Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is WikiProject Women in Red (WiR)?
WikiProject Women in Red is a community-led project launched in 2015. We're interested in reducing the gender gap in content coverage across all languages, especially concerning women-related biographies, but also women-related topics (broadly construed), such as artwork, books, sports events, and scientific theories. This concerns both works/topics by and works/topics about women. Specifically, we collaborate on
How is WikiProject Women in Red related to other WikiProjects?
WiR is intended to be a parent project and a resource hub for other projects (in all languages) whose scope covers women and their works, such as
And related projects What specific efforts is WikiProject Women in Red making to reduce/improve the content gender gap?
How can I help? Who can join?
Anyone can join! You do not need to have edited Wikipedia before, nor is the project restricted to women. Any help you can give, big or small, is greatly appreciated! To get started read our primer. |
![]() | This WikiProject has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/Aug17_Woman_of_the_Day.png/500px-Aug17_Woman_of_the_Day.png)
2024 Olympics
editThe 2024 Summer Olympics start soon, with the first competitions taking place on July 24 and the majority of qualifications having wrapped up. For anyone who's looking for sportswomen to turn blue, there are a lot of qualified athletes missing articles, including for nearly every sport and country, a large number of which likely pass GNG (though should not be assumed without proof). Below I've listed the number of qualified women Olympians who are redlinks by sport, with links to the lists:
- Archery (have to check each country)
- Artistic swimming (41+)
- Sport of athletics (90+)
- Badminton (9)
- Basketball (regular / 3x3) (20+)
- Boxing (39)
- Breakdancing (12)
- Canoeing (have to check each country)
- Cycling (have to check each country)
- Diving (16+)
- Equestrian (have to check each country)
- Fencing (36+)
- Field hockey (8+)
- Football (5)
- Golf (0)
- Gymnastics (have to check each country)
- Handball (30+)
- Judo (54+)
- Modern pentathlon (12+)
- Rowing (50+)
- Rugby sevens (19+)
- Sailing (70+)
- Shooting (51+)
- Skateboarding (25)
- Sport climbing (16)
- Surfing (11)
- Swimming (83+)
- Table tennis (20+)
- Taekwondo (22)
- Tennis (0)
- Triathlon (19)
- Volleyball (regular / beach) (33+)
- Water polo (? No article)
- Weightlifting (9)
- Wrestling (13)
Just thought I'd share the statistics I recorded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't forget the Paralympic Games... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- ^ For those interested in writing bios of female athletes who have qualified for the 2024 Paralympics, here are some pages with easily accessible redlinks: track and field athletes, badminton players, powerlifters, shooters, and table tennis players. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, BeanieFan11! Sports is a little out of my usual topic areas, and the only one of these events that I have any particular interest in and knowledge of is sport climbing, but I've already added two (Piper Kelly and Jenya Kazbekova). There's more of a language barrier for some, and I think for Beatrice Colli most of the in-depth sources are unfortunately in video rather than text, but I'll see what more I can do. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- BeanieFan11, this is a really great list! Have you heard of the WikiLoves Sport contest? We're hoping to encourage the creation/improvement of articles about atheletes with marginalized identities (including women) and it seems like you're on the case! Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Haven't heard of it before – I'll have to look into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Newspapers.com access (I am distraught)
editLooks like Newspapers.com has been made completely unavailable now (with the button even being removed from The Wikipedia Library, replaced with "Temporarily unavailabe") and no explanation forthcoming thus far. A lot of threads on Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library and Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com, but no answers. I'm not even sure if there's a Phabricator ticket open on it (or would this be rolled into the several prior tickets covering the many issues we've been having with Newspapers.com access?)
It leaves me kind of at a loss on how to do proper research though. The vast majority of biographical subjects I have to write on require access to that one directory (and Newspaper Archive is a very poor substitute). Not sure what to do at this point. SilverserenC 18:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is a Phabricator ticket T322916. Click on "Temporarily unavailable" for a link.
- Searching for clippings at https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/ may be better than nothing. TSventon (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize they had turned that into a link. I see I was right though on this being added on to the same issues we've been having for nearly two years now. And no response on the ticket for three days or even really the week prior to that. That's concerning. SilverserenC 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the articles that I start are biographies and this is so frustrating. I don't have the money to sign up for a membership either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Super janky workaround: if you have a free account, you can search, but you'll be prompted to pay (or start a free trial) to actually see the articles associated with the results. But, as far as I can tell, only search is broken in the WP Library proxy. So search using your free account, click on a search result, then edit the URL to replace "www.newspapers.com" with "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org". e.g. this link is paywalled: https://www.newspapers.com/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22, but this one works: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22. It's slow and clunky, but better than nothing. pburka (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- pburka Thank you for that. It works great! SusunW (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- This old school hack made me laugh . Love this page and I will leave you to your fantastic work ❤️ Bunions Nonsenseses (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Super janky workaround: if you have a free account, you can search, but you'll be prompted to pay (or start a free trial) to actually see the articles associated with the results. But, as far as I can tell, only search is broken in the WP Library proxy. So search using your free account, click on a search result, then edit the URL to replace "www.newspapers.com" with "www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org". e.g. this link is paywalled: https://www.newspapers.com/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22, but this one works: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/124073618/?match=1&terms=%22gordon%20simpson%22%20%22le%20mans%22. It's slow and clunky, but better than nothing. pburka (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the articles that I start are biographies and this is so frustrating. I don't have the money to sign up for a membership either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize they had turned that into a link. I see I was right though on this being added on to the same issues we've been having for nearly two years now. And no response on the ticket for three days or even really the week prior to that. That's concerning. SilverserenC 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- It seems newspapers.com still works for me (just was able to do everything and make a clipping just fine: [1]). @Silver seren: What specifically is not working for you? Are you logged-in and at this url? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the same problem I was having, that I mentioned to you in that recent AfD. I wonder why you're still unaffected. I was able to read only two of your clippings, but not the others. