Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 74

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

→

Archive 80

Updating most active wikiprojects listing

Some time ago, a listing of the most active wikiprojects was made using this query. Is anyone able to rerun it so that we have the current status? The query is actually based on the edits made to the talk pages of wikiprojects and may not reflect their overall state of activity. I was wondering whether it would also be possible to devise another query based on the number of page views for the wikiproject main pages, the average per day for the past month or the average per day for the past year. Not only would it be interesting to see how Women in Red stands today but it would be useful to see which other wikiprojects are active or important, for example in order to contact them in connection with topics of mutual interest such as our monthly priorities. Any offers? Perhaps Tagishsimon or MarioGom?--Ipigott (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

yes, please do so. this would be awesome. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Most-edited pages containing the name of a WikiProject" query has been re-run. The numbers are still not terribly important, and the bot-exclusion logic appears to be broken (even bot-heavy projects get the same number of bot-inclusive/bot-exclusive edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing, for your rapid response and for this useful information. I see that the query was indeed rerun yesterday and that that Women in Red now tops the list. The other most active topic-based projects are wp:Academic Journals, wp:Military history and wp:Medicine. May I suggest that this update is substituted on WP:Council which still lists Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes, dated 11 July 2016, on its Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.--Ipigott (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You should suggest that at WT:COUNCIL, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done!--Ipigott (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red most active wikiproject by page views too

Further to the above, I have also been looking at page views as an indication of activity. Women in Red again comes out on top with 2061 page views a day on the main page and 146 on the talk page (total 2207). WP Medicine has 96 main and 115 talk (total 211), WP Military History 68 main and 101 talk (total 169) and WP Football 42 main and 122 talk (total 164). It would be interesting to see a complete listing of wikiprojects by page views if this could be automated.--Ipigott (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/All shows that with 199 active participants we are also in the lead for topic based projects, followed by Football (125), Military History (115), GLAM (95) and Video Games (85). For those which are not topic based we have Deletion sorting (449), Articles for Creation (267) and Guild of Copy Editors (96). I think I'll stop there with statistics for today although I must say I am happy to see Women in Red appears to have a leading position however it is assessed.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep: These details and those mentioned in the previous item may be useful for your future presentations. It's some time since we have had updated information on the rating of Women in Red compared to other wikiprojects. Thanks to the efforts of all our members and participants, we are obviously going from strength to strength. Let's hope increasing interest in the project leads to more rapid progress on overcoming Wikipedia's gender bias.--Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Native American women academics

A new category I created, Category:Native American women academics, has been nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020_January_17#Native American women academics to participate in the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Annette Thomas

Hello. I've created a draft wikipedia page for Annette Thomas, a scientist who has risen to run major publishers such as Macmillan and was just named the next CEO of the Guardian Media Group. This is my first time ever creating a wikipedia page and I'm not sure how to ensure it gets reviewed and OKd. It got rejected quite quickly and then I and others made revisions and additions, but now it says the review time may be up to 6 months. Can someone help me with how to get this published? Thank you! 198.151.217.177 (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)a wiki newby

The article you originally submitted was weak on sourcing for a living person. I can see other editors have been working on it and it looks to me as if it could soon be moved to article space. Let's wait a day or two for any additions. If you intend to make further contributions to Wikipedia, it would be useful to register. See Wikipedia:Why create an account?.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Now at Annette Thomas. Needs categories. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Ana Novella

Can anyone assist with this bio of a Catalan sculptor? I declined a speedy but it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Novella. Notability seems possible but there are no independent sources in the article. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I just now spent more time looking, and there is basically no independent coverage out there on Novella. The only source I could find and add was primary source for the Maritime Pets Museum. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I did a search in Catalan and there seems to be some better coverage than that. I might work on it. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

All I am seeing in English is Pinterest, Saatchi art and stuff like this site where she is selling her prints for $19.99. I strongly suspect she does not meet our notability criteria, but open to surprise discoveries.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Figure skating question

Copying a question by Figureskatingfan left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/151 in case you missed it over there: "Hey everyone, I think this is a marvelous project; it hasn't even been a month into 2020, and the results have already been impressive. Nice work, and thanks to User:Rosiestep for coming up with it. For the last year-and-a-half, I've been improving figure skating articles. One of them is Tara Lipinski, which I just added to the outcomes list. Figure skating, as I'm sure most of you already know, is a female-dominated sport; I suspect that's why most articles about the sport (especially the ones about female skaters) have been so neglected and of lower quality. So here's my question: would articles about figure skating (elements like jumps, spins, etc., for example), be within the purview of this project? Personally, I think it could." --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Christine (Figureskatingfan). WiR certainly acts as a community of interest in thing associated with women, which is to say WiR's ambit is wider than biographical articles. We have, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index#Works. Whether for practical purposes it would lend assistance to the development of figure-skating articles must be a little open to question. I see you're aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating; there's also d:Wikidata:WikiProject Figure skating - I know that Harmonia Amanda is very active in keeping competition results data up-to-date on wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Tagishsimon. I haven't been in any direct communication with anyone from the fs project; most of the small group working on these articles have been generous enough to give me space to update and improve them. I admire those who keep up with the results, since that's not my thing, although it's very much needed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan: Thanks for bringing your interests to our attention. I have been looking at your background in some detail and am impressed with your achievements. It would be great if you could help us to improve our coverage of women in figure skating, both with new or improved biographies and by means of more general articles on the important role they play in the sport, as you suggest. I see you have been able to take a considerable number of articles up to GA and FA status, not only in sports but on poetry and other topics. I don't want to appear too persuasive but as you are already a member of WikiProject Women writers, I was wondering whether you would like to take the next step and join Women in Red (see our main page) and perhaps also Women in Green where we strive to improve articles about women up to GA or beyond. Your involvement could be an inspiring example for future work on these two projects and I'm sure you would be able to make valuable contributions yourself. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought that I had already joined WIR, since I've always supported the work. I didn't know about WIG, so thanks for bringing it to my attention and for the promotion of both projects. My goal is improve as many figure skating articles as I can before the 2022 Winter Olympics. As Sasha Cohen has said, most people only pay attention to fs every four years, and I'd like WP to the place where they can reliably use as a source, like it is for so many other things. I promise to return here for support in FAC and GAN when I need it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: If you're interested in figure skating, there's women redlinks in World Figure Skating Hall of Fame and United States Figure Skating Hall of Fame (I updated them both today ;) ). Plus, per WP:NSKATE, there's quite of few persumed notable women figure skaters missing. Specifically, winners of national figure championships that send competitors to the Olympics i.e. Canadian Figure Skating Championships and United States Figure Skating Championships. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Women that pass sports notability

