Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Sophia Parnok

Looks like the previous thread on Parnok has been archived and I have no idea if I post on it if it will show up or not. I think I have expanded it sufficiently for GA, but would really appreciate copy editors giving it a once over before it is submitted. Obviously, I'd like to get it nominated before the month is out. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that any photos of her various lovers can be used, since Commons does not even have details on the 2008 copyright changes for Russia to determine what may now be in the PD. But, that being said, if anyone can find pertinent images on commons, that would be great! Pinging those expressed interest earlier, but any help would be appreciated @Another Believer, Megalibrarygirl, Penny Richards, and Rosiestep: SusunW (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and for your work on this article! I went ahead and bumped the quality assessment up to B-class. I'd support a Good article nomination, and you might also consider requesting a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I always do this before nominating an article for Good status. Sometimes the GA review gets picked up before the copy edit is picked up, but either way, getting a copy edit from the Guild is never a bad thing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look for some images, SusunW Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Megalibrarygirl. Another Believer I have never used the guild. Had one article I collaborated on sent there and it came back with multiple misspellings and grammar issues. Maybe it was an isolated incident, but I am leery now. SusunW (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I've caught a few errors introduced by the Guild before, but overall, edits have been constructive. Submitting a request is not required, I just think it is a nice step to take in conjunction with a Good article nomination. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, SusunW, I didn't find any new photos. I was hoping maybe on Flickr and Google image search since we seem to get different results, but no luck. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl not to worry. Thanks for checking! I found photos of almost all of her lovers (even a photo of Maria Maksakova in Almast) but none of them can be loaded to commons per my contacts there. So, I think we have what we have. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated the article, so that it was at least in the bin for PRIDE month. Not sure how long it will take before it is picked up, but it's pending at any rate. SusunW (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

Hello, I'm a Wikipedian in Residence at the Auckland War Memorial Museum in New Zealand. I've on a wee 5 week placement here (3 weeks to go!) and in that time I'm trying to get as much information on female artists that is hidden away in our collection onto wikipedia. I'm aiming to make at least one stub article each day or add more resources and links to existing pages. As I'm new to Wikipedia it's been a bit of a slow start but I'm trying to make up for it now! If you are at all interested in what I'm doing or would like to contribute suggestions of artists or editing wisdom you can find out more on our project page Wikipedia:GLAM/Auckland Museum. I've looked at the red lists attached to your page of New Zealand artists and working off that as well as suggestions from curators at my museum. Thought I'd introduce myself here to let you know what I was working, thanks! Susan Tol (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Some of the articles on female artists are very poorly sourced and improvements would be appreciated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC).

Indeed - and I'm looking forward to your work, as New Zealand art is a field about which I know very little, I'm afraid. (Begins and ends at Rita Angus.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to have someone in New Zealand with such a keen interest in documenting women. You've already done a good job on Annie Bonza and I see there are more in the pipelne. If ever you need any help, please drop me a line.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to chatting with you! --Rosiestep (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I know little about New Zealand, but if you need help, feel free to ping me and I'll try. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mother-daughter-granddaughter trios?

I noticed yesterday that the woman I wrote about, Wadad Makdisi Cortas, had a daughter Mariam C. Said and granddaughter Najla Said who already had articles. I imagine this isn't too uncommon, but now I'm interested. Anyone know other examples of mother-daughter-granddaughter trios who all have wikipedia articles? (I'd exclude royalty, where the notability is a family thing.) - Penny Richards (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of that combination, but I know of mother Adelaida Semyonovna Simonovitch, sister Valentina Serova (composer), daughter Nina Simonovich-Efimova. SusunW (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Billie Lourd/Carrie Fisher/Debbie Reynolds comes to mind... —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ETA Mae Costello belongs at the head of this 4 person list: / Dolores Costello / de:Jaid Barrymore / Drew Barrymore. Jaid does not have an article on English Wikipedia, but she has one on 5 other Wikipedias. --Krelnik (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, maybe this one doesn't work quite as neatly--Jaid isn't the daughter of Dolores, she's the daughter-in-law, I think? But wow, you've found a lot of other good ones! - Penny Richards (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're correct. Ah well. I was surprised I didn't find more paths through the Barrymore family, there's a ton of them. I keep finding potential good redlinks in these searches. For instance, Ann Richards has a granddaughter Lily Adams who is a press secretary for Kamala Harris but who doesn't have an article yet (might be WP:TOOSOON but I bet she'll merit one eventually). --Krelnik (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping that might happen, finding more "potential good redlinks"--it makes sense to look in the company of women who are already known notables, eh? Penny Richards (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Marie Curie/Irène Joliot-Curie/Hélène Langevin-Joliot --Krelnik (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, excellent examples so far! Thanks, keep them coming. Penny Richards (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Also here's another trio: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriot Eaton Stanton Blatch, and Nora Stanton Barney. Penny Richards (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This kind of thing is Wikidata's strength. There are probably hundreds or thousands, we could even look at longer generation chains. Here is a quick query that checks for Wikidata items for women that have both a mother and daughter, but not yet whether they all have articles.--Pharos (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another one: Giada De Laurentiis, Veronica De Laurentiis, and Silvana Mangano. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Aha, found a four-parter! Agnes E. Meyer, Katharine Graham, Lally Weymouth, and Katharine Weymouth. Penny Richards (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Caroline Ingalls / Laura Ingalls Wilder / Rose Wilder Lane --Krelnik (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And a five-parter: Elsie Fox, Paula Fox, Linda Carroll, Courtney Love, Frances Bean Cobain. Penny Richards (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I found a four-parter, "American royalty"... Rose Kennedy / Eunice Kennedy Shriver / Maria Shriver / Katherine Schwarzenegger --Krelnik (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

These are really cool! SusunW (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Easier to do with nobility, perhaps? Here's one: Elizabeth Cheney (1422–1473), Elizabeth Tilney, Countess of Surrey, Elizabeth Boleyn, Countess of Wiltshire, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth I of England, and here's another: Beatriz Pereira de Alvim, Isabel of Barcelos, Isabella of Portugal, Queen of Castile, Isabella I of Castile, Catherine of Aragon, Mary I of England. Try starting with Anne, Princess Royal! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another four-parter Anna Hall Roosevelt / Eleanor Roosevelt / Anna Roosevelt Halsted / Eleanor Roosevelt Seagraves --Krelnik (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another Kennedy four-parter: Janet Lee Bouvier / Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis / Caroline Kennedy / Rose Schlossberg --Krelnik (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another arts/show-business four: Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Geraldine Chaplin / Oona Chaplin --Krelnik (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple paths through the Chaplin/O'Neill clan: Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Josephine Chaplin OR Agnes Boulton / Oona O'Neill / Victoria Chaplin--Krelnik (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Another showbiz trio: Priscilla Presley / Lisa Marie Presley / Riley Keough --Krelnik (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

