Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Need your opinion on Wikipedia’s gender gap

Hi Women in Red!

Are you curious about what tools are effective in reaching Women in Red’s goals? Are you interested in contributing to the building of scalable solutions for closing Wikipedia’s gender gap?

I’m with a group of researchers working on using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents and thus to close the gender gap. We want to make sure you, as an important member of the community, can be heard as we build and refine these AIs.

We would like to invite you to a quick interview to share your thoughts about gender gaps on Wikipedia and the current efforts, as well as potential solutions to them. It would only take about 30 minutes over phone or video chat. We will send you a $15 Amazon gift card as a way to thank you for your time.

For more details about our project, please refer to our Wikipedia page here.

If you decide to participate, your opinion could help build the future of Wikipedia. Hope to talk to you soon! Reply to this message here or send me an email at bowen-yu@umn.edu and I can share more info and plan a time to connect. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Note that, unless things have changed, Amazon vouchers have to be redeemed from the country they were issued in - they don't work internationally. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll participate, if you like. Though I should point out I work more in images, and you should probably make sure you interview people other than me, because only interviewing men about women's issues leads to all sorts of stupid. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 16:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I'd be happy to participate. Be warned that I'll likely be computerless for the next 48 hours or so, though...it'll be Sunday at the earliest before I can have a look. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I participated. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bobo.03 I'll be happy to participate if it can be done by e-mail or VOIP. I live in Mexico and phone calls are difficult. SusunW (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I've sent individual emails to all of you to schedule a time. Hope to talk to you all soon. Thanks again!Bobo.03 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not contributing at present

It's the first of the month. Usually I'd be working on articles (well, solidly-sourced stubs at least) for all the WiR Editathons of the month (as listed here). But I feel despondent about the future of this wonderful volunteer-powered encyclopedia of ours, given the recent events described here and summarised in the latest WP:Signpost. Some powerful elements of the WMF appear to treat volunteers like mushrooms ("keep them in the dark and feed them s***"). Until relationships between the WMF and the English Wikipedia community are improved, I am reluctant to contribute. I hope to resume article creation soon, but am not confident about the future. PamD 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

For those interested in this unfolding saga, Fram replies to Smallbones' Signpost piece here. I don't know the rights and wrongs of this particular case, but WMF's treatment of the En.Wiki community has been very poor and we are losing hardworking admins day by day. PamD 09:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: Smallbones's piece was deleted at 13:54 UTC today, as "(G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Out of caution this should be hidden from view until ArbCom rules. We can’t have scandalous assertions without evidence)". A good thing too, but that's how nasty things are getting. PamD 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, PamD, that you will not be contributing for the time being. With all your biographies and related articles over the past few years, you have done much to improve the coverage of women on the EN wiki. I realize this incident must have been upsetting. Let's hope that as the story unfolds, we can build up the necessary motivation again. Personally, I think it is important to remember how much the world now depends on Wikipedia for finding reliable information about people. It's usually their first port of call. Hope you'll be joining us again soon.--Ipigott (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. PamD 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: I don't think this will be the end of us. I've actually been at a lower ebb over some WiR-related business earlier this year, even. And I suppose I shouldn't be commenting on the Fram business because I've been traveling for the past week and change, and because before that I was so engaged in preparation that I missed a large part of what was going on. That being said: I'm not impressed with the way the Foundation has handled this. Love or hate him (her? I seem to recall Fram self-identifying as female once in a discussion), Fram was a long-time editor and administrator with a major profile here; that's not the sort of person you can just go ahead and block with a snap of the fingers and expect it to go unnoticed. It's troubling, and I hope it's not a harbinger of the way things are going to go around here. Personally, I hope to have enough in the tank for a stub tonight, but otherwise I'll be returning to my wanderings for the remainder of this week. (PS: greetings from Nur-Sultan - ask me about my trip to Georgia sometime. :-)) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Update: there are now statements, issued in the last few hours, from the WMF Board and from the Foundation. These, plus Jimbo's clarification, show some progress. PamD 08:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Time for my afternoon tea break, and wanted to check in with you, PamD, to see how you're doing as you mentioned feeling despondent. Hope you're doing ok (even though the issues surrounding recent events are not settled). --Rosiestep (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Kim Echlin edit request

Hi all. There's a COI edit request at Talk:Kim Echlin that participants in this project might be interested in helping out with. Echlin is a female, Canadian novelist. The request probably can't be implemented wholesale, but the article certainly could do with some improvement, and there may well be useful material for this task in the request. I've made some minor additions to the article myself, but help would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Help! Need a new article renamed

I misspelled an article title, Juilet Clannon Cushing should be Juliet Clannon Cushing (and it's spelled right in the rest of the article). Help! Penny Richards (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Penny Richards (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Nari Shakti Puraskar

There are a lot of redlinks at Nari Shakti Puraskar, "India's highest civilian award for recognising the achievements and contributions of women", as I found out while creating an article for Didi Contractor, one of the 2018 winners. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Good find, David Eppstein. Hopefully, someone is creating Wikidata items for the redlinked women. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface

Since you have a lot of experience with newbies and article creation, you might have good feedback for this. Please comment at the above link! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Headbomb for bringing this to our attention. I see your proposal is already attracting support. Before I go to your proposal page, I have a few reflections and suggestions. I remember when I first used (pre-Wikipedia) wikis, one of my problems was how to create an article. It's not at all obvious. (I had been used to Wang word processing where the first menu item was "Create".) While I agree that more information about creating new articles should be provided in a general introduction, I am not convinced it is a good idea to encourage "newbies" to start creating articles without gaining some basic experience of editing, e.g. through the Wikipedia Adventure. In my experience, without initial guidance, very few new editors are able to create new articles which are not immediately deleted. We need to be very careful not to discourage newbies to the point where they simply stop any further involvement. If additional explanations are to be given on how to create an article, they should therefore contain a number of hints and safeguards. One feature could be a basic article format (perhaps even two: one for people and one for other items) which could be "filled in" by new recruits. This is a complex matter and needs careful attention. I see, btw, that the German wiki has a page Hilfe:Artikel anlegen (Help:Create new article) with an immediate link to Schritt für Schritt-Anleitung (Step-by-step guide) which has been around since 2008. I see this is available in many wiki languages but not in English. There is however this in Simple English. It may be useful to draw on the experience gained. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Late June FP report

Alva Belmont and Séverine passed, as did

• R. J. Palacio

New ones are:

• The Lord's Prayer cutout art by Martha Anne Honeywell
• Emma Calvé in La Navarraise
• Hermaphrodite, the first photographic medical documentation of an intersex person. (The term "hermaphrodite" was used historically).

