Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 93

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

Archive 94

Archive 95

→

Archive 100

Notable Black American Women

Do we have a redlink list based upon [1]? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to start out by saying I am not regularly involved in Women in Red until the past week (long wiki break), but my thoughts are: There are so many subpage - like African American women in STEM fields. I think this could be a HUGE list. What about taking a look at Category:African-American women and see if there are any missed groupings?

Perhaps having a root article for African American / Black women with the history, perhaps looking at the African Americans article?

Perhaps an article about the book Notable Black Women.

Just some thoughts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, @Eddie891:! Here's a redlink list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Notable Black American Women Dsp13 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dsp13, That's great! I'll go through today and create some redirects etc. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891 I've created redirects for book 2 Dsp13 (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dsp13, I think I've finished up Book 1 just now Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dsp13, I've also found probably enough for a stand alone article on the book, so will likely create one later today. Thanks again, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dsp13, created Notable Black American Women just now. I found a thesis but am not sure how reliable it really is. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Everyone in volumes 1 and 2 is in Wikidata now. If I ever get access to volume 3 I'll add those individuals as well. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Deanna Morse

I just looked up filmmaker Deanna Morse and saw that her page is a draft that has been rejected several times. Does anyone think it is ready for article space? Thriley (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to get a ref for the claim that her work is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I had a quick search, but nothing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if her work was just exhibited at the museum, instead of being part of its collection. Thriley (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is likely - I did a quick website search, and she's not listed in their collection database. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon:, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I removed the uncited mention of being in the Met's collection. Do you think it needs anything else? Thriley (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk page tagging

I just came across a Draft bio where its creator had added Project tags to the Talk page. Is that usual practice? If it is, I've learnt something new today! Most editors I work with use redlinks and don't go through the AfC process so I hadn't come across it before.--Oronsay (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, they aren't supposed to do that, but as with categories, many do - just copying from other articles I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Users submitting drafts through the AfC process are encouraged to add 1–4 relevant WikiProjects to improve "odds of a speedy review". For example, see the banner at Draft:Carolyn Nabarro (just pulled a random draft that was listed on this talk page). Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags is specifically designed to help with this. DanCherek (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, you do learn something new every day. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. Drafts tagged with {{WIR}} for example will show up in the AfC section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts, which at least gives them a chance of a fair review. – Joe (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback. More learning to tuck away for future use.--Oronsay (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

They certainly should not add categories though. Many editors waste a lot of their time removing these. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Alicia Cook (writer)

I just reviewed Draft:Alicia Cook (writer). There was previously an article about her, but it was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Cook (writer). I didn't see the deleted article. I have declined the current draft because I am concerned that if I accepted it now, it might be deleted again, so I have declined the draft in order for it to be improved and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussions and renaming proposals for Gender bias on Wikipedia

Hi all, there are a number of active discussions over at Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia, including one which proposes to change the name to Wikipedia gender gap and questioning the validity of the article's subject matter. I thought that some of us might have thoughts on what is being discussed. Smirkybec (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not too sure about the change in title but in any case, the article needs considerable work. Much of the information presented is dated. Articles and press sources listed on Women in Red could be listed and in some cases used to provide more up to date results.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• In connection with the above, the article could certainly be improved by drawing on some of the resources mentioned in Gender gap on Meta, especially Research. Is this something you could take care of Smirkybec? I remember Anthere drew my attention to it some time ago but I don't usually spend a lot of time on articles which do not require language knowledge. As Gender bias is of major concern to Women in Red, maybe Rosiestep or Megalibrarygirl would consider making improvements. If not, I'll try to make some improvements myself in a week or so. For the time being, I've included a Meta tag under Further reading.--Ipigott (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott I'm happy to take a pass at it, might be later in the week when I have a bit of time to dive in properly :) Smirkybec (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Smirkybec! Hopefully, there are some pagestalkers here who have time/inclination to work on the article. But I thought I'd also suggest contacting WP:WikiProject Women in Green whose focus is "article improvement" (as opposed to Women in Red, whose focus is "article creation"). --Rosiestep (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nod. I try to update the Gender Gap portal page from time to time to keep it relevant and up to date. Tough case ;) Anthere (talk)

Teahouse article suggestion Marion Miley

I ran across an interesting suggestion at the Teahouse: "Someone at wikipedia needs to create an article about Marion Miley. Kentucky U.S. Women’s amateur golf player who was murdered a during robbery at her home on September 28, 1941." There seems to be lot of coverage. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Help finding PD-image of Isabel Andreu de Aguilar #VisibleWikiWomen

Isabel Andreu de Aguilar (1887–1948) was a Puerto Rican suffragist. It seems likely that there are now some PD images that can be uploaded to Commons. I found [2] and [3]. Possible licenses include PD-US-no notice, PD-old-70-expired, or PD-1923. Any suggestions/help is appreciated! TJMSmith (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the image of the younger Isabel using PD-US-no notice.  Done WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW and slightly off topic, have you heard the new WNYC Podcast "La Brega"? Some of it might be of interest to the Puerto Rico project. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, Thanks for uploading the image! I was thinking the same thing, it was helpful to get a second opinion. I'll check out the podcast...thanks for sharing! TJMSmith (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll mention here that I added the image to Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality. SusunW recently expanded/rewrote the article as part of the WIR women's rights year-long initiative. It's a fascinating read. Glad it now incorporates how women were involved and impacted. TJMSmith (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TJMSmith. This series is fairly hard to research, but I am learning so much. I really appreciate all of your help. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Robina Asti

Oh my gosh, someone has to write up Robina Asti. She just died at 99, world's oldest flight instructor, and World War II veteran. See NYT obit. Mathglot (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic find! I started Draft:Robina Asti and will add more tomorrow—all others are welcome to, as well! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Build lists (with Listeria?) from the index of a Wikisource Proofread of the Month?

This month, English Wikisource has featured a relevant work as its Proofread of the Month: Max Binheim's 1928 book Women of the West. It contains 1100 "biographies" of women (as you might imagine, many of these are just a short paragraph; but some are more substantial). This book is particularly interesting in two respects: (1) Since it's from after 1926, it's a little unusual that it has lapsed into the public domain, making it more available for republication without worrying about copyright; and (2) In its preface, it contains an especially strong statement of ethics, claiming that it did not print paid entries, and actually going a bit further than that. (As I understand things, it was rather common in that era to have "who's who" type books where people paid for their own entries, or had incentives to purchase the book, etc., undermining the integrity of the work. Binheim was a seasoned newspaper editor from an era in which there was a lot of focus on newspaper ethics, so I assume that drive his choices. But I speculate, I digress.)

Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about Listeria Bot, but the alphabetical index seems like a great source for potentially building a list to work from. With some clever coding, I bet it would even be possible to match people with states, since each state is covered by in a specific chapter.

