Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

Non-diffusing categories

I have recently blocked an editor who was ghettoizing many articles on women by moving them into women-only subcategories and removing them from the main category for their occupation. The subcategories should have been and in many cases were marked as non-diffusing, meaning that the articles should have been kept in the main category when they were added to the subcategory. I repeatedly asked the same editor to clean up the problem but to no avail. So now, we have a small mess: some categories including Category:American women statisticians, Category:American women economists, and I don't know what others have many members who should be in the parent category and aren't. Does anyone here have software that can automatically or semi-automatically restore the parent categories to these articles? The complication is that if someone is in a different, normal (diffusing) subcategory of the parent, they shouldn't be added to the parent: it's only the ones that are in a non-diffusing subcategory and not in a diffusing subcategory that need to be restored. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: This is something I can handle with AutoWikiBrowser and PetScan in a few days; I'm in the middle of a couple of tasks now, and will be in and out for much of the weekend, but I can handle it pretty easily, I think. Any way of finding what categories have been affected besides the two mentioned? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Other recently created "women" subcategories by the same editor include Category:American women epidemiologists and Category:American women political scientists. It will be harder to find edits that misuse existing categories, of course. There are also many new national subcategories of Category:Women ambassadors that should be non-diffusing in their parent category of ambassadors from each country, but I think many or most of their articles are already included in diffusing subcategories of the same parent of the form "Ambassadors from X to Y". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Ha - I actually fixed the issue at Category:American women epidemiologists a few days ago, without realizing there was a bigger problem at play. I can fix Category:American women political scientists with Cat-a-Lot, too. Thanks for the hat tip - it'll help me do some more digging into what needs fixing. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Promoting drafts from AfC

I see that Innisfree987 has started to create a List of AfC bio drafts which appear to be candidates for promotion. Thanks to these efforts and those of Tagishsimon, Dsp13 and ARoseWolf over the past 24 hours, we already seem to have been able to "save" many of the refused drafts. Other editors are of course welcome to participate and/or suggest how we should go forward with this work. (See also earlier discussions on this above, starting with "Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia by Francesca Tripodi" on 28 June.)--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you to those participating and all other AfC reviewers are welcome to join! Suggestions for how it might be better organized or what next steps should be are most welcome, whether here or on that subpage’s talk page. I am very optimistic we could make reasonably quick work of a good portion, and then the question would be about what ongoing involvement there might be interest in. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It strikes me that the auto-sorted list draws from submitted drafts but, per the initial example that touched off this conversation, it seems it could also be worthwhile to look at women’s bio drafts that have been rejected. I don’t know of a way to pull those automatically but I have 10 recent examples I’ve tracked if anyone wishes to peruse for rescue projects (or general interest in why things get rejected):
  1. Draft:Sally Fielding
  2. Draft:Carol Akiwumi
  3. Draft:Kay Quattrocchi
  4. Draft:Clare Omatseye
  5. Draft:Batima Esmuratqyzy Zaurbekova
  6. Draft:Gulshan Pashayeva
  7. Draft:Halyna Bohdanivna Skipalska
  8. Draft:Marcela Celorio
  9. Draft:Marcia Cebulska
  10. Draft:Nishya Joseph
Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Winifred Barker

