a great job with the original list. I just thought there might be more interest in some of the other representatives, especially those from the smaller or developing countries. Let's see how it goes.--Ipigott (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't find

I can't find any single link on this page to enter a person who needs to be red-linked. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Such names can be added to any crowd-sourced page listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index, or else added to wikidata with, for instance, an occupation or affiliation of the sort used to produce wikidata redlists. I grant you're probably right that we lack obviousl links talking about adding new redlinks, beyond the comment made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red#Lists of red links. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile: You'll find most of the information about this WikiProject on WikiProject Women in Red but the template at the top of this page also provides links to the most important areas of interest. If you still have not found what you need, please give us more details here and we'll try to help you along. I see you have recently created quite a number of interesting biographies of women. It would be useful to have you as a member of Women in Red. Maybe you'd like to join?--Ipigott (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

More artist links

WIRs who are mining the artist seam might be interested in Anonymous Was A Woman Award, which has a fair number of redlinks; and which has bluelinks that might usefully have info about the award added to them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Another, a database which I just stumbled upon: Women Artists in the Washington University Collections. Some obvious, a lot less so...at the very least it's a good jumping-off point, even if it doesn't in itself confer notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Souls Grown Deep Foundation

Biographies of the artists whose work is in the collection, and biographies of the quiltmakers of Gee's Bend.

Another interesting resource - the Foundation is dedicated to preserving the work of vernacular artists of the American South, especially black artists. Two-thirds of the artists in the collection are women, and there's biographical information on the website for most, if not all, of them. I think there's a lot of potential here. Also quiltmaking in general, but this would be a good start. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

These are interesting but many of them are personal accounts. I'm not sure how many of them would be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. Maybe some of them would qualify for Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: The Foundation is in the process of disseminating its collection to museums around the United States, so I think it's safe to say most (likely all) of the listed artists would meet the notability standard. I agree that personal accounts can be problematic as source material, but there's no reason they can't be used as a jumping-off point. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

At least one is also discussed in secondary sources according to the quick google I just did. Could we add a redlist to the index? I’d love to work on some of these. Nonmodernist (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: I've pulled a quick and dirty list of the quilters: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles/Souls Grown Deep Foundation. I'll add in the handful of other women artists from the Foundation shortly. Not alphabetized - I don't have the time right now, I'm afraid. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thank you! This is quite a list. --Nonmodernist (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:Yes, nice work as this list is a bit of a goldmine! I checked the first dozen and about 80% have good coverage in News or Google books. Four are already in museum collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: Any time. The story of Gee's Bend is quite interesting, as is the story of the Foundation. If we're able to write articles about the quilters as individuals rather than members of the collective so much the better.

@ThatMontrealIP: More than that...I think there are at least eight in the Met alone. More in others, I'm sure - as I say, the Foundation has been working on disseminating its collection quite a bit in recent years. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I just created Annie Bendolph, and will do more when I have time. If you have htoughts on a template to use for these (I am calling them artists rather than quilters in the lede, for example, as they are in a hugely prestigious art museum) let me know. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added stubs for several women, though they still need categories and WikiProjects. Would this topic be a good candidate for a purple template box to gather all the relevant pages? (Sorry, I can't think of a better way to describe what I mean--see Laura Hale's excellent Spanish Civil War template below.) --Nonmodernist (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

They're called navboxes, aka Wikipedia:Navigation templates. Can't answer your question, though: exactly what would the theme or organisaing principle of hte navbox be? Souls Grown Deep Foundation collected artists? Quilters? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Navbox, yes! Thank you, Tagishsimon. "Quilters of Gee's Bend" is what I was thinking, since art museums tend to categorize The Quilts of Gee's Bend and the Freedom Quilting Bee together, and we now have dozens of women whose work should really be understood in relation to one another. --Nonmodernist (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: I can try and knock something together later tonight or, more likely, tomorrow. I agree that they would be good candidates for a navbox. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I got one started but would appreciate suggestions or edits: {{Quilters of Gee's Bend}}. I'm sure there's more to include that I haven't found yet. --Nonmodernist (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist: Looks good - all I added was some italics. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI, I came across the USPS stamp series for Gee's Bend quilters, and added the respective info to the articles of each artist who appeared on a stamp.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

María Helena NG

I have User:LauraHale/María Helena NG on my user space. I would like to mainspace but am concerned about notability. She is mentioned in a number of academic articles, where her historical importance is also discussed... but I am not sure she passes WP:GNG. Any feedback would be appreciated if it should be mainspaced or what should be done to make it more main space worthy. --LauraHale (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@LauraHale: I definitely think she is worthy of mainspace. Unless I've totally missed something, academic sources are fine for establishing notability (...right?). I think the lead could be edited to more clearly establish her specific notability, and I have a few suggestions for the article as well. For the lead:

María Helena NG (born 1947[?]) was one of only two known women to be charged with violating the Ley de Vagos y Maleantes, the 1933 law that defined homosexuality as criminal act in Spain. Arrested on 30 March 1968 at Barcelona's La Gran Cava, she was eventually convicted and sentenced to between 127 days and one year in prison, followed by a 2 year mandatory ban from going to Barcelona, and two years of government supervision. María Helena's case indicates that, although past and current conservative narratives challenge the existence of lesbians [or gender-nonconforming women?] [in Spain?] [this would be a great place to wikilink to Lesbians in Francoist Spain ], the state was aware of them.

