Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 127

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130

File:Norma_Bengell,_1966_-_Restoration.jpg

It's very overexposed, so this isn't passing FPC, but I'm kind of proud of it. Found it while poking around the interesting women in File:Artistas protestam contra a Ditadura Militar - Tônia Carreiro, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, Norma Bengell e Cacilda Becker - Restoration.jpg. The line across her face in the original was worth removing for her sake, even if the image has some issues still. On a Women-in-Red note, Portuguese Wikipedia has a lot of articles on her films. A glance through its usages on pt-wiki might inspire something. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 11:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What a fabulous photograph! Overexposed or not, it's lovely, and I appreciate the work you do. SusunW (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Aye. Just there are some things that are FP-quality and let me get the relevant articles on the main page. The extra exposure is a bonus, but it's often still worth doing things that aren't going to get that bonus. Norma Bengell deserves not to have a line through her face in the best image we have of her Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 13:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
FP shown on a dozen or so wikis but no article on the en:wiki? Great for first bit Adam, well done. No article on en:wiki?? Thats not right Victuallers (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
You mean the protest? Aye. We cover the 1964-85 Brazillian military dictatorship very badly to start with, I'm not surprised that a lot of stuff's missing. Norma Bengell - and Tônia Carrero, Eva Wilma, Odete Lara, and Cacilda Becker - all have articles, but they're pretty bare bones, and, at the least, Norma Bengell has a ton of films she directed that we don't cover. I'd presume women-created works are equally of interest to Women in Red. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 20:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: Great restoration. As for our coverage of Brazilian actresses, many of our biographies may be a bit thin but we actually have 371 compared to only 309 in Portuguese. You may be right that the article on Bengell could be improved on the basis of the Portuguese but at least I see there's a link to IMDb which lists all her appearances and the films she has directed, etc. Maybe now you've brought this up. someone will go ahead and improve her biography but on this occasion I hope someone more interested in film will step in. As our coverage of film actresses is better than any other category of women, I prefer to work on more specialized performers such as opera singers and ballet dancers, many of whom are still missing. I've looked into our coverage of the military dictatorship. For a start, our article Military dictatorship in Brazil looks pretty good to me (although it needs improvements in referencing) and thanks to you contains the image of Bengell and other actresses. You include the same image in Censorship under the military dictatorship in Brazil. I see we also have 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. Perhaps you could be more specific on what you think is missing or could be improved.--Ipigott (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

a record?

Best Wishes all. I've been writing a new article each day since 2022. Yesterday I noticed that there was a google doodle but the woman mentioned was a woman in red (That should not happen). So she became the new article and I see it had over 75,000 reads yesterday. I suspect this might be a record for a new Women in Red article. Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Impressive. And the new article every day since 2022. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps the Google doodler deliberately chose a woman without an en wiki article, albeit the pl wiki article was started in 2006. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
That had occurred to me. Google does not give wiki the number one return that it used to and they may have been experimenting. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Incredible! — Maile (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well done! Yesterday and the many previous! Innisfree987 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
For Zofia Nasierowska's biography and its 75,000 views, and for all the new articles you've started each day since 2022 → 👏👏👏 --Rosiestep (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's really cool Victuallers. Yesterday Lamona posted the NYT feature "Overlooked No More" that ran on the 23rd on Elizabeth Wagner Reed. It picked up 682 views. No where near your record here, but clearly shows that the media has influence. I was glad to see her work on women scientists acknowledged and it reminded me of all of the editors in WiR who helped write articles on the 22 women in science she discovered. I am thankful you and Rosie created this project and that the editors here are so supportive of each other. SusunW (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Congratulations from me too, Roger. Whatever the Google doodle tie-up, you were obviously ready to follow up on the English wiki. Now we just need to post her as a DYK winner too.--Ipigott (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Well done, Victuallers! Great work. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Query about moving drafts to main space

As an inexperienced editor, I have always happily had help so far in moving my draft articles to main space. I would like to ask then, is it possible or even wise for me to learn how to move articles to main space myself, given that I have done a bit of editing now? Or is it much wiser to ask a very experienced person to check a draft first and then for them to accept it and to move it? And is this the right place to ask or should I go to the Tea House to ask? Thanks for your time and energy! Balance person (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Balance person it depends on how confident you are the draft meets the relevant notability guidelines. If you are finding there are generally no issues, then do feel free to move them article space (see WP:MOVE for instructions...its easy). However if you are unsure, getting a second eye is prudent. S0091 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help S0091. I will give it a go and see what happens! Balance person (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Balance person: Asking here is fine. When we train editors we don't suggest that they submit draft articles. Articles get held there for months while the gatekeepers decide that the new article is almost but not "quite" right. (then wait a few more weeks for same answer). I publish my articles straight to main space, editors who are busy in real life use a sandbox to get together 100 words with three good refs (which is more than sufficient). If you ask at the here at the women in red talk page then someone will be pleased to give a cursory glance at a draft article.... but you should be aiming to throw away the stabilisers and go solo. Do come back here if you want a quick check. Hand holding is always available. We run an editathon (online) on the last Friday of every month in the UK's afternoon which in an hour takes ppl from newbies to published wiki authors. Victuallers (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Great to know about the Fridays as I have been wondering how anybody learns this stuff apart from lurking around the tea room, which I do, to pick up tips. Okay then courage in both hands I will have a go. Thanks! Balance person (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh Dear I have done something wrong! The title has User stuck to the front. Can you help? Sorry! Balance person (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
You need to click the namespace drop-down menu (the one that says "User") and change it to "(Article)". I've fixed it for you now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Bless You! I was all hot and bothered! Balance person (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Just move it again (with the correct title this time), and tag the one with the bad title for deletion with WP:G7. pburka (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Just wondering about those last Friday of the month, one hour long, online training sessions that you mentioned. How would I find out about them and sign up? Are they via zoom or....? I could do with a bit of training. Balance person (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
@Balance person: here ... see you on Friday? Victuallers (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Annette Gough

An editor on the Talk page of this draft is asking for help in getting an article on this academic accepted. I've added an interview in External Links but can't find much else to add - pretty sure Gough is notable but I'm not experienced in WP:NACADEMIC so if anyone else can respond, that would be great - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