Hello. I've made Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Sports Notability to show women redlinks that pass individual sports criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). This list is just a start and I'll be expanding it. As per usual, these ones have to pass GNG as well. This list could help with the year long sports initiative :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: Great idea! It will become increasingly useful as you expand it. I've added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/151.--Ipigott (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

HonFRSC

There are some women-in-red among the recent additions to Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article on les sans pagEs

On France Culture, Hélène Combin reports on developments under WiR's French partner in her article "Wikipédia : seulement 18% de pages pour les femmes" (Wikipedia: only 18% of pages for women). Conveying details from Natacha Rault (i.e. Nattes à chat) who started the project, she reports on the difficulties encountered, mentioning in particular the poor coverage of women in the press and the resulting lack of acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. We also learn that les sans pagEs now have three sources of funding (Wikimedia Switzerland, Wikimedia France and the Wikimedia Foundation). Looks good!--Ipigott (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ipigott: thanks for mentioning this. For people interested in the press coverage of Les sans pagEs see here. Our calendar of activities (we have a new group starting in Tunis). Nattes à chat (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Are there any Icelandic speakers here?

Hi all

I've been working on a project for a little while to try to collate as many lists of Iceland women as I can on Wikidata so they get fed into the WiR lists. Many are in English and myself and Nav Evans have been importing them into Wikidata but many are in Icelandic. Are there any Icelandic speaking contributors here who could help us understand and import the data?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Row over deletions of beauty pageant winners

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Beauty_pageants:_Award_with_own_WP_article_=_"well-known_and_significant_award_or_honor". Someone has started nominating/prodding mostly US state/national winners. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Request of Help

I was looking for some small help. I created an article User:Bookku/Me Too movement (Pakistan) in user namespace. Article is almost ready but before taking to main namespace Looking for help in English language Spell-check, punctuation, grammar check and corrections. Using better alternative words etc. Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, I've done some editing on the lede and in the first section, but then someone else began editing, so I'll circle back. You should probably run the draft through Earwig's Copyvio Detector as there are several instances of close paraphrasing. SusunW (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

SusunW, First of all thanks you took so much of interest & effort for the article. I was looking for kind of edit support you were providing.

Using alternate wordings & alternate grammar mostly takes care Copyvio that's why I requested for alternate grammar / form/ words support. That's why I did not prefer to take article to draft namespace but any how it seems to have landed up there. Sorry to know some of your corrections were lost in technical edit conflict.

I hope & request your further support help, specially reference no. 5 needs support in close paraphrasing (word / grammar alternate usage & correction) to avoid copyvio issues.

Thanks & warm regards

Bookku (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Agnes Tait Wilson, Southern Rhodesia. Looking for advice

For my first contribution to the 'Women in Red' project, I thought I would do a page on something that's familiar to me. And then, confidence up, delve into a page for someone who I've possibly not even heard of before. That familiar woman is my great grandmother. But I'm not sure if she'll pass the notability test. During her lifetime she became well-known mainly for her charity work eg founding the Southern Rhodesia Branch of the British Red Cross and established Womens' Branches of two political parties, but that may not be enough. Her name is shown as an Independent candidate standing in the 1946 Southern Rhodesian general election page. However, she was unsuccessful. Will this be sufficient for her be 'notable' or am I wasting my time and should move onto someone else listed in this project and turn them blue? Cdefm (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Cdefm I don't mean to sound flippant, but WP's notability guidelines don't require anyone to have done anything. (In my book, she sounds plenty notable.) All that is required for WP is that there are adequate secondary sources from curated reference materials, i.e. newspaper articles, journal articles, books, etc. which give enough detail of her life to demonstrate that she was noteworthy to them. Sounds like a very interesting article. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Cdefm and SusunW, but I'm not finding anything like enough about her. You might be wasting your time. Have a look at WP:SIGCOV to get an idea of what is expected. Edwardx (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering that Rhodesia "ceased to be" 2 decades before the internet, I don't really know that one can say that there aren't enough sources. More than likely will require actually looking in archives and libraries, but who is to say that Cdefm doesn't already have such materials? Maybe they don't, but I AGF that the history cited briefly above, would produce sources in local materials. It's the problem for all women of history. They were rarely covered in mainstream sources so to write about them, you have to know where to find sources locally for the activities in which they participated. The question is, rarely, do they exist, but rather can they be found? SusunW (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for your input. I accept your point about not being able to find enough online about her and about women, in particular, not being in the mainstream news. And I agree, if I can't find enough supporting information to at least make a few paragraphs, then I need to ditch it. I have some documentation, and I believe access to some more as I know someone who has been researching the family for 30 odd years. But it is still to be seen how much, and how quickly I can get my hands on it. Most material on Southern Rhodesia, for both men and women, is not available online unless the person or topic has been used in a thesis or study, for example. Source documents are, in the main, in libraries and of course the Zimbabwe National Archives. Her husband has a page, and she was as well known and active as he was. In fact, the only reason she stood as a candidate was to oppose him. He stood in the same elections, and she thought if he gets a seat in parliament, then she wanted one too so she could debate/vote against him. They had differing political views. She was progressive for her time and reading some of her published articles and stories, I get the feeling she had a particular interest in seeing black women progress. But that's speculative and of course, can't make it into the article. Thanks again to you both. I'll see what documents I can get my hands on, and then take it from there. Cdefm (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cdefm: Your sources do not have to be online. You can cite books (give author, title, publisher, date, ISBN if it has one, and page numbers for your facts) or newspapers (newspaper title, date, page, article title, author if any). PamD 07:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Camilla Lee Vitalievna

Hello again -- I've just declined a speedy request on this artist/academic, after the creator created it in mainspace after being rejected at AfC: Draft:Lee Camilla Vitalievna. The article definitely needs work -- the draft might be a slightly improved version -- and the notability has not been clearly demonstrated. Can anyone assist? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