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 23:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to shrink the last one down to 40px wide or so, if it's a little too much genitalia for here. Trying to compromise between "surprise genitalia is kind of rude" and "WP:NOTCENSORED" Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 00:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They're not all closed yet, but it looks like everything passed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, Adam Cuerden. Amazing work. Thanks for what you do. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Thank you, but I must say: Don't just congratulate me! The first is by Rhododendrites (who really SHOULD have had a lot more out of that set of photos), and the second was found by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who also wrote the article on Honeywell. Both of them do incredible work for the project, and I don't want to grab any of their credit. This is a collaborative project, after all. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 20:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, @Rhododendrites and Ser Amantio di Nicolao!! Amazing work. Thanks to all for what you do. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks kindly, but I owe you a lot for helping me to shepherd Honeywell through the FP process - despite the amount of time I've been hanging out around here, FP is still terra incognita for me to a large extent, and it's great to have a helping hand as I make my first steps down the path. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

GAN nom for Susan Kauzlarich

Hi folks, I just got a response on my very first GAN nom for Prof Susan Kauzlarich @ UC Davis. You can take a look on the talk page Susan Kauzlarich. I don't mind pursuing things further but I was a bit surprised by the reviewer's justifications. Would someone else mind taking a look and letting me know a second opinion? Also, aren't the reviewers usually supposed to be part of an article's relevant project groups (for instance a reviewer for this article would be be affiliated w/ Wikipedia: Chemistry or Wikipedia: Women in Science). thanks! Nanobright (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit, there's a few things - I'll comment them on the talk page when I get a few minutes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement for reviewers to be affiliated with an article's project group. In many cases, it is helpful if they aren't. Canada Hky (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it was disappointing, Nanobright, but the GAN feedback seems reasonable to me. GAN is a high standard and this article does not yet meet it. I, too, have failed a GAN ... it's upsetting, I know, but in my case the GAN fail was justified, as it was in this case. It will take a substantial amount of work to make Sk GAN material, and that would start with addressing the points raised in the feedback you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I did some clean up on the article to help neutralize the tone to a more encyclopedic voice. Netherzone (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If this BLP came to AfD it would get a clear pass on WP:Prof#C1, maybe more. However the BLP is far from GA status as it is bloated with trivia and superfluous promotionalism that could be an embarrassment to its subject. A 50% at least prune is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC).

Nanobright: I realize you are probably rather upset by the result of the review. As has been explained above, the GA standard is pretty high. If you want to see some of the recent women's biographies which have reached GA class, I suggest you look at the "Recent successes" listed on project WikiProject Women in Green. It might also be useful for you to join that project where you will be able to receive advice and assistance. Perhaps it would also be good to choose another women as a candidate for a GA article. I'm not at all sure whether there are sufficient available sources on Susan Kauzlarich for you to be able to expand the article much further. I would be happy to help you along if we can identify another candidate for whom you can find more background information. You might also like to consider writing about someone who is no longer living. Obituaries, especially those you can find on the internet for people who have died fairly recently, can be useful sources as they give an immediate impression of a person's level of notability and provide essential background details. Don't give up. You're progressing very well. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski, Tagishsimon, Ipigott, Canada Hky, Xxanthippe, and Netherzone:: Thanks for getting back to me. Apologies for any confusion but my concern was not the GAN status but that the feedback would lead to the article being nominated for deletion. It's great to hear that's not on the table + for some addt'l feedback. Now that my WikiEdu class is completed I have less time allocated to editing (although I am working on organizing an edit-a-thon for women's scientific biographies). Re: comments above from @Xxanthippe:, I'm having trouble following the feedback + terms in your reply but the overall gist sounds worrisome. If you have time to make any direct edits to the article that would be awesome. Nanobright (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff, Nanobright; keep the faith. Good luck with the editathon; hope to see much more from you. And thank you for weathering this squall as well as you have. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get time to message you regarding this - I'd say that "good articles" are misleading, realistically, they need to be "great articles". The person in question is notable, so no worries regarding AfD. I'll do some cleanup on the page if you would like that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata issues in July 2019

Getting to grips with Wikidata

So I've come across an interesting-sounding woman called Irene Scouloudi (1907-1992), an English historian whose interest in the Huguenots led to documentation of methods of assisting refugees. No article on Wikipedia. It turns out there is a page on Wikidata here, but it appears to refer to her not as a person but as the subject of a scholarly article. Am I reading that correctly? I added the description "English historian and philanthropist". What do I need to do to get Wikidata to automatically add her to the appropriate Redlist? --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the item you point to is for a scholarly article, although I see someone has tried to turn it into a human. I've reverted them. How to add to wikidata? Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/How to add names to Women in Red lists harder? (Thanks for fixing the typo.) Obvs I've failed to explain how it all works. Maybe start here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:NewItem ... and if not, I'll add. (more later - run out of time) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So this is actually just an item about the scholarly article, and is just for that. I checked wikidata and could not find an item for her as a person, so I have created a new one for you here (Q64946751). She should be added to the redlist when you fill in her data, specifically occupation and nationality. Then ListeriaBot should add her to the redlist at the next update. Wikidata aims to include all data about everything so that's why there can be a page about a scholarly article about a person while needing a separate page for that specific person. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think I got a little confused by the request. Apologies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carbon Caryatid: I realise your question was about Wikidata, but if you're interested I have access to the David M. Wilson's one-page reflection on her importance. I've only skimmed it, but she sounds like the kind of person who should have a Wikipedia article (as well as an entry in Wikidata of course). Richard Nevell (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also an informative obit here.--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And back to wikidata - her item needs a P106 Occupation before it'll turn up on a redlist. I've added such. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all, especially Redalert2fan for creating the Wikidata entry. I had in fact read the "How to add names" page, but I was unsure whether the page I was looking at on WD needed to be added to. Is there a way to add to her WD biographical entry that she left an endowment, so that all holders of the Scouloudi Fellowship link automatically to her and each other? I started from the Indy obit, but yes @Richard Nevell: I'd appreciate the Wilson reflection. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

We can certainly create an item "Scouloudi Fellowship" or "Scouloudi Historical Award" [1] presuming these are the same things (or two items if they are not). And we can point to her item from the Fellowship/Award item using the properties P138: named after and P112 created by. Items for recipients can point to the fellowhip/award item using the property P166:award received. There may be a property we can add to her item pointing at the fellowship/award item, but I've not found it yet. Let's start with the q. are "Scouloudi Fellowship" and "Scouloudi Historical Award" the same thing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If the Wikidata list only contains X items, which items aren't included?