All other things aside, she was "awarded an Order of Australia Medal for her services to tertiary education and environmental education" and NACADEMIC 2 says "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". That criteria can be read in a number of different ways, but can easily be construed to cover the sitation of someone who is awarded a national honour for her academic work.
However, from the comments on the AfC, reviewers seem mainly to be having issues of tone and referencing. References must evidence the statement they're attached to. Exceptional claims must have exceptional referencing. I've not looked in detail to see whether the reviewers comments have been addressed since the date on which they were made, but if they have then it would be fair to promote this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There are also a few inline external links, used as references ... they need attending to. I checked out the lead, and find ref 4 supports 'pioneering', so I do think we're good for notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, @Billyboybliss:: see above. The article will be promoted, but ideally the above comments will be addressed. I'll look back in on this in a few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tacyarg: Most of the references from the "Professional works" section are her own publications. It would be more appropriate to remove these and include a small selection of them in a "Selected publications" section. For an academic it's usual to include their uni profile page as an External link: she still has one, and I've added it. Google Scholar link too. PamD 21:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
There is stilla couple of bareurls on the article + 1 or 2 raw search url citations that need updated. scope_creepTalk 21:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The Professional works section is a car-crash :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've promoted it too quickly. I figured at the end of the day it would be quick promotion, but it needs a lot of work. scope_creepTalk 21:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if its worth sending it back for a few days to be rewritten? scope_creepTalk 21:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've removed a section which was just a hook for academic paper refs, subject matter now covered in the select publications section. I think it's okay to leave it promoted. It would benefit from some more experienced eyes, but it will do until then. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The quoted phrase "as she becomes posthuman" is intriguing! What does it mean? I first thought it a euphemism for ageing/dying, but it's from a 2010 book so she was only 60. Artificial hip etc, or what? Puzzling. PamD 05:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
There might be COI here: the editor has contributed to no other articles and seems to have information not found in the sources given. PamD 07:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
PamD, the Weaver book on the posthuman (via Google books) mentions a breast implant. TSventon (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@PamD: I noticed that as well. I couldn't find anything to verify various assertions and blocks. There is a COI. She is absolutely notable but there is virtually nothing that is not primary. One reference possibly. Today it's either going to go to back to Afc or be cut to a stub, mentioning her academic career, the A0 i.e. what is verifiable with a list of top cited papers. I can't do anything with it at the moment. scope_creepTalk 10:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Books

I've just added this year's shortlisted titles to List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners: there are two red-linked books by blue-linked writers, and three red-linked books by red-linked writers, in case anyone is looking for a book to write about. (The 6th one, a blue-linked title by a blue-linked writer, is Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead). Being shortlisted doesn't confer notability, but those titles are likely to have had enough reviews in WP:RS to qualify. PamD 08:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I realize this is a UK award for books but perhaps it should be listed in List of awards honoring women.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is listed in List of media awards honoring women but not List of awards honoring women, which excludes media awards. TSventon (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon Thanks for the reminder: I've added Women's Prize for Non-Fiction to that list, although it won't be awarded till next year. PamD 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Training? - chat? - 60 editathons?? last Friday of each month

At 1 pm UK time on the last Friday of every month there is a free training session hosted by Ewan McAndrew at (and on-line) in the University of Edinburgh Library. There have been about sixty so far. We get people joining us from Spain, Norway, New York and in one case a bleary eyed Californian. Its all very laid back, you turn up and leave when you like. The cleverest thing is that at 1:15 we can have a newbie on line and within an hour they have created their first wikipedia article. There are several regulars including me. Badged with "Women in Red" there is Lots of stuff about suffragettes, witches, scots and wikidata. Edinburgh Uni encourages students as well with an Edinburgh Award based around a researched Wikipedia article. The link is here. All welcome obvs. Victuallers (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for alerting me to these events. I hope to do the one in May as I am already booked for this April day. Looking forward very much to the training. Balance person (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Victuallers, for letting us know about these regular training sessions. I must say your Edinburgh Workshop Page provides many useful links to those who are keen to learn more about Wikipedia editing. I was wondering if we should not add this or something similar to one or more of our essays. I think it's the first time I have seen it myself and it could prove useful to other newcomers.--Ipigott (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The work at Ed Uni is amazing. Ewan has been there for some years and his boss and his assistants are very helpful. These are not my pages but his or theirs. Ewan has won awards for his work including a Woman in Red Barnstar. He is currently advertising for another assistant. I'm sure he'd be pleased if we (re)used the stuff with attribution and links. Victuallers (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, Stinglehammer has been doing a wonderful job with all this. It looks to me as if the first few sections of the page (i.e. down to "Training guides") would be really useful to newbies as well as to those organizing editathons and similar events. While the rest is certainly interesting, it could be counter-productive to provide too much information to those not specifically involved in the Edinburgh workshops. I therefore have two suggestions. We could either include a link to the page as it is in one or more of our essays, e.g. the Primer or the Ten Simple Rules, or with the help of Stinglehammer and the Edinburgh team we could encourage a few minor adaptations to make it an essay in its own right. Perhaps we could do both. In the meantime, I have included it under "Tools and lists" on my own user page and will bring it to the attention of any new WiR members who seem to need this kind of assistance. It might also be useful to include a word about it under our Announcements.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
As this has attracted no reactions, I've gone ahead and linked the page under See also to both the Primer and the Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheryl McKissack Daniel

Hi, I'm looking for help with Draft:Cheryl McKissack Daniel. Cheryl is the President & CEO of the construction company McKissack & McKissack, one of the largest minority and woman-owned construction and design companies in the US. I submitted the draft for review at Articles for Creation on behalf of McKissack & McKissack as I have a conflict of interest as an employee of the company. Unfortunately, the editor who reviewed the draft declined it. In my estimation, she does have good media coverage and recognition as a female and minority leader in the construction industry. I'd love a second set of eyes for thoughts on what might be missing or any improvements I can make, or perhaps to look again at the existing references. Karen at McKissack (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Karen at McKissack: I see there is a detailed article on McKissack & McKissack which has been under development since 2011. It seems to me that much of the information in your draft could serve to document the more recent history of the firm. In general, Wikipedia does not encourage new biographies which are drafted by those who are closely associated with the subject, especially if they are being paid for their efforts. Perhaps a first step would therefore be to make some suggestions on the talk page of M & M on key developments which could be included, with appropriate citations. One of the recent contributors such as PigeonChickenFish may then be ready to follow up on improvements. That is not to say that others may be ready to work on your biography, making it less promotional and more objective.--Ipigott (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Karen at McKissack: I'm pleased to see that you have indeed been making suggestions on M & M talk page, most of which have been followed up. It would therefore seem reasonable to continue.--Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Polite request