More music and I'm done for the day: Maybelle Carter / June Carter Cash // BOTH Carlene Carter and Rosie Nix Adams --Krelnik (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy Howell Rodham / Hillary Clinton / Chelsea Clinton. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business family in Mexico: Silvia Pinal / Sylvia Pasquel / Stephanie Salas (found via List of show business families) --Krelnik (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business family in Spain: Matilde Muñoz Sampedro / Pilar Bardem / Mónica Bardem. (Mónica is Javier Bardem's sister). --Krelnik (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Show business again: Maureen O'Sullivan / Mia Farrow / Soon-Yi Previn --Krelnik (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Found an interesting one myself, a family of Hopi potters: Nampeyo and her great-granddaughter, Dextra Quotskuyva, have articles. But the two intervening generations of potters, Annie Healing and Rachel Namingha, both appear on cursory search to be fillable redlinks. So there are at least four generations, potentially, there. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Also Nampeyo's daughter Fannie and granddaughter Elva, both potters. And both Elva and Dextra have daughters who are potters...don't know if they cross the notability threshhold, but it might be worth checking out. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Another set of artists - Pablita Velarde, Helen Hardin, and Margarete Bagshaw, all painters. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

I'd love to translate articles on Canadian women from French, but every article I click on lacks references. Is there any secret for newbies to the project, or is it just translate, then look for sources to back up the translation? (Are there any lists of women who aren't on any Wikipedia at all? It may be easier to start from scratch, rather than dig up sources for another's writing.) -- Zanimum (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum I would suggest that sources should be found before you start writing. If articles are unsourced, they are likely to be taken to articles for deletion. Some say the easiest way to learn is to source other people's articles. I am usually a start from scratch writer, but I always make sure that I have at least 4-5 sources from reliable national newspapers, books or academic journals before I start. SusunW (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum It would be nice if you could create some articles about Canadian women artists in the Canadian top museums, or perhaps Canadian women art collectors who donated top works to those museums. Painters and paintings tend to be well-received on Wikipedia, but we are missing articles especially in the areas of sculpture (public art), decorative arts (textiles, glass, porcelain), and defunct art societies, galleries or museums. Without checking I am sure there are several notable enough for Wikipedia in any language. Jane (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Zanimum: It's good to see that such an experienced Wikipedian is taking an active interest in WiR. SusunW is quite right that reliable secondary sources should be included even in translated articles but I think part of the problem with the French wiki is that articles, especially the older ones, often list sources under "Liens externes" rather than as inline references under "Notes et réferences". Sometimes they also include a useful bibliography. When I "translate" (or rather "recreate") biographies on women for the English wiki, I always start off by examining all the various sources and links in the foreign-language article to see whether they justify an article in English. In addition, I search for other relevant material both in English and in the language in question, also specifically looking at sources in published books. I see you have been on Wikipedia since 2003 and that you have created 1,119 artilces -- so you must have a pretty good overview of everything that's going on here. Nevertheless, you might not be aware that we have various lists of redlinks including those by nationality via Wikidata. If you look through the one on Canada, you'll find a large number of French Canadian women with reasonably sourced articles in French and sometimes even in other languages. Why not try to make a start on some of these? If you run into any problems, I would be happy to help you along. Bon courage!--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to start from scratch, you'll find hundreds of women not yet on Wikipedia in the Dictionary of Canadian biography/Dictionnaire biographique du Canada. I made a quick and dirty search of the French version on "femme née" and turned up quite an interesting list. You can of course be much more specific.--Ipigott (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Another useful approach for me starting from scratch is to look at a major national newspaper's obituaries. A woman who receives a substantial obituary in an important newspaper has a good chance of being notable enough and having good sources. I'm often surprised by how many women with long obits in, say, The New York Times in the 1970s, don't have Wikipedia articles yet. Good luck! Penny Richards (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

By the by, we will be focusing on Canadian women as one of our topics in August. Spanish WP often has no sources either. I got really frustrated trying to find sourcing for many of the statements made and decided that for me, recreating the article with what could be substantiated was better. But, as I said, some do it differently. SusunW (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My own approach tends to be closer to this one. I tend to do a line-by-line translation, stopping whenever I get to a reference and checking it. If there's a substantial amount of text for which the reference doesn't exist, or if the link is dead, I'll just leave that out, unless it sounds un-suspect.

Worse comes to worst you can just start an English-language article from scratch using the sources available. I've done that, too. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton

Do I need to apologise for coming back by doing this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden you never have to apologize for having a real life. Glad to have you back! SusunW (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Welcome back!!! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to further improvements to our images, perhaps also some of those on this month's pre-20th century women.--Ipigott (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back, Adam Cuerden! Always glad to see you around here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That must be Margaret Hamilton (publisher), since there are pictures of two of the others, and the ~~fourth~~first one wouldn't be in a 20th-century suit. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Hamilton (scientist) standing by piles of her source code, as portrayed in her article. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC).

Quite. Printouts of code are a lot less seen nowadays, so not surprising you didn't recognise it for what it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Afraid the next one will be a bit - I'm doing Ethel Smyth one of my heroes, but it's a major project. RosiestepIpigot Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, do tell. Is it the Sargent drawing? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The photograph, actually. Lots and lots of little black spots. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And all over her hair, too. That looks like a lot of work to fix. Thanks for the efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

A request for comment has been initiated related to the inclusion of women's football/soccer leagues in the Current Events portal. Input is welcome:

Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

Hmlarson (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Steven Pruitt in Time as one of the 25 most influential people on the internet

Well done Ser Amantio di Nicolao. This is indeed a great honour, especially as you are also one of our most productive editors. The article also correctly informs us that you have "personally written new articles on 212 influential women to help correct Wikipedia’s gender imbalance". Great publicity for our efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

As a footnote, I see there are quite a few names in the article, including some of the women, who do not yet have biographies on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe it!!! Ser Amantio mentioned alongside Kim Kardashian ;-)!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao - This is so amazing! Congratulations!!! I think it could be a life-changing moment for you and I hope it's all good stuff to come. You have done so much and to be recognized in this way is important. Proud to be a friend of yours. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Who knew all those times I was asking for category help, I was writing with one of Time's notables ;) SusunW (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

SusunW (talk · contribs) Don't worry - I'll try to remain my own humble little self. :-)

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) That is, I admit, more than a little surreal.