"Trans man" (two words) is the better way to write that term, and it's what WP uses. Also, the first sentence of the Biography section needs context--who wrote this? María Helena herself, or a scholar? I think that would help readers understand. Finally, the Context section has one sentence that should be taken out: "The other involved a woman named María Helena NG who was prosecuted in 1968." Thank you for pointing out such an interesting piece of history--I hadn't heard of María Helena before and I'm glad now that I have! --Nonmodernist (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nonmodernist:, Thanks. Changes made and main spaced. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thus now at María Helena NG, to make to easier for readers to access now that the redirect from draft has been deleted. Another fine article, especially the Historical importance section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Late April FPC report

Since the last report, we've gotten a bunch of new FPCs with a variety of interesting content:

• Rei Kawakubo's fashion designs
• Aline Duval, whose article, I believe, was a WiR biography? The articl e might benefit from some work on our part.
• Young Bhil girl
• L'enfant et les sortilèges (an opera by Colette and Maurice Ravel)
• Mary Jackson

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 17:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Student edits translating biographies from Spanish Wikipedia

Hi all, a student and new editor has translated 10 new biographies of women from Spanish Wikipedia to English Wikipedia [1]. There are issues with establishing notability that I've noticed from the first few I've looked at, as well as some weird wikicode syntax. Per previous requests, notifying any interested volunteers about the creation of these biographies. I'll be going through them today and tomorrow, most likely. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Elysia (Wiki Ed):, much appreciated. We'll take a look at them; might take a day or so. I see three which are arguably a little weak - Clara Franco, Aurora Arias and Andreína Álvarez - but all of which probably stand up. The other seven are without doubt notable. All of the articles could do with a little subediting &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The articles are:

• Andreína Álvarez
• Luz María Jerez
• Rosario Prieto
• Aurora Arias
• Marisol Santacruz
• Amanda Portales
• Petra Herrera
• Clara Franco
• Esperanza Iris
• Luisa de Morales

Been to some Wikipedia Spanish language edit-a-thons and they say English to Spanish is fine, but Spanish to English is less problematic. :/ If people are doing work on women like this, they should consider getting into contact with Wikiesfera or Wikimujeres to get lists of good articles to translate. I've considered translating some articles from Spanish but the sourcing issues has been so problematic that I've just started from scratch. (And in one case, I translated an article only to find out it had been plagiarized from another site.) Will try to take a look today at the articles. --LauraHale (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Elysia (Wiki Ed):, And uggg. :( Spanish Wikipedia has phrases that were copied in one article I found. In another, it is unclear if Fandango copied Wikipedia or if Wikipedia copied Fandango. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

this appears to have been lifted straight into Rosario Prieto. -LauraHale (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

LauraHale less than 5% of the courses we support engage in translating content to English Wikipedia, but we do have a training geared for those students. It sounds like we could compile some language-specific resources such as the two you highlighted (Wikiesfera and Wikimujeres) for students translating articles. I'm just clocking in for the day, so I'm diving back in to look at & hopefully clean up these articles. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. Need DYKs of women in space

I (Coffeeandcrumbs), Kees08, and NMilstein are working on a project to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. Please join us. The plan is a friendly takeover of the entire Main Page featuring space exploration as an overall theme. You can see what we have so far at this demo page. Of course, as usual, systemic bias is an issue and we are having trouble featuring women in space. Please assist us in creating DYK nominations by creating new pages or from the following articles which need to be brought to GA to qualify:

• The Mercury 13 – any of them and the article itself
• Valentina Tereshkova – where my efforts are currently focused
• Svetlana Savitskaya
• Sally Ride
• Judith Resnik
• Kathryn D. Sullivan
• Mae Jemison
• Basically anyone on the list of female spacefarers

Please help us feature any women in space-related articles at DYK on July 21. (Note to people in the far west: although we may remember Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon was on July 20, in UTC, it was on July 21.) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I am watching this page but please ping me at any DYK nomination pages created.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Gene Nora Stumbough is currently a redirect (one of the Mercury 13 women). That'd be a good way to promote women in space - making an article out of an redirect ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely! We just need more hands on deck to help. If you can create it, please do and nominate. When creating DYKs add note "Reserve for July 2019".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added the proposal to the calendar for June. Please go there and endorse the idea if you are interested in this focus area. Obviously doesn't prevent anyone from working on articles now, but gives a focus for a push prior to July 21st. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cofeeandcrumbs:, this sounds like a great idea! Have you thought about posting at WP:Women in Green as well? In addition to the Women in Green talk page, there is also the GA Task Bulletin Board to ask for help. Knope7 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: File:Katherine Johnson at NASA, in 1966.jpg hasn't yet run on the main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 01:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have penciled it in for Template:POTD/2019-07-18. I invite everyone to WP:S2019 to make more suggestions and offer help. I don't want to crowd this page which is intend for other uses. I just wanted to recruit more editors to the project. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata profession and occupation item images

Margaret Hamilton, now used to illustrate the wikidata concept of 'software developer'

This is somewhat off-piste for WiR, but we all need a holiday sometimes.

Earlier today, the esteemed jheald found that the wikidata item for software developer used an image of Markus Persson, a person who espouses highly questionable political opinions. On the basis that that was a bad thing, we've replaced the wikidata image such that Margaret Hamilton (scientist) now illustrates the item.

Wikidata images are increasingly used by default on-wiki - e.g. on Commons categories such as Category:Association football players, and, presumably, off-wiki. It seems reasonable to spend some time a) adding women images to illustrate wikidata occupation and profession items where there is no image and b) replacing item images with more appropriate or higher quality images of women.