Hello, I have drafted a page on Beverley Beech the UK birth activist who died recently. As I am not yet very experienced, I wonder if someone would take a look and see if it is in good enough shape yet or not. I am trying not to bother the same super helpful people I normally bother as I know you are so busy....so I am posting the request here! Thanks in advance for any help offered. Balance person (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Balance person: How are you? I've taken a look. I'll drop a comment on your talk page. The subject seems to be notable but the article needs some work, before it is posted. scope_creepTalk 10:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Good to see how many contributors have been working on this. Looks to me as if it is now ready for article space.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Well done to everyone involved. I opened up the article to see what could be improved, but there is very little! Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC draft limbo

If anyone has the time and inclination to beef up a few left-behind AfC drafts on authors/academics, these people are very likely to be notable, but in this state, the articles won't likely be accepted. These are all by editors with few or no edits outside of these drafts, so I think declining them might mean they just hover in limbo for six months and then get speedy-deleted as expired.

asilvering (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

And Draft:Sarah Pettit, who should absolutely have a Wikipedia article, but hopefully one sourced to things other than her obituaries... -- asilvering (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The Daily News from Feb 12 1999 has a tiny bit on her hiring at Newsweek, and the NYT (via Atlanta Constitution, Dec 9 1997) has a slightly bigger piece on her ousting at Out. Other than that I couldn't find much beyond her being quoted a ton. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikilibrary links die. Daily News,AJC, also this review of the magazine premier[1], and 3-part article quotes her a lot[2],[3],[4], Bay Area Reporter from 1996 article shows she took over as editor-in-Chief when Goff left. Numerous issues of the BAR in archive.org may have more info. SusunW (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikilibrary links die. Yeah I figured that was the case so I included the dates just in case. If you make a Newspapers account (to enable clipping) does it get linked to your Wikilibrary access? I was worried signing up would mess up my access (given the ongoing login verification issues at WL). JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
JoelleJay, yes, the dates and paper names were helpful for finding them. I don't know the answer to your question. My subscription is from the Wikilibrary, but it isn't part of the bundle, it's an individual subscription. I am probably not explaining it well, because, you know, something technical. I applied, they approved it and I have to remember to renew it annually. SusunW (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Ania Malinowska Book reviews I think is needed. She is notable. There should some really good ones, post structural analysis possibly, some analysis of the poetry would be ideal. I've advanced a couple of other ones to articles. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
One issue in the case of Pettit is simply that the refs were not formatted in a way that made clear how much secondary sourcing was in the entry. This is a real challenge since it’s understandable in both directions that new editors might not know how to do that properly (or why it’s so important), but it’s also a great deal of extra work for AfC reviewers to check the links individually. Thank you for flagging these drafts; it may be that our jumping in is really the only hope for trying to retain new editors who might get discouraged by a rejection and give up. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about that - I think scopecreep understood the references fine and was just asking for more secondary coverage. I didn't want to accept it in that state either. The problem you describe certainly does happen, though. I just read a draft that hid notability-qualifying coverage in "external links" rather than a footnote. A perfectly reasonable place to put the info, from a new writer's perspective, but certainly not making things easy for reviewers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure why their comment would reference the staff obit in assessing the sourcing unless they didn’t see the two other independent RS obituaries. Also for my money three independent RS obituaries is sufficient to accept a draft, that’s well above the 50% chance of passing AfD threshold IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I've improved and resubmitted the first one. I hope to get to the others. Thanks for highlighting these. @Netherzone, if you are looking for articles to work on....? CT55555(talk) 13:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping CT5, will have a look...seems like several are notable and have been resubmitted. Netherzone (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for posting and if I have some time, I'll work on those. Here's another one in draft limbo, which I finished recently--> Draft:Kara Eberle. I'm hoping it can become a page and moved to the mainspace. Historyday01 (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
When you're finished improving a draft, make sure you hit the blue "resubmit" button! That adds it back to the AfC pile. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's another one: Draft:Georgia Black. Obviously notable early 20thc Black trans woman; drafter hasn't returned to address AfC comments. (Probably an undergrad who wrote this for a class.) Note that Black on Both Sides is a nonfiction work, not a novel. -- asilvering (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The editorial politics of Wikipedia

I find the experience of editing on Wikipedia so tiring sometimes. The only agenda I have here is to make knowledge about people who were born outside of the English speaking word and without a penis, but whom have nonetheless made a significant contribution to humanity, more accessible.

So today I made a new entry about a Slovak female astronomer who was the first Slovak to discover a minor planet and was a faculty member at a major national university for some 20 + years. Because she lived before the internet became widespread, I went to an actual library and collected high quality secondary sources about the subject. My article thus refers to a printed encyclopedia as well as to an obituary published in an astronomy magazine, written by the head of the Slovak Astronomical Society as well as an online list of alumni of the university where she studied. All clearly non-biased, secondary sources completely independent of the subject.

A short while later my article gets tagged "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies..." blah, blah, blah. No explanation what the problem actually is. The editor who added the tag has a deletionist rant on his user page about how this place needs to be purged of all content he does not consider to be in line with his own ideas about what an encyclopedia is. In addition to removing other peoples' work his agenda seems to consist mostly of "mapping all populated places in Arizona", that is creating articles about hamlets with six houses. Obviously these are all notable topics, unlike some lady who discovered celestial objects but failed to be an American and thus is of no relevance for the world.

This is not the first time this happened either. Not long ago I created an article about young Romani actress who played main characters in several shows aired in the prime time on several national television channels. The article was sent to draft by a Pakistani editor whose own articles routinely use twitter posts as their sole source. The man clearly does not speak a word in Slovak or has any understanding whatsoever of the Slovak culture or society. I resubmitted the article, after few weeks it was rejected by a British editor. Unlike the previous one, at least he provided a reason - he google translated titles of some sources and they seemed to him to be "introductory in nature". These are actually articles in mainstream, non-tabloid outlets. I found even more sources and have been patiently waiting for another review for weeks now.