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is an update on different ways to access Newspapers.com given Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Still unavailable as of 7/31? I don't remotely understand the technical instructions about cookies, or how to copy them, but perhaps it will work for others. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- SusunW there is a more recent discussion here "How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?" TSventon (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- TSventon, thanks. I still can't figure out how to clip, but for days I have changed the newspapers.com to www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org to read the articles and then just pasted the newspapers.com link with subscription required tag. It's annoying, but at least it works. SusunW (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- SusunW there is a more recent discussion here "How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?" TSventon (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is an update on different ways to access Newspapers.com given Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Still unavailable as of 7/31? I don't remotely understand the technical instructions about cookies, or how to copy them, but perhaps it will work for others. SusunW (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I have not had any success in accessing Newspapers.com in the last few weeks. Not sure how to implement the cookies suggestion. Hoping it is fixed soon bc I used it frequently when drafting bios. TJMSmith (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
National Allotment Week (UK)
editHello folks! Next month as part of National Allotment Week in the UK, I've been invited to speak on a panel about women and vegetable gardening. Its come about because I told a friend about the event on Plants & Gardens (which started as an idea in my head), and like lots of others here try to regularly edit about women in botany/biology/etc. I have a ten minute slot & I wondered a) if there are key things you'd like me to mention and b) if any of the stats wranglers had any figures for how green-fingered professions might have improved (or not) while the project has been running. (I bet Women in Science has also done a lot of contributing too) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know the history, but Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners currently has 63 members. TSventon (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lajmmoore, I checked the contents of Category:Women horticulturists and gardeners and only 23 of the articles existed when Women in Red started in 2015 (marked x below), so 40 have been added since, including some by yourself. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Contents of category
|
---|
Helen Vickroy Austin 2017 Ernesta Drinker Ballard 2011 x Helen Ballard 2020 Iris Bannochie 2006 x Émile Napoléon Baumann 2018 Jelena de Belder-Kovačič 2018 Rae Selling Berry 2015 x Sue Biggs 2018 Sylvia Blankenship 2023 Andrea Brunsendorf 2018 Maggie Campbell-Culver 2013 x Angelika Campbell, Countess Cawdor 2024 Pamela Cunningham Copeland 2017 Emma G. Cummings 2018 Anna de Diesbach 2009 x Margaret Bell Douglas 2019 Jane Edmanson 2018 Margery Fish 2016 Catherine FitzGerald 2019 Olive Fitzhardinge 2012 x Elizabeth Gilmer 2009 x Jane Norton Grew 2023 Annie Gulvin 2018 Jane B. Haines 2020 Beatrix Havergal 2009 x Isabelle Bowen Henderson 2024 Amelia Egerton, Lady Hume 2018 Alice Hutchins (gardener) 2021 Charlotte Knight 2015 x Snježana Kordić 2012 x Joy Larkcom 2021 Abra Lee 2021 Norah Lindsay 2009 x Cecily Littleton 2022 Tatjana Ljujić-Mijatović 2018 Mary McMurtrie 2014 x Corinne Melchers 2020 Hilda Murrell 2004 x Lady Dorothy Nevill 2008 x Anna B. Nickels 2021 Ethel Anson Peckham 2015 y Frances Perry (gardener) 2007 x Elza Polak 2018 Nora Pöyhönen 2016 Hortensia del Prado 2021 Isabella Preston 2016 Chrystabel Procter 2018 Elsie Reford 2010 x Patricia Easterbrook Roberts 2018 Eleanour Sinclair Rohde 2006 x Lester Gertrude Ellen Rowntree 2014 x Kate Sessions 2006 x Theodosia Burr Shepherd 2018 Holly Shimizu 2021 Midori Shintani (horticulturalist) 2021 Lady Beatrix Stanley 2020 Frances Tophill 2015 x Elisa Bailly de Vilmorin 2014 x Edna Walling 2005 x Susana, Lady Walton 2010 x Karen Washington 2017 Cynthia Westcott 2017 Frances Garnet Wolseley, 2nd Viscountess Wolseley 2016 |
- if anyone would like to come along, there's a link to register here: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYsceigqzgpG9aiYOqEhtOaMv-86VhSTWi5?fbclid=IwY2xjawEnUERleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXIZvHrlFDKV34UjXIT4DNP-rWCCkwDB0MZSx-tffJx3T9KuQNg-TpW9rg_aem_5--KsX4gLnuX9C4n9rbcAw#/registration Lajmmoore (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Research:Knowledge Gaps Index/Measurement/Content
editHi all. I just became aware of this: m:Research:Knowledge Gaps Index/Measurement/Content#Standard Quality Criteria. It might be useful to review these criteria regarding creating or improving articles, e.g., "It has at least 7 sections"
. -- Rosiestep (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that struck me as the wierd one. Many short WP articles have far too many sections imo. Where do these standards lead? Do they matter? Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The criteria are strangely mismatched in level. 1 category is something I'd expect even of a stub. 4 refs and 2 interwiki links should be true of most start-class articles. But 8k text and 7 sections are pushing towards at least C class assuming the references are proportionate. Many Good Articles do not have 7 sections. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- And not all articles need an image - if it's about a philosophical concept, for example. Agree that 7 sections is ridiculous, 1 category is rarely adequate. I suppose our philosophical concept could squeeze through by using the "5 out of 6" rule - but this would allow an article with no categories, or no references, to be eligible. Very odd set of criteria! PamD 08:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- A basic criterion would be "It has a lead sentence which tells the reader the significance of the topic and puts it into geographical and chronological context where appropriate" - but of course that's not measurable algorithmically (though perhaps they should be working towards that with AI?)
- Thinking of the need for a "[Name] (dates) is/was a [nationality] [role in which notable]", compared to the "[Name] was born in [city, no country] to [father's name] and [mother's name]." which we sometimes see. PamD 08:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- This really seems like something written for a different language wiki (especially with all the strange grammar), or written by someone who does not actually edit Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Or both - meet Miriam Redi of WMF. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the WMF have these things vetted by actual Wikipedia editors...? They're funding all this research that will have utterly meaningless results because no one is consulting qualified people for experimental design. Like, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the WMF read that atrocious TOOSOON paper and uncritically set up a task force to address en.wiki's egregious bias against using GHits to establish STEM women notability at AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good questions all! One shouldn't complain about the WMF being concerned with all WPs, not just English. It's not at all clear to me what use will be made of this. Most of the page was written by Redi in March 23, but this set of criteria appeared (by her) in December 23. Why, where did they come from, and what are they related to? Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why doesn't the WMF have these things vetted by actual Wikipedia editors...? They're funding all this research that will have utterly meaningless results because no one is consulting qualified people for experimental design. Like, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the WMF read that atrocious TOOSOON paper and uncritically set up a task force to address en.wiki's egregious bias against using GHits to establish STEM women notability at AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Or both - meet Miriam Redi of WMF. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Help accessing a source?
