Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Problems with "Member since" dates on WiR membership list

I have encountered several cases over the past few months of an incorrect "Member since" date on our WiR Members list. The problem occurs when existing members update their profiles. The most recent example is that of LaSombrerera who joined on 23 April but made an update on 5 May. See the revision history of User:LaSombrerera/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red. The "Member since" date is now listed as 5 May. In some cases, the profiles of those who have been members for years have been updated, making it look as if they have just joined. Apart from distorting membership history, the errors make it more difficult to identify and welcome genuine new members. Maybe MarioGom or Headbomb could look at this as I believe the same tools are used for other wikiprojects.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, this is setup at MediaWiki:Gadget-formWizard/WikiProject Women in Red/Join. It recreated the full content of the WikiProjectCard on every update, ignoring previous content. I have no idea if the underlying extension allows a more fine-grained updated. Headbomb, any idea? MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's too complicated to sort this out, then we'll just have to accept the anomalies. Most of the features of the membership list are really useful, especially the breakdown between active and non-active members.--Ipigott (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red task force for WikiProject COVID-19

I've decided to review/assess/improve the biographies (women's & men's) in Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. But it's unclear to me whether or not it's appropriate to add {{WikiProject COVID-19}} to the biography talkpages. I read this: Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19/Assessment#Other parameters, but it is not clear which biographies should get the talkpage template and which ones should not. So I asked here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Then, I noticed that Women in Red is listed as a Task Force -- the only biographies-related task force for WikiProject COVID19 -- so I'm asking the question here. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to depend on how much COVID-19 will be covered in the bio. If there's nothing more to say about it than the cause of death, probably not. But if there's more, i.e. something for the WikiProject to ensure gets covered appropriately, sure. Kingsif (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I have looked at a number of biographies included in Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. I am rather surprised to see how many people appear to have achieved notability as a result of their cause of death without much more in their biographies to justify inclusion. In such cases, it seems to me the category itself is all that is needed. More generally, I would have thought in the case of biographies, WikiProject COVID-19 should be used first and foremost for those who have played an active part in care, research, politics, philanthropy, writing or other types of support directly related to the epidemic, rather than simply cause of death. I see, however, from here a significant proportion of the articles are biographies in which the cause of death is the only relationship to Covid-19. So it looks as if it is rather late in the day to make any meaningful changes. As for the task forces, I see Sdkb added the section. Maybe we have a special role to play here, especially in relation to this month's emphasis on healthcare.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't create the task force, just moved a page. No strong view on this, but seems like a good thing to discuss and reach consensus on for consistency. Feel free to add it to the COVID-19 current consensus banner once you all reach agreement. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Day 2 of my review/improvement/assessment of biographies in Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. I am being methodical. I am reviewing/improving/assessing all articles (all genders) in the subcats. My findings so far:

1. I started with the Argentina subcat and have reviewed all articles in countries through and including Japan.
2. About 20% of the biographies have the WP COVID-19 template on their talkpage. No commonality between which articles have it and which don't.
3. A few of the stub biographies have a {{COVID-19-stub}} template at the bottom of the article; most don't. Again, no commonality between which articles have it and which don't.
4. Minuscule percentage of these articles are biographies about women. But that fact is obscured, e.g. you can't readily see it. One way you could view/analyze it (perhaps there are others) is if all COVID19+biography-related articles had the WP COVID19 talkpage template, e.g. run this query.

Also, I'm tweeting about this. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Lorna Breen

I've created a stub for Lorna Breen. Improvements welcome! Stay safe, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice one, now at start Mujinga (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Desiree Fairooz

Will someone review Draft:Desiree_Ali-Fairooz? I'm a new editor trying to turn red links blue! Ehogs (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi I made some edits, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Kerry Diamond

Hey, will someone review this page. Thanks! Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kerry_Diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millerhighwife (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya on wikipedia, you need to cite reliable sources and right now the article has none. Another issue is Wikipedia:Notability and to be honest I'm not sure if this person is notable. Mujinga (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Anna Wishart

Hi there, I'm a new editor and made some updates to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wishart I added details about her biography, re-election, past election, and legislative committees, wondering if someone can review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizshel14 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya, just to give some feedback, nice one this page seems overall in quite a good state as a start, although I would also say ballotpedia doesn't seem great as a reliable secondary source. Mujinga (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Help? Draft:Gertrude Hamilton & Draft:Gail Fishman

I stumbled on the botanical illustrations of Draft:Gertrude Hamilton at Wikipedia Commoms but I can't find much on her and there seems to be another Gertrude Hamilton doing botanical illustrations far more recently. Her images are lovely if anyone can find some substantial coverage of her.

While I'm here.. I'd be ·happy to have a lil help pushing Draft:Gail Fishman over the hump. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy: I tried looking through the Internet Archive and Google Books to see if I could find anything more on Gertrude Hamilton, and I was able to find a couple of other works she had contributed illustrations to. Unfortunately, it's hard to find additional info on her that would establish Wiki notability. It's especially hard to research her further with the lack of details about her life ("Gertrude Hamilton" seems a bit too common to search on its own, and she could easily have had a name change later on from marriage). I assume she was British (from the books she contributed to), and that Gertrude Hamilton was her birth/unmarried name (since it's preceding sometimes by "Miss"), and she seemed to be active from the late 1800s to early 1900s. But without knowing more, it's hard to research her further. It is a shame, because her illustrations are very beautiful. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

REqueering P91 on Wikidata

Hello all! Someone decided to batch remove a ton of P91 ("sexual orientation") on Wikidata, and we're working on not only reverting these, but also finding sources to back it up. A lot of extremely well known and out non-heterosexuals have all of a sudden been recloseted because of that user's action. Today and tomorrow, the Wikimedia Hackthon is being held online and we have a project up to requeer these items (on Phabricator). We also have a group on Telegram. Come join us! -Yupik (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Marie Shear

A few days ago, I happened upon the phrase that “Feminism” is the radical notion that women are people. By no means was this my first experience with this definition, but it did prod my curiosity. It took all but seconds to learn that this definition is attributed to Marie Shear. I was a little disappointed to see the article about her is rather on the short side. Perhaps outside the quote she wasn’t very notable? I suppose I shouldn’t complain, as I’m not (yet) notable for anything. This is one of those cases where “so fix it” applies, but on the chance that this is being seen by eyeballs that are attached to brains already capable and inclined to fix it, I would be grateful for any improvements they may make. If anyone points me to some sources, preferably of the RS variety I’d be willing to work with you on dabbling with this article and using the fixins bar. Thanks. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry...did someone say "fixins bar"? (Man, I miss that place.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