About a month earlier I created an article about a former government minister who served as an MP in the national parliament for 10 years. It was tagged as potentially not meeting the notability guidelines of a website that hosts hundreds of profiles of Soundcloud rappers. Again no explanation, nothing.

I try not to take things personally, respect the rules of this place and i am thankful to all experienced editors who give me feedback to my work. But sometimes I wish this place was not so obsessed with deleting all content that is not about old, dead, white men from the English speaking world. Newklear007 (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Newklear007. I've gone ahead and marked the article as reviewed and have removed the tag, as she is likely notable via her entry in a national biography. Curbon7 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you.:( Newklear007 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
2 points: WP:POLITICIAN says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are presumed to be notable. Your last sentence is ridiculous, and rather offensive. But many taggers do not know our policies. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
You are right, I apologize. Newklear007 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
No need to apologize Newklear007, I was just writing something in draft yesterday saying much the same thing as you are saying here. You weren't saying all content about "old, dead, white men from the English speaking world" should be deleted and we all know it's true as Johnbod points out that some of them were notable politicians and judges; you were saying you wished wikipedia could include more content about other people who are notable too, taken from the rest of the world's diverse population. Mujinga (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, how did I know it would be Onel. They've been taken to ANI repeatedly for their terrible tagging and deleting. But their deletionist friends always defend them and give excuses and we go around the wheel all over again. It's a cycle. An annoying one. SilverserenC 14:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Newklear007 I used to be able to look at how many edits and how many articles an editor created, but with this new format I cannot figure out how to do that. So, my best advice to you is not to send articles to AfC, ever. It isn't a required process for people who are signed in and have a certain edit count. You can post a draft here or ask an editor you trust to look at it if you aren't confident in moving it to mainspace yourself. I always try to remember that not every editor is a good collaborator, so rather than allowing it to frustrate me, I ask someone I know is a good collaborator to assess my work. I agree that writing on WP is hard and learning the processes is insanely difficult, but that's why we have this page to help each other. Good luck. SusunW (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I'd suggest rather than working on your draft articles in draftspace, you should work on them in your personal userspace. So for you, that would be User:Newklear007/Article name which prevents them from being subject to the automatic 6 month deletion with no edits procedure. As SusanW said, all forms of draftspace and AfC should be avoided. SilverserenC 16:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Both good suggestions. Afc is volunteering to be a target. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Newklear007, I am so glad to know you. I agree 100% with the suggestions above. It will take unnecessary stress off your mind and allow you to be the Rainbow that you are and share your colours with the world through the editing of subjects you are interested in. Creativity flourishes when it is given the room to grow and our policies should be protection for that development so long as it meets the basic requirements for inclusion much like my greenhouses protect my plants from the harsh climate. --ARoseWolf 16:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I also agree with Susun's suggestion to avoid AfC and draft space. I would more strongly avoid using your personal userspace as well, because too many well-meaning editors will take drafts in personal userspace and move them to draftspace and subject them to all the problematic behavior your new articles have been subjected to. Instead, I create all my new articles off-Wikipedia, and then only put them onto Wikipedia when they are fully written. You can use your sandbox without saving for previewing the article appearance if you need to. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
How are they even finding userspace pages? I routinely write drafts in my userspace (i.e. User:pburka/Some page in progress) and have never been disturbed there. If someone started moving around pages in my userspace without asking me first, I'd be furious. pburka (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised too. I've had several userspace articles around for years. Just never got back around to working on them. SilverserenC 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
We definitely have editors moving other people's userpages into draftspace, but maybe that mainly happens when an article-submission is made for the userpage; see e.g. Special:Diff/1139411635 or Special:Diff/1126289008. Technically, the WP:CSD#G13 six-month timeout applies to userspace drafts, not just to drafts in draftspace. And we had significant controversy in WP:AN and WP:ANI maybe four years back when a prolific mathematics contributor wanted to hold onto what certain editors thought of as too many drafts, resisted those editors' attempts to eliminate the drafts by redirecting them to sort-of-related topics, and got topic-banned for resisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, good to know because I have a LOT of userspace drafts, and perhaps its time to move at least some of those off Wikipedia until they are ready. Historyday01 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
G13 should only apply if you've put an AFC template on the userspace draft. pburka (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
May I just add that there can be advantages to preparing new drafts in user space rather than off wiki. I frequently try to assist less experienced editors improve their drafts but cannot do so if they are not accessible. One way of seeing what new or potential members have been doing is to look at their contributions, which frequently include draft creations in sandboxes. A user space draft can then be created and then moved to article space after a few minor improvements. It seems to me that for most new contributors the risk of having a draft deleted six months later is not too significant. The most important thing is to avoid AfC-related delays and refusals and encourage them to become successful contributors.--Ipigott (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fair. At least half of my drafts are in the notes stage, so I don't think it would be a problem. Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Newklear007 It looks like you are doing excellent work. Thank you for writing articles on some interesting women. I would encourage you not to get discouraged. If/when similar problems arise in future, just remember you can always bring these issues here to WIR. The editors here are very supportive and well versed in wikipedia's policies. When an article is clearly well written with supporting sources that meet our notability guidelines (as your articles appear to be), this group will have your back. Inevitably wikipedia's open door policy to all editors (which is both a strength and a weakness) means that at times as an editing community we have to deal with problems like these. That's one reason why WIR exists, to provide support for editors like yourself. I would suggest not to take it personally, and just keep calm and bring it here and let us help you. In the end, policy based arguments usually win the day, and you are clearly editing within wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and making valuable contributions to the encyclopedia.
On a side note, if editors here want to take a look at Draft:Alžbeta Ferencová for Newklear007 that would be helpful. I took a cursory look, and I feel its a border line call in favor of moving it into mainspace, but would appreciate a second opinion. There is in-depth coverage, but largely in the context of interviews with the subject which lack independence. Some of the other articles appear highly promotional. I do think she passes WP:NACTRESS criteria 1, and that overall the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:BASIC. I just wish there was a source that was obviously independent and not a puff piece on the actress which is something not currently in evidence. She's young, so it might be difficult to locate that type of RS for someone this early in her career. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed up all the references and added a bit more content. I think she easily meets notability requirements, since coverage of her is extremely consistent across all Slovakian media going back 15 years. She just has a very varied job history that makes it hard to summarize, reminding me a lot of Yara Salman. SilverserenC 19:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red supporter on Sky Sports