editIf I have to ask over at the Resource Exchange, I will, but I was wondering if anyone here knew how to access this source from New Scientist? I was looking around The Wikipedia Library, but I'm not sure if any of the databases give access specifically to that magazine. SilverserenC 18:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unhelpfully, Gale in The Wikipedia Library has access to New Scientist from February 25, 2023, while the article is from 2000. TSventon (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now resolved at WP:RX. TSventon (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry for not noting that here. Apparently, what you see in my link is the full (somewhat short) article. Their whole "subscribe to see the full thing" is complete BS and where the text fades out is the real end of it anyways. Such nonsense. SilverserenC 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
How best to cite Newspapers.com references with the current situation?
editI've been trying my best to go with biographical subjects where the sources wouldn't be newspaper based (scientists and such), due to the current situation discussed above about Newspapers.com access. But I can't avoid that entirely even with these biography subjects. So, question, if I still need to cite a Newspapers.com article, but am unable to clip things with the current situation, what's the best way to make a reference citation? Is a URL link like this okay to use in a reference? SilverserenC 22:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: I've been linking to https://www.newspapers.com/image/foo and adding
|url-access=subscription
for now. I've bookmarked all the articles and plan to go back to add clippings once (if?) this is fixed. Nick Number (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC) - I've been using those links and there's a bot that comes along and removes the Wikipedia Library proxy from the url. Gamaliel (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I pointed this out at Wikipedia_talk:Newspapers.com but I have access to Newspapers.com. If anyone needs help with clippings let me know on my talk page. Timur9008 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Silver seren: I learned from the comment here how to log in to
newspapers.com
onwww-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org
so that I can create clippings again. The full discussion is at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library#Still unavailable as of 7/31?. Cunard (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- It works!!! SilverserenC 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
List of women sportswriters
editHey there! So I recently made a list of women sportswriters and have purposefully added red links to it of women who have had significant careers as sports writers. Since this month focuses on Women in Sports, if anyone is interested, do check this out! Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Omnis Scientia, for starting this list. At the moment, it looks rather like a set based on categories. It would be more useful if you could add basic details such as DOB and DOD, and any important types of involvement. Many of our other lists of women carry such information. See for example List of women architects or our many lists under Template:Lists of women writers by nationality. Maybe your sportswriters could also be included in pertinent nationality lists.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott, its very much under construction ATM. I'm gathering more names where I can and was surprised how much distinguished women don't have articles. Will definitely be adding their basic info and the newspapers and works they are known for, of course! Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia In an international encyclopedia it's not appropriate to divide the list into "American" and "Others"! Please rearrange it into a neutral geographical arrangement. See List of women architects as an example - by continent and then by country. PamD 13:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, will do! Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Omnis Scientia But I see your list still started with North America. Why? It's just an ordinary continent and files under "N", even if it's some editors' centre/center of the universe. I'll change it to a neutral A-Z sequence. Also, are the headings to be adjectives or placenames - they were a mixture so I standardised it on adjectives, not sure that was the best choice but at least it's consistent.
- I see that Category:Women sports journalists includes woman from a wide range of countries (India, Greece, Honduras, Venezuela, Spain, just clicking on a few of the entries) - though some may be broadcast journalists rather than sportswriters I suppose, even though the category is a child category of Category:Women sportswriters! PamD 20:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, oh I didn't notice. Will fix that. I kind of got sidetracked there looking for more names outside the U.S. (not a lot, I'm afraid).
- It is odd that sports journalists is a child category of sportswriters, though. Should be the other way around. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know that it makes sense to have a distinction between sports journalists and sportswriters; I thought they were synonyms...unless journalists is meant to include non-written journalism, I guess. pburka (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pburka, sportswriting has a long history which is very interwined with sports itself. Until quite recently, sportswriters even considered themselves as being in the same profession as athletes rather than journalists. Expansion of media from print to television and then internet lessened that connection.
- As for "journalists", those include a wider range of people now, including television analysts, broadcasters, writers, bloggers, and so on. Its a catch-all term, basically. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know that it makes sense to have a distinction between sports journalists and sportswriters; I thought they were synonyms...unless journalists is meant to include non-written journalism, I guess. pburka (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh you've already fixed the order. Thank you! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see this is now progressing. I know from experience that these list require considerable time and effort to develop. I'll try to help out as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Omnis Scientia. A friendly FYI that a list of women sportswriters will be helpful not only while WiR is facilitating our Women+Sports campaign, but also next month, as every September, WiR facilitates a month-long "Women Writers" event. Thanks for starting the conversation on this topic. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to see this is now progressing. I know from experience that these list require considerable time and effort to develop. I'll try to help out as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, will do! Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Living parameter in the biography wikiproject template (and also women in sports)
editWhile going through Category:Biography articles without living parameter, I noticed a slightly disproportionate number of women Olympic athletes were within it. I suspect, but am not certain that this is because of the article run WiR is hosting on Olympic athletes. I wonder if adding "living=no" or "living=yes" can be semi-automated somehow in the WiR article creation process.
Also, as an aside, I noticed Wikiproject Women in Sports is believed to be inactive. Now would be a good time to revive it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I dream of horses: The project is actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport. Thanks for pointing out it is considered inactive. It seems to me the state of activity is frequently based on the extent of editing on the project page and its talk page. This is only one measure of activity and can be misleading. I make wide use of Women's sport when reviewing or assessing articles. The information displayed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Assessment shows that there are now over 138,000 articles carrying the template and that a considerable number of articles are listed under Article alters, etc. I therefore think WhatamIdoing, MSGJ, or other members of WikiProject Council should list it as active.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott Yes, I meant Wikiproject Women's Sport.
- Is anyone actually coordinating with each other to create/maintain the articles of women athletes (or other aspects of womens' sports)? If so, we may as well consider Wikiproject Women's Sport active, and start the
cat herdingprocess of getting people to actually use the project page. If not, is Wikiproject Women's Sport really active? It's not like adding a Wikiproject template takes a lot of effort. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 10:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- On the basis of this discussion and recent activity, I've changed the status of Women's sport to "active". In my opinion, it's one of the most important of the "women" projects listed on sites such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating the group's status.
