Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 54

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men

Victuallers, I'm wondering if you or any of our other UK-based editors are involved with this effort: "Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men", by Victoria Leonard, 12 December 2018, The Guardian. Perhaps we could coordinate a WiR classicist event in 2019 with Victoria's team? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to think female scholars are marginalized because academia marginalizes them; we just mirror the greater cultural biases. Their page says "By 'classics' we understand the study of the ancient Mediterranean world and its reception, including but not limited to scholarship by students and post-holders in academic departments of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology." I'd support an event, if we balance it out with an event that doesn't focus on Western culture, as well. Doesn't have to be simultaneously, just another event with a more global perspective. SusunW (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Worth talking with, for instance, Srsval and Claire 75 who are mainstays of Wikipedia:Women's Classical Committee; I hope they'll pop up here by the magic of being mentioned, to discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I certainly favour a direct approach to the Guardian, it was obviously a slow news day. To be positive they went to the trouble to print it- and that to my mind was a request from them to get involved. Do contact:John Lubbock WMUK.
It was a pity they didn't check the facts with WMUK and notice that our CEO is called Lucy, and chairman is called Josie. We would love them to join us at the next London Wiki-meetup where Women in Red is always a topic of discussion. If the Guardian can provide us with a Central London venue we can provide the trainers, to help any group start on their Wikipedia careers. If these became regular it would be a massive PR boost for Guardian newspapers.
If the Guardian wants to provide the print space we can collaborate in producing a series of articles on the nuts and bolts of using Wikipedia, or the philosophy and ethics of the wiki-world- I am sure there are great similarities between our discussions and their boardroom conversations.
It would be really positive if the Guardian could be more precise about the copyright status of some of their text and images- the authors of a lot of the features would be perfectly happy to have them published under cc-0 or even cc-by-sa 4.0, which would remove a hurdle for our editors- it just need that to be stated in the text. (I am writing this on the assumption that the Guardian will be reading this too). The Guardian needs to know that we do have a large photo-library, which is cheaper to use than an agency! They have a nice regional photolibrary that they could open to us on a CC-BY_SA basis- this would be appreciated by Wikidata. Finally they need to know about the possibility of employing a Wikipedian in resident in the same way that the Wellcome foundation does- they could talk directly to ZeroMonk (Alice). ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly Clem, I'm not seeing any factual inaccuracies in the Guardian piece and while I have temporarily laid aside my WMUK hat if I was wearing it I'm not sure what issue I'm meant to be seeing. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Rosiestep, yes we'd love to! That would be great. Srsval (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag Tagishsimon Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Women scholars are absolutely marginalised in academia, but they are also marginalised on Wikipedia in interlinked but discrete ways. Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry what? 'It was obviously a slow news day'. That's pretty offensive. Srsval (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, the irony obviously didn't work (vote of no confidence in PM, Brexit vote pulled et c). Yes, it is a good article; I would have expected the Guardian to have approached WMUK for further comment.ClemRutter (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A big WCC event took place in January 2017 and there has been regular monthly activity ever since. This has been quite productive: as the article says, about 200 articles have been created. For example, I myself started the Dorothy Tarrant article which is mentioned, taking it to our main page as a DYK. So, the WCC has a good record and should be seen as a model of how to organise and sustain a special interest group. In my experience, many editathons don't get much done because there's not enough follow-up to build on the initial enthusiasm and training. The WCC has maintained good momentum and the Guardian article is just the latest example of its energetic outreach. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
How about a geofocus on The Ancient World in February? I think we need to move forward fairly quickly.--Ipigott (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott, I agree. Would you please add it to the calendar? Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Done.--Ipigott (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Rosiestep:, missed all this - I was busy giving a wiki talk and my comms got more ignored than usual. The classicists are in regular contact via our Twitter stream and we did retweet the story. It does unfortunately follow the narrative that its a male conspiracy to keep women out of Wikipedia.... and that its blokes who don't write about women and blokes who delete articles. Its a nice story but it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. My worry is that it makes women editors responsible for fixing the problem. Luckily our editors of all genders realise that this is our problem and we are fixing it. Victuallers (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for mansplaining that for us, Victuallers. This thread is a complete and utter disaster, exemplifying exactly the sort of hostile environment which disincentives involvement in wikipedia. VL manages to float a perfectly valid and very helpful article in a UK national newspaper. It is met with 'must have been a slow news day' and 'nice story but'. There is no, not even a scintilla of, assertion of conspiracy in VL's article. The nearest she comes is "counteract the stranglehold men exert", which given the ratio seems to be an observation of the de facto state of things. Meanwhile what should have been a collegiate and friendly discussion about cooperation between two wikiprojects has descended into an exercise in kicking a (female) wikipedian who took the initiative to use her skills and experience to get the perfectly valid and helpful article in said paper. I am, honestly, appalled that this is happening, and especially that this is happening on the talk page of this project. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I find this vitriol upsetting and counterproductive. There are two issues I have been pondering: The first is with the Guardian, a potential partner, and I can neither prove or demonstrate what I about to say, but at around 3.00am I saw an interesting article on-line. As I said, a fantastic opportunity to cement our relationship with the G. I copied the url, and hit the sack. Two days later I commented here- using that url. It drew comment from one notable Wikipedian. I looked again at the article, I agreed with that editor as the article was not as I remembered. It now had a dateline of 7.00 am and was maybe three paragraphs shorter- but memory is no longer my strong suit, it may just be a false memory. I conclude that a sub-ed had reduced the editorial comment and by 7.00 am the url referred to a very differnt piece. The second issue is how anyone had not understood the irony of my quip: (to explain to editors not based in the UK- with the government about to fall, and take with it the Union established in 1701 between Scotland and England, with the worlds press camped outside Parliament waiting for a meaning vote, with the executive challenging constitutional supremacy of representatives of the people- this is what we call a slow newsday) If the Guardian posted an article before it had been finally proof read on a day like that, I understand. If it touches a raw nerve due to an editors previous experience I can understand that too but we don't personalise it to the point where other POVs are ignored. We certainly need to take a step back and question the contributions the editors have given here in the past before pressing the publish button.
I suspect that the anger, really has nothing to do with the topic. I suspect it is about structure. I suspect it is about a frustration that initiatives have collapsed because of lack of follow up. ClemRutter (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean, don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to demographics. If we had four times as many dentists as we had veterinarians editing Wikipedia, it would make sense to expect our articles on dentistry to be more numerous, higher quality, and better maintained, even if there were a core group of orthodontists working to improve our coverage of animal medicine. <perennial rant>That's also why we should be collecting data on wider measures of diversity than we currently are.</perennial rant> And IMO there are actually very few problems on Wikimedia projects where the obvious answer isn't "increase the quantity and quality of our user base", even if other measures are useful stop-gaps for the obvious solution, because getting to the obvious solution is harder than it seems.
And any way, all press is good press. The more people are reading about and thinking about Wikipedia, the more we're going to find that 0.01% who take the plunge and click edit. GMGtalk 15:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Briefly back and very disappointed by much of the reaction here to Victoria's article. It also seems to be mixed in with people's views about the Guardian, which is clearly a separate issue that some people here feel strongly about and that part of the discussion perhaps might take place somewhere separate.
We do have and welcome editors on the project of different genders; the underlying issue of women being underrepresented on Wikipedia both as subjects and as editors is clearly and consequentially linked. It's the run up to Xmas, that time of year when most UK women have a lot on and a lot of editors are busy with their offline lives and hard to speak to/for but am sure we'd be very happy to take part in something that takes a wider view of women and antiquity globally - thanks for the question @SusunW: our focus comes from the fact that classics is our academic discipline/main interest and hence expertise, rather than any view that work isn't needed across the board.
@Rosiestep: On February for a focus on The Ancient World what sort of things do you propose? Is this the idea of running events in physical spaces, or more of a push online? Claire 75 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Claire 75:: Women in Red will facilitate an online event; we've penciled it in for February, but can shift it to another month if you prefer, as space permits. Anyone can take the lead in developing a Women in Red online event. It would be lovely if you/your team would do so as classics is your academic discipline/main interest/expertise. Women in Red doesn't coordinate in-person events. But our members might participate in an in-person event if we lived in an area where one was occurring. Regarding what would the focus be for The Ancient World, it would be up to our community to decide. We have a Librarian in Residence, Megalibrarygirl who is very helpful with developing the redlists for our events. She might have some thoughts on this, and/or SusunW who suggested broadening the scope, and/or Ipigott who added the event to the calendar. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, if you would like help organising or promoting the event you have in mind, please do get in touch with me at john.lubbock@wikimedia.org.uk as we would like to help out as much as possible. Thanks. Jwslubbock (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