"Wheres Russo?" Sky Sports profiled Lewes FC including Women in Red Barnstar winner James Boyes at the end of March. James has donated 1000s of images of leading women soccer players and they add the vital picture to making these people visible. Victuallers (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This is really really cool! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Welcome template

Does WiR have a talk page welcome template? If so, could someone give me a link? If not, it would be really helpful for someone to make one! -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Asilvering: I personally welcome all new members, adapting my welcome to their previous experience (if any). You may remember I welcomed you on your talk page on 23 November 2021. I also frequently suggest membership to those who could contribute to the project. Maybe this kind of approach is not what the project requires. If so, let's work on improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
What I'm looking for is a welcome message for people who aren't in the project yet and might be interested. In particular, I tend to want to do this after declining AfC drafts made by editors who have clearly done competent work, but have problems like finding appropriate sources, showing notability, using footnotes the way Wikipedia editors expect, etc - basically, good writers who just haven't learned "Wikipedia" itself yet. There are a set of canned welcome messages for various Wikiprojects in Twinkle; that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. If it could be done with a tone like "we're here to reduce barriers to new editor participation", that would be especially ideal. I find a lot of the AfC decline messages are a bit patronizing to dump on someone who is obviously themselves a historian. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
And yes, I do remember your kind welcome. And I think you should keep doing that! :) -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Asilvering: We have Template:WikiProject Women in Red invite which encourages people to join the project. You might like to develop a more detailed invitation for the particular cases you have in mind. We could also add a few more explanations about the help our project offers to newbies on our main Women in Red page or on our New members page. There, for example, we could have:
"Welcome to WikiProject Women in Red (WiR). Our objective is to turn red links into blue ones. Our scope is women's biographies – real and fictional – as well as women's works, broadly construed. We are always ready to help those who are experiencing difficulties in having their articles accepted or who need assistance in connection with the technicalities of Wikipedia editing." (Now added to Template:Women in Red new members header.)
Maybe you could improve on this.--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I'll see about getting it added to Twinkle for extra convenience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Asilvering: I think your idea of telling AfC proposers that "there is a project who would provide support to you in developing articles about notable women" sounds like a great one. We need to be a place of nurture for the enthusiastic. Victuallers (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This (a place of nurture for the enthusiastic), please, and more of it. --ARoseWolf 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Asilvering: I've also adapted the invitation template to include "...and assisting contributors who run into difficulties." I think it will therefore now be suitable for those who face problems at AfC or who experience difficulties with their early creations. Let's hope it will be used more widely as we certainly need to increase the project's membership. In my own experience, most of those I encourage to join, actually sign up. KylieTastic may be interested in these developments.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Francesca Minerva, co-founder of the Journal of Controversial Ideas

I recently created a draft for Italian philosopher Francesca Minerva, a co-founder of the Journal of Controversial Ideas. I’m not sure if she meets the notability threshold. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

One book is seldom enough by itself to get a scholar over the wiki-notability bar. We usually look for multiple books, each of which has received multiple reviews in scholarly publications (say, found in JSTOR). The Journal of Controversial Ideas is barely two years old and doesn't appear to be a flagship journal of philosophy, so I don't think we could argue for wiki-notability on those grounds. XOR'easter (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the way to notability would be GNG. She’s gotten a bit of press over the last the years. Not sure if it stacks up to meet notability yet. Thriley (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think thats likely, however at the mo just re-directing her name at the journal article would achieve 90% of the info about her. Is there some more stuff about her? Is there a generously licensed portrait of her? Victuallers (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure. She’s not just known for co-founding the journal. I’ll have to see what I can find. Thriley (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about illustrating women articles with drawn portraits

Hello ! I'm the new president to les sans pagEs, and we created a project aiming at illustrating women articles with drawn portraits of artists contributing on a voluntary basis. There is an ongoing discussion here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Les_sans_images for which your help would be greatly appreciated. Warm regards Sinkra (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nattes à chat writing here (changed my pseudo last september). There are so many articles without illustrations that I don't understand why one would want to delete these drawings that were generously given by artists and published under free license. I find the ongoing criticism about les sans image's initiative tiresome and cumbersome and so typically unproductive in generating long mountains of discussions. Hyruspex (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Because it's easier to destroy than to create. In the time that it takes an artist to create a drawing, someone can delete a hundred, and feel that they have been productive and contributed to the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
See WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
An example, I think, is the image I was surprised to see added to Eileen Kramer recently. I'm not sure it is useful. Best to keep discussion in one place, just thought I'd offer an example of a WiR article to which an image has been added. PamD 23:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Voting in the 17th annual Picture of the Year contest

An announcement received via Wikimedia-l informs us that the final round of voting to determine the 17th annual Wikimedia Commons "Picture of the Year" is now open. Cast your vote here. This round of voting will be open for 2 weeks. Any user with more than 75 edits before Jan. 1, 2023 is eligible to vote; if you're not sure, the voting tool will automatically check for you. If you have any questions, there's also a help page. Rosiestep (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cool thanks for the heads up @Rosiestep! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Amanda Berry Smith by T. B. Latchmore.jpg

Well, this took long enough, eh? Article created in a 2018 editathon. I do think I deal with some of the stuff that was wrong with this image a lot faster nowadays, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 14:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Four in one!

I was looking at the redlists for WIR 269 (Education) and skimming through Crowd-sourced educators looking for someone interesting from a CEE country for a double hit ... I found the Polish Wanda Szuman, who would also count as "U,V,W", and then later found that she was a pioneer of special education so ticks the "disability" box too! Not a great stub as I don't read Polish and can't find a portrait (I'm a bit hazy about the special dispensation for using copyright images when it's a dead person so no chance of getting a new picture - if you know we can use the one from here please do so!) but I have included a few snippets of information which seem reliably sourced with the help of Google Translate, and she was obviously an amazing woman - and lived to 104.