- A WP:WikiProject is a group of people (i.e., not a subject area, a collection of assessments, or a bunch of pages). If there are no people there, then the group should be marked as inactive. However, if there are people responding to questions, then it should be marked as active. (I suggest using semi-active for borderline or unclear situations.) It's perfectly fine for groups to change their activity levels over time. The main point behind the active/semi/inactive tags is to give people a hint about how likely they are to get the help they need. Unlike, e.g., a WP:PROD tag, marking a group as being inactive does not have any direct consequences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the basis of this discussion and recent activity, I've changed the status of Women's sport to "active". In my opinion, it's one of the most important of the "women" projects listed on sites such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Birth/death date for Puerto Rican nurse Susana Centeno?
editI just started an article on Puerto Rican nurse and public servant Susana Centeno. She is the namesake of the Susana Centeno Hospital. I am having trouble finding her year of birth and death. Best I can find is that she was born in 1911 or 1912 and died before 2006. I also can't find any photographs of her. Hoping someone else may have better luck. TJMSmith (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found this in the Social Security Death Index via Ancestry. Also there's an Ancestry family tree that claims that the same Susana Centeno as in the SSDI has the same names for the parents as the ones in your article. Not sure if this is conclusive under WP:RS standards but seems plausible. Gamaliel (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Birth Date 24 May 1911
- Issue year 1952
- Issue State Puerto Rico
- Last Residence 00949, Toa Baja, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico, USA
- Death Date 11 Dec 2001
PD Image Question
editI asked about this over on Media copyright questions a couple days ago, but no response thus far. So I thought I would bring my question to you good people. I finished an article on Janet W. Hartley the other day and was looking for a potential public domain image for her. I ran across this photo posted by the official social media account for the NIH History Office. Is there any way to figure out if this counts as an "official publication of a US government employee during the course of their work", which would make it public domain? SilverserenC 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe? The problem is that the post doesn't say "... and this is a photo from that 1995 interview" or even "and this is an unrelated NIH photo of her", so, even though that does seem likely, it still might be "and this is a personal photo of her taken by her grand-niece who doesn't have anything to do with the NIH, thank you very much Shirley". But the bottom of the page says "Email: [email protected]". Maybe send a quick email? "Hi, I'm a Wikipedia editor, who wants to know whether this photo you posted on X/Twitter is an NIH photo (which would make it public domain, so we could use it in our article). If it is, would you be so kind as to send a copy of your reply to [email protected]?" --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. Email sent. We'll see if I get a response. SilverserenC 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Slightly less pretty photos that I would consider NIH photos are in the NIH Record here: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/sites/recordNIH/files/pdf/1994/NIH-Record-1994-10-11.pdf --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- True, those are an option. If it comes down to it, which of the two there would you think turns out better if cropped to just be Hartley? SilverserenC 22:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, so I got a response, GRuban. They said that photo in particular was also scanned from an NIH publication (though didn't say which one) and they also linked to this issue as yet another photo option. All of them should be in the public domain, they said. Though I'm not sure I should use the original one I linked above if we don't know the exact source publication it's from. SilverserenC 23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast! Were they kind enough to CC [email protected] (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team)? Then it depends on which VRT person you get. Honestly, I think if an NIH person says that it's an NIH photograph, that should be sufficient, without demanding publication name and page number (after all, the point is not where and when it was published, but that it was taken by the US federal govt); but you could well get a VRT person who demands a shrubbery; I have had one who demanded my article subject scan in and email their driver's license. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I, uh...may have forgotten to ask that part, GRuban. >_>; They did respond again though and said that the specific photo I was asking about was from the 1987 NIH issue of Women in Science, page 138. Also, they linked another issue of the NIH Record with a photo of Hartley. They said that all of these photos of her in NIH publications are public domain and requested that the Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum are put as the attribution as the holders of all said issues. But, otherwise, free to use. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here is the image license template for NIH PD photos: PD-USGov-HHS-NIH TJMSmith (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- So, I can't find information about any magazine called Women in Science. (I can find lots of pages on the subject from various science magazines and websites, including a https://womeninscience.nih.gov/ website, but that says it was created in 2007). The 1987 NIH Record issues can be found at https://nihrecord.nih.gov/past-issues/1987 and I have not flipped through them, but doubt any one has a page 137, they normally run 20 pages or so. So are you quite sure the NIH person meant this was an NIH magazine called Women in Science? If so, again, I'd be willing to take their word for it; but if not, it would be a shame if it turned out to be a Women in Science issue of some different non-NIH magazine, that happened to have a section about the women of the NIH. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I, uh...may have forgotten to ask that part, GRuban. >_>; They did respond again though and said that the specific photo I was asking about was from the 1987 NIH issue of Women in Science, page 138. Also, they linked another issue of the NIH Record with a photo of Hartley. They said that all of these photos of her in NIH publications are public domain and requested that the Office of NIH History and Stetten Museum are put as the attribution as the holders of all said issues. But, otherwise, free to use. SilverserenC 03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast! Were they kind enough to CC [email protected] (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team)? Then it depends on which VRT person you get. Honestly, I think if an NIH person says that it's an NIH photograph, that should be sufficient, without demanding publication name and page number (after all, the point is not where and when it was published, but that it was taken by the US federal govt); but you could well get a VRT person who demands a shrubbery; I have had one who demanded my article subject scan in and email their driver's license. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Slightly less pretty photos that I would consider NIH photos are in the NIH Record here: https://nihrecord.nih.gov/sites/recordNIH/files/pdf/1994/NIH-Record-1994-10-11.pdf --GRuban (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. Email sent. We'll see if I get a response. SilverserenC 21:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.