I've taken the liberty of providing a couple of new redlists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index#Related tasks should anyone be inclined to join in this game. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't actually me that noted it, it was User:TweetsFactsAndQueries. But I fully agree with the sentiments. Jheald (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh you're right; sorry Lucas. I'm somewhere beyond brainfade by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I occasionally change images on Wikidata but am not always happy to do so. Those displayed for people are often the ones used for articles in several of the other language versions of Wikipedia. I'm not at all sure whether those of us who mainly edit the English version should have the last word. But the answer here may well be to add more than one image. There are two for Marie Curie so there is no reason why there should not be more than one for others.--Ipigott (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The question whether there should be more than one P18 image is interesting; in general, only a single image is used with most items, but the wikidata community has not reached a consensus on whether a single image rule should be implemented for P18; nor whether, if there are multiple images, one should have a preferred rank. There are implications for templates that use images - they need additional code to deal with items with multiple images and need to determine an algorithm for choosing one of the plural images. I lean towards single image & prefer that multiple images reside on Commons. YMMV. I've not made a suggestion that en.wiki-ists should have the last word; just that en.wiki-ists might want to interest themselves in this subject. Not least, the majority of occupations and professions have no image; and enough of the images on occs & profs are very poor & questionable. Some are frankly dreadful & from my POV, inappropriate - Prison officer comes to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environmentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Beauty pageant winners

I seem to remember there was a GNG guideline about beauty pageant winners? There is a whole slew of articles on pageant winners in the Category for Proposed Deletion e.g. Easher Parker but I can't find the relevant guideline to apply to assess notability (or maybe there isn't one?). TIA. MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary: You'll find some draft guidelines here.--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou! I'll take a look at that and then at the PROD articles. MurielMary (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary: In case you haven't noticed, your objections to the Proposed Deletion have been deleted from the pages, with a comment from Dan that you should comment on the deletion talk page. You may want to follow-up. --IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the first two proposed deletions and it seems like there is much more to these women than simply being a pageant winner. Both women seem to be at least minor celebrities in their home country. When I did a search on Véronique De Kock in Google.co.nl, it came up with page after page of results in Dutch, mostly in what look like celebrity pages news. She has 100K+ followers on her social media accounts. However, I don't know whether notability in the Netherlands translates to notable on English Wikipedia. The other one I looked at also had accomplishments of being a TV presenter, and again seems to be someone of some celebrity in her home country, in non-English sources. Can someone give me guidance about how notability in a home country should be weighed? And, in general how celebrity weighs. I don't recall seeing this addressed in the notability guidelines I've seen. (But, there are a lot of them, so I'm sure I may have missed it.) -- IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach: Notability is notability. There's no requirement that a person be notable in English language media for them to be listed in en.wikipedia, in a situation in which they're notable in Dutch langage sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon. In that case, I'm feeling a bit peevish about these nominations. It seems quite obvious these women are likely at least minor celebrities in their native countries, although their pages are very stubby. But, maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet. I am still not feeling experienced enough to comment on deletion talk pages. --IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@IdRatherBeAtTheBeach:I agree with Tagishsimon, if someone is notable in their home country, or if notability is established in their own language (not English) this is still notable enough for the English-language WP. MurielMary (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary That may appear to be the case but unfortunately most of the other language versions of Wikipedia are far more inclusive than the EN version. Many of the biographies in other languages have no references at all, while some just make do with the equivalent of external links. In nearly all the biographies of non English-speaking women I write, I look for my own sources and start again from scratch. This seems to be a reliable approach. As far as I can remember, none of my biographies have been threatened with deletion. I looked at some of the beauty pageant articles too and must say that I doubt whether being placed high in one event back in the early 2000s is sufficient reason for a model's notability. On the other hand, as you have mentioned yourself, some of those listed have achieved notability outside the sphere of modelling or beauty contests.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, just to clarify, I meant that if a person's notability was established in non-English language reliable sources, that would be sufficient for English-language WP. Agree with you that there are many biographies on non-EL WPs that don't seem to meet GNGs. MurielMary (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Over the years, a number of articles (not just about women) have been (wrongly) deleted for lack of English sources to back up notability. It's one of the things that drives me nuts on the en-wiki. -Yupik (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Metrics kaput

@Harej: WiR metrics seem to be kaput. For two days, Reports Bot has decreased the count, although there are many new articles - see the history for 21 & 22 April. Would you let us know what's occurring? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is still not working. Perhaps Isarra can help?--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

:( --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I got nothing. Is harej the only bot operator? You probably do need him to look into it, or someone else familiar with bots in general, if that fails, since the source etc should all be available... somewhere. (I just really don't know anything about bots on wikimedia, though.) -— Isarra ༆ 14:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Isarra. I had a quick look at the source listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Reports bot & doubt that it covers the currently broken functionality. I'll ping an email in the direction of harej; possible he's away, or busy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into this now. I see that Wikidata is no longer returning results for articles about women as expected, but hopefully it won't be too much work to fix. — Earwig ^talk 01:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@The Earwig: thanks; very much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Figured out the issue and deployed a fix. (This Wikidata item is mislabeled and was causing us to not pick up changes to the list of articles.) It's working now. Sorry for the trouble. — Earwig ^talk 02:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The Earwig: I just noticed it's working again too. Thanks very much for your help. After it had stopping functioning correctly for almost a week, we were becoming rather concerned.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The Earwig: Ditto - thank you very much The Earwig; good work! I've asked for the rogue lexeme to be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not the least bit technical as we all know and hesitate to ask a question at the Village Pump because I don't even know the proper terminology to ask, but I have noticed that the bot(?) that used to run nightly and move manually input info from authority control, like what I input on Shulamit Reinharz and Francisca de Haan isn't running. I am sure there are tons more, as I always manually input the data if I can find it and it doesn't automatically show on an article. Can anyone advise how to get it fixed? SusunW (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems to have been User:KasparBot, which has been closed down by its maintainer [2], which is a pity. And User:Citation bot, which used to do useful standardisation tasks on references within articles, has also been shut down for a policy violation. All in all, March turns out to have been a bad month for bots. It'll take until someone else steps up to implement new bot code, before the automatic movement of identifiers from {{Authority control}} to wikidata is restarted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Tagishsimon! The authority data move was useful. Sorry to know that it is no longer functional. I know how to manually input the data on an article, but have no idea how to edit wikidata short of the gadget. I hated that citation bot personally. Geared to Global North standards which totally failed to take into consideration problems searching for links and journals in the Global South. More than once it deleted an accessible url to replace it with a DOI that was behind a paywall. Trying to discuss it with those who were running it was like banging one's head upon a brick wall. SusunW (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley C. Ford