@Clarie 75: Let me know if you need any help with the redlists. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline on women in photography

As we are focusing on photography this month, I thought it might be a good opportunity to create a Timeline of women in photography. I could probably make a start in the next day or two but from 11 December I'll be going to Denmark for Christmas and probably won't have too much time for the rest of the month. A few years ago, I created lots of lists of women photographers but now I have identified serious gaps with at least one major omission, Franziska Möllinger. There are no doubt many others. I'll try to make a start tomorrow but would appreciate the established expertise of Megalibrarygirl (and of course of all others).--Ipigott (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Oooh. I love timelines. Have you started a draft yet, Ipigott? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Been working my way through the leadership of the Women's Federation of the Photographers Association of America this month--no entry for the organization (yet), but I can at least add their founding date to a timeline.Penny Richards (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl: I may be able to make a start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl: Any idea who Mrs. L. Condon is? She made this excellent photo of Susan B. Anthony] and.. ??? Is this her? Do we have sources for an article? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
She apparently won awards. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I think you're right that Mrs. L. Condon is Linnie Condon who set up a photography studio in Atlanta Georgia in 1890. She doesn't have a wiki page :) Linnie Condon/Linnie Condon-Hendricks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations to WiR!

I noticed Ipigott updated the percentage of biographies that are of females, and we've reached 17.77%. Given there's over a million biographies, that we managed to make multiple percentage points movement in the last four years is really impressive.

I don't know if it's possible to reach numerical equality: Several millennia of oppressed women can't be retroactively fixed. But we are helping to fix what can be fixed, and that is fantastic. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Adam for your encouragement. While some of the other language wikis have reached percentages in the low 20s, with almost 280,000 women's biographies, the English wiki is way ahead of its nearest rivals: German with about 109,000 and French with 96,000. It is nevertheless extremely difficult to raise the percentage significantly. To reach 20%, we would probably need over 4,000 new biographies a month over the next two years. At the moment, we're averaging less than 2,000 a month. Only in November 2017, with The World Contest, were we able to create more than 4,000 biographies in one month. At the present rate of increase, it will probably take us four or five more years to reach 20%. But quantity is not everything. This year we've been making enormous strides on quality with some 25 new GAs.--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Well, I find it interesting that we're almost at 18% in 2018. Coincidence? ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Have any gender gap events been run in Bangkok before?