If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators, it contains 3,000 items, out of >12,000. How does Wikidata determine which items are included in the first 3,000, and which ones aren't. What if we changed the max to 1,000 items; which items would be more likely to be included vs. excluded? Would it be possible to have two lists of "Educators", one which only includes items that have site links, and the other to include items with no site links? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As to the second question, yes, absolutely, it's possible to add more parameters to a select to produce multiple list. We've done this for a number of redlists where we've divided them into countries, for instance. As to the first, good question. I've asked elsewhere, where people who know SPRQL and BlazeGraph better than me might be able to opine. I'll report back if I hear anything. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Tagishsimon. Adding Librarian in Residence Megalibrarygirl. So regarding point #2, do you think it would be useful to create: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators (at least 1 site link) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators (0 site links). Or how else to split them?

After we decide on how to name the split pages, all the "educator" redlists be linked to this page Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educators, which would become an "index" page for educators, to include Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Educators (the CS list), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/University teachers. Does that sound reasonable for our en-wiki community and would it makes sense to the 22 other language Wikipedia communities?

Using "educators" is really a test case as whatever is decided could be applied to other large occupation groups, e.g. writers, artists, scientists, so this needs ample thought and discussion. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, those 2 redlinks look the same to me. :( I would go with "Educators" like they use at the Library of Congress [2]. Then, related, you would have academics and specialists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Megalibrarygirl. Sure, those are good occupation titles. I couldn't find a Wikidata redlist for "academic" (Q3400985), so we'd need someone to create it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Academic. I also couldn't find one for "educational specialist" (Q5341303), so this would be another new one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Educational specialist. Note, neither of these occupations are included in the "educators" redlist so I'm still struggling with how to decrease the number of items from >12,000 to something more manageable. These are the ones that are included: --Rosiestep (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• wd:Q1056391#head_teacher
• wd:Q37226#teacher
• wd:Q974144#educator
• wd:Q1569495#lecturer
• wd:Q901222#tutor
• wd:Q20794925#college_head
• wd:Q121594#professor

I have created the separate lists for "academic" and "educational specialist", Educational specialist only appears to have 1 person --Redalert2fan (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to beg to doubt the >12,000 assertion. Counts of the number of items by profession for the educator professions listed above is at https://w.wiki/5iX and suggests the way to divide the list might be a couple of teacher lists, and then discrete lists for the significant numbers of the other professions. I might make this so, or Redalert2fan might beat me to it. There's also this - https://w.wiki/5ia - the subclasses of educator, which we might want to factor in lest we're missing a large pot of people coded for occupation unber any of these. And finally, there this - https://w.wiki/5ic - the counts of female with no en.wiki article having occupations, for all occupations. (The largest number of female have no occupation and get a dummy value of 'concept of unknown value in Wikibase'.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Tagishsimon: The interesting thing about Wikidata is that since it's crowdsourced and not really subject to authority control, there will be different kinds of headings than what you'd find at the Library of Congress or even with a Dewey system. I'm not a cataloging librarian, so only deal with categories in the sense that I use them to find things. Other librarians involved in cataloging, etc, use the categories to organize information. The way Wikidata is doing it is a little bit like a folksonomy, but that's OK as long as it's working for us and we can collect the datasets we need like Redalert2fan has. We link to the authorities in the articles anyway. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl, Redalert2fan, and Tagishsimon: - As we want to have redlists related to education and we want to avoid a folksonomy approach to it to the extent that's possible, would you please sort out for us (a) what redlist names should we use, and (b) what occupations (Q numbers) should go into each? Sure, we already have an "educator" redlist and a "university teachers" redlist, but we don't have to keep these "titles" if you think something else would be better. For example, we could move the "university teachers" page to "tertiary educators" and include all the Q numbers associated with post-secondary educators. Another example is the new redlist that Redalert2fan created for "educational specialist", which currently has only has one Q number (and that has only 1 item); should we keep that redlist, and add more Q numbers, and if so, which Q numbers? Plus there's the new "academic" one. I know it's a lot of work, but this is what we need to sort out. Thanks in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep, Redalert2fan, and Tagishsimon: I personally think that whatever works is fine. For example, if we used the Dewey system, we would categorize educators under a broad heading with some relevant subheadings:

• Educators (370)
  • Philosophy & History of Education (this would include biographies in the 370.8 section)
  • Elementary education (372)
  • Secondary education (373)
  • Adult education (374) these might be specialists or tutors
  • Education of women (376)
  • Higher education (378)

Within these categories are various breakdowns. So we could subdivide them further. If we base our own lists on existing categories built up by systems we already use, it should be easier to organize. We can look at what the system is doing and copy it. We'd have to decide if we'd want to use Dewey, LOC or another type of system. The first two are mostly particular to the US. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have found that it sometimes helps just to take an intelligent look at the at the various "countries" listings when looking for occupations such as educators. There you can often find people from different fields of science and the humanities who are not listed in Wikidata as educators but who do in fact teach as their principal occupation. When making Wikidata entries, people often seem to list just one main occupation. As a result, notable educators often fail to show up. As to Rosiestep's suggestion that we have two types of Wikidata listing, one of names with at least one article in another language and the other with no article, I wonder if this could not be handled by displaying two lists under the same link. It might become rather confusing to double up the red lists associated with "popular" occupations. Of course, if we can systematically include site data in our redlink lists, then we can simply dismiss those marked 0 if we are looking for articles in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, aha! Nice to hear. You may not be aware, but it's one of my habits to review redlists (been working on the Educators one) and add the country to items which are missing it just so that the item is available on country lists, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I think you must have misunderstood my message. I probably did not express myself very well. What I was suggesting was that you can often find the names of educators (and indeed of people in other occupations) by looking through the country lists. As I am interested in writing about Scandinavians, I frequently look through the country lists for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, examining in particular the main descriptions in addition to the specific lists on the different professions. That said, your work on the educator redlists seems very useful.--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott . --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata items for our subpages