Is there anybody more familiar with Listeria who could work with me to make this happen? It would be nice to build on this solid effort of the Wikisource community, and there are many women deserving of a Wikipedia article contained in this book. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Peteforsyth: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It looks to me like a useful source for those creating biographies of American women of historical interest. Rosiestep recently mentioned a similar listing on Women of the Century which gives the Wikidata redlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/A Woman of the Century. The index of names of Women of the West is of course considerably longer but far shorter that that for Dictionary of Women Worldwide: 25,000 Women Through the Ages (see above) on which several of us are working on at the moment. In this connection MarioGom and Gamaliel have been investigating the possibility of automating inclusion of redlisted names in Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• I've added it to our list of Fully accessible biographical dictionaries.--Ipigott (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to use this to try the Mix'n'match tool, which would allow us to crowdsource the item matching work. I'll post more about this later. MarioGom (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• This one would be a little bit harder than the Dictionary of Women Worldwide because the list lacks occupations, dates, etc., but it's still doable. But if MarioGom can get it in Mixnmatch, that would be more efficient than my method. Gamaliel (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Glad to see the interest. One thing I could likely do, which might move things forward, is to use regular expressions to build a CSV file. I could break the index into 11 separate lists (one for each state, create links to the relevant Wikisource page for the bio, separate first name and last name into separate fields. I don't know much about the next steps of getting Listeria or Mix 'n' match going, but I'd imagine a good CSV to work from is a useful step for either approach, yes? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion, Peteforsyth. @Gamaliel, Ipigott, and MarioGom: not being technical enough to lend a hand with this, I leave it to others to sort out how to go about it, but if we can end up with this (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Women of the West), I'd be very appreciative! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, CVS files are far more useful than a plain text list. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Thanks, I converted the index to CSV and tidied it up, and I've pasted it in the (previously red-)link provided by Rosiestep above. I've also sorted it according to page number, which will facilitate breaking it out into separate lists by state. If you paste that into a spreadsheet, you'll notice that column 3 is somewhat problematic; in most cases it lists simply "Miss" or "Mrs.", but in others it names the husband ("Mrs. John Smith"), in others it lists multiple items ("Dr. Miss" or "Miss M.D."). Also there are familiar names and maiden names listed, I think sometimes in column 2, sometimes in column 3. But this should be accurate for nearly all items in the list, and I'd imagine that building a link for each of the format [[<column1><space><column2>]] would do a pretty good job of creating usable links. Any thoughts on the next steps? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Could I trouble you to email me the CSV file? I can open that directly in OpenRefine instead of cutting and pasting, which might introduce formatting errors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Interesting, didn't know that was a thing. Sending now. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Global Gender Gap Report data/template issue

Sorry this is not explicitly a WiR issue, but maybe someone's familiar with this: I'm updating the infobox for Women in Guyana with newer figures for the Global Gender Gap, but for some reason, the ranking seems fixed "out of 153", but in 2015 (which is the last year Guyana was included in the report) it was out of 145. I looked at the page in source-mode, and I examined the template page, but I just can't find where 153 is coming from. What am I missing? Cheers, Estheim (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Estheim I was able to update the infobox with 2019 data from the 2020 report. It might be harder to figure out the coding if you are using visual editor. This is the place to ask for help! If the stats seem to be in error, reply here. I am going to be offline for awhile, but will check back. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates The Gender Inequality Index is fine, it's the one at the bottom of the box called the Global Gender Gap Index. The infobox template calls it the "GGG". I assume the GII and the GGG numbers are for similar purposes but just made by different organizations, but there could be more to it. Estheim (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow Estheim I see what you mean now. The phrase "out of 153" appears in the GGG statistics all the "Women in ..."articles. I cannot see where the formula or template that is adding it. As you note, it really shouldn't be automatically added because it is not the same year for data across countries and each year includes a different number of countries. This is weird and mysterious. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am pinging Underlying lk who added the data to the infobox on 30 October 2013 and appears to be involved with the construction of the Template:Infobox women by region. Underlying lk can you help us? Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, I looked around a little more to see what that editor might have done, then I tried to fix it and broke everything (then reverted myself because wow, that was an awful, awful idea). Underlying doesn't seem terribly active, so maybe I'll ask at the Template Wikiproject. In the meantime, I appreciate you updating the GII since I would've had to do that too, hah. Estheim (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Estheim, I hope you get a response from Template Wikiproject. I sure couldn't understand how that template worked. Good luck & sorry I couldn't help. Maybe another editor who sees this post can. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Gwennie-nyan who is still active will be able to help. It looks to me as if we should be very careful about the data linked to the template. Maybe MarioGom could also have a look.--Ipigott (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The out of about 150 comes directly from {{Infobox women by region}}. IMHO the right fix would be adding a new parameter ggg_year, and handle the exact details for each year in the template, avoiding the same issue across all pages transcluding the template. MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in MarioGom; That was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Should I make a note over there that the conversation will resume here? I'd like to ensure the data is correct in whatever way is easiest to implement and update. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates § Hopefully super-easy Infobox fix since the report year solution was already mentioned there. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Resolved/solved by Gwennie-nyan. See Template talk:Infobox women by region  Done WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Nats Getty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nats Getty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nats Getty until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Talk:Nats Getty says the article is of interest to this WikiProject, so I hope it was appropriate for me to list this here. Apologies if not. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sally Swift

I saw that the equestrian Draft:Sally Swift has a page that is stuck in draft. She’s a noted rider who I think deserves a page. Is there adequate sourcing out there for her? Thriley (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting topic! Cutting back the promo would be a good start. I’m sure sufficient sources exist but may not be easily accessible online. Additionally Centered riding already exists. May be tough to make a case for separate entries. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sally Swift is paid promo by Centered Riding Incorporated, according to its history. Centered riding looks like COI from a SPA. WP:Civility prevents me from saying any more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Two footballers

A couple of articles on British female (association) footballers have been created by new editors as part of their university work - Charlotte Newsham and Lachante Paul. Both have gone straight to AfD. It is possible that project members may be interested in looking them over and voicing an opinion in the discussion. (One of which has been notable - for me - for one editor referring to the subject as "he".) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

There is also Charlotte Fleming which has been added to AfD Blakemills00 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Assistance for WikiGap Malaysia