But looking at the Polish article raises interesting questions: as I understand it, we are "allowed" to make an exact, attributed, translation of an article from another Wikipedia. But a lot of this one is unsourced. So even if I was confident of the Polish, would I be allowed to add, for example, the list of honours, which don't seem to be in the sources? We don't allow other Wikipedias as WP:RS, but there seems to be a different approach if we're translating. Anyway, I've stuck to what I can source with confidence. PamD 12:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Great find PamD! According to this she has a biography in the Polish Biographical Dictionary, but I cannot access it from here. The links just spin forever, perhaps you can access Polskiego Słownika Biograficznego? Or perhaps Piotrus can help? SusunW (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW I'll see what I can do. Found a good source: [5]. Not OCRed, sadly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Perfect chance to use the tip of the month! Phone + google translate + camera = translation. (or convert it to OCR with https://www.pdf2go.com/ SusunW (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Given the bad scan quality this may be challenging, fortunatel I can read badly scanned Polish. I'll try to use this article as a source. As for PSB, sadly, their webpage has issues (it does open, but is very slow, I've been stuck at their search for ~10 minutes, and I can't even confirm they have her biography online) and in either case it's very selective (most entries are nota available on it due to copyright...). Realistically if we want a PSB entry I'd have to ask someone in Poland to scan it from a library :( Good news is that that are quite a few other rreliable sources about her, although not all of them are online. Here's an OCRed academic article (in Polish) about her family [6]. And Here's another biography from a regional Polish biographical dictionary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Ps. I got to [7] which suggests her biography is not available online from PSB (at least now). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
PPS. The badly scanned article is just a review of an entire book about her, which is fortunately available online - if in Polish: [8]. I've added all good sources I found to the article as refs. Note that there are mor sources, but possibly not online, ex. from the bibliography of said badly scanned article: Kossakowski (1980), Łapicz (1997) and Wałęga (2005). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • PamD: Where exactly did you discover that we are allowed to make an "exact, attributed, translation of an article from another Wikipedia"? I never include anything in my "translated" articles unless I can find the kind of sources which would be valid for any article created on the EN wiki (but perhaps I've been spending hours looking for sources in other languages when a literal translation would have been accepted). As for photos of people who are no longer with us, I don't think I have ever included any which would not qualify for Commons although from time to time I see some in articles created by SusunW. To return to the translation problem, perhaps we could request explanations from Rosiestep who often includes literal translations, or from Dr. Blofeld who pioneered Intertranswiki.--Ipigott (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Ipigott That was an unsourced statement of mine, just what I think is the case! But I'm also confused about our attitude to whether or not we trust machine translation - the tip to photo and use Google translate gets us the gist of the article, or the broad subject topic, but I wouldn't want to use it for anything more except the odd short phrase here and there (eg I used Google translate for her date of birth as I don't know the months in Polish). PamD 14:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    My understanding is that we can freely translate text from other Wikipedias, because they all use the same license. That is, we don't need to worry about rewriting in our own words. But we still need to follow EN wiki's notability and sourcing guidelines. pburka (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Pburka But just as for WP:Copying within Wikipedia we need to acknowledge the work done by other editors and can't just copy, or translate, their work without attributing it. See Help:Translation#License requirements. PamD 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Ipigott Well, I suppose my source is the text you get if you click "show" in the "Expand from other language" template, as currently showing on Wanda Szuman. "Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations", OK, but then "translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate", so accurate is good, and then "Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.", but no mention of what to do about unsourced content. There's a bit more at Help:Translation, including "If portions of an article appear to be low-quality or unverifiable, use your judgment and do not translate those portions."
    I'll stick to trying to find English-language sources or using minimal snippets of information, though the result, as here, is not a wonderful article. But perhaps at least a start, better than nothing: a stub with categories etc, some useful sources, a link to Polish wikipedia for those who can read it, etc. PamD 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you've made a good start. Unfortunately there are many poorly sourced articles in other language versions but that doesn't mean the people covered are not notable. Many, like this one, obviously are.--Ipigott (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I started doing translations in the early days (2015? 2016?) of Preferences→Beta features→Content Translation (which doesn't work for me anymore). Since then, I've complied with the instructions set forth in WP:TRANSLATION/Help:Translation. Generally, I stick with translating from languages I've studied in school or spoken at home, though there are a few other languages I'm comfortable translating from these days. As for sources in other languages, EN-WP allows the use of them, so I do include them. I always look for additional EN-langauge citations, which I prefer to include as "in addition to" rather than "instead of" (it's my way of being culturally respectful to the original editor). If the other-language Wikipedia article has an unsourced paragraph, and if I can't find a source for it myself, I don't include it in the EN-WP article. Unfortunately, many articles in other-language WPs don't include WP:IC so commonly, I avoid those altogether. If I'm skittish about the ELs in other-language articles, I don't include them. I like including ISBNs and ISSNs in "Selected works" sections, so if the other-language article doesn't include them, I search for them myself. Lastly (more like, firstly), I treat translations with the required respect for attribution, e.g., include Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution. in the edit summary; include {{Translated page|fr|Exact name of the French article}} on the EN-WP talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi all, when using machine translation of texts from Slavic languages for the Geofocus event, please remember to double check if the names you get out of the translation are in nominative case (= the same form as in the names of the articles). If needed, I can assist with Polish, Czech and Slovak names. GiantBroccoli (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    The MOS and individual WikiProjects additioally have transliteration guides. This will be most prevalent for Russian and other translations which involve a change from Cyrillic to Latin script. Curbon7 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
PS. What is U,V,W ? :) W=Women? U=university...? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Piotrus It's the Alphabet Run: U-W. Thanks for all your work on the little stub I started. Looks good. PamD 06:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@PamD I think we should be able to DYK it if not GA it :) Thanks for starting it! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Looks fine as a candidate for DYK but will need significant further development for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    @PamD @SusunW @Ipigott I've done expanding it for now, it should be DYK ready at this point (who'll nominate it?). I concur for GA we would need more expansion, the good news is that the sources we have now are sufficient even without the PSB bio (they are just in Polish...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Piotrus Thanks again. I've added mention of one of her published books, as it illustrates her involvement with blindness which I think I found in several google-translated sources I looked at - and the Worldcat record is another which shows her surname as "Szumanówna", too. She seems to have written several books, though the Polish wikipedia article doesn't include a "Publications" section. PamD 07:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been in and out all week because Monday was my birthday and I'm lucky to have a lot of friends who want to celebrate. Thanks Piotrus, I knew you would help. PamD, I always have trouble with the "conjugation" of nouns - a friend explained some (like "ówna" for an unmarried woman, versus "owa" for a married one) designate gender or status, whereas others denote whether it is a subject or object. (The only place in the world I've been where could not read a map was Croatia, because of that. Street names on the map did not match the street signs.) I have a slew of polyglots I ask about these things because it's confusing to me. Pleased to see that the article has expanded so well. SusunW (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@PamD Now DYK-nominated: Template:Did you know nominations/Wanda Szuman Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of draft with COI