Spotted this at Articles for deletion a few days ago and just thought I'd mention it here in case anyone wanted to have a look? I'm still quite new and don't really know if she's notable enough but it seems a shame - she had what appears to be a significant rank in what was the women's branch of the Met Police in the 1960s. Persicifolia (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but I just saw Winifred Barker is now full of information, a total joy to read and the result was keep. I'd kept checking and wishing I could improve it, but was absolutely out of my depth so just watched mournfully. Bravo SusunW & TJMSmith & Necrothesp! Persicifolia (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
With a little more expansion to qualify, this article would make a good WP:DYK candidate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Persicifolia and Cordless Larry: I am truly buried in women's nationality, but did what I could to expand it. Though I have no access whatsoever to libraries (except through WP) and little access to UK newspapers, it was clear from a search that the article could be expanded. I can only hope that those who might have access to that book or UK newspapers will expand it further and maybe take it to DYK. Very happy that the expansion resulted in keeping the article. SusunW (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I am in the UK SusunW but am so new to this (also have no access to libraries) and could find very little online when I looked. Can't believe how much was found! Persicifolia (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Persicifolia, my UK sleuth indicated that the Gloucester Public Library has undigitized copies of the Gloucester Citizen, which might have an obit or other info we could use to expand it further. But it is probably going to require someone going in there and asking to look at a paper from May 1995 and then just hunting for it. That's a heck of a long way from me in Yucatán. Newspapers are often our best source for discovering the lives of women. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
SusunW that is indeed quite a long way from Gloucester Public Library! I'm very substantially closer, but have disabilities that make library visiting impossible, irritatingly. I'm sure this is a conversation you've all had a lot already, but it's a vicious circle isn't it? How to prove women (and people from other marginalised groups) are notable, when national newspapers etc were less likely to write about them precisely because society valued them less? Persicifolia (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Persicifolia That is indeed the rub. Even women who were internationally noted were often only covered extensively in their hometown paper. A line here or there in a national paper is typical. When you think about the fact that academics have only been investigating women's stories for +/-50 years, it's obvious why we have so much trouble finding information and why newspapers are key. I've often had success e-mailing libraries in the US and just explaining that I live where there aren't any. Librarians are a good lot, they understand the difficulties. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

AfC backlog of women’s bios down 10% already

From 288 on June 28 to 259 just now. Good work all involved! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Once we finish with all of these, we could branch out to AfC submissions for works/companies/other things by women, rather than just biographies, if people are still interested at that point. SilverserenC 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
(There's also an AfC backlog drive going, if anyone was interested.) Enterprisey (talk!) 00:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh thanks Enterprisey, I hadn’t noticed that had started up! Sure I’m in! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren, definitely! Bios are an easy starting place because the machine sorting spits out a list to work from, but for instance, if we start an initiative similar to our editathons and track outcomes, I definitely think all of those should “count” as such works and orgs do for the regular editathons. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This is very encouraging. Let's try to keep it up. But it's not all plain sailing. I've just seen that Robert McClenon has tagged my latest bio Kjerstin Braathen on notability and "fan" concerns. Thanks to his edit, I discovered an earlier draft by Pokebowl had been refused by Bjelleklang. I am beginning to appreciate how easily enthusiastic new editors can be discouraged from continuing.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, yes I have a list of declined drafts where many are likely notable but just not perfectly presented. Our finding a way to help those editors would probably really make a difference. (How to improve AfC itself I leave to those at a higher paygrade.) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987: Can you share your list with us?--Ipigott (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, by all means, it’s the second list on this page: user:Innisfree987/Women's_bio_drafts_at_AfC. My manual list is very incomplete compared to the autogenerated table, but it’s been enlightening to be able to see what happens to a draft, instead of it just dropping off the autogenerated backlog list. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

request for suggestions for article names - I wish to split Human–animal breastfeeding

I know your usual remit is biographies, and I hope you don't mind my posting here, but I would value the thoughts of editors eager to improve coverage of what might loosely be called women's issues. The article covers both directions, as it were, and the situation of the dying Mary Wollstonecraft has little to do with Romulus and Remus. I believe two articles are called for, and the question is, how to title them. I have written a brief note at Talk:Human-animal breastfeeding. Would anyone care to offer ideas there? Many thanks. --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Recreating deleted women economist bios