Hi all

I'm exploring the possibility of organising gender gap events for International Women's Day in March next year, does anyone know if any events have been run in Bangkok before?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

John Cummings: Yes, in 2016. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Bangkok/ArtAndFeminism 2016.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott:, thanks very much, it looks like it was organised by @Ellenored:, I'll contact them. John Cummings (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nursing theory

I've got https://openlibrary.org/books/OL2185201M/Nursing_theorists_and_their_work from Arcada University. It contains 26 biographies of 10-15 pages each. Out of the first 10, 8 are missing or are stubs here on the English Wikipedia. A couple are just mentioned on Nursing theory. If someone is interested in the book as source for articles, I can mail it. Otherwise, I'll probably skim some pages to see if there's something especially egregious and eventually mail it to the Internet Archive for digitisation (to be completed in the next few years). Nemo 09:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Nemo_bis If no one else steps up I'd definitely take it, and forward it on to the Internet Archive after creating at least stubs, but it might take me a while to get to as I've just gotten access to a recent scholarly work on post-WWII Women's Pages journalists, most of whom are also missing from WP, and I've got a jones for that right now. 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Althea Willoughby

New article: "Althea Willoughby (1904-1982) was a British artist. She worked as a book and magazine illustrator...". How can this be included in Women in Red's stats? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: So long as it is in wikidata with Q5 & female, it gets picked up by Reports bot & included. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Although if you add the "WIR" template on the talk page then we notice if it gets nommed for deletion and our volunteers will "see" the new article. Adding the article to our WIR-00-2018 (soon 2019) will allow others to add to your new article or tweet it. Victuallers (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Three Things I Learned as a Wiki Scholar

A new post mentioning Women in Red: "Three Things I Learned as a Wiki Scholar", Dr. Rachel Boyle, December 20, 2018, WikiEdu Blog. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, particularly "Contributing to Wikipedia requires a different mindset than academic writing."--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in Red

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108


Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: Women of War and Peace Play!

January geofocus: Caucasus

New, year-long initiative: Suffrage

Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)
--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Holiday greetings MassMessage from Women in Red?

All of our MassMessage postings have been notifications about our upcoming monthly events. If you think it would be nice for us to send a "happy holidays" MassMessage to our List this week, please suggest/create an image plus some wording. In the meantime, happy holidays from me to those who celebrate them this time of year. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Feel free, if you wish, to borrow my standard greeting at the office for this time of year: "Happy federally-mandated season of cheer." Though that may be a tad too DHS-centric... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: More seriously, there is this text which I've used before on a template. It comes from a Shaker Christmas song, and was written, it seems, by Sister Martha Anderson of the Mt. Lebanon Shaker community in New York:

Give good gifts, one to another
Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow
Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother
Smooth life's journey as you onward go.
Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers.
So shed an influence blessing to prove;
Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs;
Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

What do you think? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:, nice. For yet another option, this was left on my talkpage today: "Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension." --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I love that message Rosiestep! SusunW (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, e.g. use what we already have, we could consider this image: WIR-laurel.svg But if there are creative folks who want to come up with something else, please go for it. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

.

Rosiestep: I think it's a great idea to use mass messaging for conveying our greetings. Perhaps we can adapt our message to reflect the goals of Women in Red, bringing out our awareness of the important role women play in the festive season and in guaranteeing the success of the New Year. Perhaps with some kind of call for greater involvement, empowerment, creativity, equality... But I haven't found any specific messages or greetings along these lines. I'm not too keen on the laurels as I've been using them for barnstars. Maybe Megalibrarygirl could put something together based on the WiR icon. We still have a few days to work on it.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe we could use this New Year greeting card with a "woman in red". --Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I like that "women in red" image. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I cropped it (removed the Hebrew wording), creating this: File:Rosh Hashanah - New Year greeting card (4968897054) CROPPED.png.
  • However, the cropped version doesn't have the correct licensing and I don't know how to fix that (cc: Adam Cuerden).
  • In the meantime, I inserted the cropped image into the January invite, which is currently a draft and needs review (cc: Ipigott).

It does not appear that the licensing issue for the Rosh Hashanah image you suggested, Ipigott, and I cropped will be resolved soon.[1]. So here are alternate images we could consider for the January invite with maybe the addition of the wording, Happy New Year. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Bharatiya (licensing issue?)
    Bharatiya (licensing issue?)
  • Preisler
    Preisler
  • Munch
    Munch
  • Bilinska
    Bilinska
  • MET
    MET
  • Barney
    Barney
Of these, I like the Bharatiya (non-Western) and Munch (no face/hair showing) the best. But open to other opinions, and suggestions of other images. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Regarding the Bharatiya image above. GMGtalk 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixed: PD-old-100-1923. Yann (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
And now that I've found this generic "happy new year" message, I think it's the easiest one to use, so I've incorporated it into the draft invitation, which still needs a review. (cc: @SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Victuallers, and Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: I favor the Bilinska, but I may be a tad biased...I wrote my senior project paper on her in college. :-) Never seen that painting, tho' (unsurprising, as it's listed as being privately-held.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I think they look fine. I added the Suffragists lists to the sign up page. SusunW (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: The invitation looks fine to me. Thanks also for assigning meetup numbers to #1day1woman and Suffrage and adapting the WiR template. Enjoy your Christmas break!--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Great idea! - Merry Xmas to "the core". Thrilled to see that Jess Wade is one of the 2018 people of influence for Nature. We're mainstream. Victuallers (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