Rosiestep (talk · contribs) To quote Newton: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders [sic] of Giants". I am but one of many...a lucky one, perhaps, but still one. You...all of you...do incredible work. I mentioned WiR for a reason, when interviewed: I think this is a perfect example of what can happen when Wikipedia works at its best, and that's a big part of the reason I've chosen to continue to support it with my efforts. I've had a couple of people tell me that they're sorry there's no picture in the article, and I'm not. For one thing, I'm not very photogenic :-); for another, this is a collaborative effort, and I'm only one piece of that.

I think most of you know by now that I sign off on a lot of my talkpage messages with "Keep up the good work, and happy editing!" That's not a throwaway line - I mean both parts of it equally. Especially the second part - this should be a happy place. Usually, it is...I strive to keep it so. And so do you (y'all). So, really, I'm the one who ought to be tipping his hat to the rest of you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't even noticed there wasn't a photo and wouldn't blame you anyway because some people don't like to be identified on the Internet as there's all sorts of stalking freaks and weirdos!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also a strong supporter of the "Happy Editing" approach. WiR does indeed appear to provide an environment where we generally manage to avoid unjustified aggression. When it does occur, we seem to be quite effective in explaining that it is simply not constructive. The overall results can be seen by reviewing the various discussions on our talk pages. I'm glad to see that one of the most influential people on the internet is also working in this direction. Keep up the good work!--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, couldn't agree more - great plug for Wikipedia in general, and this group in particular. Happy editing indeed! Jane (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, and Rosiestep: My heartiest congratulations to Ser Amantio di Nicolao for being on TIME magazine. An honour to be a fellow Wikipedian editor.

— Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Article created during WIR Edit-a-thon nominated for deletion

Article: Kim Chestney / AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Chestney (2nd nomination) Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

French politicians

Hi. Following the recent French legislative election, 2017, lots of new stubs on French politicians have been created, including loads for all the women who were elected. The full list is here. As far as I can tell, every single article has a corresponding entry on the French WP. If anyone has an interest in France and/or politics, you may be interested in this area of work. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to this evolving area of interest Lugnuts. I see from the Wikidata redlinks on France that there are still over 50 articles on French politicians which have no article in English.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Women In Music

Is the New or upgraded articles section starting since July 1 in Wikipedia's time? There are three articles listed already for June 30 so I'm just looking for clarification. SL93 (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't follow strict rules. If someone wants to contribute early or later, they can. SusunW (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I was curious if I could add Adel Heinrich and Jeanne Singer. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SL93: I've added both of them for you and also Fay Foster. I look forward to see many more on music and dance over the coming month. It's good to have an enthusiastic new member participating in our editathons. Keep up the good work.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

SL93 For some reason, I was never notified that you had replied on this page. That sometimes happens with this page, though I don't know why. Thanks Ian for adding the files. Good to see you have made use of the authority control discussion already. :) SusunW (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Authority control

I'm confused about how authority control works. I added the template to Adel Heinrich, but I don't know the next steps. SL93 (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Technically, you are supposed to not have to do anything. Except, it doesn't seem to work on lots of women. You can manually input it and then a bot will fix it in Wikidata. I checked VIAF and found her, I know it is her because the birthdate when you pull up the records matches. Then I input {{Authority control|VIAF=67593154|ISNI=0000 0000 8254 9427}} and save. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I've taken to just entering the information in the corresponding Wikidata entry myself whenever I start or improve an article. Funcrunch (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SusunW. Funcrunch, I can't seem to figure out how to edit Wikidata. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SL93: I went ahead and edited the Wikidata entry for Heinrich. I find it pretty straightforward to use (though it took some practice); maybe someone has a link to a tutorial? Funcrunch (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

SL93 I never could figure out how to edit Wikidata directly either. There is a gadget you can install Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 12#Gadget for facilitating data entry to Wikidata for new Wikipedia articles which will make a set of data entry items appear under "tools" on your left-hand sidebar. If you click on the one that says WEF:Person you can make additions, corrections and save information easily. SusunW (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, the Library of Congress seems to think Heinrich is male... Funcrunch (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons I installed that gadget and make entries for my women's biographies. Setting gender to female helps track our stats.SusunW (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's weird. A man in a women's encyclopedia (International Encyclopedia of Women Composers). I'm pretty sure she's not a man. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Her full name is Adel Varna Heinrich. The various details in this and this clearly confirm she is a woman. Even the LOC can make mistakes. After all, they too rely on human input.--Ipigott (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

... or import their information from Wikidata ... Thincat (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

- Gender info in viaf is known to be poisoned. The underlying issue is a historic decision of a national library to prioritise completeness over correctness and the damage to the gender info in international authority files is now systematic. Never, ever rely on the gender info from these sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Luz Chavita

Once again, I am baffled by technology. My article on Chavita does not have a link on the article page to the WikiData item [1] so I added the link to Wikidata at the bottom where it says Wikipedia. It still isn't showing up on the article page, so I have no clue how to correct the birth name, and data, nor how to get the identifiers to show at the bottom of the article page, i.e. VIAF, ISNI, etc. They clearly are already in the Wikidata item, but not showing on my article. Can someone assist? The technology on WP should not be this unfathomable. It is so frustrating. SusunW (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@SusunW: The identifiers are showing in the authority control section of the article for me now; you might need to refresh your cache if you can't see them. You can correct the Wikidata manually by clicking the "edit" link (with a pencil icon) next to each section on the page ("given name", for example, I assume should be Luisa?) Funcrunch (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Must be a time-delay thing? I played around with it for about 1/2 an hour and gave up. Now it is all there. Bizarre. Much easier to edit with the gadget, because there are fields to add. SusunW (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