God bless you, for that’s exactly what I was thinking of! I served it up, but you hit it out of the park.That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look and do some destubbing. Also she's a Marie, that fits one of our editathons this month. Penny Richards (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata redlist for healthcare workers

We need another Wikidata redlist for our May event on healthcare. We have a Wikidata list for women physicians and another for women nurses, but we need a third one to include all(?)/most(?)/some(?) of the other healthcare professions noted here: Category:People in health professions. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe we could simply combine "Health personnel" (Q59283400) and "Health professional" (Q11974939). (cc. MarioGom).--Ipigott (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Rosiestep, Ipigott: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Health professionals. I used just subclasses of "health professional". "Health personnel" does not seem to be in use as occupation in Wikidata. The full list is huge (+10k entries), so I limited it to 2000 entries. MarioGom (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MarioGom. Note I've trimmed the redlist title to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Healthcare. Also, I can't sort out if the Healthcare Wikidata Redlist includes the job titles that are already included on the Nurses' Wikidata Redlist and/or the Physicians' Wikidata Redlist. I think the Healthcare Wikidata Redlist should not duplicate the occupations of the other two, but wonder if others have different opinions? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep, the Healthcare list currently includes all possible subclasses, including physicians and nurses. On the other hand, the physicians list includes a small subset of physicians with quite restrictive criteria. Maybe we could broaden criteria for the physicians redlist, and then change the healthcare redlist to be "Other healthcare professionals"? MarioGom (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, that sounds like a good plan. I hadn't looked closely at the Wikidata Physician Redlist, but I had looked at the Wikidata Nurse Redlist and noticed that it included more than a dozen nursing occupations, which is a good thing IMHO. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep, done. Physicians is now more exhaustive. Healthcare excludes nurses, physicians and psychologists. The later already existed (WD) and it constituted a sizeable chunk of the healthcare list. MarioGom (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, MarioGom! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible (or useful) to do a WD redlist of epidemiologists? I doubt there would be many virologists, microbiologist, and molecular biologists in WD. TJMSmith (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith, looks like epidemiologists are part of Category:Medical researchers (medical researcher (Q15401884)). MarioGom, indeed, it would be great to have such a Wikidata redlist, unless all the medical researcher items are already in the Wikidata Healthcare Redlist? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That would be great! I know there's a wikidata lists on scientists, but to get a more specific medical one would be helpful. I just tried (my first time) generating a Wikidata list using MarioGom's healthcare one as an example: Epidemiologist. Looks like there are about 25 Epidemiologist. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What about midwives? I have a list from a book I found in a library a few months ago; it wants converting, which I'll get to in a little while. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: That would totally fall under healthcare workers! Maybe that could be the start of a crowd-sourced Healthcare worker redlist (or it could be a standalone list depending on the counts). TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, here are the midwives:

• Jesusita Aragon
• Penny Bradbury Armstrong
• Martha Moore Ballard
• Ruth Coates Beeman
• Elizabeth Berryhill
• Mary Breckinridge
• Helen Edith Browne
• Pearlie Burton
• Maude Evelyn Callen
• Hilda Anderson Erickson
• Eunice Katherine MacDonald Ernst/Kitty Ernst
• Ina May Gaskin
• Lalla Mary Goggans
• Emma Goldman
• Mamie Odessa Hale
• Elizabeth Jane Soley Hamilton
• Aileen I. Hogan
• Anne Marbury Hutchinson
• Susan Gail James
• Raven Lang
• Carol L. Leonard
• Onnie Lee Logan
• Ruth Watson Lubic
• Georgia Lathouris Mageras
• Biddy Mason/Bridget Mason
• Adelaide McDougall
• Rose Madeline McNaught
• Gladys Milton
• Mary Angela Murdaugh
• Margaret Carrie Etta Grigsby Nichols/Etta Grigsby Nichols
• Henriette Blier Pelletier
• Mary Peterson
• Hanna Porn
• Agnes Shoemaker Reinders/Sister M. Theophane
• Luba Lyons Richardson
• Marie-Henriette LeJeune Ross
• Patty Bartlett Sessions
• Amy Mildred Sharpless
• Margaret Charles Smith
• Carolyn Conant Van Blarcom
• Fran Ventre
• Mary Bristow Willeford

They are taken from A Biographical Dictionary of Women Healers: Midwives, Nurses, and Physicians. The list is raw; I've done no checking of any of the links. The book also contains entries for physicians and nurses, and I have photographs of those lists as well, but it's late and I'm lazy. I'll try and convert them to text tomorrow night. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

TJMSmith, Rosiestep: medical researchers, including epidemiologists, are currently included in Researchers and Physicians. MarioGom (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to mention this list I created for American Nursing: A Biographical Dictionary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @Gamaliel: I just added this to the list of redlinks on the event page. I'm guessing the Wikidata lists for nurses would also would pull them. TJMSmith (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:: For organizational purposes, could this list be turned into a redlink list of Missing articles by dictionary (like the American Nursing one above). TJMSmith (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith: Sure - I'll try to do it tomorrow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! TJMSmith (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Children's book illustrators & authors

I've been working on some drafts of children's book illustrators and authors, if anyone is interested in contributing / checking them out.

• Draft:Eva Lindström
• Draft:Lena Anderson
• Draft:Tatyana Mavrina
• Draft:Bonnie Shemie

- Whisperjanes (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Whisperjanes: Great work on these! I think it's helpful for WIR to place an editathon tag on the talk page (assists with tracking and analysis). I went ahead and added the tags and moved the first 3 drafts. Shemie also passes WP:N, but needs a little more expansion before it can be moved to mainspace (IMO). I added a possible source on the talkpage. PS- Growing up, I loved Linnea in Monet's Garden. Glad to see the author has an article! Best, TJMSmith (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@TJMSmith: Thanks so much! I agree that Bonnie Shemie needs some more work, which I think I'll get to today. I actually think Tatyana Mavrina needs more work too... she might be the most famous of the four, but it's hardest to find English sources on her, since she's mainly famous in Russia. And I'm a huge nature and watercolor lover, so I'm a bit jealous I didn't read Anderson's books when I was growing up, haha! I definitely would have been obsessed as a kid :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Mammals Named after Women

Hi All, I came across this book https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Eponym_Dictionary_of_Mammals.html?id=I-kSmWLc6vYC&redir_esc=y whilst making a page for Berthe Rakotosamimanana and there's a quite a few women with animals named after them, who also appear notable. I started a list, for myself, but wondered whether there was a useful place I could put it for others? In this months event? Or is a redlink list linked to WIR better? Or as I add them to wikidata is there a way of categorising them so it shows they have an animal named after them? Thanks! (Lajmmoore (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC))