What do you think about creating items for all of our redlists and editathons, including the statement on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? If you like the idea, what other WiR subpages would be suited for a Wikidata item, e.g. subpages which might be replicated in another language, e.g. this is the Italian language Wikidata redlist of women educators. If you like the idea, how would we structure this as an "ontology", because other projects, e.g. A+F, BLT, 1000 Women in Religion, Atari Women, etc. are using it only (I think) as a way of associating biographies with their project, not as a way of demarcating their subpages. cc: WiR Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I really like the idea of adding redlists as a Wikidata item, Rosiestep. It might help us find other potential articles in other languages, especially if they're crowd-sourced lists. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I really like this idea, but I am not sure you can create items for all of these editathons? That kind of thing is out of my league since I tend to hang out with 17th-century art. If you had this it would make it easier to see which approaches have the most impact, so I would definitely like to see some setup along these lines. I am just not sure how to do it. Jane (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, @Jane023 and Megalibrarygirl:. I've taken the proposal to Wikidata for further input, and brought it up on FB in "The Wikidata Community" Public group. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

fwiw, I have our Redlists characterised in a spreadsheet such that I can launch wikidata items for each onto an unsuspecting world. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Majority of redlists now have wikidata items. There's some clear-up work to be done which I'll not bore you with, and perhaps properties to add (or change), if anyone cares to make a suggestion. Report. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Carola Rackete

I suspect there are German and Italian sources, probably Netherlands and other European languages, that I'm not getting to, if anyone has access. This is a developing event, the ship captain who just docked a rescue ship without authorization in an Italian harbor and has been arrested for it. It would be nice if we could get the article in good enough shape to put it at In The News. --valereee (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that the page is currently up for deletion at AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carola Rackete. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Update for the archives: the result was keep. --Redalert2fan (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Suzanne Eaton

New article on murdered scientist, which has been nominated at ITN for inclusion in recent deaths. If anyone could help out with expanding and making her notability more clear it would be great. On a quick glance the citation record looks strong to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is fine and her citation record is superlative[3]. How sad to learn of the untimely death of a person, particularly one of such great achivement. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC).

I Am… Contemporary Women Artists of Africa at the National Museum of African Art

Opens June 20. Press release here. This one's in my backyard, so I intend to go see it once I'm back from Central Asia.

According to the press release: "Three of the artists—Chief Nike Davies Okundaye of Nigeria, Patience Torlowei of Nigeria and Billie Zangewa of South Africa—will attend the June 18 press preview." We have articles on two, and the third should be easy to write up. But this would be a great opportunity to get some photographs. I cannot go - I have too many commitments that day. Any contacts in DC we could ask, other than KellyDoyle? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ser Amantio di Nicolao What does one have to do to get a picture? Is it assumed that photos taken at a public event are PD? Could you point me to the relevant policy? I have an old Canon point-and-shoot & could go, but am not a member of the press. Please advise. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello WomenArtistUpdates. I simply tell people that I am a volunteer editor for Wikipedia, and ask them if they would mind my taking a photo to add to their article. If they are hesitant, you can suggest that they can review the photos and confirm their consent again once you have taken them (I try to take at least four). You could also create a page of your photos in your userspace and show them that on a phone/tablet/laptop to reassure them, as I have done at User:Edwardx/people. I only proceed if I can get the subject's permission, but most people are amenable. Edwardx (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Photos taken at a public event are not PD - the copyright belongs to you as the photographer, but if you upload to Commons you release your rights. Strictly you are unlikely to actually need the subject's consent at a press or public event - see the many film opening/concert etc pics we have where this clearly was not feasible - but if you can it's good to ask. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Piggybacking off of Edwardx and Johnbod: I always identify myself as a Wikipedia editor and tell people I'd like to illustrate their article. And I always give them a chance to vet the photo before publishing it. Most people, I find, are amenable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Edwardx, Johnbod, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Thank you for your guidance. I have an e-mail into the press department at the museum for permission to attend. I will do my best to get some good portraits. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Other contacts include @Fuzheado, Gamaliel, and Slowking4. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Working on adding images to articles. (BTW Ser Amantio di Nicolao it is an excellent show.) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Awesome - glad you were able to make it. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the show when I get back from Georgia and Central Asia...we leave tomorrow evening (squeal). Hence my inability to hit it up tonight; I had preparations to make. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Wait wait... to close the loop, someone needs to write an article on Patience Torlowei of Nigeria. I don't write BLPs. Sad to say the images were out of focus for her. These were the best. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Please ping me when you get back in town and have caught your breath. **While he is away, if there is another WIRer willing to tackle an article on Patience Torlowei of Nigeria, it would be appreciated. Ideally the catalogue from the show would be a good start. I am not finding any other reliable secondary sources on the web.** Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• 
  Patience Torlowei, June 2019
• 
  Patience Torlowei, June 2019

@WomenArtistUpdates: Checking in quickly from Tashkent to let you know that I'll try and whip something up soon as I've gotten home and gotten some rest. Later Sunday, perhaps, or maybe Monday. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Not only will you need some rest, you will be in the molasses atmosphere that is DC in the summer :( Sorry this has come down to you, but there appear to be no other takers. Ms. Torlowei was kind enough to let me take her picture so it would be great if we could get an article started. Thanks again. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: No trouble at all. I'm itching to get back into the swing of things. Got back yesterday morning, and am starting to get back into my routine. As for the molasses atmosphere, you should've been in Tbilisi two weeks ago...it was just as bad, if not worse. To say nothing of Dubai on Saturday - that was a heat experience unto itself, I can tell you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Patience Torlowei is done. It's a start...could be better, but I became a bit pressed for time and couldn't do any more searching. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Ser Amantio di Nicolao! I added her to 1 day 1 woman + tags WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: No trouble at all - my pleasure. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

List of 5,000 women composers

In connection with the item "Looking for more sources" above, I have found a complete list of all those listed in the International Encyclopedia of Women Composers at The Music Sack. By clicking on a name, you can also find other sources in which the composer is mentioned. It looks like a useful source for Wikidata too. I was wondering if there is any easy way of finding out which names are still redlinks in the EN wiki without having to edit them all manually. I have checked out the first 20 names and see that only three of them have articles. (cc SL93).--Ipigott (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, Something like this? I count 2715 redlinks. Vexations (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Good work, Vexations; thanks. Fancy moving it to the same list-name format as others of its ilk at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index#Dictionaries_and_other_reference_books? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I can do the CS format. Vexations (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done the list is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_dictionary/International_encyclopedia_of_women_composers and I have added an entry to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index Vexations (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is awesome. You people did great work. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic! A friendly reminder to please add the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index#Dictionaries_and_other_reference_books. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is great. I've been updating links to existing bios and will continue to do so in the next day or two. Oronsay (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Clone of RonBot #11 requested

Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know that I've requested a clone of User:RonBot#11 at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Clone_of_RonBot_#11. As the bot has not run for 3 months, and User:Ronhjones has also not been active since then (and his email has been disabled), it seems sadly that he may not be able to run it any longer. It was so useful in identifying declined drafts that we could assess for notability and work up into articles about notable women, and I would really like to resurrect it, so I'm hoping one of the bot operators can clone it and get it running again. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mid-ish July FP report

Well! The previous set is cleared, hell, we've had one pass since then. As usual of late, I'm not linking the nominations directly to avoid accidentally creating a voting guide, but those interested may go to WP:FPC and look around there. So, without further ado: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 09:22, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

• 
  Kristina Inhof, our newest FP as of, like, 5 minutes ago.
• 
  We Can Do It! the FP restoration I... kind of stole from Yann - who was completely capable of doing it - because I really should wait more than one day after volunteering to do it if Yann didn't want to.
• 
  Nell Mercer, of the somewhat underdeveloped article.
• 
  Lillian Feickert, New Jersey suffragette and first woman from New Jersey to run for the United States Senate.