African women novelists article in the Guardian

Found this article about an editor from the Guardian who challenged himself to read only fiction by African women. Here's the article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I just knew Nigerian women writers will be mentioned greatly in the article. Surprised they didn't talk about Brittle Paper, founded by Ainehi Edoro. I'll try to make sure all the books and writers mentioned in the article have a Wikidata entry before the end of next week. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@HandsomeBoy: I know all of the women mentions have an en.Wikipedia article but I don't know about Wikidata. Interestingly, the article mentions the book Daughters of Africa and there are over 20 writers without an article (with some not even linked at all!). Maybe that'd be useful for a redlist? There's an upcoming sequel to the book as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I also just finished going through the names in the release, and confirmed that they all have Wikipedia articles, which to the best of my understanding means that they also have a Wikidata entry (at least from bots). However, I can also confirm that many of the books mentioned do not have entries on either Wikipedia or WikiData. The reason I'm particularly interested/motivated in them having a WikiData entry is because of the low notability bar on WikiData. Getting multiple reliable reviews for African books is a little far-fetched, hence my dissuade from writing them on Wikipedia. I Googled some of the names without WP articles in Daughters of Africa, and am not seeing many sufficient online references for all of them. Maybe there may supporting coverage offline. I'm in support of them being a basis of a redlist, the next time wir is focusing on writers, I'll make some blue. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Leila Usher

Any thoughts on File:Leila Usher with bas-relief of Susan B. Anthony.jpg, especially white balance? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 19:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Epic photo. Can you lighten the wall on the left side? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's any detail there to bring out, and it'll make Leila look odd, as it'll fade out her hair and such. The left wall is the darkest part of the image, so lightening it sets the black point higher. I'm actually wondering if I've lightened things too much. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 20:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you've lost any detail in the background of the bas-relief or her neckline (the two highest-key parts) so I think the lightening is ok. White balance looks very neutral to me, much better than the original. It's very contrasty, but that may be the photographer's choice (little or no fill) rather than something that could or should be changed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Development thinking & anthroplogy

I've added a new redlist, Development thinking, based on The Perils of Male Bias: Alice Evans replies to yesterday’s ‘Sausagefest’.

A comment in that article mentions Influential Women of and for Anthropology, which is behind a Wiley paywall. Might anyone be able to access it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have downloaded a copy. It appears to be the same document as https://web.archive.org/web/20170317135709/http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2017/03/08/influential-women-for-anthropology/ which you should be able to access directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David. I'll go through it tomorrow & add anything I find to our anthropology list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Dylan Sahara, a missing celebrity during the 2018 Sunda Strait tsunami

I just created an article regarding an Indonesian television personality Dylan Sahara who is speculated to have been killed during the course of the volcano triggered tsunami in Sunda Strait. The article that I created may lack notability issues and I would like to hear suggestions from the WIR campaign. Abishe (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

If there are other reports of her achievements before the tsunami, these should be included too. It would be useful to provide links from other Wikipedia articles. But it looks OK for a start.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Campaign for statue to celebrate Jersey women

From here: "A new statue featuring prominent female Islanders from history could be erected to mark the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote in Jersey, it has been revealed." Something else to add to our planning for next year, perhaps? Ivy Forster already has a redirect. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. This List of people from Jersey is not too rich on women. Perhaps in our January coverage of Suffrage, we should encourage work on the biographies and achievements of those who were active in 2018. When I have time, I'll try to expand the introduction to the editathon page.--Ipigott (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