SusunW: I have also been having problems with Wikidata recently. Even when I know articles in other languages exist, when I try to link from the bottom of the LH column, a URL appears and sends me straight to the Wikidata page rather than to the box where you can point to the name of the article in another wiki. Only by trying three or four times can I get the box. I like your article on Chavita. I see there are other photos of her here including a postcard from the Opéra-Comique which could possibly be included. Strange there's no trace of the date of her death.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There are hundreds of photos of her on the web, maybe thousands, which is why I found it odd that there was no more biographical detail that I could find. Surely there are more newspaper articles in France and Spain, but, I have no access to them. I thought if I started an article, maybe someone would be able to add to it, or maybe create one in Spain. Glad to know it isn't just me that is having issues with Wikidata. It has been weird lately, I've had the same issue you have had, Ian, but this was the strangest of the interface issues I've had recently. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

For tweeting articles that are created and improved for editathons, what are some good tags to use to bring exposure to the article? I haven't used Twitter for a long time. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I rarely input hashtags, but if I do, it is about the subject of the month, i.e. #LGBT, #Dance, or the place. If you are using your own Twitter account, be sure to tag WikiWomenInRed SusunW (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I always tag WikiWomenInRed, and use the rest of my characters to tag an organization (college alumni association, archive, museum, town, hall of fame, etc.) that might be interested to know that one of their own has a new article (if you get lucky, they might be willing to share a photo, or at least retweet the link). Penny Richards (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally up to 17%

On the basis of the most recent statistics from Wikidata Human Gender Indicators, we can now confirm that 17% of the biographies in the English version of Wikipedia are on women. Thanks to the efforts of all concerned, we have moved up from just over 15% in November 2014 to 16.35% this time last year, 16.78% in January and now exactly 17%. The figures may seem marginal but in fact almost 25,700 women's biographies have been added over the past 12 months. Today, out of a total of 1,473,875 biographies, 250,631 are about women. Last week was a particularly good week for us as 37.28% of the new biographies on the EN wiki addressed women. Let's hope we can keep moving in the same direction.--Ipigott (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This is GREAT news Ian! Little by little, day by day we are pushing the needle. SusunW (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Jane (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well done Ian, the figures have been teasing us for weeks in a very unmathematical way. I was thinking it was exponential (to a value a tadge under 17). The barrier is broken. I've been tweeting this every week for weeks. Do join in the RTs if you have time..... Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh so you are still with us, you've not responded to the last half dozen or so emails.. Excellent news BTW on 17 %!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yay! Something we can celebrate! So awesome! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Beaming with joy! This is so awesome. See? We can move the needle! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remember to create redirects!

In the list of missing articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Music there was a red link for "Sophia Dussek-Corri, (1775-1847), Scottish composer. Edit: already in as Sophia Dussek". So someone had established that "Sophia Dussek-Corri" had an article at Sophia Dussek, but hadn't made the incoming redirect to turn that red link blue (as it now is).

Please remember to make incoming redirects from variations of people's names. Use the form with or without middle name(s); if the article title has an initial, provide a redirect from the spelled-out name if known; make redirects from all the variations of married surname, birth surname, combined surname if used (and ditto for second and third etc marriages or surname changes).

It's surprising how often redirects like this pick up incoming links - perhaps from a formal list of award winners which included formal names and middle names.

Providing these redirects not only helps readers to find the article - whether they're searching for themselves or following a link which would otherwise be red - but also reduces the chance of a future editor creating a duplicate article at a different title because they didn't check carefully. Redirects are a Good Thing - please be generous with them. Sorry if this seems slightly obsessive - it might be the retired librarian in me coming out! Thanks. PamD 13:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree PamD I got 2 more links to my article yesterday by making redirects on name variations. It makes integration of women into the encyclopedia much more probable if redirects are added. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed also - and please make any that appear to be supported by documentation and sources. Viz. Rosalind Frances Ellicott, who existed as a redlink for some while after I created an article about her sans middle name. (Though to be fair, I don't think I've ever seen her in a book under that name...always without the middle name.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

And don't forget married and maiden names. Some people (especially sportspeople) will have redlinks to both their names. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Plus pseudonyms, pen names, stage names, etc. Remember to create those redirects, too. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is hyphenated vs unhyphenated family names. We have a new article on Winifred Hart-Dyke. Her father was Hart Dyke without a hyphen and when she was with the D'Oyly Carte she was posted as Winifred Hart Dyke.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - it's hard to have too many redirects. I know that I have had "my" articles "usurped" because of this, and have started at least one article where there already was one under a more obscure variant of the name.

Winifred Hart-Dyke is my start. Her name appears with and without the hyphen in sources (as does another recent start of mine, Violet Henry-Anderson). She was mentioned already on Wikipedia in a cast list, with the hyphen, so I went with that. I'm pretty good at searching out all the variations to bluelink, but I really need to learn how to make redirects. I've never tried! I'll make that a July goal.Penny Richards (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just made my first redirect--that's pretty easy! Posting to encourage others.Penny Richards (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And now the many-named Thamara de Swirsky has four incoming redirects. Penny Richards (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

(Belatedly) @Penny Richards: I'm glad to have led you to discover a new skill. There's something very satisfying about creating a bundle of redirects, then clicking on "What links here" and finding that one or two of them have resolved some redlinks in obscure articles or lists which used different versions of the name! Keep up the good work. PamD 13:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Be bold on a budget of $0 - Making plans at Women in Red's friendly Ideas Cafe

File:2017 WikiWomenCamp - Be bold on a budget of Be bold on a budget of $0 at Women in Red's Ideas Cafe - WikiWomenCamp2017.pdf at Women in Red's Ideas Cafe.pdf

Be bold on a budget of $0 - Making plans at Women in Red's friendly Ideas Cafe

I did two presentations yesterday at m:WikiWomenCamp 2017, including a lightening talk re WiR. I don't know how to rotate the upload to Commons. Hoping someone could help with that? Thank you.--Rosiestep (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, usually there is a way to request an image rotation on commons. I've done it before. I'll give it a try. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, I'm not seeing the image rotation request on the page. Maybe because it's a PDF? You may have to re-save it in the correct orientation and re-upload it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheila Michaels

Have to go out for the rest of the day. Sheila Michaels (NYT obit yesterday) who popularised Ms., could really do with expanding. Edwardx (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ideally we should be able to expand this enough for Recent deaths. But it needs a lot more content for that. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added in some little details, all with refs. Will keep looking around for more. - Penny Richards (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Muslim Women's National Network Australia

Hi, I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia and stepped in because I heard about the Women in Red project... I selected one of the red links and tried to create a page for it - Muslim Women's National Network Australia. It has been rejected. The first rejection I can understand because it wasn't written in Wikipedia style, so I worked to improve it and address the feedback.