6,000,000 articles in the enwiki

We currently have 5,998,072 articles in the enwiki, so less than 2,000 to go to 6 million. Could WiR create that 6 millionth article? :D -Yupik (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to the count: here. Oronsay (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yupik: There are usually about 600 new articles a day. It looks to me that to be safe, you would have to create about 200-300 new articles in one batch and you always risk being overtaken by a bot. Maybe it would be sufficient to point out that over 5% of Wikipedia's 6 million articles are biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott Or we could keep our fingers crossed and hope to make it!! 600 new articles a day huh! I don't think I can match that....... ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 14:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In the past it was achieved by editors using bots to create mini-stubs on, for example, small towns in the Chinese provinces. Theoretically we could do the same creating mini women's biographies from Wikidata, as for the Welsh wiki, etc. But I don't really think its a good idea.--Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Goddess no. If we don't create them by hand, they don't count (I mean they do, cause it's a bot doing the counting but...) ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 14:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yupik: Looks as if we'll be there in an hour or two.--Ipigott (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Women in Green report for 2019

Hi all,

I thought I'd share a short update on what Women in Green got up to this past year. In 2019, Women in Green had a goal of nominating 40 articles about women and women's works for Good Article (GA) status. By the end of the year, we had nominated 44 articles for GA status, with 29 successfully passed (the other 15 are still awaiting review, but will almost certainly pass as well). Twenty of our GA nominations were focused on women's suffrage, following Women in Red's theme for the year, while the others covered a wide range of topics. Outside of official goals, Women in Green members also successfully brought four articles about women and women's work up to Featured Article (FA) status. We're still finalizing our goals for the new year, but we're looking forward to more article improvement successes in 2020, and we encourage other editors to get involved if they're interested. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, Alanna the Brave. This is great news indeed! Thanks to everyone at Women in Green who contributed to such a successful year. P.S. I'm being bold and adding the Women in Green logo to this section. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Alanna the Brave, a great year indeed thanks in particular to your own enthusiasm. I'm glad to see that once again with "Sports" for 2020, your theme for the year reflects that of Women in Red. That will provide encouragement for us to enhance our new creations up to GA class and perhaps beyond. While up to now I have not spent much of my time writing about women in sport, I look forward to helping along with copyediting and any research based on a knowledge of European languages. Do you intend to develop a 2020 Goal Tracking page listing articles for further development? If so, I hope it also contains some of the pioneering sportswomen from around the world who deserve special attention. All the very best for the New Year!--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep. :-) Ipigott, we'll definitely have a page to track our GA nominations for 2020 -- but if you're asking whether we'll keep a list of suggested articles for improvement, I'm not sure yet. We put together a big list of suffragists/suffragettes for 2019, but then most editors just went off and found their own suffrage projects to work on (the list didn't get much attention in the end). I would like to see more articles improved about women from outside North America and Europe, so I'm thinking maybe we could "highlight" a different geographic region every couple of months (e.g. Asia, Africa, Oceania), compiling smaller lists of pioneering women in sports from those areas. Something to think about, anyway. Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the great news about Women in Green- it was a lofty goal and I am so happy it was surpassed! I had meant to contribute PMCH2 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2030 Movement Strategy recommendations and consultation period

In case you are unaware, on Monday, the WMF began a 5 week consultation period regarding a recommendations core document for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision. According to @Mehrdad Pourzaki, Information and Knowledge Manager, WMF Movement Strategy Core Team (see here):— What the community says around each recommendation will play a significant role in how the recommendations are finalized and progressed; which ones move to implementation and which ones will require amendment or further consideration, if kept at all. This is a dynamic process and we are very much interested to know how the community thinks they'll be affected by each recommendation. So I warmly encourage each of you who has time and inclination to review the core document "comprising 13 recommendations for change, principles that underlie them, and an outline of how these recommendations connect and are designed, as a whole, to help align with our strategic direction." You can review this core document on Meta, or as a PDF. If you'd prefer reading in an offline or all-in-one format, you can find a PDF of the core document here, the extended version here, and the cover note here. You're welcome to make comments on the Meta talkpage, on the WiR talkpage, or, if you'd prefer privacy, you can email the WMF Core Team. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the correct Meta talkpage? I think the recommendations have excellent potential, but I'm unclear the best place to comment. There appears to be multiple discussions, and the talkpage of the above link seems to have multiple discussions going on. It is a little unclear which is the "main" one for overall comments. Can anyone clarify? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you'll find it in the basement with the broken light switch, behind the door marked "beware of the leopard". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Where you can post your comments? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• here (the Women in Red talkpage)
• the main talkpage for recommendations, or the talkpage for a specific recommendation:

• Promote Sustainability and Resilience (talkpage)
• Create Cultural Change for Inclusive Communities (talkpage)
• Improve User Experience (talkpage)
• Provide for Safety and Security (talkpage)
• Ensure Equity in Decision-Making (talkpage)
• Foster and Develop Distributed Leadership (talkpage)
• Invest in Skills Development (talkpage)
• Manage Internal Knowledge (talkpage)
• Coordinate Across Stakeholders (talkpage)
• Prioritize Topics for Impact (talkpage)
• Innovate in Free Knowledge (talkpage)
• Evaluate, Iterate, and Adapt (talkpage)
• Plan Infrastructure Scalability (talkpage)