19th century women architectural sculptors in the UK

Well, I bet you never thought of that one. Thank you, Victoria Leonard, for today's (12 Dec 2018) article in the Guardian: "Female scholars are marginalised on Wikipedia because it's written by men." You may be interested to know that I've recently moved my article on Catherine Mawer to mainspace; it's been some years in the making. This isn't about being a woman, though; it's about her being a seriously good sculptor. Most of her contemporaries went in for the contemporary Romantic idea of beauty; she did warts and all portraits, full of life and lots of movement, even though most of the time she was limited to just doing heads. It was she who completed the sculpture on Leeds Town Hall after her husband died. The local newspapers credited her for it, but she's so forgotten by us that the Henry Moore Institute next door to the Town Hall didn't even know that they were passing a woman's carvings on the way to work every day. She did the cherubs way up high on the clock tower - and had to carve it in situ - that's how they did it in those days. She pranked as well. She worked alongside her husband in the early days, and this gargoyle of one of their apprentices vomiting down a drainpipe is in her unique style. Somebody (probably the apprentice) responded by doing a stone snake with her head on it on top of one of the buttresses on the same building. Enjoy. I should also add that I am a woman but don't list myself as such, and I wonder whether there might be a few more women on here than there are on the official count? Storye book (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Rather excellent Mawer article, Storye book. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. Storye book (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Storye book: That article is a thing of beauty. Nicely done. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Storye book (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Storye book, a very interesting and beautifully illustrated article. Maybe it could be promoted to GA?--Ipigott (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Ipigott, for your kind comment. Much appreciated. However I am still researching, revising and adding to this article - I keep finding more sources out there. This is why, even though I have already contributed a lot of DYKs, I have carefully avoided DYK and GA for this set of seven articles on the Mawer group.Storye book (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I have referenced the Catherine Mawer article, and five articles (which I also created) about her associated colleagues in the Mawer Group, to apply to Leeds Civic Trust for a blue plaque to be erected on the modern building which stands on the site of the group's original stoneyard in Leeds. I have done this in response to a movement in England for more blue plaques commemorating women. Storye book (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I got to tinkering after talking about images and wound up with this. Anybody can feel free to use or improve upon it. GMGtalk 12:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's beautiful, GreenMeansGo. As there are images of living people, I would be uncomfortable using it widely, e.g. on an Invite, due to the "Personality rights warning". Also, several of the images in the heart don't come from Commons; don't they need to be added to Commons before we use them? I'm not sure if you know that I've been taken to AN/I after MassMessaging a Women in Red invite with an image issue, ergo my caution and my reasoning for wanting feedback from others. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The images can each be uploaded to Commons, since they're all under some type of free license or in the public domain. So long as they can be uploaded to Commons, it's not necessary that the be uploaded to Commons in order to be used in a derivative work, as long as the derivative work is properly attributed. If anyone wants a trip to ANI over that, gimme and ping and we'll make short work of it. Other than that, if any of the sources were themselves making invalid claims of free use, then I really do hope someone proves me wrong so we can fix the issue.
Personality rights are like trademark, the images are still free, but you are restricted in the how you use them in ways that are unrelated to copyright. So for example, as far as copyright is concerned, I can use this image however I want, but if I put it on a billboard saying "Don't be such a loser, come to Bob's Hair Transplants LLC™" then I'm using that person's image in a way that brings them into disrepute, and I may be legally liable for that. But we're not using them commercially, and we're not using them in any way that would bring disrepute, so no one should have any claim that we caused them personal damage. Like trademark tags, personality rights tags are mostly for people who reuse our content, and not so much to do with how we use our own content. GMGtalk 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can recreate it with colourised red dresses on historic pictures? They wouldn't need to be perfect for the scale they're meant to display at, and we could try to focus on articles we've created. Ida Husted Harper, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a really good idea actually. I was going more for a "consider the stories that have yet to be told" type impression. But if you have the skills (I don't) to colorize historic photos a la Schindler's List, in the sense of making an artistic statement through false color emphasis, that could be compelling. GMGtalk 17:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This is indeed very creative but do we have any more specific ideas on how it is to be used?--Ipigott (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I don't have expertise in this area and I'm grateful that others do. Regarding a specific use, can we include it in the February WiR invite, which will hit over 500 talkpages? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. Let's use it in February.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
We'll need 10-20. I'd prefer to use articles we've created that have pictures that are very, very definitely free licensed. Offhand, I think we can use:

All four of those are from articles we've worked on, and images I've restored. We'll need at least six more people, though, for the collage to look right. The image as it stands has 27, but I think that's impractical, and we can always repeat on the narrow bit on the right of the image where no-one will be seen anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 11:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Note it's absolutely vital there isn't the slightest bit of doubt in the licensing. If there's a problem with one image, the whole logo has to go. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 11:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, a thought for two more:

Not sure these are useful but, here are some better ones I've uploaded in the past year (and all have articles I've worked on in the past year):

Tyra Vaughn

The article on Tyra Vaughn (WIR August 2017) could be Afd'd, as it is basically "one source". Any help would be appreciated. She also has only one in-coming link from article space, from a list at chorus line --Bejnar (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it up to ten sources, so I removed the tag.Penny Richards (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sign-up sheet for creating event pages for 2019

I mentioned on our Ideas page that it seems like @Ipigott and Megalibrarygirl have done the heavy-lifting for the last several months creating our (a) monthly event pages and (b) the monthly Invite. Would someone else be interested/available to give it a go? --Rosiestep (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not feeling reliable enough yet, but would be willing in future. If you need something set up far enough in advance that others can step in if I don't, I'd be happy to, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 06:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about the preparations for January. I'll put everything together over the next few days. But it would be useful to have volunteers to help over the coming months. I would be happy to give guidance to anyone interested. I would also welcome any creative ideas about how we can improve the impact of our editathon pages and even our main WiR page.--Ipigott (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Rosiestep: Now that I've put together the five new editathon pages for January, you might like to develop an invitation which combines seasonal greetings with the new priorities. If you are too busy, I can prepare a basic invitation myself.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott: Thanks for creating those January editathon pages. I do have time to work on the invitation today so I will give it a go. Note, I will be on family holiday starting tomorrow night and will be away from the computer for much of the time through January 7th. I can MassMessage before then if we can finalize the invitation. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What kind of things need done? Also, @Ipigott:, could you tell me how you usually set them up? I might be able to set up a template and a preloader so that a lot of the work is done for you. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 16:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden: A template might help with the basics but each new priority needs special attention. I start each new editathon page by copying the very first version of a similar page (i.e. before all the additions on participants, articles, media, etc., have been made). I then simply add the new headings, dates, redlink lists, templates, etc. Not too difficult to do. The most difficult part is to describe the focus and any tie-ups with other initiatives. For example, we need to do a lot more work on suffrage, probably on a month by month basis starting with January. I'll try to make a start on that in a day or two but your assistance would be appreciated, perhaps by adding some of your great images.--Ipigott (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll have more time from March, and have made a suggestion for December 2019. I'd be happy to investigate if it is a worthwhile topic and have a go at building the editathon page. I will need some support! Moira Paul (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Canadian Women in Aviation

Hello. I have two books currently borrowed from my local library about Canadian women in aviation. They are No place for a lady : the story of Canadian women pilots, 1928-1992 and Canadian women in the sky: 100 years of flight. I'm wondering if anyone is interested in this topic. I would consider extracting the names from these books but I can't confirm if they are all notable. I'm currently using these books to make articles for two of the women redlinks at Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