Hello. We will be organising WikiGap this Thursday and most of the participants chose to write in English Wikipedia. I was told that the Women in Red team could help me for this since all of the participants are new. Hope you could help. -- Tofeiku^Chat 05:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Tofeiku, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. Your main pages in this connection seem to be the Meta Malaysia WikiGap and Malyasia WikiGap 2021 Activities. If your participants are interested in writing in English, they might like to cover Malaysian women redlisted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Malaysia. As for assistance during your event on Thursday, it would be useful if you could prepare a meetup page (see Category:Wikipedia meetups in Malaysia) where we can see a list of participants and the articles they are creating or improving. If you are new to this, you might find it useful to look through Wikipedia:How to run an edit-a-thon. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I have added the registered participant's usernames in Meta. Will that be enough or do I need to create a page in English Wikipedia as well? I added the Women in Red list in the Meta page as well and will mention it during the virtual event. Would the Women in Red team could assist me in monitoring the participant's edits and approve the articles if it fits since they are new? It will be on Thursday 2pm-5pm UTC+8. Thank you. -- Tofeiku^Chat 14:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Tofeiku: I can't promise assistance during the actual event but I'll certainly look at your Meta lists as soon as I have time and in any case over the subsequent 24 hours. Your participants are of course welcome to become members of Women in Red. If they do so, it will be easier for us to monitor their progress and help them out with any problems they encounter. I hope everything goes well.--Ipigott (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Tofeiku: I've looked at your Meta pages but could not find any evidence of participation. Please let me know if there was any activity.--Ipigott (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Humaniki replaces WHGI

Those of you interested in our statistics may have noticed that we now base the percentage of biographies about women on Humaniki rather than WHGI which is no longer being updated. In connection with the recent release of its alpha version, Humaniki made an explanatory announcement: "Humaniki March Update: Public Launch of Alpha Release". You will see that the alpha release includes a wide variety of Wikidata-based statistics in connection with the gender gap. A beta release is scheduled for August.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link Ipigott! It is fun and informative to parse the data by country and by years. The video in the press release is very instructive on how to use the site. I will be experimenting on getting data snapshots for continents. :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Need help creating Ojy Okpe and Patricia Kalesanwo

Hell everyone, Ojy Okpe is an ex supermodel turned Tv reporter while Patricia Kalesanwo is the first female registrar of the Nigerian Institute of Journalist. Need help with building up sources for both profiles, particularly Ojy Okpe (Tv folks dont often get coverage this side). Thanks --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere: Why not create drafts of these in your user space, listing all the secondary sources you can find. We can then see if they are suitable for article space.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott: Ok. Here is one for Patricia Kalesanwo. Thanks--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere: Thanks but I'm afraid there's a serious security problem with your second link. I'm not clear what the status of registrar is at the Institute of Journalism. Not sure whether the appointment will meet notability requirements without further secondary coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so what do you advice, more research? Also not sure what you're referring to as a security problem. The link is bad?--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere: I don't want to sound discouraging but it seems to me there is a high risk of this biography failing to meet notability criteria. The post of registrar seems to be the third-highest position in the organization. The key position at NIJ is that of provost (i.e. director). As you seem keen to cover women, why not see what you can find on Elizabeth Ikem who held the post from 2000 to 2015. See [4]. At first sight, she seems sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am unable to find sufficient sources for either of these from Mexico. The problem with Kalesanwo appears to be that all the press I find is associated with one event. For Okpe be cautious with blogs. They aren't usually useable or reliable. For instance lots of claims that she won an Emmy, like [5] but I find no mention of her association with the Emmy-winning production in the article in This Day,[6]. Perhaps she received the award on behalf of Arise News, but that isn't the same as having won an Emmy. If you can find reliable sources, she does seem notable from what I find, [7], [8], [9], [10]. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, Ipigott: I am letting it go. Will commence work on Elizabeth Ikem asap. Thanks much. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help SusunW. Sadly, Ojy Okpe is not very published this side (strange for someone who works in the media). If there exists any credible sources, the tons of blogs just won't let me find them. There appears to be more gossip than verifiable information. Super sad!--OtuNwachinemere (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OtuNwachinemere...there is a reason I write about dead people — more likely to find sources as live people often don't have adequate coverage, unless it is puff stuff. Good luck. SusunW (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Given there's an RFC about making my work on Wikipedia forbidden to be used on Wikipedia, I'm out for a while.

I just.. can't get up any enthusiasm for restoration while people are shouting about how awful a crime it is to remove dust spots. I'm totally sure that Cameron intentionally put dust on her negatives (and, since the work in question isn't by her, got other people to do it on her behalf for pictures of her), because that's a thing people did, I'm sure. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there seems to be a great deal of support for restoration. This maybe deserves further examination elsewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve been glad to see the unanimity since folks who are knowledgeable in this area began weighing in. I actually think it should not be further pursued, as I think the small group raising the issue really just had no idea what they stumbled into—the existing guidance, the scope and consequence of following through on what they proposed. For me alone, it would mean removing dozens maybe hundreds of infobox images of women’s bios—can’t imagine how much of Adam’s work it would erase, which understandably makes the prospect of doing more work pretty unenticing. I hope the robust response puts the matter to rest as quickly as possible so we don’t drive away highly skilled contributors. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's honestly a bizarre RfC, since it's basically trying to make a precedent that would involve getting rid of Featured Pictures entirely, since almost all of them are touched up images for maximum clarity. Silverseren^C 18:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

NMAI Native American Women Wikipedia Edit-a-than

NMAI is hosting a NMAI Native American Women Edit-a-thon on Friday, April 23, from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm EDT. Pre-registration recommended via Eventbrite. Ahalenia (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

Thank you, Ahalenia, for letting us know about your event on 23 April. Maybe all the redlinks on your List of Greenlandic artists will be potential candidates for articles. Please let us know if there's anything we can do to help you along.--Ipigott (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Jessie Kleeman has been extremely active in recent years. I don't know about the rest of them. I asked on the project page if we can add potential articles there. Just to clarify, my friend and her colleagues are organizing this, not me. I'm just trying to help promote. Ahalenia (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Ahalenia

@Ahalenia: perhaps this list could be of assistance to participants too? I'd also be thrilled to have more additions from that side of the pond on the list :) -Yupik (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

WiR redlist for people whose "field of work (P101)" is "sexual and reproductive health and rights (Q10666891)"

This week, thanks to a list compiled by UNFPA, there was an upload into Wikidata of women whose "field of work (P101)" is "sexual and reproductive health and rights (Q10666891)". Could someone who has the technical know-how please create a WiR Wikidata-generated redlist for them? After it's created and added to the WiR Redlist Index, we might also want to add a link to the new redlist in our Women's Rights year-long initiative/event. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/sarhar. You can rename if you choose; I've not added it to the index pernding naming. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't understand why they are not included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Healthcare.--Ipigott (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For a couple of reasons: 1) the qualifying items do not have occupations, which drive the healthcare redlist and 2) the healthcare redlist is a weird beast anyway, insofar as it excludes nurses, physicians and psychologists. Obvs, the healthcare report could be amended to include these should you all decide that that is the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Margaret G. Hays

There was an article on Margaret G. Hays in 2013 and 2014, which was then nominated for deletion as not establishing notability. The community and I agree that it didn't establish notability, and it was redirected to her sister and collaborator, Grace Drayton. The current draft is better than the redirected article. I would like to accept the draft, but would appreciate any assistance from this project in further improving the draft so as to be sure that it will be kept if it is nominated for deletion a second time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP Library