• Adam Cuerden, I ♥ them. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

One request, somewhat related: Looking in the Suffrage event pages, I found File:She. It is time I got out of this place. Where Shall I Find The Key? Convicts Lunatics and Women! Have no vote for Parliament, ca. 1907-1918. (16052110985).jpg, which is a brilliant example of British pro-suffrage posters. If anyone knows more articles it could be put in, please do; it'll help it at FPC in the near future. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 17:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, a somewhat un-pc image as regards "Convicts" & "Lunatics"! Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, agreed, but no point whitewashing the past (otherwise, we knock off all the rough edges, and mislead), and I get the point: Men had to do something to be excluded, women were excluded by default. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 20:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Added it to Disability in the United Kingdom. The article needs more historical content anyway, and this kind of message was a common form of disablism in the suffrage movement. Penny Richards (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice one, Penny! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 03:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Metrics

FYI, Metrics have been kaput for the last 3 days. Cause is likely to be a temporary ban on the Wikimedia Toolforge querying wikidata. Normal service might be resumed Sunday or Monday. I'm on the case, with the help of someone who has a clue about the plumbing.

Also FYI, Emijrpbot, which used to do an excellent job of creating new wikidata items for en.wiki biographies, has been quiet presumed dead since the end of April. So there's now that much less being done about creating wikidata items for biographies.

Anyone who wants to help out on this task is cordially directed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata, and notably to the various reports under the heading 'Articles with no wikidata item'. Petscan, on which these reports run, is notoriously tempremental (some downstream dependency fail outside Magnus's control, AFAIK), so that adds to the joy of trying to keep metrics up to date. Oronsay & Nat965 continue to put in much spadework in this area, for which thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon, it's a pleasure working with you.Oronsay (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I have been tied up for the past day or two and have only now had time to look into that background of this. The whole thing seems to have arisen from a minor block on Emijrp on the EN wiki. I don't suppose the blocker knew how much damage he was doing to the workings of WiR. For years, Emijrp has been a tremendous help to the project and was the first to draw our attention to the assistance we could receive from Wikidata. I understand his frustration but am really disappointed he has posted a retirement notice. Let's hope he can be persuaded to return. If not, is there anyone who can maintain his bot? Or is there some other way we can pick up new "female" articles from Wikidata?--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Owing to yet another change in the formatting of data provided by Wikidata, our WHGI stats have also failed to update but the problem is being addressed.--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm shopping around for a new user to run Emijrpbot's biography code, but it's a big ask. It's very sad that User:emijrp has retired, and I hope they return; but equally they were banged to rights for a flagrant 3RR ... even when you have right on your side w.r.t. the change you're trying to make stick, edit warring is the wrong thing to do. Meanwhile the expectation is that metrics should be back with us this afternoon. Fingers crossed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: That looks encouraging. Let's hope there is some kind of update today. Up to now, the metrics for July are pretty dismal and those for June seem much lower than usual. To what extent could we rely on new additions to Wikidata without Emijrpbot? Rather than returning to the old days when we used to list articles manually from AlexNewBot, etc., we could at least pay more attention to ensuring new biographies are backed by Wikidata items or updates. Thanks for all your efforts on this. We are obviously in good hands.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Well, good but equally not much use hands. Petscan increasingly does not work, and so is decreasingly a route for finding biogs needing items. I've asked Magnus about the issue, but I'm not expecting a cure. I've not yet found someone to run Emijrpbot, though still looking. Reports bot is back up & running, but if items are not being added to wikidata in a systematic fashion, then we have a problem. June metrics are probably in line with expectations - June seems to be a less productive month than other months (student exam time?) ... I expect June's ~1600 count to increase by ~100 over time, because that tends to be the pattern. I'll feedback any new info on these issues here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: You're obviously making good progress. Sorry to hear there are problems with Petscan. Maybe this is a good opportunity to encourage WiR participants to show more interest in Wikidata. Unfortunately, the reactions up to now have been largely negative.--Ipigott (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I now have a couple of offers of adoption of Emijrpbot's biography bot, so with luck that will soon get back in action. Petscan seems to be having big problems outside Magnus's control, so the scope for WiR people helping out is very small - without the tool there's not that much that can be done. It's a shame - something WMF should be addressing, but which it prefers to ignore. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel has kindly taken over Emijrpbot, the work of which is now handled by User:Pi bot. Suggest we all owe Mike a pint (& presumably a pie) if ever encountered IRL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

After running over the weekend, it's (briefly) stopped again as I need to do some more reviewing of the code. In particular, there's problems with the birth and death dates only being years rather than the full date (where that's available). If anyone has any other suggestions for improvements to it, then now might be a good time to raise them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Probably normal normal. Priority 1 is getting us to a point where biogs have items with Q5 and gender, whether by creating or adding sitelinks to existing. P2 would be DoB & DoD, occupation, and anything else you can scrape. If you have issues marrying biogs where there are items with a Label matching the article title, then adding links to a simple list in a static page which we can go through by hand would work; we already have a bunch of Listeria reports of items with no gender here which we farm. I guess P3 might be bunging an image onto the wikidata item if there's one available. But really it's the P1 stuff which is most important, as that drives our metrics; anything else is a bonus. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot's now back in regular service. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yay! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy-edit