Probably of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley C. Ford. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. For Phyllis Bolds they wanted fewer local news sources, now for Ashley they want more. —Nonmodernist (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This sort of variation could possibly arise merely from differences in who responds to the AfD, but it also suggests casting around for excuses to justify a predetermined conclusion (a very common problem in AfDs in general, especially for types of subjects that one thinks should not be notable) rather than disinterestedly judging whether the subject actually meets the standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the AfD was closed as keep already. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Women Playwrights of Diversity: A Bio-bibliographical Sourcebook

I feel like I might have mentioned this book before, but it just turned up in my research again. It's on Google Books, here. I did a cursory search through the table of contents, and there are at least two or three writers in there about whom we haven't got articles, yet. If anyone wants to cobble together a list of names it might be useful. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in film redux

Following up on an archived conversation: I just moved Women's suffrage in film to mainspace, but it needs significant expansion in the areas of non-Western film. If anyone has info or titles of films made outside the US/UK/France that deal with women's suffrage, I would really appreciate it! --Nonmodernist (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Human rights activist

Should I write an entry about a Russian human rights activist who still lives in Russia? I don't want to call negative attention to her. But then again, it could be like saying "we have noticed this woman and will notice if she disappears." What do you think? --MopTop (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

If the woman is notable enough for an English Wikipedia article, then she likely has attention. Unless you have sources that say she is hiding, then I wouldn't consider it an issue. Women need agency and part of giving that agency is by writing their stories through Wikipedia articles. I would go for it. --LauraHale (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested moves for Women in Red primers

Here are links to discussions of interest to members of this project: --Rosiestep (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for creating women's biographies#Requested move 30 April 2019
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Essays/Primer for AfD, AfC and PROD#Requested move 30 April 2019

• FYI - WikiProject Council Guide - Advice pages. WikiProjects are designed for inclusion of project-specific guidelines/essays to help editors of any specific project. — Maile (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Column for # of site links in a Wikidata redlist

I really like when there's a column for # of site links in our Wikidata redlists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Gender Studies. I wanted to add such a column to our WD redlist for librarians, but it didn't seem to work. Can someone tell me what I should do? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Three things are required; the code which counts the links, which you added - OPTIONAL {?item wikibase:sitelinks ?linkcount .} # count of sitelinks, but also ?linkcount needs to be in the select statement (so SELECT ?item ?linkcount), and then in the columns parameter, you need to add ,?linkcount:site links at the end.

As it is a) I acknowledge you can't get the staff. I've revamped some but not all of the by occupation redlists, and been derelict, so far, on the others; and b) I've revised librarians to make it follow the current SPARQL approach, so tick that one off. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, as always, thank you for explaining these Wikidata issues with such patience; and thank you for doing the needful on the actual redlists. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"Historic number of women elected" to National Academy of Sciences

See http://www.nasonline.org/news-and-multimedia/news/2019-nas-election.html. I don't have much time for it today, but it would be a good idea to go through this list and check that articles on the new women members exist and describe their new academy membership. See Bryna Kra for an example that I just handled after an anonymous edit there brought it to my attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: thank you for the heads up! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Science#2019_NAS Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Drafting Selma Freud article

I'm drafting the requested article for Selma Freud. Cheers. WritingMan (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Pioneers & Leaders: Knowledge Center About Arab Women

Another site of some interest, here. A friend sent me the link; it's a project of the George and Lisa Zakhem Kahlil Gibran Chair for Values and Peace at the University of Maryland, College Park. We've got articles on a lot of them, but not all, and it's especially rich in interesting figures from the Arabian Peninsula region. I would note that at least two have been subjects of articles that were later deleted, so we might need to tread carefully on those, but it's not an insurmountable issue. We've done edit-a-thons at UMD before; I wonder if this is something we might pursue with them again? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a wonderful source, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I'm hopeful someone has time and inclination to make a redlist of the names and organizations. Link to list of "pioneers". Link to list of "leaders". Link to list of "Civil Society Organizations". (cc: @May Hachem93 and Megalibrarygirl:) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I may tackle the redlist tomorrow night when I have a little time. Assuming I don't nod off in front of the computer again. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nigerien music

I need help. :-)

Perusing what I was able to see of the Historical Dictionary of Niger behind the Google Books firewall, I discovered just enough information to create articles about two singers, Haoua Issa and Bouli Kakasi, and the genre they performed, zaley. Zaley (sometimes zalay) seems especially intriguing - it was a genre of praise song performed mostly by female singers that was especially prominent during the 1940s and 1950s. There appears to have been some political connection as well, though it's not clear from the sources I've read.

Can anyone expand these? I've done what I can with the sources as they are, but I'd love to expand them a bit. There were other female singers, too - I see several names crop up here and there (Hama Dabgue, for one - I may be able to squeak out a stub about her) - but creating articles is going to be difficult. Though I'd like very much to try, if possible. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

how to suggest a redlink

Hey it is nice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Architects is very clear that it is generated from wikidata, whatever that is, and that any manually-added suggestions will be automatically deleted. But it would be nice if the introduction here and at similar missing article lists also suggested how a new redlink could be added. :) I did try "Automatically update the list now" but that is something else, does not permit an addition. So I just posted to the Talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Architects, about the woman to add perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

We have separate pages for manually suggested lists of redlinks. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Architecture. Perhaps you missed, on the very first line of the list you found, the link labeled "WiR redlist index"? Following it would have led you to the manual list. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

But equally it is all a bit bewildering. WD redlists don't give any advice on how to add to them, for which I'm at least party responsible. The redlist index is slightly better, at least for CS pages. It points to but does not give any advice on how to add people to wikidata, and we could perhaps, do slightly better than this. The main page is much as the redlist index page.