MrLinkinPark333: These books look interesting. Perhaps you could check out any interesting names with our List_of_women_aviators and add the missing ones to our Aviation redlist. As you probably know, we also have an evolving Timeline of women in aviation. I am interested in working on both aviation and women from Canada -- so you could let me know if you find any important gaps.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: You are interested? Awesome! Canadian women in the sky would be easier for me to go through. As for the bush pilots one, I don't know if most would pass notability but there are a few apendixs that would be useful: first women pilots, women employed by major airlines, canadian armed forces and transport canada inspectors. Those appendixs I believe would be the most needed. The rest of the bush pilots book would be a thorough examination. Alternativelly, there is three women missing from Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame: Lorna deBlicquy, Vera Dowling and Kathleen Carol Fox. I'm working on deBlicquy and I highly recommend for you to make one on Dowling (if you wish) as there are lots of sources for her :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for drawing my attention to Vera Strodl Dowling. I've now managed to make a start on her biography. Please feel free to expand it from the various sources referenced in the article. I was really surprised to see that until now, only the Swedish wiki had thought she was worth including. Please let me know if there are other important omissions.--Ipigott (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott Awesome! I[ll expand Dowling with the two books I have available on me. The only other woman (apart from deeBlicquy which I'm working on) that's a redlink is Kathleen Carol Fox. She might be difficult to make, but if you're up to it I'd be very happy for that redlink to be filled. I hope to finish deBlicquy by the end of the month :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: Yes, of course, it would be useful to expand Dowling from your books. One item you might look into is a Silver Medal Award of Merit she apparently received in 1971. I haven't been able to identify exactly what it was. I'll try to make a start on Fox but I usually try to avoid BLPs.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott I'll see if I can find that medal. Also, with the books I have, the information is pretty much the same for Dowling lol. However, I could work the sources into it to reduce the heavily used reference #1. I'll also try to expand Fox as well (my books don't have her though). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
MrLinkinPark333: I think I'm just about finished with Kathy Fox. I've found this image on Flikr which is marked "public" but I don't know how to upload it. Perhaps you can help.--Ipigott (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ipigott: This tool should help. I should warn you that Flickr's "public domain" tag is not considered sufficient justification for upload to Commons, but in this instance the image appears to be the work of the United States National Transportation Safety Board, which is a government agency. So it is considered PD...but the tag would need to be changed. I would upload it myself, but for a variety of reasons that's not feasible right now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I've been battling with your tool without success. I simply cannot find any of the parameters it requires. I normally have no problems uploading from Flickr but the problem with this photo is that you cannot simply "save image" as it gives a URL link. If ever you find time to investigate, I would greatly appreciate your help.--Ipigott (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Let me look in a bit today - I'm on a different machine, which usually has no problems with the tool. I'll try tonight and see what I can manage. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Rescuing women's writing

This Guardian article describes a five-year project, led by Carme Font and funded by the European Research Council, to rescue women's writing. The goal is to bring recognition to women between 1500 and 1780 who wrote popular texts that have typically been dismissed as overly personal and anecdotal. We might want to keep an eye on Prof Font's research; it could provide some useful resources for WiR. jxm (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Jxm: Very interesting article, close to our interests. Hope we can follow up on this.--Ipigott (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Katharine Gibbs School vs Gibbs College

I find the Gibbs College article very sad. Katharine Gibbs School was where many women went to get some sort of career training. The woman I'm working on now graduated phi beta kappa in 1937 from Duke and then went to Katharine Gibbs School to learn typing and shorthand. It was practically the only place women could get skills they could actually use to get a job. It had an unfortunate end, but for decades it was very well respected. I'm not sure how to fix this. Do you think a separate article could work? I don't think I have to stomach to just put in a bigger history section on Gibbs College, it's too caught up in the current for-profit scandals. valereee (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The School was the ancestor of Gibbs College, right? What is the relationship between the College and Katharine Gibbs School – Melville? It seems like this material could be merged into an enhanced history section. I'd be disinclined to start a separate article just to get around the for-profit scandal issue. That's an external controversy, not an internal WP/WiR logistics challenge. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, school was sold at some point to one of these horrible scammy corporations. Family should be ashamed of themselves, lol. The Melville article is likely slightly old? That school was part of the Katharine Gibbs Schools, so was probably sold but the article is maybe an outdated holdover? valereee (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

FPs for the week of 27 December

So, think it's time for another update. Since last time, the Mary Cassatt painting, Emma Smith DeVoe, and Ida Tarbell have passed, and File:Hester Jeffrey.jpg and File:Jeannette Rankin, Bain News Service, facing front.jpg have so much support and are so close to the cutoff date that I've just treated them as passed and added them to the Showcase so I don't have to worry about updating that until 2019.

New nominations are:

So, a nice crop of nominations, and, best of all, a lot of them aren't mine, which is always nice.

As always, this is meant to inform and help plan the future, not to canvass votes. I don't want to say Women in Red shouldn't participate at WP:FPC, as it's a great project that could use more enthusiastic contributors. But one thing you certainly shouldn't do is use this as a guide to what to vote on, or worse, a guide on what to give specific votes to, and reading WP:Featured picture criteria is something I'd suggest you do first, at a minimum.

I suspect everyone knows that here, but I still feel I should say it. WP:CANVASS is a rule I believe in. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 23:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Alright. So!


Future nominations

Some statistics

For the purposes of these statistics, I'm just looking at the subcategories of WP:Featured pictures/People. I'd also presume there's going to be a certain amount of error, as I'm making snap judgements of gender based on appearance, since otherwise this will take hours.