Linda Zoghby

Hit 3.5 million edits this morning, and I decided to celebrate with a new article (what else?) Linda Zoghby - she sang at the Met in the 1980s. And warrants an entry in The Concise Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, which I'm glad to be using finally. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on the 3.5 million edits, Ser Amantio di Nicolao! --Rosiestep (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: According to this writer at Wired, clicking your mouse requires about 0.0005 joules. Plugging $0.0005\cdot 3500000\ J$ into WolframAlpha, I learned that this is about half the energy released from an explosion of one gram of TNT. And making an edit requires you to click your mouse at least twice, right (among other things)? So your mouse clicks from Wikipedia edits have required you to expend at least as much energy as the energy released from the explosion of one gram of TNT. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Astrophobe:: In Ser Amantio's defence, the majority of edits are a result of his development and application of clever routines to improve large batches of categorizations. Each of these requires only a handful of mouse clicks but in some cases can lead to edits on thousands of articles all at once, saving the rest of us time and frustraton. For me, by far the most attractive aspect of his editing is his work on content, not only new articles (now 34,558) but expansion of existing work. His keen personal interest in culture, especially music, is inspiring. Work here has of course entailed a vast number of mouse clicks, but they are excellent value in terms of TNT equivalence — especially all those devoted to improved coverage of women — and I look forward to many more.--Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: That explains why my pointer finger is so slim, then. :-) Wish it would translate to the rest of me...

@Rosiestep: Thank you kindly. :-) This one was fun to do. Baker's is a fun source, too - I have a lot of potential articles to look at there, albeit mostly beyond the scope of WiR. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks very much for the kind words. I do intend to do a bit more content-writing in the foreseeable future. Something I keep telling myself, to little avail...I somehow get drawn back into all of the other cosmetic stuff. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Juliana M. Chan

Hi all, could someone take a look at this AfC draft I came across? I've edited it down to its most reliable sources (some not ideal) but now I'm not sure it will pass notability criteria. Thank you! -- MapleSoy (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on interpreting these figures but I think she might pass NACADEMIC #C1 based on her citation counts: [1]. In practice citation counts and H-index are often used to demonstrate academic notability. I removed the date of birth as it is unsourced. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Maureen Hiron

I came across Draft:Maureen Hiron at AfC. The draft needs a lot of work... a lot... however, there are claims of notability and an interesting story. I am wondering if anyone is able to dig up some reliable sources - perhaps someone with access to British newspaper archives from the 80s and 90s? I found some coverage in The Independent [2], and it looks like there is coverage in The Times, The Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph on the Internet Archive [3], but annoyingly the papers seem to have been scanned as images so I can't search the text. Wondering if there is more. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done quite a lot of tidying up, removed links to German Wikipedia etc, and boldly moved it to mainspace. Needs more tidying but I think it's solid. PamD 11:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, PamD. If I have time today I will flip through the scans on the Internet Archive and try to locate those articles so we can replace some of the unreliable sources with good ones. I find it disappointing when drafts on notable topics are declined because of the writers' inexperience, so thank you for putting in the work to clean it up. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Categories about women on Wikidata

Hi, request for comment here -> meta:Talk:WikiWomen's_User_Group#Confusion_on_categories. Thank you, bye. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 13:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Section with "appealing" red links

Is it a idea to have on the main WIR page, a section with a small list of appealing women in red? To inspire people to create this article. For instance the first women F-16 pilot Manja Blok. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Carolyn Reidy, president and CEO of Simon & Schuster, dies at 71

Wow: No Wikidata and no Wikipedia article (I just started them) for Carolyn Reidy, president and CEO of Simon & Schuster since 2008 who passed today. Let's get editing! -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Eponymous STEM women

Many years ago I started maintaining a spreadsheet of eponymous women in STEM. Initially it contained only those women who a) had a wikipedia page (e.g. Sandra Faber) and b) had a named item with its own wikipedia page (e.g. Faber-Jackson relation), although eventually it morphed to include women who didn't have wiki pages, as well as other achievements that didn't necessarily have their own pages or weren't eponyms. This task involved trawling through lists of eponymous equations etc. and checking the page to see if they happened to be named for women. Some things I noticed pretty quickly were:

• many pages for eponymous things don't actually mention their namesakes at all, male or female
  • even if they do acknowledge the namesakes, frequently only the first initials will be used for redlink names, obscuring the gender
• some pages for eponymous things neglect to mention the women namesakes, especially if the women are redlinked or share a name with a co-discoverer (note in the latter example the reference cited immediately after the names explicitly lists the women as coauthors)
• women's pages are frequently not included in various categories
• there are a lot of groundbreaking theorems and discoveries that could have been named after their female discoverer but are instead given descriptive names and make no reference to the discoverer
• many page names will acknowledge eponymous male co-discoverers but not female ones (although these will sometimes be included as redirects)
• some articles contain links to multiply-eponymous things but will drop the eponyms belonging to women (e.g. a reference to the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou experiment will just have the link text Fermi-Pasta-Ulam)
• when they ARE acknowledged, women discovers of non-eponymous things are typically listed last even when they are the project leaders (in this example, Jennifer Seberry was the doctoral adviser of the man listed first)
• on top of the redlink initials issue, pages listing the recipients of various STEM prizes often suffer from sexist wording
• the pages of either namesakes or discoveries may not include links to or mentions of important named discoveries or their discoverers, even when they both have their own wiki pages

While I'm not proposing the addition of any specific redlink women, I think the above problems are closely related and it is worthwhile to keep an eye on them while editing/reading wikipedia. Women who made contributions to STEM fields, especially historically, are overlooked and underacknowledged, and one of the simplest ways to rectify this on wiki is to ensure they are given the proper recognition within their niche topics. It would be great if other STEM editors could:

1. go through eponymous articles and make sure the namesakes' full names (male or female) are cited somewhere—this would also likely reveal many redlink women deserving of their own pages
2. expand the categories for women's pages
3. clean up links/references to eponymous pages so that they include the women (e.g. search for all mentions of Fermi-Pasta-Ulam that don't mention Tsingou)

Please let me know if WiR is the wrong place to post this! JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay: These are certainly interesting observations and useful items to bear in mind when editing existing articles or creating new ones. When you say "expand the categories for women's pages", do you mean populate existing women's categories or create new ones? If so, have you any specific suggestions?--Ipigott (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Whenever anything is named after a person (building, street, animal taxon, equation...) there's likely to be a reader wanting to know why, and who that person was. This has reminded me to split Amanda Elzy into a freestanding article separate from Amanda Elzy High School, which I've now done. (And created Elzy while I was at it.) Some buildings are named for the donor or their family, who may not be otherwise notable (just rich), but in many cases there's an interesting person being honoured. We should try to include a mention of all of these people. And if there isn't enough content for a freestanding article on the person, but there's a solidly sourced note about them in the article on the building/taxon/etc, then the redirect from their name can be categorised and given a defaultsort so that it is found in appropriate category listings. Not just women, of course, but if you're interested in raising the prominence of women (as we all are, here) then of course you'll focus on them.