- Here's the exact quote from the email I received, GRuban. SilverserenC 22:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a similar book on Google books, unfortunately with no preview. TSventon (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that's good enough for me. I uploaded that image and put it in the article. Now if you either (A) want to go for GA or FA or something or (B) have editors that don't like you (basically anyone who might be unusually picky), you probably want to reply to your wonderful quickly-responding NIH contact, and ask: "Thank you so much, but could you please resend that email saying 'The photo appeared in the publication National Institutes of Health Women in Science published in 1987 on p. 138. It is public domain.' to [email protected], CC-ing me?" Then the VRT responder will very likely stamp the file with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PermissionTicket, which will be good enough even for the unusually picky. (Say 90% chance; I am occasionally surprised by the evidence demanded by our fearless volunteers, as mentioned above.) The VRT people will want the link to the Commons file, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Janet_W._Hartley.jpg; including TSventon's Google Books link may help convince a skeptical VRT-er that such a thing did likely exist. --GRuban (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a similar book on Google books, unfortunately with no preview. TSventon (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
A woman on stage
editMarina Kondratyeva, who shaped the history of the stage of the Bolshoi Ballet for 70 years, first as a dancer, then a master tutor, died and appeared among the recent deaths. The attempt to also present her on DYK resulted in a tag for better sources that I hate. Any help in finding secondary sources which may be in Russian (which is very foreign to me). Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me you have already does a pretty good job with your sources, Gerda Arendt. I see there's a snippet in Classical Music Daily which might be considered "secondary". There's also a piece in Oxford Reference but I have not been able to access the full article, even through Wikipedia Library.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also this piece in the NY Times.--Ipigott (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I don't know where they get the 102 from, though. - I did what I could, but that was not enough. I hope for someone knowing Russian, and I hope that the rest of the NYT is more solid and can be quoted by someone who has access. I am busy with two men who died more recently, but really don't want to leave a celebrated ballerian of the #1 ballet in the world with the tag that I think is appropriate when a starlet has nothing but her own website. I am not in a position to remove it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I was able to access the International Encyclopedia of Dance article Ipigott mentioned via Wikipedia library and Oxford reference and searching for Marina Kondratieva (not Kondratyeva). It is only a couple of paragraphs, but every little helps. TSventon (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, can you please add that ref and use it where applicable. I'm busy - two RD articles on the Main page at the same time - and it would also look better if more people showed interest. I guess it's more or less what Classical Music Daily also has, and Oxford looks more serious ;) - Anybody to read the NYT. We got the advice to archive it and then read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- On NYT, it has been suggested that if you remove the cookies, you can read the article in full. My problem is that I don't know how to remove NYT cookies without making a mess of everything else.--Ipigott (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Forget the NYT. It refers to someone else.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, can you please add that ref and use it where applicable. I'm busy - two RD articles on the Main page at the same time - and it would also look better if more people showed interest. I guess it's more or less what Classical Music Daily also has, and Oxford looks more serious ;) - Anybody to read the NYT. We got the advice to archive it and then read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I was able to access the International Encyclopedia of Dance article Ipigott mentioned via Wikipedia library and Oxford reference and searching for Marina Kondratieva (not Kondratyeva). It is only a couple of paragraphs, but every little helps. TSventon (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I don't know where they get the 102 from, though. - I did what I could, but that was not enough. I hope for someone knowing Russian, and I hope that the rest of the NYT is more solid and can be quoted by someone who has access. I am busy with two men who died more recently, but really don't want to leave a celebrated ballerian of the #1 ballet in the world with the tag that I think is appropriate when a starlet has nothing but her own website. I am not in a position to remove it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
There are some questions raised on this talkpage regarding a new biography about Floriane Soulas created as a translation from FR-WP during WiR's July translation editathon. The editors mentioned are Fairouz and Nattes à chat and Lajmmoore. I'm traveling, so I'm hoping that someone else has time to review the matter. Thank you. Rosiestep (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing assistance request
editSorry for making so many threads around here lately. I've been working on this weeks biography article for me: User:Silver seren/Betty Hanley and run into a brick wall. Finding two full length articles entirely about her was easy, popped right up, and I already knew about the third article that mentioned her from previous article work. But, after that...I can't find anything. I've looked high and low through The Wikipedia Library and done a fairly exhaustive Google search. Maybe I'm just not using the right keywords? I feel like there has to be more out there since I found two full length articles about her, one even being from a US paper and not a British one. Anyone have any ideas? SilverserenC 21:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Searching for "Elizabeth Claire Hanley" finds this [2] which indicates her business was "Clare House Limited" DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Found a couple things at the internet archive that might be helpful: [3] [4] Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are perfect! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, you both! SilverserenC 20:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Found a couple things at the internet archive that might be helpful: [3] [4] Gamaliel (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Philippine Art
editI've temporarily subscribed to the Encyclopedia of Philippine Art as the exchange rate is very favorable, making it about $1.37 US a month. I've found it very helpful for Consuelo Padilla Osorio . If anyone wants me to look something up for them please let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
de-orphaning as monthly initiative?
edithello folks, I'm at Wikimania & the head of research just shared this slide about how many women's biographies (across all Wikipedias) & how many are orphans.
this made me wonder whether we should think about a bit more focus on de-orphaning? Lajmmoore (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It could certainly, at least, be a monthly tip. But I like tasks like destubbing and deorphaning. I observe my own informal "December Destub" every year; in the busyness of the holiday season, it's a nice way to keep contributing without the full absorption of creating articles. Penny Richards (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, Lajmmoore. In many cases, women articles deserve to be included in appropriate lists. This is a simple way to de-orphan those displaying the tag. Many of those needing to be de-orphaned have been created by relatively new Wikipedians who also need help with categories and sorting. I spend quite a bit of my editing time trying to help them along. New articles about women are usually displayed on User:SDZeroBot/NPP_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women but as a result of database problems, the list has not been updated since 2 August. For those seriously interested in de-orphaning women's articles, lists can be found here and on similar lists linked from Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the New Page Patrol sorting page has been updated as of 12 Aug. Oronsay (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: Apologies for false alert. Most recent article listed is from 3 Aug, although the report is dated 12 Aug. Oronsay (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just noticed that the New Page Patrol sorting page has been updated as of 12 Aug. Oronsay (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, Lajmmoore. In many cases, women articles deserve to be included in appropriate lists. This is a simple way to de-orphan those displaying the tag. Many of those needing to be de-orphaned have been created by relatively new Wikipedians who also need help with categories and sorting. I spend quite a bit of my editing time trying to help them along. New articles about women are usually displayed on User:SDZeroBot/NPP_sorting/Culture/Biography/Women but as a result of database problems, the list has not been updated since 2 August. For those seriously interested in de-orphaning women's articles, lists can be found here and on similar lists linked from Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- One of the easiest ways to de-orphan biographical articles I've found is adding them to surname list articles. Obviously, we'd want to spread around the biographies more than just that single place, but it's a start. There's also alumni lists for university pages, some lists for certain professions, and other things like that. SilverserenC 15:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm rather doubtful about de-orphaning; many articles don't "need" to be de-orphaned at all - categories are a different matter entirely. Apart from the affiliation lists SS mentions above, which are fine, care should be taken not to shoehorn links into articles where this is WP:UNDUE. For example most biographies of academics & scientists should not be linked to from the pages of their areas of research; there are just too many. Novelists and artists are similar. I know of no evidence that this is an issue affecting female bios more than male - was there any in the presentation? Ok, apparently there was - the slide shown says this. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It says "overrepresented", but not by how much, and given that the pageviews only increase by about 10%, I'm not sure it's all that important. That's not to say I think it would be bad to have a de-orphaning drive, since that is obviously going to improve the encyclopedia! But I'm not convinced, at least not from this slide, that it's a huge issue. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm all in favour of adding to surname lists in particular: it reminds readers that there are Georginas in among the Georges everywhere. For many women (academics etc) it's worth searching on their name to see whether they are cited in other articles so that an "author-link=" can be added to refs. Anyone with a British honour, such as an MBE, will be listed in the relevant honours list and should be linked there - but may be there with a longer form of name, which suggests the need for a redirect as well as a link. I wonder what that "causal evidence" is, showing that de-orphaning leads to 10% more internally-referred pageviews? Does just adding to a surname list do the trick, or is it referring to inclusion in the text of relevant articles? PamD 19:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- To create lists, Petscan might be useful: https://petscan.wmcloud.org/. "British women" and "Orphaned articles", 3 layers deep, found 192 articles, not quite all biographies (and some of pretty dodgy notability). 6 layers deep found random things like Victorian slide bracelet, in Category:Victorian fashion, which led up to Category:Queen Victoria and hence to Category:British women! "Women" and "Orphaned articles", 3 layers deep, found 944. Obviously not all orphaned women would be retrieved there, as some will be more than 3 steps down from "Women", but it's a batch to be looking at. PamD 19:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Deorphaning was discussed about a year ago here, inspired by a paper "Orphan Articles: The Dark Matter of Wikipedia". TSventon (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lajmmoore, sorry that I missed that session! I'm a +1 to de-orphaning as a monthly initiative, (a) particularly if Leila Zia is talking about it at Wikimania. (b) As Penny Richards mentions, some months, veteran WiR editors want/need to shift their workflow. (c) I think article-improvement events have the potential to attract editors from other areas of EN-WP, who might become WiR editors. (d) I think it's fun to have occasional (2? 3? 4? /year) article-improvement events (double-the-lead, add-a-cat, de-orphan, etc.) sprinkled in with our article-creation offerings. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much everyone! It sounds like people regularly de-orphan (great) but that there is also appetite to perhaps use a monthly theme to raise awareness that this is a useful and important task, and is fun to switch up what/how people edit. I'm going to add it to the ideas page - perhaps as "Deorphan December"? De-stubbing could be included too? Lajmmoore (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lajmmoore I attended the same session and am convinced about working on the internal links leading to women biographies and think this is a great idea. Nattes à chat (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just add on this that when I see an "orphan" tag, I often look at "what links here" to check, & pretty often the article isn't actually an orphan - sometimes they have quite a few links. I don't know if the research mentioned above works off the tags or does its own research to get its numbers. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add to this, there's a handy script that will notice this for you: User:DannyS712/deOrphan. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
New page created review
editHello there, I have just created the page LKAB Minerals, someone please take a look at it and improve in any way possible. It would be appreciated.Bdatpal (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal: I've looked at the article but cannot see any close association with women.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response @Ipigott. Could you please direct me to the appropriate channel to get it reviewed (and patrolled)? Bdatpal (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal, Articles are automatically added to the new pages feed, which you can check at at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. There can be substantial delays, but "LKAB Minerals" is showing as reviewed. TSventon (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you TSventon Bdatpal (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal: As the article was also listed as WP Sweden, I have already reviewed it. I check additions to WP Denmark, WP Norway and WP Sweden at least once every two weeks. Please let me know on my talk page if you need assistance with Sweden articles.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer of assistance, Ipigott Could you please guide me on how to find the appropriate WikiProject for any new page I create? Additionally, what’s the best way to notify an available editor to help review and improve the article once it’s under the right WikiProject? Your advice would be very helpful in ensuring the quality of future articles. Bdatpal (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal: You should have contacted me on my talk page on this as your articles do not appear to involve women. I see one more was pending review and I have now reviewed it. I can't offer any further assistance on how to have your articles reviewed more quickly. Things are particularly slow at the moment as there is a backlog on database applications which means listings of new page reviews in specific fields are not being updated as often as usual. Let's see if your future articles are reviewed within a reasonable time. If not, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review the articles, Ipigott. I apologize for not contacting you through your talk page earlier, I was not involved. I appreciate your efforts, especially given the current backlog. I’ll keep an eye on the review process for future articles and will reach out if there are any significant delays.
- Thanks again, and happy editing to you as well! Bdatpal (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal: You should have contacted me on my talk page on this as your articles do not appear to involve women. I see one more was pending review and I have now reviewed it. I can't offer any further assistance on how to have your articles reviewed more quickly. Things are particularly slow at the moment as there is a backlog on database applications which means listings of new page reviews in specific fields are not being updated as often as usual. Let's see if your future articles are reviewed within a reasonable time. If not, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer of assistance, Ipigott Could you please guide me on how to find the appropriate WikiProject for any new page I create? Additionally, what’s the best way to notify an available editor to help review and improve the article once it’s under the right WikiProject? Your advice would be very helpful in ensuring the quality of future articles. Bdatpal (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal: As the article was also listed as WP Sweden, I have already reviewed it. I check additions to WP Denmark, WP Norway and WP Sweden at least once every two weeks. Please let me know on my talk page if you need assistance with Sweden articles.--Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you TSventon Bdatpal (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bdatpal, Articles are automatically added to the new pages feed, which you can check at at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. There can be substantial delays, but "LKAB Minerals" is showing as reviewed. TSventon (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response @Ipigott. Could you please direct me to the appropriate channel to get it reviewed (and patrolled)? Bdatpal (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Earwig's Copyvio Detector
editHello all, I have been getting an error message "Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests". https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ I have been getting the message for about a week. Does anyone know if the Earwig Copyvio Detector is broken? Any recommendations for alternative sites? Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's been broken for quite a while. Over a month, at least. Though it's specifically the internet search part that's broken. If you uncheck "Use search engine" and only have it copyvio check with the sources in the article, it will work. SilverserenC 21:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Silver seren. (and darn it! I liked that little program). --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Calling all GA reviewers!
editHi everyone! Over at Women in Green, we have been keeping track of our backlog of unreviewed GA nominations about women and women's works. At time of writing, this backlog has over 60 nominations still waiting on a review, some of which were nominated last year. asilvering (talk · contribs), who recently coordinated the July backlog drive, which focused on helping new reviewers get started, suggested I bring this up here. If you are an experienced reviewer that can contribute to bringing down the backlog, we would be more than happy if you could help. Or if you are interested in reviewing GA nominations, but haven't yet started, we can provide you with a mentor to help navigate you through the process. Feel free to comment here or over at the WiG talk page if you're interested, we'd love to have your help! --Grnrchst (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And just to add: if you're interested in reviewing but "mentor" sounds a bit formal and you just want someone to check over your first review (or first couple of reviews) before you close them out, we'd be happy to do that too! -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
"Endurance against oblivion: The case of the Articles for Deletion with gender perspective in Wikipedia"
editThis week at Wikimania, I met the authors of "Endurance against oblivion: The case of the Articles for Deletion with gender perspective in Wikipedia". Sharing a link here as some of you may be interested in reading the article. Rosiestep (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi.