Division Total images Women Mixed gender Percentages Comments
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers 98 34 2 34.7% female, 2% mixed. This is a start, but should probably be better.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Business 5 0 0 0% non-male A terribleness only matched by the relative ease of fixing it. We only need five.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment 130 54 3 41.5% women, 2.3% mixed Close to even, but this is probably the field where women are most recognised historically.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military 48 3 1 (technically) 6.25% women, 2.1% mixed Not entirely surprising. The gallery is heavily biased to historical military leaders of high rank. Could be improved.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Political 158 15 4 9.5% women, 2.5% mixed Numbers are somewhat biased by a giant set of engravings of U.S. presidents and their historical appointees, but this is still not great. It seems to be improving, though, with more women in more recent featured pictures. This is almost solely because of my work, though.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Religious figures 16 0 0 0% non-male ...Really?
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Royalty and nobility 55 23.5 2.5 43% women, 4.5% mixed. Best of all the categories. Half figure is for File:Bronzino - Eleonora di Toledo col figlio Giovanni - Google Art Project.jpg, where the inclusion of a male seems to be more about motherhood symbolism.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Science and engineering 52 17 1 31% women, 1.8% mixed. Improving: More recent results bias much more towards women than earlier results.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport 60 17 1 28.3% women, 1.7% mixed Improving: More recent results are mostly women.
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Traditional dress 37 9 3 24.3% women, 8.1% mixed I have no idea how to interpret this one.
Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Others 34 9 1 26.4% women 2.9% mixed I don't know if one can actively populate the category "Other".
Totals 714 181.5 18.5 25.4% women; 2.6% mixed Well, it's a start.

To make a start, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sue Gardner Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 23:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how to nominate, but for 'business', perhaps Muriel Siebert? She was the first woman to get a seat on the NYSE. We'd need to source a photo though! Moira Paul (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Moira Paul: It's a good suggestion, but my checks for possibilities came up blank at the moment. Anytone else? She's in that period where she died long enough ago that we don't have free images taken by photographers for Wikipedia, but is too recent to have anything obviously in the public domain. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 21:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy 2019!

Happy New Year to everyone at Women in Red,
and thank you for all the amazing things you do for our project!
--Rosiestep (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Rosie, you too!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Redlist header template changes

I'd like to get some changes made to redlist header boxes; before doing so I'd like to get consensus here. The changes suggested here are with a view to providing facilities for further standardisation of redlist formatting. None of the changes will affect existing uses of templates, nor the ability to continue to use the template discussed exactly as they are now being used.

Redlists have header boxes, provided by Template:Women in Red redlist header. That template in turn uses the blank Template:WiR-HeaderBox, which can take three parameters, one of which provides the descriptive text seen in Template:Women in Red redlist header.

If we look at, for instance, the Peace activists redlist, we see there is additional text after Template:Women in Red redlist header and before the wikidata list. Without, in this discussion, concerning ourselves with what the text says, I think it would be ideal if such text were within the header box.

We have two sorts of redlist, crowd-sourced (CS) and wikidata-based (WD).

My proposal is that we make amendments to one or both templates such that we can have parameters enabling 1) inclusion of descriptive text, exactly as we now have it 2) addition of redlist-specific text - i.e. Template:Women in Red redlist header having a parameter facilitating description of selection criteria of the redlist on which it is used, and 3) a parameter that indicates whether the redlist is CS or WD, so that standard text that pertains only to one or other of those classes (e.g. "this list needs manual editing" versus "this list is bot maintained, don't bother editing it") will be included. Parameters 2 & 3 can probably be combined, so that, for instance CSText= will include whatever text is provided per redlist and will also include the standard form CS-specific text; and WDText= will include whatever text is provided and the WD-specific text ... and finally, perhaps CSText=yes will include only the standard form CS-specific text, ditto WDText=.

And, for completeness sake, having pointed to Peace activists as an example of what I see as poor format needing fixing, I should also point to the Afghanistan redlist as an example of a class of redlists that use a second header box formed by ad hoc code. For me, this is less ideal that containing all the information about the redlist in a single redlist header box.

All this said, I lack experience of making changes to templates, so the whole exercise depends on a) consensus here, and b) finding someone to do it, or c) me educating myself on template-fu. --18:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs)

Thanks for bringing this up, Tagishsimon as I've noticed the same, and favor all 3 of the amendments you describe above. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: These all seem sensible suggestions. The only problem I can see at the moment is that there are a number of CS lists which also include a WD list. Perhaps the best solution here is to delete the WD list if it already exists in its own right, making sure it is linked from the CS list. If it does not yet exist as a separate WD list, it should be created (although I don't know of any specific cases). In this connection, I think it is useful for the CS lists to include links to any appropriate WD lists. I think many already do so but it might be useful to make this systematic.--Ipigott (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

noting AfDs in articles lists

I think Hijiri88 makes a very good point. We don't want WiR to be seen as a place people get canvassed from. For those who would like to be able to see that an article has been nominated for deletion, you can put Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women on your watch list. (I did that very recently and man are there a lot of crap articles about women out there.)