• If you want privacy, email your comments to: strategy2030wikimedia.org

Thanks Rosie for bringing this to our attention. I downloaded the PDF document and scanned it for "women", "female", "biography" and even "article" but found no hits. A search on "gender" turned up references to enhanced user experience, etc. As one of the encyclopaedia's most widely recognized shortcomings is the lack of gender balance, I think it is very strange that the problem has not been raised or addressed. It seems to me it is far too late to comment on this in connection with the document. In any case, I am not at all sure that a ten-year time frame is an effective means of undertaking useful improvements. The whole thing smacks of an expensive management consultancy exercise -- but perhaps I am being too critical. In any case, I've added a line to the Recommendations page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In this connection, I was wondering why Women in Red is not included among Wikimedia movement affiliates. It might be interesting to see how to join. Also surprised to see WikiWomen's User Group is not mentioned either.--Ipigott (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This page shows how it is done. User group would be the one to go for & I'd imagine WiR would qualify easily. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Wikimedia Foundation releases gender equity report and the associated Gender equity report should have been taken into account. Was any effort made to bring these to the attention of those working on the strategy back in April 2018. Then, and now, we could read under Knowledge equity: "We will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege." Surely there is no better example of this than knowledge about women and women's communities. I fail to understand why no attention has been given to it.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, I am in no way seeking to defend WMF, but once one starts down the road of delineating, where does one stop? If women are to be specifically mentioned, why not people of colour, LGBTQ+, non-cisgendered, people with disablities, the economically disadvantaged, etc. Edwardx (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Edwardx: Thanks for your rapid response. It's good to have a reaction from someone who has created over 4,800 articles on the EN wiki, but with respect, I believe people of colour are addressed, perhaps not specifically but rather by reference to items such as local communities, dedicated local staff, ethnicities and emergent regional structures. Women who represent some 50% of the world's population but until now account for only 17.6% of biographical articles on all the language versions of Wikipedia are not addressed. Gender is mentioned only in connection with the user experience. This is a serious shortcoming.--Ipigott (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott Thanks for the kind words. I must confess that I only looked at this one item in isolation, having little time or enthusiasm to read such WMF documents in their entirety. Edwardx (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There are copies of this here at the English Wikipedia now. Start at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2018–20. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Diana de vere Beauclerk

This is my first attempt at turning a woman blue. I selected Diana de vere Beauclerk from the list Writers/UK. She was number 134 on the list. Or alternatively, Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/United Kingdom, 1104, Diana de Vere Beauclerk: English author; daughter of William Aubrey Beauclerk, 9th Duke of St. Albans. I'm hoping I've done it all correctly. If anyone has the time, could you take a look and guide me where I've gone wrong or what the next steps are to follow the Women in Red project standard procedures? Thanks. Cdefm (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cdefm: I've made a few minor changes to your userspace draft. Overall it looks very good to me. I would have no objection to moving it to article space. Nick Number (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine, but digging out some reviews of the books might be needed to demonstrate notability. A hatnote is needed to avoid confusion with Diana Beauclerk, Duchess of St Albans, born Diana de Vere. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added some reviews. While I'm not sure her books were tremendously influential, they seem to have been fairly widely read at the time. Nick Number (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the name of her dad from the lead because Notability is not inherited, and what she did is more important than who sired her. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Another blow for the revolution! But you should have left the title in the next section link. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your time and efforts. I will slowly learn, I hope?! Now to the hatnote Johnbod. I had a look at what it was and how to do one. And I didn't get past grasping the first sentence, although boldly carried on reading hoping it would become clearer. But nope, the situation got worse. By the end of it, I felt I had just had a crash course in a second language. I definitely need help with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdefm (talk • contribs) 18:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone else has done it I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You might get some more data, and a good quote from https://www.newspapers.com/image/34508357/?terms=Diana%2Bde%2Bvere%2BBeauclerk. It's a story about her death. Otherwise, I fear this lady will not be acceptable, her Notability being a bit scanty. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I think she's notable enough through her books, but additional sources on that side of the story wouldn't hurt to establish notability that way. It's much more likely than notability through being a society woman, as it shuts the door on deletionists asking "but what did she do?". Additional sources to use might include https://doi.org/10.1080/13645145.2017.1322168 and maybe https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2011.543831 . —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see I have a lot to learn.... Cdefm (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

High five to the team! Our Lady Di is looking great. I'm so grateful you all jumped in. I just simply didn't do the Lady justice. Thanks again everyone. Cdefm (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions related to our "Public Domain" event

In case you missed it and would like to comment, these questions are posted on the #149 talkpage Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/149: --Rosiestep (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why 1949?: Why is this focused on 1949 deaths and not 1925? I realise the laws very by country, but a number was chosen. Isn’t 1925 a ‘safer’ choice? --Nessie (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• request for help Anne Belle Stone: Hi Victuallers, I am going to write an article on Anne Belle Stone for the PD meet-up. The internet has conflicting death dates - some say 1949 some say 1950. Any suggestions about the PD status of her artwork? Thank for thinking about this. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) I am going to go ahead and upload images. Wikidata has her death as 1949. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Scann has some thoughts on this. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Six millionth articles

The English Wikipedia has reached 6,000,000 articles with
Maria Elise Turner Lauder,
19th-century Canadian school teacher, writer and philanthropist,
created by Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight (User:Rosiestep) on 2020-01-23 at 18:59 UTC.

---

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – 6,000,000 articles

---

Articles created near the same time included:

• ‎Lidia Kulikovski, a Moldovan librarian and bibliographer‎, by User:Gikü
• Videniškiai, a historic village in Lithuania, by ‎User:Renata3
• Giovanni Prodi, an Italian mathematician, by ‎User:SD0001
• Mysore Sand Sculpture Museum, a museum in India, by ‎User:Dee03
• Egon Hartmann, a German architect, by User:Kusma
• Castle Folds, a Romano-British walled settlement, by User:Andrew Davidson
• See more articles

---

Congratulations! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This is so cool...not only is the 6 millionth article about a woman, it was written by a member of WiR, and not just a member of WiR, one of the founders! Congratulations Rosiestep. We can edit! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not an exact science. We can never be sure exactly which article was the one. But this article was a very likely candidate as it was created on the minute we believe that we crossed the threshold. We reached a consensus that, because of the quality of the article and other considerations, it and its creator deserved the recognition. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can get seven million articles by February 2024. ミラP 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well done, @Rosiestep:! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, Rosie, I might have guessed you would be on to it!--Ipigott (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I really appreciate all the kind comments. Now then, regarding the photo we have on Commons of Maria Elise Turner Lauder... it's not in very good shape. If you think it can be improved, Adam Cuerden, and if you have time/inclination, that would be great. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

congrats. this is really terrific!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ebola vaccine researcher would make a great DYK

• Judie Alimonte. Judie Alimonti was one of Canada's unsung scientific heroes Potential collaboration with WikiProject Medicine? Oliveleaf4 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, Oliveleaf4. Plenty of useful sources. See also [1], [2], [3]. Why not make it your first women's biography? Let us know if you need any assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for encouragement; however, I don't have time to get this to DYK status, hence leaving it for someone else to try. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Judie Alimonti is a very short stub, with lots of detail that can be added from the included sources. Note that the last name is Alimonti, not Alimonte. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Margaret Thomas (Q21289449)

Turning a woman blue: Attempt 2. I think I learnt a lot from looking at what others did to my first attempt and I'm hoping I've done better this time. So, while it was fresh in my mind, I thought I'd give it another go. I found Margaret on the list: Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Painters - UK number 226. She needs some hat notes as Margaret Thomas is a fairly 'common' name. I'm also not sure if I should be adding a section listing 'her' collections. Also, if anyone has the time, could you take a look and tell me what you think, or amend (it may be quicker). Thanks. Cdefm (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean the user-space draft User:Cdefm/Margaret Thomas (Q21289449), right? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Yes. Sorry, will be more accurate next time.