Going back to JoelleJay's post, I wonder whether it's really any sort of discrimination beyond the question of what happens to whoever isn't named as the first author of a paper?

I had a look at your "neglect to mention the women namesakes" diff above, on the Cori cycle and noticed that 5 years on no-one had fixed your reference to make it clickable, let alone formatted it as a proper reference - now done. The source looks a splendid page on the ACS website which gives Gerty equal billing with Carl. Please remember to check your edits so that the refs are as good as you can make them, and clickable where there's an online source. Thanks.

And on your "first initials" diff above: you changed "Dr. D. R. Mowat and Dr. M. J. Wilson" to "Dr. David Mowat and Dr. Margaret Wilson", and your change was reverted the next day with "(rv, please cite a source for that, not in the cited ref)". Your edit actually lost us information, as middle initials are important in differentiating many people known in their publications as "D ... Mowat" (this man is not David Mowat) or "M. ... Wilson" (she isn't one of the Margaret Wilsons on whom we have an article). If you have a reliable source for the given names then the most helpful version would be "Dr. David R. Mowat and Dr. Margaret J. Wilson", giving the reader as much information as possible, but it needs a source. PamD 09:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And it turns out she's Meredith Wilson, not Margaret: see here. Please take much more care with your edits: wrong information is worse than missing information. PamD 09:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So we now have redirects to the syndrome from both David R. Mowat and Meredith J. Wilson, and a hatnote at David Mowat and a dab page entry at Meredith Wilson. Enough for today - real life calls. But I must say that I was pleased to learn that my own rare disease is named for a woman, and I added her name to the article (and a redirect, and a surname page entry) after my diagnosis! PamD 09:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And the redlinked or share a name has now got links to articles on both the women you added, (not entirely my work, though Arianna W. Rosenbluth didn't have a redirect from Arianna Rosenbluth until a couple of minutes ago). Redirects from variations of names are really helpful in making linkages within the encyclopedia. But I really ought to get outside and do some gardening. PamD 10:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, PamD, for updating/correcting the info! It was ~6 years ago, but believe I got the Mowat-Wilson researchers' names from an old Mowat-Wilson.org International Family Conference announcement (probably the one for 2014 or 2015) that incorrectly lists Dr. Wilson as "Margaret"—always good to double-check these things! I hadn't gone through all those edits I made in 2014 until yesterday, so it's definitely possible there are more redlink women in there who now have articles! I should go back through the various STEM award winners whose names I expanded and make sure the references are formatted properly there, too.

Regarding the first author observation, in biology and chemistry the last author listed on a paper is the "most important"–generally the person whose lab the first author does research in. I'm not sure if this is true for CS/math, but in my experience a lot of the time male principal investigators get their due recognition alongside their trainees; I will be going back to edit Dr. Brown's page to note his doctoral adviser was Dr. Seberry and make appropriate mention that he was under her supervision when he published LOKI.

Ipigott, for "expanding categories" I meant adding the appropriate categories to existing women's pages so that they're findable in those categories. For example, I noticed Elena Aprile is only listed in the "Experimental physicists" category, but not Category:Women astrophysicists, Category:20th-century Italian scientists, Category:20th-century physicists, Category:21st-century Italian scientists, Category:Italian physicists, etc. I'll be going back and adding her to those categories now. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay: I do quite of bit of work on improving categorization and I'll try to help out here. One of the problems is that many of the women categories were created relatively recently. Their use depends first and foremost on the inclusion of the specific male equivalents. Progress could be made by reviewing articles with more general categories to see how they can be refined. More generally, many recently created articles on women scientists are poorly categorized and need attention. Some of the editors are new to the game and have little or no experience with categories which are not dealt with in any detail in AfC.--Ipigott (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

JoelleJay You might also look here. Your spreadsheet is a good source of information. I'm thinking that it should be possible to write a Wikidata query that lists stuff that is "named for" a woman that wikidata knows about. This query could then be checked with your spreadsheet, merged... and in time this could be checked against wikipedia entries to see it they mention said fact. It is important that these links are created and documented, (I want my g.daughter to subliminally notice that she can get there without a Y chromosome). Sadly I'm not the one for this bit of wikidata fun, but maybe a "yes please" from you might intrigue another of our editors. Nice work. .... which reminds me - there was a great piece of work done a couple of years ago when we were looking at "Antarctic Women" - someone created a map of Antarctica showing that although women were not really allowed there .... the map was covered in features named after (and increasingly by) women. Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, I had never looked into wikidata at all—now that I'm a little more familiar with how Wikipedia works (and with spreadsheet scripts) I might look into how it could interface with my eponyms list. By the way, several of the medical names I included come from WhoNamedIt, which has a ton of eponymous women who may not have wiki pages. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's Who Among Minnesota Women

Found this source while looking for something else a little while ago. Looks like it might contain some useful material...and I think it's in the public domain as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiGap Nigeria Online Contest: Help us close gender gap on Wikipedia !!! ( 29 April- 27 May 2020)

Hello friends,

In our quest to close the gender gap on Wikipedia, we also desire diversity and expertise to achieve our objective.

We, therefore, invite you as experts in this field to help our initiative.

There are amazing prizes to be won.

The contest runs through 29 April to 27 May 2020.

To join us click here

Regards --Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Olaniyan Olushola: Thanks for the info. Without becoming an official participant, I'll try to create a few more articles. Glad to see Victuallers has already created quite a few. In addition to your list of names requiring articles in English, you might find it useful to draw on crowd-sourced redlinked Nigerian women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx Ipigott, the project has enjoyed support from the Swedish embassy and as you notice I have knocked off a few and we support their work on Twitter. I'm encouraging them to join in with our future planning as a geofocus of Nigeria and its neighbours might make an interesting change. Thanks again for your valuable contributions. Victuallers (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Victuallers: Yes, we should be really thankful to the Swedes for all they are doing for Wikipedia. I've just started Julie Okoh. It's really surprising she hasn't been covered before, given her long productive career and the number of articles written about her.--Ipigott (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ipigott for accepting this request of ours. I am not surprised because you have never hidden your love for many gender-focused initiatives across the movement. As mentioned Victuallers, has given us tremendous support right from the start of the project and thank you for sharing the link of Nigerian women in red. I will direct the attention of the participant to it. Yes, i agree with you that Wiki4Naija needs to join your geo focus initiative to enjoy a wider contribution.Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in the WikiGap Nigeria Online writing contest

Hello friends,

We invite you to join us in a 2 week long WikiGap Online Writing contest starting today 29 April to 13 May.