I learned something that I want to share. The WP Library, as a lot of you know, provides access to newspapers and journals by subscription. What you may not know is they now offer a bundle of previously subscription serves to everyone who has 500+ edits, has edited at least 6 months with 10 or more edits in the last month and who aren't actively blocked. I have been using the access to HeinOnline (a legal database) a lot for the nationality articles. But I also decided not to renew my OUP reference because I can now access things like the Dictionary of African Biography and the Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro–Latin American Biography through the service. Tip: in the search bar type "she" and you will mostly winnow down to the women's entries in the OUP biographical dictionaries. If you haven't used this service, I highly recommend it. SusunW (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

SusunW: It certainly sounds interesting but it's not easy to find or to access. Perhaps you could help by providing clear instructions on how to access the service. I've got as far as this but I can't see the sources you refer to. Is it necessary to apply separately for each source? Maybe I'm in the wrong place.--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as you know I am not technical, so I go at it in a round-about way:

1. start here and log in. (I have no clue how you create a log in, mine has been working for years, sorry)
2. On the left will be a box that says "Library Bundle" and it will tell you if you meet the criteria. If you do, there will be a link to "My Library"
3. Press it and you can see all of the collections included. (For the Oxford Dictionaries of X Biography, except for the British one which has its own tab, look in "Oxford Reference Online"). SusunW (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty great. I've been using ProQuest through there to access a bunch of articles from the early 1900's to use with various people's biographies. Such as Marion Miley that i'm still working on. Silverseren^C 16:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That's great Silver seren! It's truly a fabulous resource, just needs to be easier to find and access. Were you able to get there from my instructions, Ipigott? SusunW (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• SusunW: I tried but I get

"Not found

Sorry; we can't find that.

If you are certain that something should be here, please email us about this error at wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org or report it to us on Phabricator (?)."

I've had these problems with this site before. Don't worry about it but if I can't find it, how about the newbies?--Ipigott (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just sent off an e-mail to them linking this conversation. As an alternative:

1. start here
2. press the link The Wikipedia Library at the beginning of the first paragraph.

Does that work for you Ipigott? SusunW (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

SusunW: Yes, that works. That's where I got to when I replied to your first message and I wrote: "I've got as far as...". But what do I do now? Do I have to apply separately to each link? And as I said, you biographical dics are not listed.--Ipigott (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott Your link looks different than what I get. You don't have to apply to anything in the bundle. If you meet the criteria, you have access. Pressing on the link "Apply to multiple partners" it says "Library Bundle partners are not shown as eligibility is determined automatically". If I go to the top and click on the SusunW (I am signed in) link at the very top, then press "My Library" from the dropdown, it shows me all the things in the Bundle that I have access to as well as my individual subscriptions. SusunW (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

SusunW: Thanks for all your patience on this. I get "Check out My Library to see what you have access to." but when I click on it, I do not see "Dictionary of African Biography" which I would really like to be able to access. I have used it frequently for many biographies thanks to links from Google. Perhaps someone else reading this conversation could advise.--Ipigott (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott if you have gotten a list of what you have access to, look in "Oxford Reference Online" and search for it. SusunW (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, thank you SusunW, all, for the encouragement! I have been wanting to do this for literally years and now I finally have! Can’t wait to put it use. Much appreciated guidance and encouragement! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yay! Glad you were able to access it Innisfree987. Like Ian, I wish it were simpler. I'd like it to be a link on the left toolbar for each page... SusunW (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• See below for anyone who would like the navbox at the bottom of their page. And, I can access the Dictionary of African Biography by clicking on SusunW's link in the first paragraph. I have tried several times to access it through "My Library" access, and it is not there. While I can access "Oxford Reference Online" , searches through that link do not bring it up. You might want to post at WT:TWL. — Maile (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 Thank you so much! I am so not-technical that I never know if it is my lack of skill, my inability to explain, or a real error that causes the problem. I emailed Sam Walton at the library linking this discussion, so hopefully he will see the search problem others are having. Glad to know you could access it from my link. Ipigott, can you? SusunW (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• SusunW: I've tried to follow your instructions but after spending about an hour at Oxford Reference, I simply have not been able to find the Dictionary of African Biography. I've tried to put the full title in the search box but received a long list of other works, I've tried to go to each of the subject areas, but that didn't work either. Pity there's nothing on biographical dictionaries there as they're not included under encyclopaedias. All very frustrating. Maybe Maile66 can explain exactly how to proceed?--Ipigott (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• As a last resort, I made a simple Google search on "Oxford Dictionary of African Biography" and -- guess what? -- I found it and was able to turn up articles on all the names listed. So that's obviously the way to find things. Thanks once again, SusunW, for all your help on this. Apparently now that I have been logged in, I can simply use Google to find searchable versions of any of the Oxford reference works.--Ipigott (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, i've found that it does often work in reverse like that too. So long as you're logged into the Wikipedia Library service, it will still recognize your access even if you get to the specific reference work via another avenue, such as Google. That's been pretty useful when I haven't been able to find the specific database that houses the reference work I know is there somewhere, so I instead just go directly to the reference work page to gain access that way. Silverseren^C 09:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sam Walton this does indicate a snafu in the Wikipedia Library process. If this is the way ir works, than the Library should provide specific written instructions as to that. However, Users should not have to log onto the Library, and then turn around and do a Google or other external web search, to find what the library believes it gives us access to. — Maile (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I wish WP in general had a better search engine. I often have to google what I want to discover a WP article on something. *sigh* That should not be how it works and certainly not for a library. Glad you were able to finally access it, Ipigott. Thanks to all of you for posting. We learn so much from each other. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I, while we're on the subject, JSTOR is still offering 100 free articles per month to anyone - go direct through their site, single very easy log-in. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• SusunW and Samwalton9 / Samwalton9 (WMF).: Maybe the simplest way to sort this out is for the WP:Wikipedia Library site to explain how difficult it is to access many of the most popular resources which are useful for preparing, for example, biographies on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia Library is not able to do so, then it might be useful for Women in Red or other wikiprojects to offer additional guidance. Johnbod: Thanks for advising us on Jstor. Maybe you could encourage them to facilitate access to Wikipedia editors who do not belong to a local library without requiring Login, etc. Whenever the site appears on searches or is included as a source in biographies or other articles, it looks more difficult to access than it's worth. For years, I've been relying principally on their abstracts or on key quotes from other contributors and sources. Now that I've finally been able to log into Wikipedia Library, perhaps it will be as easy to access as Oxford References if it turns up in my searches. One of the major problems for those of us who do not belong to a library in the UK, US or other English-speaking country is that we simply cannot access these sites through our (non.existent) public library. In Denmark, like all other residents I am automatically attached to a local library via my CPR but there seems to be no way this can be used to access Jstor (unless you can explain how).--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, go to their site and "register" - it's very easy indeed. This is a temporary thing for COVID, but it's been going for the best part of a year now. Wanting not to have to login is pretty unreasonable, and "it looks more difficult to access than it's worth" is, well ... just wrong as it happens (for now). Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm with you Ipigott in that in my part of Mexico there are no public libraries, nor interlibrary loan services. I am totally reliant on the sources I can obtain on the web, through the WP Library, or from the "Ask a Librarian" service of Worldcat. I finally just broke down and bought Laurie Fransman's British Nationality Law because I just could not access it anywhere. It's definitely challenging. I am truly grateful that the WP library exists. I just wish it was more user-friendly. SusunW (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all - I'm glad to hear that you're finding the library valuable! I appreciate that the user experience isn't great right now in terms of getting to the content you need. We're working on improvements to this which I've outlined at Library Card platform/Design improvements on Meta. We're just wrapping up a set of design for a new homepage with a clearer login process, and will next be moving on to the logged in experience, helping users find content they're interested in. If you have time it would be great if you could describe your issues getting access content through the library there so we can make sure we're considering those when working on new designs.