Cdefm: It seems to be coming along very well. It might be useful to add a link such as this under External links to provide access to some of her works. I suggest you move the draft into mainspace as Margaret Thomas (painter) and add categories, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott I have moved her to main userspace Margaret Thomas (painter). I have added external references, but not well. I couldn't work out how to show the name of the website on the link as opposed to the link address. In regard to categories, I searched how to add these, and then lost confidence as I couldn't find a step by step by step for beginners. I copied the categories from another painter of her time and changed in readiness to add them at the bottom of her article, Categories: 1916 births, 2016 deaths, 20th-century British women artists, Alumni of the Slade School of Fine Art, Associates of the Royal Academy. Help? Cdefm (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PS When all the 'i's and t's' have been dotted and crossed, she'll need adding to List of British artists ? Cdefm (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Cdefm: A couple of tips:

• There's a template {{Art UK bio}} which is useful to use - if Art UK were to totally rearrange their website (it happens) it would make it easier to find and fix links to it.
• There's a very useful template {{L}} (it has to be "substituted" so you need "subst:L") which creates the DEFAULTSORT and birth and death categories (or "living people" category where appropriate), with minimal typing: {{subst:L|1916|2016|Thomas, Margaret}} does it all. If birth or death date aren't known, leave blank, but if clearly dead (eg 19th-century artist), type "missing" so they don't get characterised as "living".

I've also created the overdue dab page at Margaret Thomas (disambiguation), rather than adding to the already overlong hatnote at Margaret Thomas! PamD 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And added her and a couple of other Margarets to Thomas (surname). PamD 13:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Another tip: when you cite any online source, please remember to give the access date: websites can change, or disappear, and if the link stops working it's important to know when the information was there, to help in tracking an archived copy of the page through the Internet Archive etc. I've found another nice source, too, re the Hunter prize. PamD 13:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

PamD: Very useful tips, thank you. I have a feeling I'll be referring back to these in future articles. Some you mention are a little above my current skill set. But I'm confident I'll eventually get the hang of it all, after about attempt/article 50. The one about 'access date' I totally get, and I should've realised that without prompting. Cdefm (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• To protect from notability claims, I would add a section on "Public collections", writing up the more distinguished museums from the Art UK page. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, this is something I feel I can manage. Thanks! Cdefm (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The UK public collections are all listed at this URL. I took out one ref from a site that was also selling paintings. It's a safe bet to say that if the source is also selling art, it's probably not a reliable source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP Collections list added. I managed do it in a table, but I don't think it looks very pretty, try as I might...help?

Cdefm Did any of your research mention where she died? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates I searched, even on ancestry.co.uk, but I couldn't find any information on her death. I was stumped on that one. Cdefm (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cdefm Well, she tip-toed off this mortal coil. She left some beautiful painting though.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates I typed in the reply box and my message went elsewhere, not for the first time! I may not have found death records as my search skills are not up to scratch. But we've remembered her, not for commercial reasons, but because she was. Cdefm (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Piu Eatwell

Discovered while reading WP:ANI: see here for context. If anyone would like to take a look - consensus seems to be that it has potential as a viable article, but needs some rewriting due to COI and paid-editing concerns. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cut it down quite a lot, checked sources, removed the promotional/unsourced/unencyclopedic parts, and copyedited it a bit. Also moved it back to mainspace. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

BBC 100 Women

I put these women on my watchlist and just noticed that we lost one: Swietenia Puspa Lestari. Looking at the AfD, it seems to be a travesty – just one !voter. You can still see the article at a mirror site and it looks fine to me. It has 10 reasonable sources and there are more to find such as Reuters.

Now this is someone who is being compared with Greta Thunberg, who has founded a charity, organised 1500 volunteers, represented her country at multiple conferences and been recognised by the BBC as one of just 100 women making a difference in the world. I really can't understand why she is being dismissed as not notable and of no account. Anyway, my point is that the subject was in the deletion sort category for Women but nobody, not even the article's creator, turned out to defend the subject. Perhaps our volunteers are being swamped by the volume of nominations as there are currently 67 women in that deletion category? This seems to be too many to review let alone research and vote on.

Now 80% of success is just showing up. I invite the perpetrators to show up and explain themselves. @DGG, Bearian, and Sandstein:.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The "perpetrators" are the people who didn't bother to show up at AfD to make these arguments. It's easy for those who are interested in such discussions to follow Category:AfD debates (Biographical) or other deletion sorting lists. As AfD closer, I assess and act on whatever consensus there is in a discussion, whether I agree with it or not. Sandstein 12:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The consensus of one? It should have been relisted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree with The Drover's Wife -- one supporter is not much of a "consensus". I think that AfD discussion was closed too soon. Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it is normal practice at AfD to close AfDs as "delete" if consensus to do so is unanimous, even if very few people have commented. This is because we need to conclude the discussion at some point, and community consensus, as encoded in deletion policy, is that this point is after seven days. Relisting is the exception and done only if consensus is unclear and there have been few comments. That is not the case here. People do need to show up in time if they want to make their arguments count. Sandstein 13:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the speedy close. AfD is not the place to hash out copyright nor listing issues. By that I mean (a) Afd is not the forum to argue over whether some information is possibly copyrighted - unless it's a clear cut and past, and (b) who goes on a list, or whether every subject on the list is notable, is for the talk page or other fora, not AfD. AfD is the busiest bulletin board on Wikipedia; it doesn't need to be cluttered with disputes that can be handled elsewhere. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have restored this to Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari so Andrew and others can work on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I see the article was started by Sheila1988 who has created quite a few biographies. Perhaps she would like to become a member of Women in Red where we could help her with future creations. If a WiR template had been used, it would have been easier to catch the pending deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it's fair to say I didn't "turn out to defend the subject", I actually added more to the article when it was flagged for speedy deletion but when it was put up again I thought as creator I shouldn't keep pushing. Sheila1988 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sheila1988: It's understandable that Sheila might be reluctant to engage in conflict. It's my impression that men are more pugnacious than women so we risk systemic bias if this distorts our processes. Anyway, we should clarify some details to avoid confusion. The article in question wasn't tagged for speedy deletion, it was tagged for proposed deletion. An article creator shouldn't remove a speedy but anyone can remove a proposed deletion because it's a weak process which is only supposed to be used in uncontroversial cases. Likewise, anyone is entitled to comment at AfD and should do so to ensure a proper consensus. The views of the article creator are especially welcome at AfD because they will tend to understand the topic best, having done the detailed work of finding and going through the sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Cdefm/Mary Stormont