Amazing prizes are available for participants.

The contest is organized in partnership with the Swedish Embassy in Nigeria, African Women in the Media, Women in Red, Wiki in Africa and Wikimedia Sverige

Kindly check the project landing page for more details

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiGap_Nigeria_Online_Challenge/Participants

Stay Safe --Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this looks like a really interesting competition. I've created my standard table of people and languages that can be worked on to make it easier to see that there is almost nothing written about these women in the English Wikipedia :o -Yupik (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Out of the 267 women on the list, only 3 of them have articles on the enwiki. Let's do something about it together! -Yupik (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the original notification Olaniyan Olushola and for the table Yupik! Mujinga (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure! -Yupik (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The contest has been extended for another two weeks (so until May 27) Mujinga (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

And the number of new articles created so far is Hausa - 25, Yoruba - 24, Igbo - 15, English - 58, Deutsch - 2, Indonesia - 7, French - 1 Mujinga (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yupik and Mujinga thank you a lot for your anticipated support. There are so many remarkable Nigerian women without Wikipedia articles, we sincerely count on your contribution Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

Draft:Zyllah Inez Shannon

Anyone willing to help me with this draft? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaArmy (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

TrowelBlazers

Hello. This source came up on Discord whether this source was reliable or not. I notice that there are red links of "Women archaeologists, palaeontologists and geologists" according to the article at TrowelBlazers. I was wondering if the source was reliable or not. If not, then could a redlist be made / merged for the missing redlinked women? Pinging @Eddie891: who brought this source to my attention. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

TrowelBlazers has a significant profile in the archaeological community, and their content counts as a reliable source. I reckon that the redlinks would be well worth turning into articles. Presumably they should be represented in wikidata to show up in the lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Archaeologists. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks @Richard Nevell: ! My other question is: should I update the TrowelBlazers wikipedia page to add every woman that appeared on that website to that "Trowel-blazing women featured on the website" list? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi both! @MrLinkinPark333: & @Richard Nevell: There's a previous discussion about the list here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_72#TrowelBlazers_-_archaeologists which might be of interest to this discussion. Cheers (Lajmmoore (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC))

@Lajmmoore: Hello! What a coincidence that this website was brought up again. I notice that the list is a bit out of date now (Wiki has 178 while the Trowelblazers website has 192). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: yeah I did it after I went to the wikithon so a few months ago now (plus tbf I might have missed some)! (Lajmmoore (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC))

@MrLinkinPark333: Belatedly chiming in to say that I agree that it's definitely a reliable source. I've copied all the archaeologist red links to the existing red list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Archaeologists. The women in archaeology task force has been working on that list for several years now, so please do consider joining that if you have an interest! – Joe (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I've updated the list at TrowelBlazers if you're interested. Only about 20 missing women! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fantastic, thank you! Richard Nevell (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well to be honest @Richard Nevell: I restarted it from scratch as I saw some names were missing/not included plus Gertrude Bell was mentioned twice. If you're planning to keep it updated, Isabel Ramírez Castañeda is the latest article, which is the first bullet point. I was going to do ABC order but that might cause me a headache lol! Also, should this list be trimmed down to the most notable women or have all of them? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Join the Wiki Global Check In!

Some of you may be interested in participating in this grass-roots event: m:CheckIn ("Help us check in with the Global Wikimedia community during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and gather snapshots of life during this historic moment world-wide."). --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Weijia Jiang

Highlighting a decent draft, Draft:Weijia Jiang, for a subject who's making headlines again. Could use a bit of cleanup. - MapleSoy (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Another AfC which should have been promoted but was not. Is now in article space - Weijia Jiang. Good find, MapleSoy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ladies in the Laboratory

A @SiobhanLeachman tweet sent me down a rabbit hole in which I came across Ladies in the Laboratory ... there seem to be six or seven volumes of what are described as systematic surveys and comparison of the work of 19th & early 20th-century women in scientific research from a number of English language nations, Western European nations, and Russia - see, for instance, Mary Creese in Worldcat. All published between ~1998 & 2015, roughly; the prolific author is Mary R. S. Creese / Mary Creese (and sometimes Thomas Creese), an academic & now writer (biog).

Should anyone have the time, interest and access, I suspect it would be useful to produce redlists from these tomes; long-shot, I know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red at "Wikipedia Weekly"

Check out the latest episode of Wikipedia Weekly. Moderated by Fuzheado, and featuring @Gamaliel and Victuallers and yours truly. We explain the #1day1woman campaign of Women in Red; create and live-edit the article, Ann McBride Norton; create her Wikidata item; upload her photo to WikiCommons; and talk about the four essays associated with creating women's biographies. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep Wished I'd realised it was on as I could easily have watched it live. Am watching it now. Excellent blend of chat, history and editing. I've tweeted the link and pinned it to my Twitter profile. I've also shared it with a women's group of editors I lead via Facebook and Wikimedia Australia too. Oronsay (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That's awesome, Oronsay, and thanks for watching it. If you'd like to consider participating in an episode of WW yourself, or know someone who might, please ping me. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep What was the gadget you used to add project templates to the Talk page? I've found and selected some other interesting gadgets (probably more than I will every use!) in Preferences, but not that one. Up till now I've just found a similar article and copy-and-pasted - much slower. Oronsay (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Rosiestep Don't worry, I've found it. Oronsay (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I used to do the copy-and-paste method, too, Oronsay, but after someone introduced me to WP:RATER, dealing with talkpages get a whole lot easier. --Rosiestep (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Rosiestep An interesting presentation but it seems to be something of a mixture between an introduction for relatively new editors and one aimed at those who already have a fair amount of experience. I found it fairly easy to follow but rather long. I have a feeling many viewers might give up after a few minutes. It might be interesting to experiment further along these lines, possibly with a series of shorter slots (max 15 minutes) aimed at people with different levels of experience. Is there an index anywhere of presentations in this series?--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ipigott, here's a link to the Wikipedia Weekly Youtube channel, which has links for each episode, so it's more or less an index. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Blair

Sailors are not really my thing, so I thought I might drop the above name here in case someone is looking for a good subject. Lisa Blair (sailor) was the first woman to sail around Antarctica (mentioned here in the Washington Post, and here and here) and there is more coverage out there (example, example, example) on her other sailing activities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Gillian Genser

Hi WiR,

Hoping for some help finding sources for Gillian Genser. I came across a story of an artist who was poisoned by her own art and was intrigued. Put together and article and nominated for DYK, since it has a pretty easy built-in hook. It was put on hold with WP:BLP1E concerns, which I think is a valid point. It's something I considered as I was writing it, but considering the high-profile of the sourcing that does exist, I assumed there would be more coverage of her other work around. Perhaps someone more experienced with the topic area can help? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

An interesting case. While it basically is 1E, it's not an external event she was involved in, it's her artwork. It doesn't seem like a case for deletion - even if the Adam sculpture got its own detailed article, Genser would still be notable enough for her own as its creator/the person it poisoned.