In terms of a few practical issues raised here, the first thing to say is that we had some technical issues over the weekend which might have presented users with errors when trying to use the library. We've solved those problems now so that should no longer be a barrier. To find the Oxford Dictionary of African Biography, head over to My Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/), then click 'Access Collection' in the Oxford Reference Online box. In the search bar you can enter a book like 'Dictionary of African Biography' then click the book tab at the top of the results list (It reads "21 Books" when I search for that book in particular). Dictionary of African Biography then shows as the top result in the list for me. Alternatively, bookmark this link, which will take you straight to that dictionary via the library proxy.

I think subject-specific guides to using the library are a great idea, but probably something for individual groups of editors to assemble rather than us at the library, just for scale and maintenance reasons. Certainly happy to help you find content to assemble those, though. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Image for Wendy A. Woloson?

Hello, I recently created an article for historian Wendy A. Woloson. I don't normally hunt for images for pages I create, but would really like to find one of her for the article. I did not see any pictures of her in Commons. Are there any other places to check? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thriley: A good place to look is Creative Commons search. I did so and it came up with [11] which it found on flickr as Wendy Woloson holding the pawnshop sign.... So there you have your image. But you should double check that this is indeed the same Wendy Woloson. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow!! Thanks for this info Ipigott, i didn't know about this resource. All the images free license? What do i do when i find an image i want to use? Thanks --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That image is non-commercial usage only though, so its license is not compatible with our needs :/ You can click the two boxes under the search box to only get hits on photos that can be used on Wikimedia projects. (Also, great search tool! I've never seen that one before!) If you come across a photo in flickr, the easiest way is to upload it using flickr2commons. There's a bot that goes around and reviews the license compatibility for images uploaded through flickr, making it even easier :) -Yupik (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, thanks so much for the help! I'm glad to now know about this resource even if that particular image cannot be used. I'll be consulting it regularly in the future. Yupik, thank you for saving me from some copyright trouble! Best, Thriley (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Dana Dornsife

Dana Dornsife is a newly-created biography I've moved from draft space to main space. Another editor added a COI tag, which I've moved to the talk page, and further improvements are welcome. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone adept at images perhaps produce a version of the lead photo which is cropped so it isn't dominated by her legs and excludes the husband? PamD 05:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

PamD I cropped it and replaced it in the article. Let me know if you find it too severe and I be happy to get you a crop you prefer. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: Thanks, looks good. PamD 22:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion on IP removals?

An IP editor just made a series of unexplained removals and (small) unsourced additions to Rebecca Miriam Cunningham (doctor and researcher). To be blunt it reads like COI. That said, some of the removed material (eg) may have a reasonable case for being left out. It’s sourced, but it’s true that it’s the kind of thing you would not likely find in the bio of a male physician (although my personal view is that our accounts of men’s lives are often the poorer for it). Anyway if anyone feels like having a quick look with regard to gender bias, I’d be interested to hear opinions. It’s just the last five edits or so. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the changes and removals in the body of the article, as that background information is too detailed and really shouldn't be in an encyclopedic article. However, I disagree with the partial line removal in the lede about her being a director in that department/center. That seems like something that should be put back in. Silverseren^C 19:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking it over—I thought that was peculiar too, except that the general impression of COI made me wonder if there’s firsthand knowledge that that’s out of date. Verifiability not truth but...I don’t love putting back something that might be wrong! Kinda inclined to leave out stuff if doubt has been cast—all the other edits depicted the subject more favorably. I wouldn’t think the same person would remove a title that was correct...? Innisfree987 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

First plant named by a woman

Dear Women in Red people, just a heads-up that I created an article on Wurfbainia vera, formerly known as Amomum verum, the first plant to be named by a woman (in the botanical sense). Are there any categories to mark this? May I request a Women In Red banner on the talk page please. Brunswicknic (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Brunswicknic, What a great article and story - I've added a tag for one of this month's events - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/194 - if you're working with any more pages please do add the events template to them! Lajmmoore (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Brunswicknic: Interesting article but you give the vernacular name as "Siam cardamom" which is given elsewhere as Amomum krervanh [12]. According to this, they appear to be equivalent. Maybe Wurfbainia vera should also be mentioned in the article Cardamom although I see Britannica calls it Elettaria cardamomum. All rather confusing. Perhaps you can clear it all up.--Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott A. krervanh is now accepted as a synonym of W. vera, in other words, while Siam Cardamom was used to refer to A. krervanh, what was being talked about is now referred to as W. vera Brunswicknic (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Brunswicknic I saw you request for a banner - not sure exactly what you meant - but your talkpage now has a huge banner at the top that will change every day. Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Maria Grazia Spillantini

Could someone reach out to User:11mgs with regards to the improvements they are trying to make to the title article? I believe they could some friendly advice on navigating the ways of Wikipedia. [Marais Grazia Spillantini] certainly appears to be a person of note, but her article could use some improvements. 92.3.131.156 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to collaborate with WikiProject Oregon: Oregon Women of Achievement

WikiProject Oregon's current collaboration of the month is improving Oregon Women of Achievement and creating entries for red-linked names. Project members have created several new pages already, and of course we'd welcome help from Women in Red. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fake news

• "Women Are Writing Themselves Back Into History on Wikipedia", by Meghan McDonough, NBC LX, 31 March 2021.