The second rejection seems to me a bit inconsistently judgemental - I have now worked on numerous other existing articles, editing entries with pre-existing problems, so I have seen what has been accepted in the past and not questioned by editors. I don't pretend that my article is "excellent" but I think it should be enough for a basic level entry, to which others can add and improve.

Also feels like this organisation is victim to systemic bias (some types of people and organisations get the kind of independent coverage that makes them easy to cite, others don't). This organisation is mentioned tonnes of times in the media, books, research articles, but they are just a small mention in relation to other issues rather than the subject of the articles. This does not seem to equate to a "quality citation" for wikipedia's editors even though it is to my mind evidence of notability.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that writing new articles from scratch is beyond my skill set, so I am not going to continue with this page (has involved more time and effort than I anticipated, and with the repeated rejections this effort has proven to be a waste). If anyone else is able to take it over so it can be published, I would appreciate it. Many thanks, Powertothepeople (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to main space, because it was fine - decently well-written, well-sourced and plainly notable for inclusion. Some of the Articles for Creation reviewers have a tendency to bite the newbies and apply their own arbitrary criteria that are wildly different to Wikipedia's. You'd be better off creating articles in normal space (not as a draft) in future - you clearly know what you're doing and it'll prevent you getting harassed by people at AfC, while there's plenty of people around to help with working on articles if you need a hand. We need way more editors interested in these sorts of Australian topics, so please don't be discouraged. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. I joined AfC to clear the backlog, but I don't know if I want a part of that anymore. When editors deny articles for vague reasons like "this doesn't meet our policies", it's not good for the newbies. It's not hard to at the very least to leave a link to the policies that aren't being met. Powertothepeople, I think you should ditch AfC and that most people who submit articles there should do the same. SL93 (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both :) Powertothepeople (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has now nominated this for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Women's National Network Australia), not because he claimed it wasn't notable, "the article seems designed to advance their cause, not for providing information about the association", despite the total lack of evidence that Powertothepeople has anything to do with them or their cause whatsoever. I am so frustrated with these attempts at newbie-biting editors who actually try to fill our gaps in coverage in these areas. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

From time to time, DGG comes up with strange reasons for deleting articles but this is one of the most peculiar. The article documents an important Australian organization which obviously has a place in Wikipedia. If there were signs of "advocacy", then this could be been raised in more detail on the article's talk page rather than by a nomination for deletion. It's just this kind of thing that discourages competent new Wikipedians.--Ipigott (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

it is not new Wikipedians in particular: I discourage all wikipedians from doing advocacy here, even for things they -- and I -- support personally. I have realized that it is quite difficult to avoid this when working on articles for things that one wishes to see publicized, but it remains essential. It is possible to learn how to work even on what you love with an appropriately neutral detachment, but I strongly discourage beginners from attempting it--it is an altogether different mindset than the usual sort of writing. My experience is that it is easier to manage in doing bios than articles on organizations. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that your claims of "advocacy" need a "citation needed" tag, and that even if you were right, deletion is not an appropriate response. Your unusual behaviour here seems to demonstrate some kind of strange issue with the subject, not with the editing, and is really quite inappropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Well DGG there is a difference between "discouraging" and putting something up for deletion without reference to the wikipedia guide to deletion: "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." And if you think it is advocating then there is this process rather than deletion: "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality".[2]. When you listed it for deletion you weren't following wikipedia's guide for deletion. Rather than being "neutral" it was an arbitrary act of your choice. Powertothepeople (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The Womanity Foundation

The Womanity Foundation was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Womanity Foundation. It is a non-governmental organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with programs across the developing world, and seeks to empower women and girls worldwide to enable them to participate fully in society, economically, socially and politically. Can anyone find more sources about the foundation? Cunard (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvement needed notification Cunard I found sources in French, Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic, which have been added to the article. Could still use more work on the last paragraph and copy editing for neutrality. SusunW (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, SusunW and Powertothepeople, for finding numerous sources about The Womanity Foundation and significantly improving the article. I've done some light copyediting on the article. Cunard (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Metrics bot

Wikimujeres is asking me regarding our metrics bot. Can you please remind me who created it so they can get in contact with that editor? They have been doing their metrics by hand and they are tired to doing that. Thank you.

@Rosiestep: The Earwig has been developing the metrics tool. We very much appreciate his efforts.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott. And, of course, The Earwig, thank you, too, for all you do you; we appreciate you. I'll let the Wikimujeres User Group know and I expect they'll be contacting you. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: You can also let them know they are also progressing very well on the proportion of women's biographies. According to the WHGI statistics, they are now in 9th place at 18.36% (56,910 women's biographies out of 309,938).--Ipigott (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Ipigott and Rosiestep! --Jalu (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Number of women per occupation on English Wikipedia

Here is a breakdown by profession of our 17% according to Wikidata: User:Jane023/Number of women per occupation. Considering the long tail of single-woman professions I think a cleanup drive is needed, but I know many people here are allergic to Wikidata and I am also still just glad that people are adding the statements for human+female to new items on Wikidata for women's biographies so that we made 17%! So just to be clear, this list shows totals per profession only for those items that have a profession set (and many female items still lack professions). So though you can think of it as a breakdown of our "17%" it is probably less than that. Glancing at the list, many are in obscure Wikidata professions like "Educational psychologist" whereas I believe this should just be "psychologist" etc. Properties (like P106 for occupation) are not the same thing as categories. I will fix all the ones that got shunted into incorrect painter categories. For example, "portrait painting" is a genre for the property "field of work" for someone who is a professional "painter" - on wikidata we don't give the person the profession "portrait painter" just because that exists as a profession on Wikidata. The profession is "painter". Same thing for all the various types of writers (I see there is even a "physician writer"). To see who got the profession, click on the item for the profession and then click "What links here" while on the Wikidata page for that profession. Jane (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the breakdown! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: Strange that over half the list is made up of occupations in which there are 10 entries or less. It's a pity Wikidata does not offer guidance on which occupations are valid for P106. It seems strange to me that journalist and novelist seem valid while portrait painter is not. Perhaps somewhere there is a list of which occupations should not be included in P106?--Ipigott (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I cleaned up some of the portrait painters myself. This has to do with our linked open data objectives - all painters should be classified as painters and their specific field of work can be classified under field of work. There are lots of portrait painters that did other things and if a landscape painting by artist x hangs in museum y, then it is easy to search for the painter and not the portrait painter, etc. I feel the same is true for all writers, but then it is also a question of scale. Many journalists are more active on Twitter - are they still "writers", and geographical historians are mostly busy with maps - are they historians? The way wikidata handles properties for people overlaps with our Wikipedia-brain concept of "category" but it is not the same. Better documentation is needed. I started a conversation at project chat about this. The "single use" occupations should be re-examined but they are not all wrong. Wikidata is not a reflection of humanity, but more a reflection of Western pop culture and historical subjects. Historical occupations such as "Noble woman", "Royal consort", "socialite" are not professions and are not listed. Jane (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It does seem to have some peculiar distinctions: "poet lawyer", "law clerk" and "paralegal" but not "lawyer" and "magistrate" and "qadi" but not "judge". The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes those should be cleaned up. I think some of these were created by mistake. Jane (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ContestBot