I was wondering if someone could copy-edit Ann Peterson if it needs one. I don't really feel confident in writing sports articles, but I do want to nominate this one for DYK. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a little, added an official Olympics source, and also made a redirect from her full name Ann Stewart Peterson and added her to Peterson (name). Not sure about the tone of the anecdote about the 10-second business. PamD 18:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I took a look too. There's a few things that didn't get explained for me. What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team? I'm with PamD and think the timing for broadcast is an odd one. Hope this is of some help Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Unconvinced by the ABC anecdote. Bit "so what" from me. "Twelve men in the control room prayed for Peterson to leave the platform". Uh-huh; high drama. Encyclopaedic version would be "ABC television managed to encompass an athlete actually doing something" and would for that reason not feature in an encyclopedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more information, but this is from the 1960s. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This would likely answer that question, but I can't read it. I'm tired of paywalls for non-modern topics. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I removed the ABC mention and I thought that the "What did she win to qualify for the Olympic team?" was already answered by the article with "During this time, she gained a spot on the United States' Olympic diving team by competing in the women's 10 meter platform competition for the Olympic trials" and "She was in the lead going into the finals with 169.86 points, later adding 46.74 points, 50.82 points, and 51.75 points to her last three dives". SL93 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: I changed the entire entry to this - "Peterson diving was the first footage recorded by ABC for the 1968 Summers Olympics coverage airing in the eastern United States." I think that is notable enough for an encyclopedia and historic coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: That's very much better & unimpeachably encyclopaedic. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

SL93 I was looking for coverage of her 1967 Pan Am medal,[4] found a bonus article that she won 2 golds that same year in the National Intercollegiate Championships.[5] SusunW (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

De nada. Couldn't find the NYT article, but I think you've done a solid job on the article without it. SusunW (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I happen to have a NYT subscription, that article was from an AP wire story. By searching for a key phrase in newspapers.com, I came up with another version of the same wire story that has all the relevant text from the NYT about Peterson, and BONUS, includes photos of Peterson. See it here on newspapers.conm I don't think it adds any details that aren't in the "Ann Peterson Wins Diving" reference which looks to have been derived from the same AP wire report, but you might want to add it so folks can go see the photo? Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and added it to an external links section. SL93 (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Graphic_but_educational_image_of_intersex_person_on_main_page?

Despite the misleading title, this is about the image of an intersex person that was discussed before. It's not particularly graphic, it's simple nudity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 21:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Alexis McGill Johnson

Later tonight I'm going to get an article up (unless someone beats me to it!) for Alexis McGill Johnson, who was named acting president of Planned Parenthood today. She should have an article. Marquardtika (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Birth date

I started gathering sources for an the article Jill Schlabach from Diving at the 1991 Pan American Games and even though I found quite a bit of information to use, I am unable to locate her birth date. SL93 (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This article puts her at 25 in 1991. So that would make her birth year 1965 or 1966. That's the most I've been able to find. Nick Number (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a template to use here, {{birth based on age as of date}}:

(born {{birth based on age as of date |25|1991|June|17|noage=1|mos=1}})

appears as "(born 1965 or 1966)". PamD 21:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I will use that. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts about community health

Some of you may know that I am a member of the Wikimedia movement strategy Community Health Working Group(CHWG). It is one of nine Working Groups (WG) involved in developing recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees regarding planning for the future. In order to make informed recommendations, we seek the opinions of editors. Here's a link to the survey. No need to respond here stating whether you've completed it or not... I just hope that you make the time to do it. Thanks in advance. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I could not find the survey until I realized I had to click on "NÆSTE" at the foot of the first page. Then I found the questions.--Ipigott (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed this and thought it was interesting, thanks Rosiestep! But I'm slightly confused after looking at meta, maybe you can help?

It looks like this is part of this project, but the timeline given there suggests that the survey period ended on June 30, and the "wrap-up" ends, well, today. Since you posted on July 8, I'm guessing the dates on that page are old - do you know of an updated timeline anywhere?