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Bouman was a) nominated for deletion by a woman editor who identifies as a feminist, then b) snowball kept in little over an hour. It wasn't "nearly pulled", it wasn't "ultimately" saved. Could the project furnish journalists with actual examples of where the deletion process has failed to keep notable articles due to misogynistic bias? Rubiscous (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess the project could write a "So you're a journalist who wants to write about the Wikipedia gender gap?" press pack but when journalists seem to do their own investigative work and don't quite interpret things correctly, there's nothing we can do about that. Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

International Roma Day Edit-a-thon (April 1st - 8th, 2021)

Hi all! Wikimedia Serbia is hosting a weeklong international edit-a-thon in honour of International Roma Day again this year. If you notice any Roma topics or people missing from the edit-a-thon lists, please feel free to add them! -Yupik (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yupik, this is great! I'll definitely join in! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I see from the link that there are already a few women Romas without articles in English.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hope to "see" you (y'all) at the editathon! -Yupik (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just ran into this wikiproject! Never knew this existed! -Yupik (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

100 women

~17% of the BBC 100 women in 2019 - only a few have names in the caption

I was contacted by Amy Karle who is an American artist looking at future body evolution (she was on the BBC 100 women list). She was asking for help with cleaning up her article. I'm pleased to see that others were helping too and its much improved. Amy has donated dozens of pics she took at the BBC 100 Women event. (and she is helping OTRS to check she is who she says she is). The donations include the image to the right and I have started to add names to the images description but its tricky. Anyone good at recognising these notable women? - Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Great image! I tried to have a look and I’m a little confused about the rights. Is user Igbofur disclosing that they are Amy Karle? If so, it seems like this image and others like File:Amy Karle BBC 100 Women.jpg and File:20191017 BBC 100 Women 2019 img19 Artist Amy Karle.jpg (et seq.) must have been taken by someone else since she is in them, from some distance? Or is she getting OTRS perms from the person who took them? (Or am I completely misunderstanding, ha possible!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To answer my own Q. I understand this is being addressed! Innisfree987 (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red Quarterly Continental Challenge - Women in Africa contest (Jan-Feb-Mar 2021)

WiR Women in Africa contest

Thanks to all who participated in the Women in Africa contest from January through March 2021. There were 29 active participants who created 249 articles that met the contest entry length of at least 160 words or 1,000 characters of running text. Of the 249 articles, more than half were created by our three placing editors. There were also 67 stubs created.

The Women in Africa contest followed the Women in Asia contest which ran from October through December 2020. Running NOW is the Women in Europe contest which runs from April through June. There are a variety of redlists to spark your interest.

The second half of the year will bring the Women in Latin America contest and the Women in Oceania contest. --- WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WomenArtistUpdates, Thanks for all your hard work on the admin side too Lajmmoore (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jane Vigor

I see that Jane Vigor is listed on the ODNB page. I have created an article on my own website at http://www.sussexpeople.co.uk/jane-vigor/. I will endeavour to convert this into a Wikipedia article, properly cited, if this is of interest. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Daemonickangaroo2018: Certainly of interest, especially as you have found so many sources, some of which call for corrections to the ODNB article.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for getting back to me. I will start putting the article together, although I see that some of my online sources are now “dead”. I will look for alternatives. I expect that some of the images that I have used on my website won’t be acceptable here. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    Daemonickangaroo2018, you're actually allowed to use WP:OFFLINE sources. Although, if the info is available in more accessible sources, that may be preferred. TJMSmith (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

    • Daemonickangaroo2018, you might also want to try archive sources like the Wayback Machine to see if you can still access working copies of the references. Since, if you can, you're perfectly free to use those archived links as your URL. There's a specific "|archive-url=" parameter in the reference templates for such links. Silverseren^C 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now created the article, if you wish to link it to this project. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Metrics for March 2021

Some of you may have noticed that at 2,383 the metrics value for March 2021 is rather lower than in March in previous years. This is because one of our contributors felt that the values displayed for our metrics should be restricted to the identification by a bot of biographies from Wikidata coded female and human. In earlier months, some of us added all other articles about women to the list, including women's works, organizations, awards, and related activities. In order for these not to be completely missed, for March 2021 I have compiled a separate List of non-biographical articles. While a few more may be listed as drafts mature over the next few days, that list now contains 270 additional articles which would in fact bring the overall total for March up to 2,653 (which by coincidence is the same as in March 2019 though rather less than last year). If there is general agreement that this is useful, I'll continue to compile the non-biographical lists. If, on the other hand, the bot-driven list of biographies is considered sufficient there will be no need to do so.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I applaud the effort you put into compiling lists of non-biographical articles, I remain skeptical about their reliability as a metric. In particular, month on month throughout the years I've been very closely following WiR metrics, I've always noticed articles in the petscan of category:women articles with no WD item absent from the lists. Obvious questions arise: what is the scope of the list; is the scope consistent from month to month; is the method used and effort expended from month to month consistent? What, exactly, is being measured here?

The possibility is that a monthly non-biographical article count could be achieved via Petscan, about which such questions of consistency would not arise and which would be less burdensome to create.

Compiling reliable metrics is hard, and I very much regret that we do not have more interaction with whoever 'owns' the mechanics of our current metrics, such that we could adapt and improve them.