Hi all, I have done some work on a draft article on the bilingual Irish poet Deirdre Brennan. The draft was started by her daughter who attended a workshop I ran a few years ago. Given the COI, I'd appreciate if anyone else could take a look at it. She should have a Vicipéid (GA) article soon regardless, but she is an award winning poet so I feel she passes notability. All help much appreciated! Smirkybec (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an unimpeachable article, presuming the refs check out - I make that assumption. There are just two sentences which are unreferenced, in first two in P4 ("Her two collections...") and the claims made in those sentences are not so sensational as to demand referencing. Article seems distinctly neutral and informative, no trace of a COI agenda in it. I'd be happy to see it promoted as is. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking a look! That sentence you mention could probably be removed given the information is in the list of works? I have followed up on all the citations and expanded them as much as possible. Given her period, I'd imagine more is available pre-digital in Irish newspapers so I might do a bit of work on that first. Thank you very much for the initial review! Smirkybec (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I have been bold and published the article Deirdre Brennan - she is also on Vicipéid as well! Smirkybec (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Looks good; well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Immigrate vs emigrate - Antonija Höffern

Hi. I'm not sure whether the word immigrate or emigrate is the applicable one for the article Antonija Höffern. Can someone help me out? Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

They're equally correct in this context. The difference would matter if you were only talking about the origin country or the destination country, but since both are mentioned, either immigrate or emigrate works. pburka (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Dr.Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri

Dr.Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri is a women who achieved many accolades in her career. Can someone write about her. I found good sources while doing Google her name. GM Nova (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

GM Nova: For biographies on Wikipedia, particularly those of living people, it is important to find good secondary sources, such as detailed coverage in newspapers and journals or in connection with awards. Those directly associated with the subject are not acceptable for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I just started the draft of Harsha Bhargavi Pandiri. Please contribute here if anyone has information about her. GM Nova (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Help identifying a person (or two) in a set of photos

Heya! Found these images on the BBC 100 Women article's talk page with the uploader asking help identifying the women in these photos already back in 2021. They are still unidentified 2+ years later. Is the woman on the righthand side Miky Lee (wikidata:Q12611423) perchance?

The woman on the left I do not recognize at all. Thanks for all the help on this! - Yupik (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Miky Lee only got the award in 2022, not in 2019. We have https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49856545 which gives a speakers list for the 2019 event. We know that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20191017_BBC_100_Women_2019_img07_Lisa_Campo-Engelstein_PhD.jpg is Lisa Campo-Engelstein, who is second on the "Afternoon session", and was taken (EXIF) at 17 October 2019, 14:57:02. These pictures were taken at 17 October 2019, 14:24:55 through 14:31:34, so half an hour earlier. The speaker immediately preceding Lisa Campo-Engelstein in that list is Jung Chang, of whom we have a picture of in our article which seems pretty close to the woman on the right side, and in the BBC photos of her https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0009bmk and https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140620-jung-chang-after-wild-swans, with her hair swept to one side, she seems even closer. The ones before her in that speakers list are Nanjira Sambuli and Erika Lust, who are clearly not the woman in that photograph. I'm going to say that is Jung Chang, 90% sure. The woman on the left is presumably a BBC interviewer, since there is another in the Lisa Campo-Engelstein photos. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Great work, GRuban. I'd say it is 99.8% chance it is Jung Chang, as the photo at [9] has the same brooch and scarf, and the date is exactly the same, being 17 October 2017. On March 19, 2020, she appears in this video with the exact same brooch. [10]. I would say it is safe to say it is her, given all this corroborating evidence. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Definitely great detective work, GRuban! Somehow I thought Lee got it already back in 2019 :D Would you like to do the honors of tagging the photos in Commons? :) And thanks Fuzheado for confirming that it is Jung Chang! -Yupik (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! :) -Yupik (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Mary Wollstonecraft novel Mary: A Fiction

User:Z1720 has nominated Mary: A Fiction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. pburka (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't know how notable they are...

But File:Bodenwieser Ballet performance of Blue Danube Waltz, with Moira Claux, Elaine Vallance, Nina Bascolo and Biruta Apens, 1953 (17617112191).jpg has four Australian ballet dancers in a rather pleasing image. Moira Claux, Elaine Vallance, Nina Bascolo and Biruta Apens. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Gorgeous photo Adam Cuerden! Wow. SusunW (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Good to see it's in the article on Gertrud Bodenwieser. I'm no expert on Australian ballet but at first sight the four you mention are not well covered.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Katie Cotton, major figure at Apple, has died

I created a draft for Katie Cotton. She was a major figure in Apple’s PR and acted as a gatekeeper for Steve Jobs. Thriley (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you could build on this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

30,000

As of May 4th, we surpassed 30,000 comments (more precisely, revisions) on this talkpage. Grateful for the conversations we have here. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've updated the figure on our main WIR page. I think that probably makes us the the most currently active wikiproject for discussions. I see that overall we are still behind WP Military History which has now just reached 50,000 -- but that's been running since October 2002 (over 20 years) while we started in July 2015 (less than eight years ago).--Ipigott (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Our Four-in-one is a DYK on the home page

Wanda Szuman (see #Four in one! above) is on the home page as a DYK right now (and archived here). Thanks to Piotrus and others who expanded on my little stub: a splendid joint effort. PamD 07:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Phabricator ticket T336297: Decommission ISBN requests via WorldCat