- Thanks for sharing it, Rosie. Happy to discuss it if anyone has a comment about the paper. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I read the paper with interest and agree with the difficulties cited about writing about women. What I missed was a firmer, more strategic proposal on how to reduce the number of women's biography deletions, especially on the EN wiki. Perhaps Hiperterminal has some suggestions in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I find myself unimpressed by this paper; it shows a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general. Most deletion of new pages doesn't happen at AfD. The paper doesn't actually show data for how many pages were nominated for deletion by gender, nor for how many were actually deleted. 115 pages is a tiny sample, easily skewed in either direction by a UPE/COI cleanup, for instance. And they confuse cause and effect when they suggest lengthening discussions. Indeed the only concrete finding here is that AfD's for biographies of women scientists attract more attention: and eyeballing their figure, end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well at least it is mercifully short! I think by now we expect "a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general" in papers, don't we? They have adopted the (to my mind) unhelpful and confusing way of describing successfully-defended Afd's as "miscategorizations" (by wrongly "categorizing" the article as non-notable). I think this was first spotted in a paper by Tripodi et al, given a very rough ride here. As usual the possible impact of this project and similar initiatives in - say, possibly - producing more new female bios by very new editors is not even mentioned. That would be super-difficult to handle in statistics, but it should be at least mentioned, to my mind. That "that AfD's for biographies of women scientists [and other types of women I think] ... end with deletion less frequently" is not a new finding - the argument is that the bias is shown in an excess of nominations, which may indeed be the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello both @Hiperterminal is one of the authors, so perhaps you could be mindful of that in the tone it is discussed in, use good faith, and be constructive for how future iterations could be improved. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe I have said anything that I would not say to the author; I hope they read the critique here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Lajmmoore.
- Many thanks for this comment. I was thinking the tone was unnecessarily rude and doubt about myself. I will put a little bit more of love to my research but many thanks for give me a perspective about how I was reading the comments. For me it is very useful. At the end, it is not hard to be constructive, right? Hiperterminal (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello both @Hiperterminal is one of the authors, so perhaps you could be mindful of that in the tone it is discussed in, use good faith, and be constructive for how future iterations could be improved. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
AfD's for biographies of women scientists [...] end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality)
– this was Tripodi's (2021) core finding and none of the nitpicking of that paper on-wiki has actually been able to explain it. If AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs men, then that is ipso facto evidence that more notable women are ending up at AfD than notable men (Tripodi's 'miscategorization'). This is not a positive bias. – Joe (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- Joe Roe there are two possible reasons that might explain why AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs of men: firstly that nominators are more likely to nominate notable women than notable men for deletion and secondly that AfD participants try harder to establish the notability of women than of men. Tripodi accepts the first reason. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point. I suppose Tripodi's conclusion is based on the assumption that AfD outcomes are an accurate test of notability. I think that's a defensible assumption at scale, but certainly not always true. – Joe (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At least 3 possible reasons: #3 being that the long-running furore over "gender imbalance" leads to more new bios by very new editors (often their first and only edits on WP) of subjects that are non-notable, or close to it. It would be amazing if that factor had no contribution. By contrast, many male bios at Afd are COI-ish puff-pieces of lawyers/doctors/businesspeople that have absolutely no chance at Afd. They get a few opposes very quickly, & other regulars don't bother. This probably explains, Joe, "why AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men". They also tend to be on people from areas where notability criteria are more complex (academia, arts, activism), and there is more to debate. Plus there are sorting/alert lists, both on and off-wiki, for female bio afds, but not for male ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I read her paper but as I recall Tripodi found that bios of women aren't more likely to be nominated, just more likely to be kept, which excludes most explanations based on differential article quality. But what you're suggesting is that new articles on women are more likely to fall into a notability grey zone, and therefore produce more contentious/less easily closed AfDs, whereas men's are more clear-cut? This sounds similar to Hiperterminal's hypothesis below. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The three reasons aren't mutually exclusive. Nobody can deny there is a corps of editors who put considerable effort into demonstrating the notability of women scientists, but not men. Many members of this project do so. And that effort is a good thing! But it absolutely skews the length of AfDs. I also agree with Johnbod's thesis, and I don't really think it can be disputed; a movement dedicated to writing new biographies is inevitably going to create a few that are of marginal notability. It is easy to see how those would lead to contentious AfDs that end in keep/no consensus outcomes. Essentially, my point is that the data in this paper speak to the existence and effectiveness of the WIR project and of like-minded editors: it tells us little about why a gender gap persists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I read her paper but as I recall Tripodi found that bios of women aren't more likely to be nominated, just more likely to be kept, which excludes most explanations based on differential article quality. But what you're suggesting is that new articles on women are more likely to fall into a notability grey zone, and therefore produce more contentious/less easily closed AfDs, whereas men's are more clear-cut? This sounds similar to Hiperterminal's hypothesis below. – Joe (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Joe Roe there are two possible reasons that might explain why AfDs of women are more likely to end in keep than AfDs of men: firstly that nominators are more likely to nominate notable women than notable men for deletion and secondly that AfD participants try harder to establish the notability of women than of men. Tripodi accepts the first reason. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well at least it is mercifully short! I think by now we expect "a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general" in papers, don't we? They have adopted the (to my mind) unhelpful and confusing way of describing successfully-defended Afd's as "miscategorizations" (by wrongly "categorizing" the article as non-notable). I think this was first spotted in a paper by Tripodi et al, given a very rough ride here. As usual the possible impact of this project and similar initiatives in - say, possibly - producing more new female bios by very new editors is not even mentioned. That would be super-difficult to handle in statistics, but it should be at least mentioned, to my mind. That "that AfD's for biographies of women scientists [and other types of women I think] ... end with deletion less frequently" is not a new finding - the argument is that the bias is shown in an excess of nominations, which may indeed be the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I confess I find myself unimpressed by this paper; it shows a very poor understanding of the AfD process, and of deletion process in general. Most deletion of new pages doesn't happen at AfD. The paper doesn't actually show data for how many pages were nominated for deletion by gender, nor for how many were actually deleted. 115 pages is a tiny sample, easily skewed in either direction by a UPE/COI cleanup, for instance. And they confuse cause and effect when they suggest lengthening discussions. Indeed the only concrete finding here is that AfD's for biographies of women scientists attract more attention: and eyeballing their figure, end with deletion less frequently: which, in a vacuum, indicates the opposite bias they claim (I'm not saying such a bias exists in actuality). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I read the paper with interest and agree with the difficulties cited about writing about women. What I missed was a firmer, more strategic proposal on how to reduce the number of women's biography deletions, especially on the EN wiki. Perhaps Hiperterminal has some suggestions in this connection.--Ipigott (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. It's interesting that AfDs of women are on average longer than AfDs of men; do you have any ideas on why that might be, Hiperterminal?