This is, I think, the second time in the last month (?) that a user has taken the trouble to suggest that we're not making 'how to add' clear, and I'll now take the hint and do something about it. So, thank you, Doncram. And per my other message, I've added the suggested architect to wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Doncram, and others, are to be excused if they aren't sure what Wikidata is. I've been around a dozen years and only figured out within the last few years what Wikidata is. I noticed that if you create a new article, you may or may not see something on that new article that says it is a Wikidata item. And I finally figured out that all Wikipedians have access to Wikidata, but they have to log in to that account. Easy way to find it is to go to your Preferences/User Profile and scroll down to "View your global account info". Wikidata is somewhere at the bottom of the list that pulls up. Now and then, I've created Wikidata pages. But I do it so seldom, that inbetween times I forget how I did it. I would like to suggest that somewhere/somehow, there is a bulleted how-to list on how to create on Wikidata. — Maile (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

WiR. Now with added "We also have a guide to adding names to redlists". Sooner or later I'll start adding a link to this from redlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me add: because adding a wikidata record will be very hard for someone completely unfamiliar with wikidata, the guide page includes a section inviting people to list new names on that page, with a promise that one of us will add the name to wikidata. I've added the guide page to my watchlist; others who are familiar with wikidata might like to do the same? I doubt we'll see much traffic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Like — Maile (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

How to make a 'Women in Red' link blue

Hello, I successfully created a page for Joan Almond but don't know how to remove her name from the 'Women in Red' lists. Her name still appears as red. I found her name on the | Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Artists list. Also how how I link her talk page to the 'Women in Red' project. I see that there are several links, i.e. Wiki Projects Articles for creation, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject California, WikiProject Photography and WikiProject Women. Is it possible to create an manual archive to archive older conversations? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @LorriBrown:. First, in short, I've dealt with the Joan Almond issue; she'll disappear from the redlist shortly. And then, a longer explainer: names disappear from our wikidata-based redlists, such as the artist list you point to, within 24 hours of a link to the wikipedia article being added to the wikidata record for the person. In the case of Joan Almond, the wikidata record which was on the /Atists redlist was not updated with a link to your article; rather, a new Joan Almond wikidata record was created, and that was linked to your article. I've merged the two wikidata Joan Almonds. There's currently a delay of 5 or 6 minutes before the /Artists redlist can be updated to reflect the merge I did because wikidata plumbing is sometimes a bit creaky. I'll hit the button that makes it update soon, and if I forget, the page will get updated by a bot in the next 24 hours and one way or another, the Joan Almond row will disappear.

I'm going to pass on your other questions and hope a colleague will pick them up. thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

LorriBrown I cannot advise you on technical stuff like how to archive a page, but to flag an article as part of WiR, you just affix whatever template is appropriate under the project notices on the talk page of the article. For example, this month's editathon "Mays" is {{WIR-118}}. The "catch all" editathon for women who were created but not specifically tied to one of the monthly themes is "1day1woman" for which you would use {{WIR-108}} on the article talk page. SusunW (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the WIR-108 template to the article's talk page. I've also added it to Judith Schwarz. Two interesting biographies. Great to have you as a member of Women in Red. Please let me know if ever you need further assistance. Keep up the good work and happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Research reveals evidence of discrimination against women scholars

Thanks to Signpost I have read with interest the results of the recent study titled "Female scholars need to achieve more for equal public recognition" by Menno H. Schellekensa, Floris Holstegeb, and Taha Yasser. On the basis of citations on Google Scholar of male and female academics in physics, economics and philosophy, the study clearly showed an overall discrimiation against women on Wikipedia. The percentage of females with articles on Wikipedia was 9.54% as compared to 17.4% for males. There is therefore obviously room for far better coverage of women academics, even if the number of women with adequate supporting citations was only 2,695 as compared to 12,354 for men.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing articles from April's #1day1woman page

There are more pagestalkers here, so hoping that someone can take a look at this request from one of our members: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108#April articles disappeared. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything seems to be fine now.--Ipigott (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing allegations for Sarah Tuttle

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Tuttle

The AfD has the canvassing template at the top which directly links to Sarah Tuttle's twitter stream, even though the article does not mention twitter. Though Tuttle has posted that the article about them is being deleted, I have seen no post where she has asked for meatpuppets to vote in the AfD. Encouraging others to look at the article and consider adding more to it, is perfectly acceptable. Jesswade88 has openly commented on the twitter stream, there may be other Wikipedians who have reached out.

The use of the canvassing template appears excessive. No evidence has been supplied to support an allegation that Tuttle has been canvassing to game the system or manipulate voting in the AfD. A post by someone else has been mentioned as evidence for an ANI discussion, but that fine distinction is not made in the canvassing template. At the time the twitter stream post was noted, there were no keep votes in the AfD at all, so there could have zero meaningful evidence of canvassing at the time of the allegation.

There is a second allegation that the Women in Red twitter stream is also canvassing this AfD, therefore being used to manipulate votes.