Also, if you install this script User:Anomie/linkclassifier it will turn articles that have been nominated for AfD bright pink. I did that a couple of months ago when it was mentioned here, and it's really great. It also puts a yellow highlight behind links to disambiguation pages, which has kept me from making some errors, and turns redirects green, which I've found helpful in noticing women who aren't in red but don't have their own article. valereee (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

ETA damn, I just put this on the wrong talk page, sorry valereee (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Valereee: no worries and thank you. I'm glad you posted it here as I've just installed the script, and it is awesome to see the links in bright colors! It truly is a "link classifier". Just goes to show that mistakes aren't always mistakes. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Good grief, Rosiestep. Where have you been? All the cool kids, etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder about canvassing, but even more for the script User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It's already 2019 here in Sydney and my lifelong learning continues! Oronsay (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone here -- maybe Joseph2302 ? -- was who posted that script link a couple months ago when I mentioned that I wished I could tell when an apparently bluelinked woman was actually a redirect to some more-famous relative. valereee (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. The 25th of November. <swishes cloak of invisibility> --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Female biography count

I am new to the WIR project and I want to be sure I'm doing this right. Is a biography only going to count in the stats of male vs. female biographies if it's been tagged appropriately in Wikidata? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

By & large, yes. It will appear on the monthly metric stats if it is listed on one of the subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics (although they for the most-part are fed by Reports Bot, which works from wikidata), but overall counts such as WHGI are wikidata based and require instance=human and gender=female. That said, quite a lot of effort goes in to making sure that wikidata has items for all en.wiki female biog artices; a few fall through the cracks, and it may take some weeks or months for items to be updated, for two main reasons: poor categorisation of articles, and because articles linger in draft space for long periods. It is absolutely the case that wikidata handling of female biogs is better than for male biogs, where there are tens of thousands awaiting an item, or a correctly coded item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Is there a way to find the wikidata entries that either missing a gender parameter or has a gender parameter but are not linked to any of the wikipedias? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@MrLinkinPark333: I put together Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata listing various Petscan reports looking at en.wiki articles where there is no linked item, or where there is a linked item lacking gender, but kinda ran out of steam on it, mainly because Petscan can take so long to run and the toolserver frequently errors. In the other direction, it's possible to run SPARQL reports in wikidata looking for items with no article, but one needs to select a subset of humans (e.g. by country, by occupation) since the report service does not allow enough time to query all humans listed in wikidata. All of our wikidata redlists are based on such reports. And, equally, it's possible to use the wikidata report service to look for items about humans, with no gender, with or without en.wiki sitelinks - example. So, yes, with patience & a modicum of deviousness. For my sins, I run a couple of petscans on roughly a daily basis to add correctly coded items to articles, and to add gender to items with en.wiki sitelinks but lacking gender (although I've been a bit lax over the last few days). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been doing Petscans, following Tagishsimon's advice and adding gender info where necessary. I've also been going back through previous Meetups and manually adding descriptions and items to Wikidata. Perhaps I should note this on the Talk pages of the relevant Meetups? This might avoid several of us covering the same ground. I also check the #1Day1Woman meetup every few days. Oronsay (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
That's good to hear, Oronsay, thank you; I'm glad I have company. Yes, it's well worth annotating meetup pages to specify what sort of work has been done in wikidata, against the off-chance that anyone else joins in. Petscans against non-gender-specific categories such as Category:Births by year, Category:Deaths by year, Category:People by this & that & the other, and Category:People in sports are probably where we'll probably find the undiscovered women biogs; sadly it's all somewhat needle-in-haystack stuff. Equally, nil desperandum - instructive to look at the histories for monthly metrics pages such as January_2017, where a couple of years later Reports Bot is still finding new additions, indicating newly completed wikidata items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
A while back Jane023 put together this Wikidata list of humans with no gender. It provides a fairly straightforward basis for ensuring recent additions are properly coded for gender. I tried to made several corrections a day for a time but unfortunately have not kept it up. Others are welcome to participate. The benefit is that our stats depend on correct inclusion of gender.--Ipigott (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Mmm. Couple of issues with that report. 1) it's reporting on items added in January 2018, not the most recent additions 2) despite the blurb saying "and one sitelink" it is not requiring items to have at least one sitelink, much less requiring items to have an en.wiki sitelink. To be sure, adding gender to any of the records is a good thing, but by & large it will not affect WiR stats. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe with your expertise, Tagishsimon, you could make the necessary adjustments and ensure it is updated on perhaps a monthly basis. I found it very useful when it was first introduced. At the time, it included many new articles from the en wiki. I probably dealt with most of them myself and then forgot to update the list. But it would of course be even better if it could be adapted specifically to the presence of an en wiki sitelink.--Ipigott (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
If only, Ipigott, if only. Jane's report just about scrapes in under the 1 minute report run-time allocation, occasionally. If you check out the report history you'll see that what should be a pattern of updates-every-day is very patchy - it works when server load is low, fails when server load is other than low. Now add the requirement that a check is made as to whether there's an en.wiki sitelink, and you produce a report which by & large will not run, ever, within 1 minute. And that holds even if you reduce the limit to, say, 500, according to some tests I've just done. Bottom line is, it's a very inefficient report - not Jane's fault; it's just the way SPARQL works. Although Petscan (or more properly toolserver) can be a monumental pain, with its Error 502s, and the need to wait whilst it runs, it is a much better route for this sort of thing than SPARQL on its own; various of the petscans at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata do exactly this: look for items linked to women or human bios, where gender is missing from the item. So, sorry about that; but my recommendation is to use petscan. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. I'll use your links in future. There were surprisingly few women in the lists I looked at.--Ipigott (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup. Very few women with western names. I couldn't swear what the position is with Asian & Chinese names is - not so easy to spot, through lack of familiarity. I'll maybe do some more work on the /Metrics/Wikidata page, given time. Make sure you have WiDAR enabled, if you're doing other than picking them off one-by-one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I've tidied up the page - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata - and added a new Listeria game at the bottom of it - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/Wikidata humans no gender. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_54&oldid=1212163634"