It's perhaps also worth noting here one other bugbear with the current metrics, which is that they include and count some percent - 4% or 5% perhaps - of redirects, arising from an article being appended to wikipedia and added to the list under one name, and later renamed and readded under another name. In the March 2020 list, Abigail Dentus and Abbie Dentus, for instance. Users who have User:Anomie/linkclassifier loaded can see these, in green, at a glance. Counting redirects overinflates and renders the absolute counts per month plain wrong, albeit their effect on monthly trends is probably small (if we presume that each month count is skewed to pretty much the same extent). AFAIK were we to blank a metrics month page, the metric system would recreate it in its next run, excluding the redirects; but we cannot do this since it would not re-add the manually added non-biographical articles (or, at least, could only do this with great effort). --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: Thanks for these observations. As for redirects, I have noticed that many of them start out as independent articles and become redirects to other articles during the course of the month or even in subsequent months. This happens both with biographies and non-biographical articles. If "metrics" is not the correct term to apply to the non-biographicals, maybe we could use something less statistically sounding such as "additions". But the main question is whether such lists are useful to anyone. If they are not, then there's obviously no point in compiling them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As there's obviously not much interest in this, I will no longer be compiling non-biographical lists of new articles about women. Maybe we should also stop posting our month-by-month metrics as from now on they will be identical to those from Wikidata identified by Humaniki.--Ipigott (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott, When you write about "our month-by-month metrics" are you referring to the metrics here? I ask because I think those stats add nicely to the project main page. But I also think we should shepherd/encourage your admin stuff to activities you like to do, rather than stuff that goes unacknowledged and you feel you have to continue. There is so much you do behind the scenes that raises the profile of Women In Red. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WomenArtistUpdates, I am indeed referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics. When we started this page in 2015 we had no bots to add new bios automatically. The enterprising Harej of the underlying Project X (now dead but not quite buried) introduced the concept of "Metrics" for us. As a result, we used Alex New Bot's listings on Women writers, Women artists, etc., to compile our lists, finally concentrating mainly on Alex New Bots special coverage of Women in Red. After a bot was developed to do the bios, I continued adding non-biographical articles manually. The job has in fact been quite rewarding as I have always been able to find interesting articles from new contributors or inexperienced editors as well as many requiring support from deletion, etc. However, a couple of participants have recently suggested manual additions are to be avoided as they upset the objective work of the bot. While there has been a modicum of support from Rosiestep, SusunW and Megalibrarygirl, I have to admit not many people look at our metrics pages. It may therefore be more useful for me to spend my time (three or four hours a month) on other aspects of Women in Red. Do you have any interest in the non-biographical articles yourself? If so, do you think they require any more attention than their possible inclusion in our monthly focus lists?--Ipigott (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, I think those articles are important, but it's incredibly difficult to manually add non-biographical articles to metrics. I'm glad you find it rewarding, though, Ipigott! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott and other followers of this topic, While I personally enjoy statistics, I think you are correct that not many folks look at the stats. And given Tagishsimon's comments, it appears that the stats are rather skewed with no way of correcting them. I am interested in non biographical articles, but given the limitations of the metrics I don't see the inclusion moving the needle. Perhaps if we highlight the Showcase rather than the metrics, there could be area/heading to add non-biographical articles manually. It would be a better way of illustrating Women in Red's work than pointing to a number. That said, would you still be able to update the "WiR strives to increase the percentage, which has reached **.*% as of ***" statement which appear on the main page? I also have a follow-on question, which I know has been addressed before, but I can't quite understand; what do the "project tags" that we add do? I use them religiously. Does it serve a purpose beyond highlighting the work of Women in Red to those visiting the talk page? Is there any way to leverage that data? These are all just ideas, and I often miss the unintended consequences. So, what would you think of swapping the placement of the metric icon with the showcase icon (maybe even making it first on the left-hand side), and have that be the place to collect a listing of non-biographical articles? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• WomenArtistUpdates: You've raised quite a few points here. As for highlighting Showcase, that also consists of lists which are currently maintained manually. I'm afraid to say not many of the articles listed are non-biographical although I do try to include all those which appear pertinent in the DYKs. As the order of the icons is currently alphabetical from left to right, I don't know whether we should move them around. There may be a case for removing the Metrics icon completely as without the non-biographicals the results should be the same as those you refer to on the main WiR page. Now that we have Humaniki, these are being updated more regularly and I shall continue to post them as new results become available. As for the project banners, they serve two main purposes: they allow us to monitor all the articles specifically created or improved in connection with Women in Red while those in connection with our monthly priorities indicate the particular area addressed. Furthermore, WiR-tagged articles threatened with deletion are listed on the main WiR page. I think the banners also attract more editors to look into the project and perhaps become members. I don't really know what you have in mind in connection with "leverage". I suppose it would be possible to use the banners for statistical purposes but the results should correspond more or less to the listings on the meetup pages for the different priorities. As for use of the icons, you might be interested to learn that over the past 20 days, the number of page views has been as follows: Alerts 182, Essays 50, Events 100, Ideas 387, Metrics 202, Outreach 85, Press 34, Redlists 1,106, Resources 87, Showcase 258 and Social media 6. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott, Thank you for taking the time to address all the questions I had! Clearly I didn't see that the icons were in alpha order, so I now don't think they should be arranged. And thank you for the explanation about the banners and I will continue to add them to the pages I update or create. By "leveraging" I meant just what you inferred, running some kind of list, but as you explained, looking at the meet-up page with produce the same result. Thanks also for collating the stats from the icon pages. Intriguing that Redlists has the most views. After all that pondering, I think the bot-driven list of biographies is sufficient. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

sport in non-biographical women articles

Is anyone else shocked by the predominance of sport in the new non-biographical women articles? I calculate that 171 (63%) of these articles are sport-related, leaving only 99 (37%) to cover all other activities by women. It reminds me of the discussion a couple of years ago, in which valereee put a question with great verve: "Does wikipedia have a gender problem, or does wikipedia have a sports problem?" Dsp13 (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

All too predictable, I'm afraid - it's good to link again to that important discussion. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The question presupposes that this set of non-biographical women articles are in some way representative. I see no evidence that they are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What form might that evidence take? Is there any evidence that they are unrepresentative? If not, I'll trust Ipigott's skills as compiler. It's a pity if future months will not show us either way. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For both men and women, sport is one of the principal drivers of activity on Wikipedia. It therefore seems to me to be important for us to monitor and encourage new articles on women's sporting activities, especially in a year when we will have coverage of the Olympics and Paralympics.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for creating as many articles about prominent women sports figures as we can, but of course in most centuries women didn't play sports and in many cultures women still don't play professional sports and even where they do, there are fewer pro sports for women. Which means that invariably when we focus on sports figures so heavily, we focus ever more disproportionately on men. I really don't think 46% of notable living people are athletes. It's just not possible that there are as nearly many notable living athletes as there are notable living scientists, musicians, artists, inventors, businesspeople, politicians, writers, chefs, actors, academics, activists, filmmakers, explorers, philanthropists, designers, architects, publishers, judges, etc., etc., etc., all put together. It simply doesn't make any sense. —valereee (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably the fact that the WP:NSPORT SNGs are quite rigid (e.g. if X person has participated in Y event, they're presumed notable) and so it's relatively easy to pull a list of participants of a sporting event and quickly create articles based on that list, whereas if one wants to write about an explorer or a chef, a more careful evaluation of GNG is needed before proceeding as there are no given presumptions of notability. DanCherek (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are easy to write and source, and we have huge numbers of wikipedians interested in sport, apparently more so than the other fields mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes. I'm not going to get into what I think about the fact a single at-bat in a single MLB game is the right threshold lol, but the only thing easy to source about most of these stubs is the simple fact the person played. Frank Bahret played outfield for two games in a league that had a single season. If I were wikiczar, we'd include him as an entry in a list of people who played for the Baltimore Monumentals rather than pretending there's ever going to be enough out there about him that a decent bio could be written. But that kind of thinking makes me unpopular with some of the sportier editors. :D —valereee (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't already, head over to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RFC_on_Notability_(sports)_policy_and_reliability_issues - Fram's "revised" proposal still seems in play. There's another specialised one at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Swedish-UNFPA #WikiGap project

In connection with International Women's Day, in a piece titled "Only 20% of Wikipedia’s Biographies Are About Women — #WikiGap Wants to Change That", Eric Luth (Eric Luth (WMSE)) reports on progress since 2018 and calls on everyone to "tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia". Reported by Leah Rodriguez, Global Citizen, 8 March 2021.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See also the Meta page WikiGap. You can also take part in the current WikiGap Challenge which lasts until 8 April. You gain points by improving or creating articles in any language.--Ipigott (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning, Ipigott! UNFPA also sent us a source of women prominent in sexual and reproductive health (SRH), that lack articles on any language version. The list can be found here and the source here. Would be wonderful if someone had time to write a few articles on any of these! UNFPA was a bit surprised over the poor coverage of people active within SRH on Wikipedia. Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Eric Luth (WMSE): The Wikidata entries for those in sexual and reproductive health are all very new. As Listeria updates the WiR redlists for health and the various nationalities, they should all show up sooner or later. We have a special focus on mental health in May but I don't think they really fall into that category. Perhaps we can arrange something later in the year if you are interested. By the way, were you in any way involved in WikiGap Malaysia on 25 March? I offered to help them along with work on the EN Wiki but they never got back to me and I can't see any evidence of activity.--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ipigott I noticed that they end up here, after someone created the list. About half of the names are already created.