Now for the bad news. I have google'd and done an online library and journal search, even making sure it excludes results with 'mussels' in. That basically gives the BBC coverage (no mussels in BritEng, I guess) and a bunch of foreign language articles talking about the same thing. The one piece of further coverage I found was The Forward, which I think was just added. Kingsif (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What a fascinating story. She certainly gained international media coverage which I would think satisfies WP:GNG. As for WP:BLP1E, note this:

BLP1E criterion 2 (and all 3 criteria must be met): "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual "

And then: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. "

As she is a sculptor with a promotional personal website, and has been interviewed for various media such as the Toronto Life article, I think she can be said to "actively seek out media attention" and is not a "low-profile individual", so it doesn't apply. If an engineer who had visited to fix Genser's ventilation system had been poisoned by the dust and had been covered by media without volunteering for interviews, that might be BLP1E. PamD 08:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Aaargh: now I look at the talk page, it's WP:1E which is being cited by the reviewer, not WP:BLP1E! Still, it was an interesting refresher course in BLP1E. PamD 08:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:1E seems mostly preoccupied with deciding whether someone notable for one event should have an article or should be included in an article about the event: whether it's Gillian Genser or Poisoning of Gillian Genser, rather than whether they're notable. PamD 09:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• In any case, friends, do have a look at Genser's astounding sculpture: see Adam on her website. (And on my usual WikiGnomish note I've added her to Genser.) PamD 09:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile - its on our twitter feed and I added it to WIR-163. Interesting. Victuallers (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• At AfD now and seems likely to be deleted. Indeed not much other sourcing has surfaced thus far, sadly. It just seems unusual to see BBC/WaPo/CBC...and then nothing else. Meh. Interesting story, regardless. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Practicing for Love: A Memoir

Hello sisters! Wikipedia is trying to silence yet another female voice. Please argue in favor of posting this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Practicing_for_Love:_A_Memoir#Practicing_for_Love%3A_A_Memoir Nina07011960 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS. You're starting out on exactly the wrong foot, on several fronts at the same time, and thus doing yourself no favours. (I've removed cruft from your post, too.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nina07011960: Can I suggest going through article drafting process, declaring any conflict of interest when editing, and asking for help with making articles? Best, Kingsif (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uta Fritze

I have created a short article for the astrophysicist Uta Fritze in my userspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RelativelyUnique/Uta_Fritze

I created this article using the German and Welsh translations, [[4]]

but only including the information that could be verified in the citations. Could someone with the ability to create articles in articlespace help publish this directly?

--RelativelyUnique (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Done - Uta Fritze. Categories need attention. (And thanks for writing the article ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@RelativelyUnique: I added categories and connected this article to its Wikidata entry. Welcome to WIR and Wikipedia! TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dorothy Bonarjee

Notable? Seems borderline. I wish I could access the Planet article. Thanks for your help! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW The Indus seems to be a student publication[5][6] but I could be wrong. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

She's known for two different things; hopefully over the border. Now promoted to Dorothy Bonarjee, but in need of categorisation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I added some categories and see she's now in Wikidata. TJMSmith (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Weshoyot Alvitre

Saw a mention of this comic book artist show up in my Facebook feed tonight, and it led me to do a little research. She seems notable, but there was an article that was PRODded and then deleted twelve years ago. Seems to me that in the intervening years she's gained some notability, but I could be wrong - comic books really aren't my thing, and I'm not sure what metrics to follow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yana Eglit and WP:1E

I found a case that made me confront my own poor understanding of WP:1E and I thought this would be a good community to see if anyone has a clearer idea, ideally with some AfD precedents. I almost exclusively write pages about academics who (to my judgment) are presumed notable under WP:NACADEMIC rather than appealing to WP:GNG, but today I was considering writing a page for Yana Eglit, who as a graduate student scooped up some soil and discovered, in the words of Quanta Magazine, that it belonged to "its own 'supra-kingdom' of life" which "foretells incredible biodiversity yet to be discovered", apparently falling "outside all major groups of eukaryotes" and "forming a new, deep branch on the tree of life". My biology education stopped at the 10th grade, but even to a blockhead like me that sounds pretty important, and indeed there is absolutely no shortage of WP:RS focusing on this event. However, I had a very hard time deciding whether all of the RS are really about one event. There are independent and in-depth articles from reliable sources following the initial announcement of the discovery in November 2018 through December, January, and February of 2019, documenting different stages of the same discovery. This was all coverage of just one research project, but it was drawn out over several months and concerned slightly different angles of the same project. So my question is: when is one scientific discovery just one event? To pass GNG should a researcher have two research projects that receive coverage in WP:RS, or one research project that receives multiple rounds of coverage? If Einstein had stopped at Special Relativity would Albert Einstein have been a 1E deletion? Seems like something that must have been tested plenty of times at AfD, but somehow I can't find any clear precedent. Thanks in advance for any ideas. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: In my opinion, an act of research or scientific discovery in regards to WP:NACADEMIC don't really count under the one event rules. Would a Nobel Prize winner be a single event if that important discovery was the only thing they ever did? That seems silly to me. WP:1E is really meant more for things that are actual events: incidents and situations that a person does or is involved in, but not in a job-related or scientific capacity. That's my take on it, at least. Silverseren^C 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Millicent Evison

This draft is up for review. Anyone here want to have a look? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dorothy Darnell

I just declined this one, but figured I'd post here in case anyone wants to help improve it or disagrees with my call (in which case feel free to accept without needing to consult me further!). Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to her work as an artist he founding of a formidable Jane Austen society and its role in purchasing a historic cottage seems quite notable and is covered in many books see here. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare with, say Mary Tealby, founder of Battersea Dogs Home. I'd prefer we do have an article for Dorothy Darnell since I think it's useful to know something about founders of things; and I think the Jane Austen society is well known enough - we have Jane Austen's House Museum, which manages to ignore Dorothy Darnell's contribution entirely. (v.grateful to Calliopejen1 for the heads-up.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Carmen Rubio

I've created a stub for Carmen Rubio, Portland, Oregon's first Latinx city commissioner. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with ToC