Attempt3: This time I've tried to add external references and authority control. I failed to fully work out the 'Art UK bio' and still getting my head around categories. If any one has time can they take a look and edit (which is probably the quickest option) or let me know if the article needs improving before moving to main userspace? I'm thinking she may need adding to Rye, East Sussex - People of Rye, List of British artists and List of 20th-century women artists maybe? Cdefm (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's always helpful to link to the article you're talking about: User:Cdefm/Mary Stormont . PamD 14:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made a few little tweaks. You could use {{subst:L|1871|1962|Stormont, Mary}} to create the birth and death categories and DEFAULTSORT all in minimal typing, but will have to comment out the categories it produces while the article is still in draft. When in mainspace I'd suggest you add redirects from "Mary Elizabeth Stormont", "Mary Elizabeth Sapsworth", "Mary Sapsworth" (and then check with a "what links here" in case any of them are clashes with other uses of the name, eg perhaps a Mary Sapsworth was a red-linked Australian ice-skater!), and add her to the list at Stormont#People. It all just helps to make her visible, especially to readers with fragments of info, and to reduce the risk of accidental duplication of articles. PamD

I think the problem with the Art UK template was that it picks up the artist name from the article title, so gets in a muddle if it's a draft - but you can override by giving the name explicitly, as I've done. PamD 15:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info and your edits PamD. I tried putting a link to my draft page but failed. I think I had the wrong number of [['s. When I used the Art UK bio template it kept putting my user name in first, and of course I am no artist, so it drew up blank. I couldn't work out how to override it and remove the prefix 'cdefm'. I'll try again next time using your advice. I'll get there eventually. My next challenge will be to try the reidrects when I move it to main userspace. What do you think, I move it, or does it need some more eyes to look over it? Cdefm (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Cdefm As long as the article is in your sandbox the templates are not going to work the way they are intended. For example the Art UK bio template will make the strange configuration you experienced. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gianna Bryant

Gianna Bryant, 13 year old daughter of recently deceased basketball legend Kobe Bryant, died in the same crash that killed him.

I am not a sports expert, but it seemed to me that the considerable press coverage of her, in 2018 and 2019, support regarding her as a teenage sports prodigy, and that she would have measured up to GNG in 2019.

I started the article about her, and maybe didn't do a good enough job at neutrally covering the articles that suggested a level of performance that justified an article, even though she was merely being courted to join top college teams.

I'd appreciate some sympathetic eyes on this article, particularly from anyone with experience working on articles on sports figures.

Is this the right place to ask for this kind of help?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a kind effort to note her short life. However, I think it will end up at AfD soon, as all the sources are basically about the fact that Kobe Bryant had a daughter, rather than being motivated by the daughter's own activities. It's a bit early and quite a grim activity to be arguing her notability in detail so just consider the headlines: this 2017 usatoday.com headline says "Kobe Bryant's 11-year-old daughter is already a pro...", and this 2017 upi.com headline reads "Kobe's daughter has a slick jumper just like her dad." A Yahoo.com article is titled "Kobe Bryant's daughter Gianna is slaying on the court". She is exclusively defined by her father, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. She was also a 13 year old child who sadly died young. I would certainly support its deletion at AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Similar articles about Barron Trump or the Jolie-Pitt children have been deleted. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Bryant (2nd nomination) - clearly on the way out. Personally I support a merge. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It's gone, redirected to Kobe Bryant. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:Male privilege

Your participation would be appreciated in this request for comment on Talk:Male privilege. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Leading Women

Can somebody take a look at Draft:Leading Women? I can see what look like a few news hits, but the search term is too vague to be able to get suitable sources easily enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Searches based on Susan Colantuono will probably give more; by the looks she is notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've promoted this to mainspace after Ritchie333's clean-up - Leading Women. There's a possible COI user wanting to turn it into advetorial, so might be worth putting on watchlists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

SCAR Medal for Education and Communication

Hi! A while back Janstrugnell organised a multi-month editathon to create and update a stack of bios on women antarctic researchers (Signpost article; project page). The main antarctic research society (SCAR) is inviting nominations for the "SCAR Medal for Education and Communication". We have two nominations from academics in the society, but thought it might be nice to have one from "Women in Red". I've no idea if that's feasible, or whether the organisation structure of the meta:WikiWomen's User Group would make that a better option. Anyway, let us know if that might be possible - it'd be a great opportunity to further emphasise the importance of Wikipedia biographies in those circles! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Evolution and evolvability, for this kind invitation. I think it is the first time we have been asked to put forward candidates for an award. We have Category:Female polar explorers which seems pertinent here but in February we once again intend to include Explorers (including the Arctic and Antarctica) as a priority. As I see that nominations are to be made by 4 March, we could perhaps use that opportunity to discuss the matter further.--Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of us, @T.Shafee. I'll connect with you via email to get more details.