I invite Slatersteven and Sitush to publish all their evidence here, so the evidence can be openly discussed rather than left as hanging toxic conspiracy theories. The current situation where allegations can be made against this project and a non-Wikipedian BLP subject without having to provide verifiable evidence of the allegations, is visibly unfair, hostile, and acts as a blight on AfDs and any related discussion for improvement, whenever these types of allegations of a gender gap conspiracy are allowed to go unchallenged. --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: The template is actually called {{Not a ballot}}, which is what it contains – advice for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia about how the AfD process works. I don't think it should be regarded an allegation. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The template is not being used neutrally, because it links to Tuttle's twitter stream with the non-standard choice of words "If you came here because the subject of this article mentioned it, ...". That's an allegation, as is the note that prompted the template to be added, which called the twitter stream a "call to arms" (diff). Could hardly be clearer as an allegation of gaming the system. Evidence of canvassing is what we would benefit from seeing, and having the fair opportunity to verify, not just passively accept that conspiracy theories are the new normal for Wikipedia.

Here earlier this morning, Sitush attributes an increase in keep votes to canvassing by the WiR twitter stream, so, let's see the evidence please, or have the conspiracy theory struck as being toxic to a positive collegial atmosphere. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you like to hear your own voice? ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt your comment is particularly constructive. Perhaps you might consider refactoring it in the spirit of collaboration? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, in light of his illustrious past. ∯WBG^converse 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Illustrious. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

An AfD back the previous !voter was accusing me and others of perpetuating misogyny because he felt that we did not scrutinize male bios in an equal fashion and our time would be better spend by spending our efforts over there, instead. By the way, are these gems regular or occasional? ∯WBG^converse 13:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Strange you should say that; I came to much the same conclusion about you - that you seem to have a bias against women's biogs. Odd, then, when multiple people come to the same conclusion about you. Almost as if there was something to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be coming to the same conclusion about quite many folks which assures me to not bother much about what you think or say. As you saw in the ANI thread, outliers always exist, ain't they?

Now, make sure to go and improve Patricia K. Donahoe or Kathryn Virginia Anderson or some of my other expansions, in case the anti-woman-bio-bias in me has affected my write-ups. Ta, ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Easy to be misled by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nia Imara, which - surprise! - was another policing of Jess Wade's contributions, in which pretty much no-one agreed with your hot take. Do you & Natureium & Netoholic have a clubhouse? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I decline to disclose the current members but they might be. We are always in search of new members and it does come with perks. Mind applying? (Do it secretly though....) Also, I got a bit sad, that none apart from you agreed to your hot-takes on sanctioning one of our apparent clubhouse members. (Hint:-The club might be bigger than you deem.)

And remember, the club necessitates good writing skills and a track record of creations/expansions of female academic bios (that conclusively pass NACADEMIC, w/o having to accuse other editors as misogynists); I hope that won't be much of a hurdle for you, eh?! ∯WBG^converse 14:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As you wish, though my advice is that it would be better if you try to focus on the here and now rather than use events from seven years ago to justify your actions. Dropping in just to snipe at Fae runs against the ethos of this community, we should expect better. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As someone, (whom I have appreciated as a sane voice, from our past intersections), do you feel that this is any problematic? ∯WBG^converse 13:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the link to the tweet from the template. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I shall now step in to say that I have not replied (despite being asked to) in order to diffuse the drama and for no other reason. That is all I will say about this here, as this forum is not about me.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

What a pity, how disappointing. No evidence to review, despite repeated requests. Just have to conclude this is fakenews drama mongering instead.

It would be smart to call out the usual suspects on precisely the same thing, every time these same old bad faith allegations of gender gap related canvassing are repeated.

Of course, naturally, none of this is an allegation of "misogyny" or "sexism", despite the usual suspects repeatedly using these words and pretending to be mortally offended, when the only people saying these things are themselves playing the victim. Dear Usual Suspects, please keep in mind that addressing Wikipedia's systemic bias, is not a personal attack on you, no matter how much you try to bend the facts to promote that myth. --Fæ (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual, implying that someone's actions are misogynist or sexist (even without using those words and falling afoul of WP:NPA) is somehow seen as more problematic than, you know, doing actions that have misogynist or sexist effect. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As usual. (sigh)

I've just read the past several days of Sarah Tuttle's Twitter feed (feed? stream? timeline? timestream? whatever the kids call it). Try as I might, I can't see any untoward "canvassing". Her comments about Wikipedia are a mix of dry humor, thoughtful reflection (If you're wondering, my choice is always not to raise my profile, because fundamentally I think we should do as much as we can to shift out of the framework of "Brilliant Hero Scientist Sitting Alone Thinks Brave New Thoughts") and getting mansplained by a guy who manages to fit two mistakes into 140 characters. If I had a Twitter account, I'd put on my best "well, actually" voice and say that (1) notability is a guideline, not a policy and (2) we do in fact consider the notability of science as well as of scientists. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone has helpfully responded to his comment with a link to yours. --JBL (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I'm famous! XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have not participated in the AFD, nor do I intend to; I am in no wise qualified to discuss the notability of any scientist without some kind of assist, such as a biographical dictionary. But I've been watching it brew since yesterday, and I feel the need to state this: I think a lot of accusations have been lobbed at a variety of editors on both sides of the issue. Few of them have been fair, and many have been exceptionally unkind. Whatever the result of the AFD I'm extremely disappointed in the tone it has taken on. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully share these concerns, particularly the reactions towards Natureium in the AfD discussions. Anyone who looks at his article creation history will see what a fine effort he has been making on improving coverage of women scientists (not to mention a number of male scientists too).--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've not read the reactions to Natureium in the AfD, but, as I've said elsewhere, I think Natureium showed crass poor judgement in the Netoholic ANI; in ensuing discussisons; and in their decision to take yet another of Jess Wade's articles to AfD. I don't think they are a misogynist. I do think - per the Sarah Tuttle twitter thread - that their actions contribute to the perception that Wikipedia is a misogynists paradise.