It also looks like this is part of this bigger series of surveys, but I can't find that one linked anywhere other than meta. You seem to be the only one who's posted this on enwiki! That can't be right - I was using Special:Linksearch, but maybe you've set up the surveys so the links are unique to the origin? (That would be clever!) If the survey period is indeed still ongoing, shouldn't the bigger set be more widely circulated? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting queries. Pinging Rosiestep on the above.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, @Opabinia regalis and Ipigott. I'm traveling so I apologize for brevity. Here is a link to all of the Working Group surveys. See also this for more information, or just ask me specific questions and I'll be glad to respond (or find out the answer and respond). As for deadline(s)/extension(s), I am checking with strategy Core Team. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and Ipigott: deadline = before next Friday. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Eeep, thank you Rosiestep (and I hope you're enjoying your trip)! Does that date apply to all of the surveys, or just the one you posted? If it's the latter, I think the link to the big batch of surveys should be broadly posted in the usual places (AN, VP, etc) to make sure people here see it - I've got to run right now but I can do that tonight. I probably should read meta more, but I bet I'm not the only one who tends to stick to enwiki unless pinged from somewhere else! Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, Rosiestep, Things like this should definitely be more widely publicized than just at this selected project, and with enough time for people to take part. Notifying only the Women in Red project could look somewhat partisan, perhaps even verging on canvassing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: This may be the only place you have seen it, but be assured that many wiki communities around the world are aware of it. Women in Red isn't a recognized "Affiliate", but it is an ally of Wiki Women's User Group and Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group, ergo why I left a comment here. (PS: You don't have to be a member of an Affiliate to participate in the surveys. Everyone's opinion is welcomed.) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I'm pleased to hear that, but where else on the English Wikipedia (by far the biggest Wikipedia) has this been publicized? Don't you think this needs wider input than only from groups specifically associated with Women and Gender? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee How can a neutrally worded head's up about a survey of interest to this project be canvassing or partisan? It's common to let projects who may be interested in a certain topic to know about these things. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:4, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl It can be seen as canvassing or partisan if it is selectively communicated to projects that would be more likely to have a more sympathetic view of the aims of the initiative, and not to the wider community. I'm quite sure that's not what's intended, but T&S and Community Health are divisive topics right now, and I do think this needs proper wider notification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: if we're at the point where editors perceive talking about community health as "divisive" then I am even more worried than I was before about community health on Wikipedia. Rosiestep as a member of a project was sharing relevant info with a concerned WikiProject so it's clearly not canvassing. I think the tone policing that you're engaging in is unproductive. Instead, find other projects that may be interested and let them know. There's other surveys on Meta right now, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl:: Its the approach that's divisive, with the WMF appearing aloof and insensitive to what the community actually wants. I really don't want to being up the F word here, but it's that apparent aloofness and disconnect that was behind the biggest fight we've had in ages. The community needs to be involved and consulted about these things, properly, if there's to be any buy-in. Oh, and I've honestly no idea what you mean by "tone policing". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I'm glad you feel that it's important that we all deal with community health. I think it comes off as tone policing when you criticize someone spreading the word instead of helping to spread the word yourself or letting WMF know they need to get a broader audience. I don't know how to bridge the divide between WMF and the enwiki community. But maybe we need to reach out to them to let them know they're not communicating very well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Oh, I see - I've never heard it called "tone policing" before. My criticism was meant to be of WMF's failure to inform the whole project en.wiki of this thing, while instead only one specific project gets to hear about it (and to be fair, it was a WMF employee who told the project, even if not in an official capacity). As for letting WMF know that we find their communications to be poor, I'd be somewhat astounded if they hadn't noticed what people have been telling them about their communications since the Fram thing kicked off. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. :) I think we should reach out whenever we see a lack of good communication. Otherwise, they'll think it's a one off! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What Megalibrarygirl said. As Opabinia regalis said, typical wp behavior is to stick to those places you edit. Lots of people, allies and non-allies have watchlisted this page. Rosie isn't responsible for distributing the survey, but she did post it in a prominent place so that others would know of it. I appreciate Opabinia regalis' offer to post it other places. Wouldn't have the slightest idea how to do that, as "the usual places (AN, VP, etc)" are unfamiliar to me and I have no idea what these, or most wiki acronyms mean. SusunW (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm clearly not going to get much sympathy here from those with a vested interest in this project (which I have too - I'm working on WiR articles myself), but I really do think these things should be more widely publicized across en.wiki, rather than just to sympathetic projects. I'm sure the number of people who have this page watchlisted is tiny compared to the usual places (and, I'm sure Rosiestep knows where they are, even if you don't). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just want to put a quick pin in that, Boing! said Zebedee - as far as I can tell this is the only place on enwiki itself that these survey links have appeared, so thanks to Rosie for sharing! I dont think it's canvassing any more than it would be if I'd noticed it and posted it on, say, the MCB talk page. The meta page about this strategy project says that the distribution plan is: "The chosen approach for distribution is using existing liaison networks as well as social media channels" - so if there's issues with notifications they were kind of baked in to the project as a whole, and the best thing to do now is to make sure it gets seen more broadly. That plan probably makes sense for some of the topics in the survey set, and I appreciate the goals there in making sure to hear from people who are more loosely connected to the overall Wikimedia community. But offsite social media as a primary place to find out about surveys targeting your open-source free-knowledge hobby community doesn't sound right. (I guess I'll go say that on meta later, but yeesh how does anyone actually get any editing done from a phone.) Opabinia externa (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia externa: So you think it's fine to only notify a specific project that has a specific topic related to women as its goal (and one which I think is likely to be sympathetic to the initiative), and not notify the English Wikipedia as a whole? (And to be clear, I do not think there is any canvassing intended, but can't you see how some might see it that way?) (Oh, and as for phones - nah, they're for talking on) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean that a working group member notifying a project she works on seems to be pretty much exactly what the "distribution plan" recommended - people using their networks. And we, as extended members of that network, can pass it along more broadly. But yeah, I don't think the distribution plan sounds like a particularly effective way of getting a good sample on a survey - "the chosen approach for finding our keys is using existing lampposts". Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and "social media channels", no, that doesn't sound right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Two points: a Qualtrics survey can appear with different URLs for targeting a tracking purposes, so it's possible the URL went elsewhere too; WMF is known to fabricate evidence by encouraging selection bias in its surveys, but that's hardly Rosiestep's fault and you should complain directly to whoever chose that flawed distribution strategy. Nemo 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fabricating evidence? What's this all about? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And none of this notes that many trolls canvass off wiki to dogpile at their favorite pages to create a noisy and false "consensus" that is at least as misleading as what the WMF gathers from posting surveys at Meta only. The problem is that the WMF doesn't understand "the community" and they think that the people who are active in affiliates, active on Meta, and post to the Facebook groups ARE the community... where in reality there is not a lot of crossover... and more than those who post on the WP criticism sites are representative of the community. Even "the community" isn't representative of the Community. Find a central HQ... maybe the Signpost, maybe the Village Pump, maybe a Watchlist page banner... Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, notifying one wikiproject about a survey seems like it'll give biased statistical information out at the other end, by the very nature of a wikiproject. Not sure why you wouldn't want to post the link elsewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to say something similar Montanabw. Anyone who is worried that the results might be slanted if not posted more widely is certainly welcome to post where they think the surveys will be noticed. A watchlist banner, I would see. Some of those other venues, not likely for me, but maybe for others. SusunW (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Yep, I think you've summed up the disconnect between WMF and the people who actually build the encyclopedia pretty much spot on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Absolutely, yes, that's exactly the point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep, The Incivility page of the Community Health Survey begins: There is a problem of incivility, harassment and overall bad behavior in the Wikimedia community. Bad behavior includes anything that makes others feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in their Wikimedia community. This seems like an overly broad definition of "bad behavior". In my experience new and not-so-new editors feel hurt and very unwelcome when their edits are changed, their articles are deleted, or their drafts are rejected at Articles for Creation. Unlike most websites that people post to, this is an encyclopedia with complicated content standards. For newer editors our rejection messages are accompanied by welcome messages with helpful links, but this doesn't make it any more "welcoming", and is often seen as insulting if editors have been here awhile. Doesn't this survey imply we must never reject anything anyone writes (other than vandalism). Shouldn't the survey be asking how we can help editors get beyond feeling uncomfortable and unwelcome for these reasons as they learn how to contribute? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Rosiestep for letting us know about the survey, but shocked that it has been so poorly publicised otherwise to the English Wikipedia editing community. It, and any other attempt to ask "the community", needs to be announced in The Signpost, and perhaps in a page-header seen by editors, and possibly by stretching a definition, in the "Central discussions" template. Or it could have been announced on the talk pages of all WikiProjects. The editors who look at Meta or discuss Wikipedia on social media are not a representative sample, AFAIK, of the editors who create and maintain the encyclopedia. Yes, it looks like another WMF failure to understand who we, the editors, are. PamD 22:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Posted to AN and VPP. Before putting it in the watchlist notice or WP:CENT, are we able to get confirmation that the other groups, not just Community Health, are still accepting input? (Pinging Risker as the only other person active on enwiki who I can recall identifying themselves as a member of one of these groups. I also posted here, though I'm not sure exactly what the right place is among all of those subpages.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