As a friendly FYI, in 2016, Women in Red received an invitation to apply for the ITU/UNESCO Women's GEM-TECH award. Though we didn't win, we were honored to be one of five organizations shortlisted in the category "Apply Technology for Women’s Empowerment and Digital Inclusion". --Rosiestep (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie, but the difference here is that we are being invited to participate in nominating candidates for an award rather than competing as Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct - in this case the editathon organising team would be the nominee, and a WiR representative would be one of the three nominators providing a letter of support. Apologies that I was a bit unclear in the original post! I'm hopeful that getting additional format recognition of the value of editathons for education and communication efforts will help encourage similar projects in other societies (and help people within those societies pitch the idea to their groups). I appreciate that this is a little unusual a request - so thank you for engaging with the idea! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Evolution and evolvability: I was wondering if you have any updates to Wikipedia:Meetup/SCAR 2016 with lists of redlinked women deserving new articles.--Ipigott (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• In this connection, see our February focus on Explorers and also the talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! I've contacted both SCAR secretariat and the APECS president to ask them to forward an email about it to their members. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rachel Rossi

This landed in the slush pile yesterday. I've cleaned it up, and there seems to be possible indications of notability, including receiving some awards and working on the Kavanaugh Drama Fest, but it could do with somebody else having a look at it. Any takers? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Now at Rachel Rossi after improvements by Ritchie & Yngvadottir. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Krista Jobson

As above. Some sources, copyvio removed, needs expansion and general sprucing up. Since flutes and concert orchestras are involved, I wonder if Gerda could do something with it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Depends on sources, and not now. I do Recent deaths these days, and yesterday had to handle 2, and am behind with many things, and then go around with an impossible - well it happened, so was possible - arbcase close. I looked over the candidates for whom I had voted, but - relief - 3 of the 11 for whom I had voted were not elected, and of the remaining 8, 5 voted as I would have done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

As Mrs Doyle once said, there's that little word "no" the Lord gave us when we didn't want any cake .... er, didn't have time to drop everything and fix an article somebody else didn't have time to do. No worries. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to keep informed

Since last week I was working on few articles related to rights of Pakistani Women. Usually I refer to international publications and Pakistani news paper websites seems to work ok.

Whenever I tried to access some university & some women orgnisation websites like Punjab University & Shirkat Gah ( a women's organisation) website to search if I can find any research papers some of those websites seemed to be authorized websites but practically technically seem to be insecure & compromised cyber security point of view (I am not a cyber security expert) instances on PC or browser getting hang & diverting to phishing web side kind of experience are being encountered frustrating number of times. Until we don't get some cyber security guidance it's better be careful.

Just sharing to keeping others informed

Bookku (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

New userbox

I have stolen a userbox template (below) from @Eggishorn: to highlight the number of women I have made blue. I had to hard code it with the number of new articles about women, though, as Eggishorn did. If someone out there better skilled than I is able, it would be great to have a dynamic box along the lines of Template:User humility.

This user has made 14 women blue.

Thanks! --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I made Template:WikiChallenge Venezuela edits, which works by adding |N in the template. You could copy the code from that. Edit: making a box like humility where it says how many of the women articles you've made isn't feasible, as the humility box gets data from the total number of articles. Kingsif (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, adding |N is exactly what I meant. I didn't mean for it to give you a percentage (although that would be cool, too). I took a look at your template's code, but I am not sure what I am looking at as a non-coder. Do you think you could take a crack at it? Thanks! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: I've made User:Kingsif/WIR userbox. Type {{User:Kingsif/WIR userbox|1}} for:

This user has made 1 women blue.

I also moved the link from the text to the logo, but could add it to the text easily, too. I've centered the text, and added category so that it automatically places the user in the WIR editors category if they aren't already. Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

OOOH! Looks pretty! I'll defintely add this to my userpage (once I count all of the women I've made over the years lol!) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, Many thanks! It looks great! -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Great idea, Slugger O'Toole, and great user box, Kingsif. So I've spent the last half hour counting and discovered that 1,207 of my 2,315 articles are biographies of women or articles about their works. But I can think of several other editors who have contributed substantially more than that. Maybe some of them will start counting too. From time to time it's useful to let people know what we've been doing.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

**cough cough** I mean, if we're talking about letting others know what we've done... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn: Well you've already created two informative biographies of women and I'm sure there will be many more. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, thank you. There's at least one more in my sandbox being worked on. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sweet; and I've added it to my userpage. Thanks for creating. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, Rosie, on your 1,380 articles about women. As they are nearly all Start or C class, that's quite an achievement. Now we just need something similar for all your "women" additions to Commons.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Daron Nefcy

I just stumbled upon this person. She created Star vs. the Forces of Evil and should meet WP:CREATIVE 3 -- but it's salted, which I'm not sure makes sense due to the show's popularity. Thoughts? ミラP 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a 2015 salting for someone who is unimpeachably notable. I imagine Ritchie333 could unsalt it should there be (and perhaps even if there isn't) interest in writing an article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• An RHaworth salting just shouldn't count. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: The deleted revision of the article by RHaworth (WP:A1) was incorrect as it was an infobox with the information you stated in the above post. I have restored it. Although RHaworth has now been desysopped, things like this will probably crawl out of the woodwork from time to time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft: User:Cdefm/Elizabeth Rose, Lady of Kilravock

I found Elizabeth Rose, Lady of Kilravock 1747 – 1815, Missing articles by occupation/Writers - UK, Number 29. I think I've done all the adminy things, except she may need extra categories. What I struggled with was establishing her 'essence'. I might have bitten off more than I can chew, but I gave it a go anyhow. I've come to the conclusion that she was a literary critic and an accidental author. I'm not sure if this is correct, have I gone in the right direction in her article? If anyone has the time, could they take a look and let me know what they think? Can I call her a critic and an author? Also, feel free to edit, correct, add, amend as you see fit. Cdefm (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

From Worldcat, her letters (11 editions) seem to be significant.--Ipigott (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott Thanks. I've added a sentence and reference. Cdefm (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Tina Hassel

Apparently notable German journalist/broadcaster, currently at MfD. Looks like a translation, perhaps someone can help out? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried, but it needs a German speaker to decode the sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree a German speaker would be useful. Unfortunately my German is vestigial. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, Tina Hassel is notable as the editor-in-chief at the ARD, Germany's public broadcaster. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been translated by someone with limited English skills. "Hassel wies den Vorwurf mangelnder Distanz zurück" was translated as "Hassel pointed complaints about lack of distance back". Even Google translate does a better job than that: "Hassel rejected the accusation of lack of distance". The sourcing is not great, https://www.presseportal.de/pm/7899/2249607 is a press release (German: Pressemitteilung (PM)), and the WDR was her employer, but the article itself is worse than a machine translation. The German article has more sources, but they're not great either. Vexations (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Vexations, and Yngvadottir for the improved translation! Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Now at Tina Hassel; another good WiR save. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Katherine Tanner Fisk

today, while reading about Alyse Gregory, I found about Katherine Tanner Fisk. There is a lot about her on beginning of the 1900s publication, and she was plauded by Willa Cather and was an intimate friend of Jane Addams (since the time they were in school together). I think it would be nice to have an article about her, even a stub. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you Elisa. As you probably know, I don't usually write biographies of English-speakers but, as you suggested, I have made a start on this. You appear to have access to sources which show up as non-accessible pages when I try to find them on Google books. Perhaps you can add some content to the article yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

added some more info. there is much more, maybe I will add some more in the future. Or other can. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You've already done a really good job on this, Elisa. It just shows what can be done when you have access to the right sources and can revive a long-forgotten but obviously important figure. It's also good to see you are again ready to contribute to our women's biographies. Hope you stay around.--Ipigott (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Nicole Sahin