This Phabricator ticket may be of interest to some of you: In short, OCLC is moving to a new WorldCat API version, and unfortunately migrating Citoid to this API will require both a new agreement with them and some additional technical work. We are exploring this further but will need to disable ISBN citation generation for now, and although I'd like for us to get this back, we can't yet predict when that will happen. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For those of us who aren't technical, can someone explain in plain English what that means? I manually cite ISBNs, does that mean we cannot use them anymore, or just that using some automated entry won't work? SusunW (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless this is rectified, it certainly looks to me as if we will need to cite details behind each ISBN number rather than relying on automatic retrieval through clicking. But correct me if I am wrong. Perhaps Samwalton9 can provide further explanations and advice.--Ipigott (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it means that, because WorldCat have made some changes, we can no longer create a book reference by putting the ISBN in the box in the RefToolBar and clicking on the magnifying glass icon. That icon has been (or will be) removed for now. I hope that getting this fixed is being given really high priority.
You can still click on an ISBN in an article and get to the "Book sources" page, from which you can get to Worldcat records just as usual. PamD 06:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both! I think I understand now. We should still use the ISBN but automated processes won't work to fill in the details. I quit using automation mostly when the last book tool died. The new one is no bueno, I just use the drop down boxes and manually put everything in. I so appreciate everyone here's skill levels and willingness to help. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Women (American) in 1923

I came across this book on women in 1923 and though it might be of interest. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a great find, FloridaArmy, particularly as it's PD. I know it would be a lot of work, but I hope someone has time/inclination to create a redlist (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women of 1924 International) with the listed names and organizations. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There appear to be two books, one for 1923 and one for 1924. See here.--Ipigott (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
There is an entry on the editor Ida Clyde Clarke and indeed there were other editions. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Social Text article, "Wikipedia's Race and Ethnicity Gap and the Unverifiability of Whiteness"

Some of you may be interested in a new article entitled "Wikipedia's Race and Ethnicity Gap and the Unverifiability of Whiteness", by Michael Mandiberg (artist, professor; co-founder of Art+Feminism) recently published by Social Text. Rosiestep (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This has already been noted[11] and there has been quite a long discussion about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC).
Thanks. I missed seeing it earlier. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
The question arises of whether an academic journal like Social text that does not use scholarly peer review (which is the norm for academic journals) should be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC).
Social text is also known for publishing the Sokal hoax. TSventon (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
A clear consequence of not using scholarly peer review. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC).

Draft:Angela Busheska

Potential candidate for improvement? scope_creepTalk 15:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is already in Wikipedia Angela Busheska. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
These appear to be essentially the same article. I have taken the discussion over to AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Busheska. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Cissy Grahame

Here's a portrait of her, and many others exist

Stumbled upon this interesting actress. There's a non-suitable-for-Wikipedia source here, but it can probably link you to information needed. Anyone interested? I'm willing to help, but don't have access to some of the sources that would be good for it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 12:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a biography of Grahame in the 1892 Dramatic Peerage. pburka (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Irish Biography has this gem of a fact: "He married (1898) Sarah Collett Phinn, a barrister's daughter who had used the name ‘Cissy Grahame’ in her acting career; she helped him restructure the firm and succeeded him as chairman at his death (12 April 1919)."
I've requested access to " David Allens : history of a family firm, 1857-1957", and can look it through on Monday or Tuesday; this should help with her latter years a lot. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's some stuff that I found.
There's probably a lot more to find out there, but man, 1800s newspapers are a slog to go through. SilverserenC 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I think she was also the mother of scholar and fascist William Edward David Allen (1901–1973). pburka (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That would be accurate. That Dictionary of Irish Biography entry makes it explicit. I think he's also the one who wrote the book on the firm she was in charge of, which sucks a bit. Ah, well. Mainly want it to get a source for her death year, honestly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 18:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
That rather wonderful photo shouldn't be considered or described as a "portrait". As the filename "Rowland Buckstone and Cissy Grahame in the revival of F. C. Burnand's The Colonel.jpg" says, it is a photo of the actors in character from a theatrical production. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Aye. I have found a photo of her out of costume as well, which I can restore if we get an article up. Didn't get into the library today: migraine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Didn't get into the library today; hoping to do so tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Natalya Tolstaya

I just came across this draft after the author left a message on my talk page. It reads very much like a promotional article and a CV. It's possible the subject is notable but she may not be. Editors familiar with analyzing Russian language sources may want to take a look, and assist the writer in crafting a better article that doesn't read so much like a resume. I suspect the author may have a WP:COI conflict as CV type article creators usually are the subject or closely related to the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ru notability rules will be different, but the ru equivalent ru:Толстая, Наталья Владимировна is a redlink that says the article was deleted in 2011, 2013 and 2022. simple:Natalya Tolstaya and simple:Natalya Tolstaya (Writer) were also deleted yesterday. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Help: Joniece Abbott-Pratt

Hello, I would like to request help in improving the Wikipage for Joniece Abbott-Pratt. I recently created the page, but Onel5969 marked it with a Notability tag. I'm not sure what needs to be done to improve the page further to showcase Joniece's notabiliy. Thank you! Significa liberdade (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding reviews of her performances from The New York Times could help:
Also:
Also, several of her audiobook performances (with some commentary) appear on the American Library Association's 2021 Amazing Audiobooks for Young Adults. And she was nominated for a Helen Hayes Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Play for her role in "Seven Guitars" (No Rules Theatre Company) (WaPo, 2015). This is only from a Google News search - I haven't checked DuckDuckGo or the Wikipedia Library yet, but there appears to be support for notability that can be added to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Indian naming conventions

Hiya Talk:Phoolan Devi/GA1 is currently open and as nominator I wondered if anyone could give an opinion on the naming conventions for Phoolan Devi and her partner Vikram Singh Mallah. Currently after first mention Devi and Vikram are used respectively, which is perhaps inconsistent. The sources give a variety of options and the MOS guidance is itself inconclusive so I wanted to check if anyone here could say what is best (and I thought WiR had more footfall than WiG, plus I asked at WP:INDIA but didn't get an answer). Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It passed as a GA and is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Phoolan Devi/archive1 in case anyone is interested, thanks Mujinga (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_127&oldid=1159423113"