All the 9 working group survey is publicized here (where you can find the link to Qualtrics), but for know this people need to be interested and follow the Meta page. It is part of the normal process to keep up to date with developments in the discussions, nobody is informed personally. @Rosiestep did the thing that anyone would do: as is not the spokesperson for the strategy team, but only a member of one of the working groups, in addition to the public announcement has brought attention to the people with whom she collaborates directly. And for this I would like to thank her. --Camelia (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm back home from my family trip and I can see that a lively conversation is occurring here. Thanks to everyone who is participating in it and/or spreading the word about movement strategy and/or filling out the movement strategy surveys. @Boing! said Zebedee: I'm curious as to whom you are referring to here: ... and to be fair, it was a WMF employee who told the project, even if not in an official capacity? To me, it seems that you are referring to -- well, me. This is why I am asking. For the record, I've never been a WMF employee, but I was a WMF contractor (part-time; April 2017 - June 2017) on the m:Gender Diversity Mapping project. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, I really thought you were (and I consider employee/contractor together - paid to do work by WMF is what I mean). Anyway, as I am mistaken, you have my sincere apology. My frustration (and annoyance) is with the lack of communication from WMF/meta/working groups to the actual Wikipedia editing communities who develop the encyclopedia. The current surveys are important (and I've now taken part in them), and there really should be proactive communication from those creating such surveys to the communities of editors and factory floor volunteers. If only folks close to the workings of such things get to know about them, then the results will not be representative of the people whose hard work actually builds the encyclopedia (which is the only reason any of us are here). Anyway, thanks for the clarification (and for at least mentioning one of the surveys here, otherwise I and many others would never have heard of them at all). Hope you had a good family trip. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wearing our Wikimedia Movement Strategy hockey jerseys at Wikimania 2017

@Boing! said Zebedee: no worries. I'm really glad it came up as maybe others thought I was a WMF employee, too. For transparency, as a volunteer, I've been involved in the Wikimedia Movement Strategy process since 2016 or 2017. In 2018, I became a member of a specific Working Group. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Deadline for filling out any of the 9 Working Group surveys has been extended to July 31. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Mid-to-late July FP report

Everything from the last report has passed, or is passing. Which is nice! So, let's cover the new stuff! And I'm barely present in it for once. I think that's a good thing.

• 
  Yann's restoration of this lovely Sarah Bernhardt picture is, deservedly, passing.
• 
  Coffeeandcrumbs cleaned up this image of Sally Ride.
• 
  And an unnamed person restored this image of Lillian Ascough!

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, WiR had 8 featured pictures in June, out of 47 total (counting the train photography that was broken up into many files for size reasons as one file). I make something like 16 FPs in that time that are connected to men in sufficient ways that they'd come under WiR were those men female. E.g. opera posters (male composers/artists), pictures of men, architecture (presuming I'm reading the architect right), and so on. That's not perfect, but it's way better than things used to be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 21:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Fun little statistic

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Showcase#Featured pictures It auto-updates with the current total number of featured pictures (approximately; it depends on PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured pictures for its count) and just requires us to update the count passed to it when new FPs are added to the Showcase. I was surprised to discover that we're likely to have had more featured pictures this year than in our entire history previous to this (43 so far this year compared to 66 before, if I remember correctly), though that may be that I've been trying harder to keep track of relevant images this year. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 10:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

These are great stats Adam Cuerden! Photographs are IMO very important as they give a "feel" for who, what, where, when in a way that mere words cannot. I truly appreciate what you do for us. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

It should probably be noticed that the WiR Wikiproject FPs are not the complete set of women-related FPs. It doesn't include anything from before the project started, and may have missed some. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Brit needed for ce at Asma Khan

Could someone familiar with colleges and locations in England take a look at this article? I'm reading Indian and UK sources and am not sure I'm interpreting them/wikilinking them correctly. Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Colleges linked according to references.14GTR (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 14GTR and Ipigott! --valereee (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

But someone needs to do the many WP:ENGVAR spellings. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod: I wasn't aware that there was any need to use British English spelling and grammar in biographies about English citizens, especially those born in India. If so, many of our American contributors would no doubt be unhappy to write about Brits. The article looks fine to me the way it is.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, you learn a little every day! See WP:ENGVAR. Of course it could use Indian English, but the spellings here would still need adjusting. She never seems to have lived elsewhere - if she had made her career in Nth America it would of course be different. Try writing a bio of an all-American subject in British English & see what happens. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

American contributor here, and I do try to use British English spellings/vocabulary when I know they're appropriate to the subject, as best I can. It's not that difficult to make an effort. I'm always happy to see (and thank) subsequent editors fixing whatever I get wrong in vocabulary or spelling.Penny Richards (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

August programming at WiR

We'd like to sort out our August programming within the next 48 hours or so; your comments are welcome here. Regarding programming for September and beyond, stop by any time at the Ideas Cafe; hope to see you there! Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about making Linkage+Findability an August event, or a December event, or an on-going event (perhaps through the end of the 2019; perhaps longer). Your comments about this are welcome in this section, or our events planning page, here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

4 years in and in the press

This week our Antarctic Women collaboration is mentioned in TIME magazine and Jess Wade gives us a call out in the New York Times. Victuallers (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Use of patronymic name?

Hey there! I am writing an article about Maria van Pallaes. Her full name was "Mayken (first name) Lubbert (middle name) van Pallaesdr. (patronymic name, means 'daughter of Van Pallaes' as her father's surname was Van Pallaes)". Normally, we would use her given name. In this case, though, her common name is "Maria van Pallaes" (without "dr.", which means 'daughter of'), as in, she started using her father's surname as her own surname, instead of the patronymic name she was given. As such, I'm not sure whether to use Van Pallaes or Maria when referring to her in the article. --MrClog (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

MrClog Always a difficult situation. I would avoid using her first name and since the common name now appears to be Van Pallaes, I would use that. Great start on the draft by the way. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Remember to make redirects from all plausible variations of her name, to help readers and to avoid the risk of a future editor creating a duplicate article. The Dutch wiki article has a link to her will which you probably know already, and refers to her throughout as "Maria van Pallaes" which may be right for their MOS but isn't what we use in en.wiki. PamD 06:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd go with "van Pallaes" consistently. It looks really wrong to capitalise the "van" to me. That said, remember to redirect from all variations with both "van" and "Van", because, annoyingly, capitalisation matters! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.8% of all FPs} 10:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, in Dutch, the tussenvoegsel is capitalised when it is not preceded by a first name or initial. There are no tussenvoegsels in English, so I figured I would follow the Dutch spelling. --MrClog (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)