Hi everyone! I'm working on List of African-American women in medicine and the table of contents situation is driving me nuts. I want to organize the information, but the way the ToC seems to work baffles me. Anyone out there good at this sort of thing? I think I've made a mess of the contents at the article. I appreciate any help anyone can throw my way and if you see any names that should be added, please add them! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: Thanks first of all for putting this together. The multiple ToC approach you have used seems very suitable for this. I suggest you leave it as it is.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. Not really. The problem MLG alludes to is that although ToCs are displayed for each section, the links always take the user back to the 1800s section (or, properly, the first instance of a suitable named subsection, which tends to be found first in the 1800s section). I had a quick look last night ... could not find a means of constraining a ToC to index a single section, or to have multiple ToCs each covering different sections, in single article. One could produce three articles each with a ToC, and then transclude the three into a master article ... but that deviates from a simple single article approach which tends to be the case for the majority/all articles. It's regrettable that we don't have more control over ToCs in the way we have control over e.g. references, where we can force entries into named discrete reference / notes / source sections. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon and Ipigott: Thanks very much for looking at this. I think I'm just going to let the default TOC go on the page for now. I just wish it wasn't so long and limiting it turns it into an alpha list. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl: I don't like that long thin ToC too much. Maybe you should reduce the alpha list problem by deleting the = signs and achieve emphasis by using a semicolon before each letter (;A and so on down the list). You lose the possibility of editing letter by letter but that may not be a significant constraint.--Ipigott (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, I love the list; but as mentioned by others, the long thin ToC, not so much. Would a ToC across the top be a consideration? --Rosiestep (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep and Ipigott: that was my issue, too. But everytime I try to put a limit on the ToC, it turns into an alpha list which only links to the 1800s first. It's a real frustrating mess. Maybe if I changed the headings to just bold letters it might work? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl... another thought... How about within the century sections, creating subsections such as A-I, J-R, and S-Z (or similar) such as here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Academics)? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: I did think about that. I still might and if everyone thinks that's a better way to organize it, I'll do that. :) Mostly, I wanted the chunks of text broken up. It drives me nuts to have a wall of text to look at. There's still a lot of names to be added and in between, I'm working on the redlinked names. It's keeping me sane during these times of COVID! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kelsey Montague

This article on muralist Draft:Kelsey Montague could use some cleanup if anyone is interested! She has received considerable media coverage but the article is overly promotional in tone. - MapleSoy (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Need help with Wikidata redlists for June

If you're good at creating Women in Red Wikidata-redlists, can you please help out with these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#June 2020? And also add any newly-created ones here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist index? Thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• New list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by organization/United Nations Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Gamaliel! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I welcome a Geofocus on countries with low gender balance, we need to be very careful which ones we select. Many of those currently suggested do certainly not have the lowest ratings. See my remarks on the Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Lettice Digby

There is now a page for Lettice Digby, at Lettice Digby (scientist) because there is more than one person of that name. How can her name be removed from the long list at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Zoologist_subfields  ? --MerielGJones (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Those lists are automatically updated by a bot and the name will be removed on the next update. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm just impressed there are multiple notable people with the name Lettice Digby Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed! Also, thanks for the info on the page updating (which has happened). I had assumed that since the page name was not Lettice Digby alone that the bot would not recognise it.--MerielGJones (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the 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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosiestep (talk • contribs) 08:19, December 24, 2019 (UTC) MediaWiki message delivery

Tell Us more about Her

The Wiki Loves Women initiative is celebrating Africa’s women leaders throughout March 2020 with the Tell Us About Her drive on the ISA tool. The drive is aimed at improving the visibility of political leaders and activists across Africa on Wikimedia projects. If you do not know it yet, the ISA tool is a fun and mobile friendly tool that helps you to add better descriptions onto the photographs uploaded to Wikimedia Commons within selected categories, so that they are more useful on Wikipedia and Wikidata. Information added to the image description is structured data (depicts or captions). Categories I chose for this campaign are related to politicians, activists and in particular feminists from Africa.
I invite you to check out what the ISA tool is (if you have not yet done so during previous drives). And I of course invite you to join and help add structured data information on our ISA current campaign Tell Us about Her.

Any additional question you have about ISA, just ask me.

Play here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/isa/campaigns/53

Anthere (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthere (talk • contribs) 06:54, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

Rwandan Deputies

Rwanda currently has the highest proportion of women of any national parliament, with women holding 49 out of the 80 seats. Unfortunately, wikipedia only has pages for two Rwandan deputies. So plenty of opportunity at Chamber of Deputies (Rwanda)! Dsp13 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsp13 (talk • contribs) 10:55, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

Articles about women at AFC and NPP

Hi,

There are a large number of articles about women and related topics at AFC and NPP. Following are the links to bot-generated pages tracking these articles. ORES machine learning software is used to establish that these articles are about women.

• Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women
• User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Biography/Women

Your help in reviewing these articles will be greatly appreciated. If you don't have new page reviewer or AfC reviewer right, you can request them at WP:PERM/NPR or WT:AFCP. Thanks, SD0001 (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I did one AfC. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, SD0001. I did one for AfC on Friday, Marianne Fay; and one for NPP today, Kathryn Hall Bogle.

This has got me thinking... We've never done an "event" focused on AFC/NPP articles; maybe we should consider doing that? So I was bold and suggested it here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#AfC/NPP. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. This will also provide an opportunity for us to assist new editors who often need guidance. We should not be reluctant to work on borderline articles, sorting out copyvios and adding more acceptable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

AI Ethics

The Women in AI Ethics project reached out on Twitter. They had a wiki article about their project which was a rejected Draft article. I suggested that they come to WiR as they had based their work on our red lists. I've been bold and just moved the list with an assurance that it will be maintained and that they will be welcome here. You will find the draft article/ new red list under "AI Ethics" here. Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for supporting this project! This page will be maintained! Volhalitvinets (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I added this list to the Redlist index. TJMSmith (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

'Request an article' wizard

For anyone who would like to join in, here's a discussion / whiteboard for sketching out a simple, accessible 'Request an article' wizard that I hope might be of benefit ref our gender imbalance. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Women / Men ratio of new articles

I saw this edit of Ipigott (talk · contribs). If you do small calculation, that means there are in these 3 weeks 1997 new articles about women and 4004 about men. That means 33.28% of new biographies is about women. So with all our efforts the gender gap is still growing and growing :(. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