Just spotted this one, with a comment "potentially notable". It needs some cleanup and referencing; possible sources include this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, [4] is a press release, and [5] isn't much better: "Globalization Partners Inc., whose Global Expansion Platform™ enables you to hire talent in more than 170 countries within days, without the need to set up costly foreign subsidiaries, announced Donna Marshall has joined the company as Senior Vice President of People Operations reporting to CEO Nicole Sahin." Those aren't sources we can use. Vexations (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This draft reeks of WP:COI with hallmark new user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JennaNeiterman who does just enough edits to launch an article into mainspace. So I'm thinking throw-away account, $$$, and - as to the article - burn it with fire and afterwards salt it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It says she was named Gamechanger of the Year and Entrepreneur of the Year in New England — but by whom? The supposed source is a random podcast that provides no actual further information. The whole thing looks like a paid job by way of a throw-away account. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Linda Rodin

I just rescued this from the slush pile. There are a pile of news sources, including The Daily Telegraph and Vogue, it's just that I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to fashion, so wouldn't really know where to begin expanding it. Can anyone here help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for rescuing; have revised. Feel free to tag me for any fashion-related articles. MapleSoy (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A forgotten American patriot (Draft:Elizabeth Willing Powel)

I would appreciate any help at Draft:Elizabeth Willing Powel. I am not good at starting new articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That got a bit improved over the last couple of hours. Hats off to C&C and GMG (and a couple of other usual suspects). Outstanding work. "Not good at starting new articles" indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

We gon make it purdy. GMG^talk 00:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it would have been more appropriate to say "I hate working alone". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anybody handy that has the photoshop skills to turn File:Elizabeth Willing Powel signature (cropped).jpg into one of those nice clean transparent signatures? GMG^talk 14:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  GreenMeansGo, I will ask either the Wikipedia or Commons graphics labs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Waste of my time (Draft:Cláudia Rodrigues Ferreira de Carvalho)

Someone from the Project Women in Red asked me to translate this article. She is a Brazilian archaeologist. Now I was informed that the draft] may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. Please do not request translation of articles that meet criteria for speedy deletion. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 22:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Its speedy deletion had nothing to do with its content. It was because it sat there as a draft, untouched, unedited, and not proposed for promotion to article space, for six months. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've requested it. I'll get it to article on restoration if I can. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it, which any admin can do for a draft tagged for WP:G13 ("abandoned draft"). I agree the stock template message, "In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace" is not appropriate here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't get to this til tomorrow - (I wasn't expecting such a speedy restore) but if anyone else wants to review it faster than that, go for it!! ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 18:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I had a similar problem at first with Danielle Younge-Ullman when it was still in draftspace. I was kind of frustrated about it, because I had been working on it and just got kind of busy (6 months can go by pretty fast). I got a message and before I had even logged on for the day, it had been deleted. I'm still hoping to improve the article myself when I have time, as it's a fairly short stub. Also, this happened [6] and [7]. It seems that G13 equates a draft not being edited for 6 months to indefinite hosting of material not suitable for mainspace, even if the draft hasn't even been submitted to AfC yet (or is awaiting a review). Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Are draft articles in user space deleted after six months too? For example, if the article had been at user:Ipigott/Cláudia_Rodrigues_Ferreira_de_Carvalho would it also have been deleted? If not, despite recommendations from AfC, there is a strong case for encouraging new contributors to keep new articles in their user space rather than in "draft" until they are ready for mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone swing by and take a look at the draft now and see if it's fair? If yes, we can pull it into mainspace. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 12:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I swung, I looked, I pulled. Cláudia Rodrigues Ferreira de Carvalho. @Luizpuodzius: - not, as it turns out, a waste of time, but rather a good outcome :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Theoretically user space drafts are exempt from the delete after 6 months rule unless they have AfC boilerplate. (In practice, the distinction is sometimes ignored.) By the way, anything deleted G13 can be refunded on request; if I'm active I'm always willing to do that unless there's a copyvio problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also willing to undelete if requested - just give me a shout. I'm usually around, except when I'm pretending to have a social life. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Cdefm (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too. Thanks! Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 20:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Just to announce that this is running in March. Ser Amantio is putting up an Amazon voucher prize for most British and Irish women bios destubbed or improved. Any expansions done among your creation work would be much appreciated. Sign up in the participants if interested, a good chance to win some free books!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Good to see you're back in business. Excellent initiative -- but you have to read a long way down the explanations to see that biographies are also acceptable and that there is a special prize for "Most articles destubbed and improved on British and Irish women". Maybe biographies could be mentioned earlier as "This focuses particularly on places and listed buildings, but the contest will also include biographies and everything else." Is it possible to do preparatory work in user space before 1 March and then move or copy the edited text to mainspace in March? This would allow contributors to make an early start and cover more items.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did originally have women's bios mentioned in the main focus but Espresso and Pam D complained that it seemed inappropriate. I think the fact that we have as much of a prize for women's bios as by entity should be sufficient enough to be productive. It's really a geo/building focus but I always try to benefit women bios in some way. I added biographies to the goals anyway as suggested. Anybody can do what they like in their user space, as long as the articles themselves are done in March and the dates don't say it was done in February. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: Just before the beginning of March, I think it would be useful to announce the special prize for women on our main page and on our A+F meetup page. People will be able to pick up stubs from Category:British artist stubs, Category:Irish artist stubs, etc. The exchanges here should also help. Quite a challenge!--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get one of the tech guys to generate a list of British and Irish women stubs by occupation and create some lists, sound good Ipigott?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld: It's not too difficult to pick the women's names from the stubs listed under Category:British people stubs, etc., but I note there is nothing specifically on activists or feminists.--Ipigott (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)