There's no response on this at the Village Pump. Anybody know who could code a bot?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: The Earwig has done some excellent work for us on metrics. emijrp is also an ace at statistical work. You might also get some assistance from AddisWang and his team who have developed tools for the Wikipedia Asia Month. I think it would be useful if you could draw up a simple spec of tasks in order of priority, taking account of key deadlines. This would help those concerned to assess the amount of work involved. If you need further assistance, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen your explanation on the Village pump. Maybe it would be a good idea to start with a bot to assess article length. This could possibly be based on the tools which exist for DYK. The sourcing, etc., could come later. I also assume you want to give priority to the EN wiki in the first instance. If I remember correctly, those assisting with bot development would also be entitled to financial compensation. That could be an important attraction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Ipigott.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone with Oxford Bio access?

I used to have Oxford Biography access, but alas, no longer. I'm wondering if anyone is able to access the full text of this bio about Iris Lemare. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl e-mailed it to you. SusunW (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you travel, but if you are in London it is well worth joining the Wellcome Library on Euston Road. It has massive links. It has to be done in person but it is then accessible online. See you at a London WikiMeetup ClemRutter (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

ClemRutter does one have to be a resident of the UK? This is a major problem I have had with US libraries, they won't allow me a card as my residence is not in the US. SusunW (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. But look at their website Wellcome Website. The pdf has a tickbox selection for geographical region- which includes all continents, but I think you must go to the building to register. Wikimedia has good relationshops with the Wellcome- Alice White User:Zeromonk was our Wikipedian in residence, I first went there to help in an edit-a thon. ClemRutter (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You can be resident anywhere as long as you have 2 pieces of ID including one that has a picture (e.g. Passport or drivers licence). I think a library membership lasts for a few years at a time. Plus it's definitely worth a visit in its own right! Zeromonk (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Zeromonk I might try it next time I am on that side of the pond. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Nepal

what about nepal Magne budho (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking about creating a WomeninRed for Nepal or doing an editathon on women in Nepal? SusunW (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, Just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Short of our editathon notices, event appearances and personal invitation I don't believe there is any organized program. @Rosiestep and Victuallers: might have more insight for you Bobo.03. SusunW (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any new ideas but if you do, just go for it! There is already a lot of promotion about the project, including what's been mentioned, plus the press, international universities, etc. What I heard a lot at m:WikiWomenCamp 2017 is that people have a sense of "belonging" to Women in Red, even if they aren't "members" or editathon "participants". That said, any ideas/actions(!) to increase the number of signed up members are welcome. Just like Megalibrarygirl volunteered to be the WiR Librarian in Residence, anyone who wants to volunteer for another specific role, e.g. Recruitment Coordinator, should go for it... and I think we would also say, "thank you!". --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the info, SusunW, Rosiestep! It's good to know! Yes, I am a PhD student at the University of Minnesota, and we are planning on a study to help match editors and projects, something like recommendation systems. Here is a meta writeup for our project plan. We are still preparing, and hope to hear more feedback and suggestions before we actually launch it! Bobo.03 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03, that is very interesting. I'll mention that universities in Israel are using Women in Red in the classroom, as has American University (Washington DC). A professor at St. John’s University reached out to me last week regarding incorporating Women in Red in public digital humanities scholarship so that's an ongoing conversation. If you'd like to jump on a call (Google Hangout, etc.) please let me know; I'm on California time. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Rosiestep, yeh, I'd like to connect and hear more suggestion from you! Most time this Tue and Wed works for me! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03: I'm really excited to hear that you are interested in helping us along with the recruitment of new participants. It's been one of my main concerns for some time, especially the need to involve more women in our environment. In my experience, many of those who are enthusiastic newcomers to Wikipedia through our physical or virtual editathons, receive very little support once they have made a few early edits. Some abandon their efforts once they see that the article(s) they have created have been deleted. In my opinion, it would help if we could set up a dedicated environment to assist newcomers, helping them to observe minimum editing requirements and offering advice when they run up against problems or criticism. It might even be useful to develop a few "prototype" articles (including one on biographies), outlining the basic requirements of layout, sourcing, categorization, etc., through examples. Your "template" approach could possibly take such factors into consideration. If we could go ahead along these lines, I would be very happy to offer as much assistance as time permits.--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeh Ipigott, I agree it's an issue. I had a discussion with Maproom as well at my page, and she's made lots of efforts on it already. Our study is to recommend editors who edited related topics to the project, basically to create this matching opportunity. In terms of how to help new editors on the new articles they created, I am not sure if we can go that far, but I will discuss it with my collaborators. One technical difficulty, for instance, is that for the new articles created by the new editors, it may be hard to us to identify the topic or the project it's associated with that we can provide instant help, but we will keep that in mind! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

- I think that is an excellent idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thing that I think we need to work on is publicity. Currently, it seems to me that Wikipedia only gets positive publicity when a milestone is reached, or when an editor does something major. The more day-to-day stuff doesn't get coverage. I've always thought that we need to start trying to get more local coverage of more mundane matters. For instance, find an editor in Iowa, say, or South Dakota, who's working on local topics, and get an article in the county newspaper. We also need to start building local links to communities - take advantage of local public library systems, as an example. I think if we can show people that editing is just a hobby, like anything else, that they can incorporate into their daily lives, we can start seeing results. Take the idea of edit-a-thons and build off of that.