In the ANI, at a time that Netoholic was being challenged for their close policing of Jess Wade's work, and for multiple AfDs which yielded keep results - i.e. for what looked to all intent and purpose like a campaign again Jess Wade and her work - Natureium turned up, declared that they had found some things wrong in Jess's work, and on that basis, decided that all of Jess's work now needed forensic examination ... in other words, Jess having been through a Netoholic campaign of tagging and AfDs, was now to be submitted to a Netoholic campaign of exactly the name. Netoholic provided no evidence for their view, beyond the broadest wavey hand explanation.

Later - after taking another of Jess's articles to AfD - Natureium turned up here to declare that Jess's tweet about a campaign against her work was a lie, and that I was credulous for reporting her tweet here. There is, according to Natureium, nothing for Jess to be complaining about, because all her articles predating the Clarice Phelps controvery is still in place. Jess's tweet was about her work after Clarice Phelps and there is abundent evidence that that work is being policed - now not least by Natureium.

Currently, Natureium is trying to get some sort of admin action taken against me for having the temerity to push back at their actions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ... as near as I can understand it, Natureium wants an environment in which they can level vague accusations against Jess's work with conclusions that it all needs a thorough examination; can accuse Jess of lying about that fact that she's under a microscope of first Netoholic and later Natureium's design; can accuse me of being credulous for believing Jess (And note: I did go through the edit history of Jess's work to confirm to my satisfaction that there was a campaign against Jess's work before posting her twitter comment here); and can accuse me of being rude in pushing back against the accusations leveled against Jess ... and an environment in which anyone pushing back against Natureium should be blocked. Admins there seem to be hot to trot for some action, having - at least up to last night when I bowed out of the process - accepted entirely Natureium's one-sided framing of the issues.