SportsOlympic: Thanks for you interest and for creating over 250 biographies of sports people over the past couple of months, most of them about women. If more editors follow in your footsteps, we'll be able to make much faster progress. I agree with you that it could be argued that any increase of less than 50% women's biographies contributes to maintaining the gender gap. Nevertheless, I would say that raising the proportion from 18.39% to 18.44% over the past three weeks is pretty good going. More generally, we've helped to increase the percentage of women's biographies on the EN wiki from ca. 15.5% in 2015 to 18.44% today. Maybe you would like to become a member of Women in Red, especially as this year we are having a drive on sports? You may be able to help us along, not only by creating articles but by explaining to others how you manage to advance so quickly.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As you are interested in statistics, you'll see from Denelezh that for people born since 2000, over 40% of the Wikidata entries are about women. So perhaps it's just a matter of time before we reach 50%.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Truth is, we can't realistically reach 50% because of the lack of access for women to become notable in history. They are so outnumbered by the men. But as we move forward in time it should be possible to get 50% from a point onwards. But whatever that stable percentage might be, the current one is too low. So we try and work to improve it. We need all the help we can get and since I suck at sports, it's great to see someone adding to womens bios in sports so quickly. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 09:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ping: thanks for your kind reply! I didn't check, but I think some of the 250 page are also disamb and redirects. But yes, It's going well. Yes! I want to be become a member :) I'm focussing on women's speed skating. I think all women speed skaters articles I created are born prior to 1950 and even several of the 19th century and even 18th century (Trijntje Pieters Westra, Trijntje Reidinga). And Yes, I love statistics, haha. Thanks for sharing this page! Nice! So I see there is also a big 'time' gap (many more recent bio's) ;). But great to see the bio's after 2000 are almost near to 50%! I'll keep continue working on speed skaters, but I will take a look of the sports with the biggest gender gap (quick look: football, baseball, basketball) to see if I can assist with it. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As our big discussion a year or more ago demonstrated, sports biogs in general are a huge drag on the %s, and always will be, if only because of the professional team sports like football. The best figure to use for a representation of our biog population is living people minus sports figures - that was already 29% women last year. Or the young living people - there's a birth year from or below which females are over 50% - what's that? Ok, apart from Greta Thunberg they are all gymnasts & singers, but it's a statistic. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, assuming that the "ideal stable case" should be 50%-50% for recent creations, or whatever you want to call it, would mean that the world is now 50%-50%, which is hardly the case. Yes, it might seem close to 50%-50% in many Western democracies... but even there it's not, especially in the anglo world. Add Asia, Africa, and the Middle East and you're now hovering in the 90%-10% region or worse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, my point here is that the needle is moving up and that's just grand in general. So don't let not being near 50-50 be a drag on your efforts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The "ideal stable case" should only be 50%-50% for recent creations when we reach an ideal world, which there is very little sign of at present. Until then we want to reflect neutrally the world we have. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@SportsOlympic: I'd be happy to see the overall EN wiki women hit 20% as we're almost there. Same when hitting 1/3 of all biographies. This sports initiative has definitely been up my alley has I've been primarily focusing on it this year. As for speed skaters, there's quite a bit of women missing at World Short Track Speed Skating Championships, World Junior Speed Skating Championships and World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships. On the other hand, only two women missing at European Speed Skating Championships for Women :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333: Yes, completely agree. Let's go for the 20% and 1/3! I will work on the speed skaters at the world championships, as next to the medalists, all participants are notable. I created already all participants until 1977, and will try to further reduce this redlinks list; and great to see the version of early April with many blue links ;). SportsOlympic (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata query/redlink list assistance

I started a birdwatcher discussion on the talk page of WIR-164. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Migrant Mother and Florence Owens Thompson

FYI, a conversation was started at Talk:Florence Owens Thompson about whether to merge this updated draft article about the famous photograph, Draft:Migrant Mother, with the article about its primary subject, Florence Owens Thompson. - MapleSoy (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Racing driver Christabel Carlisle

I listened to a Radio 4 programme Saturday Live (Sat 11 Jan 2020 09:00) presented by Fay Ripley and Dr. Zoe Williams, one of the people they had a segment on was "Christabel Carlisle (now Lady Christabel Watson) was a motor-racing pioneer, racing Saloon cars in the sixties (1960-63), competing against men, including some of the big names in the sport ...

I had a look the next day on Wikipedia to follow up and the only mention of the woman is in 1962 British Saloon Car Championship. Here are some online sources I have cobbled together:

• White, Jim (6 November 2019). "Chanel racing suits, crashing a Mini and beating Steve McQueen: the remarkable life of Christabel Carlisle". Daily Telegraph.
• McKelvie, Steve (July 21, 2018). "Christabel Carlisle "Mini Virtuoso" – An Interesting Person, An Interesting Book".
• "Christabel Carlisle (Lady Watson)". July 2, 2012.
• https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/issues?search=christabel+carlisle
  • "Girl in a Mini". Motor Sport Magazine.
  • "Steve McQueen". Motor Sport Magazine.

According to this unreliable source Lady Watson was born in 1939, father was Kenneth Ralph Malcolm Peter Carlisle. She married Sir James Andrew Watson, 5th Baronet (born in 1937) in 1965, at age 26 They had 3 children: Ronald Victor Watson (born 1966) and 2 other children. The site states she is deceased, however I do not remember the BBC mentioning that.

• Sprinzel, John (6 June 2013). "Drive Like a Girl". mossmotoring.com.

This last article lists a number of women racing drivers and gives a short biography on each one:

• Pat Moss, Nancy Mitchell, Anne Hall (racing driver), Dame Jean Denton, Christabel Carlisle (Lady Watson), Sheila van Damm, Rosemary Smith; and in passing Mary Handley Page, and a number of French drivers Claudine Vanson, Annie Soisbault (also a seven-time French tennis champion), Michelle Mouton and the Swede Ewy Rosqvist.

Assuming that the women listed in that last article are notable enough and sources exist perhaps someone would like to fill in the red links. -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@PBS:, nice overview! Christabel Carlisle is also at the article 1963 Brands Hatch 6 Hours ;). If you start the article(s) with the information you gathered, I will take a look at it to improve it. Good luck! SportsOlympic (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but as someone who has created hundreds of pages (the first one way back in 2003) if I wanted to do the hard work I would have done so. I am being lazy and I am hoping that someone else is interested enough in the biographies to create them. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@MWright96: You might be interested in this? Otherwise, I think you might know who else would be interested :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@PBS: When I feel lazy, which is quite often, I just add the facts to Wikidata and wait for someone else to write the article. Here is her item: d:Q75262761. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kaʻiulani

If anyone can help me rewrite Kaʻiulani's article that would be great. I am not much incline to do much heavy editing anymore unless I can get someone to help. It can use a makeover like other articles on her family members. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Kanza Javed

For the interested, seems promising. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved this to article space. Seems to have enough sources that at the very least, it would survive an AFD by rewriting it to be about her novel. TJMSmith (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)