- I'm also not convinced by the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between the length of a discussion and the likelihood of a keep outcome, though. I think you're overlooking a potential confounder in the level of consensus. In other words I suspect the causal graph is not:
- Long discussion
- Keep outcome
- Long discussion
- But:
- Low level of consensus
- Length of discussion
- Keep outcome
- Low level of consensus
- Should be amenable to analysis, though. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Joe.
- I am still working on my thesis and developing ideas about the different factors. Another not published yet, are the arguments used in the debates. I still need more data but, I have an idea that notability (or non-notability) is clear for men but not for women or other genders. Seems people can easily vote for non-notable men (2 votes to generate consensus) but where there is a woman, people doubt more if is notable or not, generating a longer debate.
- Many thanks about the comments on conclusion. I didn't know about confounder. This is very useful. Hiperterminal (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedian of the year
editI'm pleased to see that once again the Wikimedian of the year (2024) is a women, namely Clovermoss who has been a member of Women in Red since February 2018. Many of us will remember her by her Editor reflections. Well done, Clovermoss! Quite an achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Slight correction, I joined this WikiProject in February 2019 (I didn't start editing at all until September 2018). Thank you for the ping, I'm honoured to be mentioned here. I've never been the most active on the writing women's biography angle but I do try to improve our coverage on subjects that at the very least women like me are interested in. Some examples of that are: no kid zones, Rock 'n Play, and Creatable World. My only GA is Katherine Hughes (activist). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My congratulations to you, as well, Clovermoss. Well done! Enjoy the honor and I hope you revel in whatever is ahead. BTW... that your only GA is a woman activist... fantastic! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- She was on the redlink list here once upon a time. Now she isn't. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- My congratulations to you, as well, Clovermoss. Well done! Enjoy the honor and I hope you revel in whatever is ahead. BTW... that your only GA is a woman activist... fantastic! --Rosiestep (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Humaniki and the weekly statistics
editHumaniki, the site we use to update our statistics each week, is offline at the moment, returning a 404 Not Found error message. I don't know who to contact about this. Hopefully, another Women in Red editor can follow this up. Oronsay (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Back on air now, but not updated for 12 Aug as yet. Will keep watching. Oronsay (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping a eye on this Oronsay. The person to contact on serious delays is Maximilianklein but last time I alerted him, the problem had been automatically resolved before he had time to look at it. I realize many contributors are interested in seeing when we reach 20% women but let's give it another couple of weeks and see whether things are back to normal again.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Some sensitive assistance required
editI fear I would be too brusque in the required interaction for this, so I'm requesting some help. A little while back, I made the article Joely Proudfit and, well, these edits just happened to the article. SilverserenC 20:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Silver seren: I've included a pertinent template at the top of the article. While it is understandable that the subject of the article is keen to add personal details, this is not acceptable under COI, especially as many of the additions are self-promotional. I think an administrator should revert the article to the version of 25 July. JoelyProudfit should be informed on her talk page that the best way to have suggestions incorporated into the article is to list them in order of priority on the article's source page together with reliable secondary sources. Let's see how things evolve over the next couple of days-Ipigott (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Someone else already added a COI template to her talk page, but she seemed to ignore it. I'll give a little bit of time, but I'm definitely going to eventually just do a wholesale revert of the changes. SilverserenC 14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- She has replied on her talk page now to my COI notification, so hopefully with that, we'll be able to productively help include any COI edits as long as their supported by RS and follow our other guidelines.
- I pointed her to request edits on the article talk page using the COI template and explained the RS requirement.
- I'll let you handle the either reversion or copy-editing if some of their changes are supported by RS, since COI edits are strongly discouraged, but not strictly forbidden, so maybe we don't need a wholesale reversion, but I'll let you judge it based on the content added.
- I just helped step in with the COI note to start when you made your original request here and as I said to the user on their talk page, I'm happy to help guide her on the COI disclosure and edit request portion at least. Raladic (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- After further discussion on their talk page, the user now understands the process, I have pinged you on their talk page to discuss the best path forward and they have started making the edit request process on the article talk page, so I think you should be able to take it from there and work collaboratively with them to help fix issues of the page in line with our guidelines and policies. Raladic (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Someone else already added a COI template to her talk page, but she seemed to ignore it. I'll give a little bit of time, but I'm definitely going to eventually just do a wholesale revert of the changes. SilverserenC 14:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Chairmen of the Public Utility Commission of Texas
editDrafts have been initiated for the five women who have served as chairmen of the powerful Public Utility Commission of Texas (the title of the office is "Chairman"). Any help in getting these drafts finished and moved to mainspace would be of great benefit to this project. Most of these officeholders have also held other prominent positions in public life or industry.
- Draft:DeAnn T. Walker
- Draft:Donna L. Nelson
- Draft:Marta Greytok
- Draft:Peggy Rosson
- Draft:Rebecca Klein (politician)
Cheers! BD2412 T 20:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi friends. Can someone take a look at Gena Rowlands? It's currently nominated as an recent death at WP:ITNC, but has some quality issues. Curbon7 (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)