The sort of thing I'm talking about: I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, and have access to the library systems of Arlington County and Alexandria, as well (others, too). I would love, eventually, to develop a program in which classes in editing Wikipedia are offered in such library systems, when people can come and learn the basics of editing. It would be open to everyone, and be included in library mailings just like other topics.

I realize this goes beyond the bounds of any one WikiProject, but I think we're at the stage when we can try whatever sticks to drive editor engagement. If it works, fine...if it doesn't, then no harm, no foul. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. It needs efforts from the entire community both online and offline. From our side, we will try to apply our knowledge in computer science and in online community building to create tools to help identify those editors in the online context and create the matching opportunity between editors and projects. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03: I've just realized we started this discussion about a month ago on Megalibrarygirl's talk page. The points raised then are of course also valid here. In that connection, I would also like to confirm my interest in your attempts to identify existing editors who appear potentially interested in contributing to WikiProjects, especially of course Women in Red. From your recent remarks above, it looks as if this is still yout main concern.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, thank you Ipigott! We have been working on improving our study plan, andf implementing the system. Should be launching our study soon, and will let you know! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Bobo.03: I think these are all good ideas and if you can implement them, we would welcome it. I'm wondering if you have been able to sort out what additional information you need from us in order to be able to identify new or existing editors who might be interested in Women in Red? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Turning red

I took a look at what's at AfD currently and here's an organised list of the relevant results, fyi. It's up to you what to do about this but compiling the results was interesting. Note that there were about 400 bios altogether and about 20% were women.Andrew D. (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought overall. Is there a bot, or possible to create a bot, that will flag AFDs by gender, and post them to a list (by date) on separate sub page of this project? It just seems like a productive way for the project to flag these. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If they are tagged as part of WikiProject Women, then they appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts. (Perhaps this whole topic is a WikiProject Women thing rather than WiR?) But looking at these, by no means all are so tagged - eg none of the four in "Victims", and only 2 of the 5 in "Politicians". Well, they are now, as I've just added {{WP Women}} to their talk pages. I suggest we all need to add that banner to the talk page of any and every Woman page we come across, to get them listed in that alert list (and presumably also in some cases it'll get them picked up by the metric which gives us our 17%, if none of the categories used are "Women" categories). PamD 23:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew for taking the time to compile this interesting list. Many of the biographies obvisiouly have no place in Wikipedia but others could be enhanced with additional properly sourced content. I think one of the problems we all experience is how best we should be spending our time: on justifying the inclusion of border-line cases or on developing new articles on more prominent women. As for the WP Women tag, it is above all for women born after the mid-20th century (which in fact covers the vast majority of AfDs) but WP Women's History is also widely used for earlier births as well as Women writers, Women artists, etc. If a bot is to be developed, perhaps we could also somehow draw on the details presented in the lists of new articles where information on the number of edits made by the article creator as well as the absence of categories, sources, etc., is often a useful guide as to whether an article is worth researching further.--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Academics

Actress/beauty/model

Artists

Authors

Journalists

Nuns

Other

biochemist Rhonda Patrick (2nd nomination)
businesswoman Oyin Adeyemi
celebrity Blac Chyna
chef Michelle Mah
chemist Parisa Mehrkhodavandi
designer Claire Goldsmith
dog Mila Shak
historian Rozeta Gujejiani
lawyer Phyllis Christian
nurse Marta Felicitas Galedary
producer Alvira Khan Agnihotri
soldier Mujahida Hussain Bibi
wikipedian Nathalie Martin (Wikimedia)

Politicians

Singers

Victims

Youtube broadcasters

Wiki Challenges

I was wondering if we could include our article contributions to the various wiki challenges that are happening. We could promote Women in Red while adding towards the 100,000 contributions goal. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have certainly been including mine of the Latin America/Caribbean one. I see absolutely no reason why they wouldn't be included. SusunW (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I've been pretty active on the Nordic challenge but have always made sure my articles are also listed on WiR. I'm also looking forward to Dr. Blofeld's World Women in Red Contest in October. As there are prizes, it should be a major incentive for our work.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's another interest or support to make a 100,000 Challenge for women viable but I ideally, yeah, it would be great to see. Hopefully the contest will do something anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Idea for Edit-a-thon

I've noticed that women are often not included in common spaces such as Current Events listings, and "on this day"-type listings (including births, deaths, and event listings like July 2, for example, which also get linked to from the homepage, Current Events, and other areas. Most recently, women's sports events (football specifically) are being removed from the Current Events portal. A potential idea for an edit-a-thon would be to focus on integrating more links to women's articles in these types of date/event/portal spaces. Thoughts? Hmlarson (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmlarson: Since April, MurielMary has been devoting quite a lot of time and effort to adding more women for listings on the main page under "On this day". I'm pleased to say that thanks to her work many more women have been included in that section over the past few weeks. But even she ran into trouble with some editors who maintained the women she was adding were not notable enough. I don't know whether an editathon devoted to this problem would be a good ideas but perhaps we should encourage more editors to contribute women's names to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. I also share your concerns in regard to sporting events. Women should certainly be included where appropriate.--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ipigott That's great! Thank you MurielMary. I'm also going to start weaving this into my workflow. Feel free to get in touch if you run into any issues. Creating new portals or integrating more women's articles into existing portals is another idea. Hmlarson (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmlarson I think we really need a Women's history portal. It's on my to-do list. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl Agreed. If you'd like to help/collaborate, let me know. I created the WOSO portal a few years ago. Hmlarson (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hmlarson: I'd like that very much. I think it will be a big project and I'm not a historian or coder. But it would be good to get started and then draw in historians to take a look! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata merge

Looking through the choreographer's list, I discovered Marietta Bonfanti which is the same as Marie Bonfanti. I tried to add the French entry (Marietta) to the other entry (Marie) with four links, but got: "The save has failed. The link frwiki:Marietta Bonfanti is already used by item Q3293012. You may remove it from Q3293012 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." However, I have no idea how to merge the two, but clearly there is no need for a new article. Can someone help and merge these on Wikidata? SusunW (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I dood it. Should be all take care of. There was a green button next to her name in the list which, if clicked on, allowed you to move the relevant item from one Wikidata page to another. There is also a way to merge, but I'm damned if I can remember it at the moment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao Gracias mi amigo. Technology on here defeats me. Why the message doesn't say if you want to merge, press here, I have no idea. LOL I tried waving my magic wand, but ... SusunW (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