So forgive me, Ian, if I beg to differ on the Natureium question. And, as perhaps you'll understand, from my perspective, f*** this for a game of soldiers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if Women in Red would take part in developing the guideline about off-wiki canvassing. There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing in February, but it went nowhere. There are strong arguments on both sides. On the one hand, if Wikipedia is sexist, we can hardly expect people not to ask for help elsewhere. On the other hand, we don't want decisions about Wikipedia made on Twitter. Given recent events, I would say we do need to develop something pretty soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Guidelines for whom to do what? We can't control what subjects of articles say on twitter. And we shouldn't take account of what they say on twitter in determining whether they are notable. So the only thing to do is what we should have been doing all along: consider the strengths of arguments for whether articles meet our policies and guidelines and not the numbers of people on either side. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well known people will clearly get very mixed results if they try to tweet about their Wikipedia article (or draft article). Anyone with a significant number of followers and attempts to do something like ask their followers to "vote for me", is quite likely to attract more haters to PROD their article, complain about it on-wiki, tag the article with lots of hard to remove notices about conflicts of interest and notability, or vote against them, probably quoting a lot more research than any supporters they attract. Plus, if someone like Stephen Fry tried it, and it was working, it would be pretty darn obvious that single purpose accounts were stacking the vote and the consensus would probably end up excluding all noob votes. In summary, there is not enough tangible evidence to show that either we need new policies to handle off-wiki canvassing, or that any of the proposals would be useful or effective were it to actually happen (in most cases like this one, mentions on Twitter have had close to zero impact on votes or were simply not "canvassing" when examined in the cold light of day). --Fæ (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Its about workload, wadding through 30 "Keelte" votes to try and actually weed out the wheat form the chaff Also this is not just a problem, with AFD's as any one who edits the Mark Dice page can attest, it makes work..Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • David, I'm talking about the Women in Red Twitter account. Whoever controls it (perhaps Victuallers?) has tweeted several times about the Sarah Tuttle BLP while it's at AfD, not asking people to comment in the AfD but to add material to the article. In a sense this is perfectly legitimate. But it risks encouraging people with strong views and little experience of our policies to turn up with a comment. I haven't looked to see whether there's evidence of it at that AfD. The point is not this particular article. It's that I assume none of us want BLP deletion decisions to be made via Twitter, so it would make sense to develop guidance: when tweeting about a BLP is not a problem, and when it might be. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The WiR twitter account never canvasses for votes. As the creator and past operator of a User Group twitter account, there is no harm in WiR participants discussing some best practices for the Twitter account that represents the project, especially if it makes the decisions about content for the account operator(s) easier. However it's not really an area that on-wiki policies transfer well for, as we can probably be confident that the wider Wikipedia community does not want to restrict useful free speech, such as potentially whistleblowing about Wikimedia project or WMF issues that could be in conflict with the best interests of the mission of WiR... --Fæ (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • That is too strict an interpret of WP:CANVASS. Votestacking can happen simply by publicising an AfD to a sympathetic audience off-wiki. I mentioned this in the Tuttle AfD itself, as you know because you then went on a strawman rant. I also pointed out in the same comment that arguably referring to an AfD on Twitter without specifically saying something like "go there and !vote" might be no different from the deletion sorting notices that happen on-wiki. It's a tricky problem and the various distortions of my position that you have offered in this thread and elsewhere recently are not helpful. Although not an AfD, the Mark Dice article is a recent example of Twitter canvassing, and there have been plenty over the years for Indian caste articles via Orkut, Facebook etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Nobody forced you to make allegations against the WiR twitter stream. Rather than wasting everyone's time attacking me yet again, please instead produce the evidence requested. As you are such a well respected contributor on BLPs about women, and allegations of canvassing should be taken very seriously, I am sure that nobody thinks you were making unfounded allegations against the WiR project without having firm evidence at your fingertips and can share that evidence here so everyone can verify it. Thanks so much. --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
            • I didn't allege anything - there was no conspiracy claim etc. Please stop bloviating. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Oh my, what a shame, still no evidence that anyone can review. So, when you proposed that the WiR Twitter stream should be added to the massive notice at the top of the AfD because "We should probably add the Womeninred twitter feed to that template - the sudden influx of !voters here is somewhat surprising." you were not in any way claiming that the WiR Twitter feed was canvassing, nor were you implying it. Strange how your actual words say the opposite of what you intended. Perhaps you should lay off the attacks against individual volunteers and the WiR project itself for a while, unless you are able to stick to verifiable evidence or perhaps just try harder to keep these nasty disruptive allegations in your head, rather than using Wikipedia talk pages to publish them. Thanks so much for your help clarifying the truth here Sitush, super super helpful. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Indeed I wasn't alleging anything. Please stop this needless drama - you seem to take offence at everything of late and you are repeatedly drawing the wrong conclusions about various people while ranting away. It isn't a good look. And that's me done here. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I've seen "canvassing" from the outside, on occasions when a colleague notices that a page relevant to one of our research topics is tagged for cleanup or nominated for deletion. Invariably, nobody wants to come close enough to even touch an AfD with a pole. Moreover, I suspect that there is no notice of an AfD that is so flat and anodyne that somebody somewhere wouldn't gin up an objection to it, based on who said it and where it was said. So, I don't see a behavioral guideline for off-wiki canvassing actually being helpful. Its existence would give people who like to wiki-lawyer another excuse to do so, and more likely than not, people not involved with the project will see it as Wikipedia being hostile again, trying to police discussions that aren't even happening here.
        I also think that there's a "hard cases make bad law" aspect to all this. Discussions about new guidelines, or making big revisions to existing guidelines (like WP:PROF), get started when people's emotions are running high and a small number of examples are on everybody's mind, whether or not those examples are remotely representative. Thus, big changes get proposed and debated and dramatized, even if the vast majority of problems are things we already handle routinely. (We semi-protect pages, discard obvious sockpuppets, skip over non-policy-based !votes, etc.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Fæ, I agree with the points you make about free speech and whistleblowing. But it would be troubling if decisions about BLPs were to be overly influenced by Twitter, partly because article writing would then become indistinguishable from PR. The other side is that we get requests every day from people very distressed about their BLPs and wanting us to remove something negative, or remove the page entirely. This includes people who were initially delighted to have one. So creating a BLP and deciding whether to keep it are both big decisions for someone's life. Perhaps we could at least add to the guideline that editors should not post on social media about BLPs during deletion discussions. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
          • By the by, and for transparency, there are four admins of the WiR twitter account: in addition to Victuallers (already mentioned), there's also @Megalibrarygirl and SusunW, plus me. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks, Rosie. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I have never canvassed on any social media platform for input of any kind to any discussion. I am an admin of the WiR twitter account, though I do not believe I have posted anything over the last 6 months. My posts focus on new articles created or the need of a photograph. I do not have a personal twitter and typically do not engage in exchanges on the platform. Though I did once respond to a request for a link to a guideline and answer a question about when WiR would do an editathon on artists. SusunW (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Like SusunW, I haven't personally posted on the WiR twitter page recently, but I do manage the sister meta project on Twitter for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (@DivWiki on Twitter). I also follow a lot of wikimedians and sometimes retweet or comment on their issues. I have found out about articles that needed improvement through Twitter, so I would consider that a net positive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We cannot tell people what to do on other platforms, we can (and often do, we even have a tag for it) not allow them to carry it over to here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something. This long discussion seems to be about alleged "please vote for"s at AfDs. All the experienced editors know that AfDs are not votes and we have a template to remind others. It seems to be agreed that the Women in Red twitter feed is the best example we can find of a twitter feed that is blatantly NOT encouraging people to vote in the AfD. It seems to be agreed that the WiR Twitter feed is encouraging additions... and that is exactly what we have done. I'm not sure that this is a valuable debate - the most productive ones have been on the Sarah Tuttle article's talk page and on Twitter where we have supported Prof Tuttle and assisted her in contributing pictures. Now there are some very concerned people on Twitter who think that Wikipedia invented systemic bias... and some of the debates I have seen encourage that mistaken view. Prof Tuttle has shown in her article in Nature!!!!! that this is not caused by Wikipedia alone. The idea that AfD's should control what happens on Twitter, Facebook and the New York Times is fanciful. Will it stop debate here if this is proposed for deletion? WiR operates in 22 languages. Can we not come to a conclusion on this Afd? and let most of us get back to improving Wikipedia. Victuallers (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

NPA potential RFC for gender identification harassment

FYI Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Harassment,_mocking_or_otherwise_disrepecting_someone_on_the_basis_of_gender_identification_and_pronoun_preference --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Top 12 most outstanding Estonian women in the world 2019

Ran across this article about the top 12 most outstanding Estonian women in the world 2019. More than pleasantly surprised to see that 4 of them have articles on the en-wiki, but the following 8 don't, if anyone wants to get cracking:

1. Karoli Hindriks
2. Kristel Kruustük, not on any wiki, not even et-wiki
3. Lili Milani, only on et-wiki
4. Maarja Nuut, only on et-wiki
5. Mari Kalkun, on et-, ja- and uk-wikis
6. Marika Mikelsaar, only on et-wiki
7. Moonika Siimets, not on any wiki, not even et-wiki
8. Riina Kionka, only on et- and de-wikis

-Yupik (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Yupik for drawing our attention to these. Over the years, I have also had close contacts with Estonia and have been impressed with their progress in information technology and STEM in general. Unfortunately, Estonian (like Finnish) is one of those languages beyond my capabilities. Nevertheless, I have started creating the missing biographies and think I'll be able to cover them all apart perhaps from Lili Milana [3], [4] and possibly Marika Mikelsaar [5], [6] as they might not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Maybe David Eppstein and SlimVirgin could offer an opinion on these two. There's no point in creating articles which are likely to be deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)