I was only involved in the background for WikiGap Malaysia. Perhaps they edited mostly in Malaysian? Best 09:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk • contribs) 02:58, April 9, 2021 (UTC)

Progress on women in India

In "How Wikipedia is fighting the gender gap, one biography at a time" by Rahel Philipose in today's The Indian Express, Nitesh Gill and WMFs' Amanda Keton report on progress on women's coverage in India and around the world.--Ipigott (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• In connection with this article, I have just noticed that additions on Press via Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Press are not being displayed under "Press" on our main WiR page. Maybe MarioGom can look into this.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it myself: it was pointing to 2020 instead of 2021.--Ipigott (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Planning for a Mind your elders edit-a-thon

Hi, I am in the initial stages of planning a translation edit-a-thon tenatively called Mind your elders. I have assembled a list of 14 notable living women centenarians who have articles in other language Wikipedias but none in English Wikipedia. I extracted this list from List of living centenarians and added other language links when available & the Wikidata Q identifiers. This list is currently at User:Peaceray/sandbox/Mind your elders.

I am looking for partner(s) if anyone or any organization is interested. I have a Zoom account, am a mass message sender, & have set up events at the Programs & Events Dashboard. I also plan to assemble a list of potential citations prior to the edit-a-thon. I could solely organize this myself, but, hey, I prefer collaboration. It is just more fun and productive.

Is there anyone who might be interested, or who can point me to others or others to me? I do wish to hold this relatively soon. It would be nice to do this while these women are still alive. There was a fifteenth on the list, but she died earlier this month. Peaceray (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Peaceray: Interesting idea but I am not sure all of them are notable enough for a biography of their own. It looks to me as if you could find quite a few more from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by time period/1910-1919 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by time period/1920-1929. You should also try to make sure they are still all alive. I often find items from Wikidata which fail to give the applicable date of death. You say it is to be a "translation edit-a-thon". I frequently write about women from other countries but I rarely translate articles from other versions of Wikipedia (although they often prove useful in providing sources). My approach is to create new biographies based on all the pertinent sources I can find, frequently drawing on articles in biographical dictionaries, reports in the local press and looking for pertinent images. In the case of centenarians, they often attract extensive articles in connection with their 100th birthday celebrations. When they die there are often long obituaries, not just in the press but on the sites of the institutions and organizations to which they belonged. (Maybe we should also include notable centenarians who have died in recent years.) If participation along these lines is acceptable, then I would be happy to collaborate. Congratulations, btw, on all the interesting articles you "translated" from other versions of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Ipigott & all: Early on, I followed the Article Rescue Squadron. I quickly learned that what is notable on another language Wikipedia is not necessarily notable on English Wikipedia. In particular, this was problematic with "a big fish in a small pond" or polymaths who were notable for the sum of their achievements but not necessarily notable in just one field. This is compounded by my anecdotal observation that women's biographies are more often challenged.

The solution always seems to be citations from reliable sources. Generally, I like to have ten if possible, although prominent sources carry more weight. I am confident that with research we/I can find enough citations to establish notability for at least the majority of the women on the list.

I also recommend putting the translation initially in a subpage of one's sandbox or in the Draft namespace if multiple editors are working on it. That way one can do the initial translation up front & add citations bit by bit, plus adding as comments categories on the article-to-be & Wikiprojects on the talk page. Then move the article into the main space when it is ready for prime time.

I think that I will concentrate my initial time to listing citations & bolstering the User:Peaceray/sandbox/Mind your elders page, as there is much to add. Anyone who has found missing women centenarians on the WPWIR/Missing articles by time period/1910-1919 & WPWIR/Missing articles by time period/1920-1929, please add them to List of living centenarians, & if there are other language Wikipedia articles for that Woman in Red, to the Mind your elders proposed edit-a-thon.

Okay, got to go do some employment type work now ... Peaceray (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Peaceray: I think we all have our own approach to creating biographies. While I look carefully at the articles in other language versions, I try to find at least three extensive secondary sources on which to base my own coverage of the subject. If I fail to do so, I move on to someone else. But maybe for those without much foreign language knowledge, your suggestions are worthwhile following. The question now is whether we should simply proceed with coverage under our #1day1women focus or whether you would like to make "Centenarians" a specific focus for one of the coming months. From our Ideas page, it looks as if we could provisionally schedule it for July.--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ipigott, definitely additional citations will help. I have curated & listed a number of citations for Fanita English on the page. I will continue for the others.

  I would like to focus on Centenarians for this. As we establish a date & project subpage for this, I would also like to invite participation from WikiProject Longevity & WikiProject Intertranswiki.

  Translating seems like low-hanging fruit to me. Much of the content & structure of the article is already there, although as noted before, enwiki has a much stronger emphasis on verifiability, which I think is a good thing.

  It looks like July is wide open. I would prefer the latter half of July & a weekend. Peaceray (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: & all, although I have been quiet here, I have been working to find citations & sources for this. Right now, I have amassed this for eight of the fourteen women centenarians. I have more work to do in general, but I anticipate being able to move this to the Wikipedia namespace somewhere (suggestions) & start the scheduling process later this month for the edit-a-thon(s) effort in July. Peaceray (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Matilda Geddings Gray

I recently created an article for the art collector Matilda Geddings Gray. I am having difficulty finding good sources. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks promising, Thriley, although I can't view the second page of the entry. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I added a couple of sourced things, and removed the tag about her notability. She was a pretty big deal in her lifetime, it's a matter of finding sources. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! Thriley (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wilma Marggraff

I recently created an article for New Jersey legislator Wilma Marggraff. I am having difficulty finding an obit for her. Her husband has one that I found, but so far I have not seen one for her. Any help would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I found one in The Ridgewood News. Please email me and I will send on reply. Urve (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thank you. What is your email? I did not see it on your page. Thriley (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If you go to User:Urve, there should be a button on the side saying something like "Email this user". You may need to set up an email in your preferences. If you can't, I will add the info to the article when I'm available... btw, found another obit. Urve (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please add the news articles to the article? I can’t use the email feature without giving Wikipedia an email. I’d prefer not to link an email at the moment. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)