SusunW De nada. I must admit, I agree that Wikidata isn't the most user-friendly. Though some of that might be lack of familiarity, I suspect. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've run up against this problem several times too and have usually solved it by deleting and recoding. But I do agree with Susun that it is not easy to manipulate Wikidata entries. I'm sure the majority of Wikipedia editors still find it difficult if not impossible to handle. If it is to be used increasingly as a support tool for Wikipedia, then user-friendliness should be taken far more seriously, starting perhaps with prompts on how to enter basic information. Until I was introduced to the Wikipedia-based gadget, I found Wikidata extremely opaque.--Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Weird problem. I tried merging these from my iPad1 and I had no merge option, so I waited until I was on my laptop and merged them. This is the first time I see problems with merging on Wikidata in a long time. I noticed there is a page now to help with questions about this here: d:Help:Merge Jane (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red mentioned on the WMF blogpost

This blogpost by Aubrie might interest you! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting but it's a pity the article did not report in more detail on the specific areas of progress achieved.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red tempate

Hi, It's me again. I am trying to identify all the articles within the scope of WikiProject Women in Red, and have a question about the template that is being used. I look up the template of couple articles, for instance, Elizabeth Peer, Mette Ingvarsten. I find WPWIR uses something different than traditional projects, for instance, we can see the clear templates of WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women, etc, on the article talk page. However, it only says that this article is hosted by Women in Red project, blablabla. So I just want to confirm if this is the common patterns for WPWIR to claim articles? Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bobo.03 - The scope of WiR is (a) new articles including (b) women's biographies, (c) women's works, (d) women's issues. We have several templates, such as the ones we add to articles created during a particular virtual editathon. But lots of articles which are created under the scope of Women in Red are "claimed" by use of a bot, e.g. see our Metrics page. However, that bot doesn't catch all articles, at least not initially, such as those which don't have a 'woman' category or a 'woman' talkpage WikiProject banner. The great thing about the bot is that if the article gets tagged with one of these items a few months later, the bot adds that article to the appropriate metrics page. None of this is ideal, and I don't know how to improve the process. For sure, we are open to new ideas and discussion. Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also add that we have very close relationships with all the other wikiprojects on women, especially Women, Women writers, Women artists, Women's History and Women scientists. We encourage those who create articles to include one or more of these if appropriate. The WiR tags are first and foremost designed to identify articles created during our editathons although there is also a general tag for articles on women created independently of an editathon (currently :Template:WIR 2017). Maybe the latter should be redesigned along the lines of a wikiproject tag?--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' proposed support for paid coverage of business on Wikipedia

Some of you may be interested in this discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Prudence Nobantu Mabele

This article Prudence Nobantu Mabele could use another set of eyes per User talk:Phillipa Tucker#Help for you. I am focused on Gender Diversity Mapping this weekend. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Women for Peace

From July 22nd until August 1st Wikimedia Austria in cooperation with Service Civil International will organise a Wikipedia for Peace editing camp in Austria. People from all over the world will come together to write and edit Wikipedia articles in more than ten languages about women who fight and fought for peace and justice. We are still looking for suggestions of women we could write about. We want to compile a list of 100 articles in total. The women should be engaged in peace movements (e.g. as pacifists, human rights activists, women's rights activists, environmental activists, LGBTI activists etc.), should not have articles in too many languages yet and there should be reliable resources available about them. Please help by adding suggestions to this page. Get back to me, if you're interested to know more about the project in general. :) Do you think it would be possible for the project to be one of the Women in Red events happening in July? --Shikeishu (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Shikeishu there are quite a few peace activists/WILPF activists on the Activist List I'm not sure about adding the event in July, but pinging @Rosiestep and Megalibrarygirl: who are better equipped to assist with setting up the events. If July proves not feasible due to time constraints, it might work alongside our August events: Indigenous Women and Canadian Women, if you were game for ours to be a continuation of your camp. SusunW (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Shikeishu - We would love to be part of a women activist event, but our July calendar is already underway, this being July 6th, with three other offerings, which we promoted, via invitations, towards the end of June. I wish we had learned about your event sooner, as it appears to be awesome and important, but I understand it's not always easy to know where to promote an event. Would you be comfortable with Women in Red's participation 1-31 August? --Rosiestep (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think "Women for peace" would be an excellent addition to our August activities. We'll also have time to prepare redlists, etc., and will be able to build on the results of the Austrian event. It would also offer an opportunity to coordinate WiR activities in other languages. I would have thought we could create at least 100 new articles in English alone.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've been in contact with Claudia, the WM Austria Executive Director, regarding this event and she said that they like the idea of our event occurring in August as a follow-up of their camp. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yay! I like the idea of doing peace activists a lot! Looking forward to it. Should we put it on the calendar? SusunW (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shikeishu, Rosiestep, SusunW, and Ipigott: I can make a Redlist of peace activists and advocates for the editathon. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I put it on the calendar. Megalibrarygirl, if you'll post the link in the Ideas Cafe, I can help with redlinks too. SusunW (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for the great responses, Women in Red has such an inspiring spirit - looking forward to the August focus for Women in Red a lot. We have compiled quite an extensive list that we will work on here, please feel free to use them for the redlist here at the WikiProject and to add women you think would be interesting to write about. I can also add to the redlist.

I will of course promote Women in Red as an initiative to the camp participants. I saw that the edit-a-thon in Germany happening today is in the event section - is it possible to mention us there as well? --Shikeishu (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is our list. Feel free to join us in writing during our camp! :) We presented the Women in Red project yesterday as an inspiration for our participants. --Shikeishu (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Gloria Carter Spann

Gloria Carter Spann was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Carter Spann (2nd nomination). She is the sister of former United States President Jimmy Carter. Can anyone find more sources about the subject? Cunard (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Again we have the problem of a poorly written lede. If the only claim that she was notable was that she was Carter's sister, of course it would appear that the article was based on inherited notability. Thanks to others adding data about her motorcycling, I added more sources and info on her own notability and updated the lede. SusunW (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman

Create articles on any day of any month
Cover women and their works in any field of interest
Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lesley Arfin

Here's a draft for Lesley Arfin that could be checked and pushed to mainspace should anyone feel so charitable. She had an article back in 2012 but it was Prodded. 104.163.153.14 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No one has looked at this page yet, which seems odd.104.163.153.14 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)