I've been looking at a number of non-BLP women economists who have reasonable articles in other languages. As far as I can see, several seem to have started as biographies on the EN wiki but were subsequently deleted. I think I might have a go a recreating some of them but I am only too aware of the dangers involved as once an article has been deleted, any new version is likely to run into serious trouble. Some of those I have in mind are Elsa Gasser (see [1]) who opened the first supermarket in Switzerland, Jane Ising (see [2]) a Jewish PhD who escaped from Nazi Germany and subsequently successfully established herself in the U.S., and Käthe Bauer-Mengelberg (see Kathe Mengelberg article on vvikipedla which I am not permitted to link to here), also an American immigrant who escaped from Nazi Germany. How do others feel about this? It seems to me to be unfortunate for the English-speaking world that these achievers only have Wikipedia articles in other languages.--Ipigott (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the first 2, Gasser is probably just notable, Ising not. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Johnbod, for this surprisingly rapid reaction. It took me over three hours to look into the background of these people in other languages. I think your reaction on Ising may be related to the fact that she lived to be 110 years old. But that seems to be marginal to her achievements and her life story. (BTW, It's a pity we are no longer looking at centenarians!) I'll nevertheless bear your advice in mind.--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I hadn't even noticed that! That might well make her notable - I can't remember how that policy war ended. Obviously, I just went on the versions you linked, but I imagine I spent longer looking at them than the average Afd poster would. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth Ipigott, I hardly ever look at why an article was previously deleted if I can find sufficient reliable sources in any language to substantiate notability and write a detailed article. (I usually don't even find out it was AfDed until I go to move my draft to mainspace.) In the few cases this has happened, 99 times out of 100, deletion was for inadequate/unreliable sourcing or copyvio. If your search indicates notability and adequate sourcing, I'd say recreate them. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, SusunW. I have also "accidentally" created quite a few without realizing they had previously been deleted but I've started looking into the reasons why so often there are Wikipedia versions in several languages but not in English when the subjects appear to have a number of valid sources in English. This is not only the case for bankers and economists but for many of the other interests which come into our focus. I'll start with Ising tomorrow and see how it goes. Good to have your support.--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty Loud: Serbian Roma music group focused on women's rights

The new article Pretty Loud is up for AfD deletion. This is a rap/pop group that has had several in-depth profiles, including an AP story that was picked up widely. I believe the sourcing is solid, but some work needs doing to bring the article in closer alignment with Wikipedia standards. Thought there might be folks here interested in helping out. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete Forsyth. WikiProject Women in Red, I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me. This band appears to be breaking new ground, and I believe it deserves attention. Martha (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This AFD, which is clearly headed to "Keep", has two lessons. Firstly the risks of creating articles directly in mainspace - anyone can tag it for deletion before it is "complete". Please use your sandboxes. The second lesson is don't be too quick to AFD a brand new article, it was tagged within hours of the first edit. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone with an eye for identifying people from photos?

The article on Soni Wolf needs a better photo than the one I put in of her friends holding up a sign with her face on it after she passed away in 2018. That said, I often have problems recognizing faces, hence the request for help. Is this a photo of Soni Wolf and this one or someone else? (Weird thing is is that I can recognize the people behind that rider in the first of those wo as being the same people holding up the photo in the first pic :D) Here's a photo of her from a newspaper article to compare (sadly the photo's copyright is not compatible). Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yupik, the first photo in your sentence "Is this a photo of Soni Wolf...." is her - positive ID'd by the sunspot or mole on her cheek. The second photo linked in that sentence is not her. Netherzone (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think she’s actually in both shots, but in the second, she’s farther back, at far right of the frame. Her flags and outfit match from that day, down to the way her sunglasses are tucked in her collar. Immaterial for your purposes Yupik as the first foto is much better but for the sake of the archive you could make a note. I’m going through the exact same challenge with a trove of fotos of Nicaraguan Pride March and other gatherings; hopefully the effort helps someone else later on. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, good eyes! I was looking at the person in the foreground. You are right, that is her in the back on the right side. Netherzone (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both! It was so nice to wake up this morning and know that we finally have a photo for the article :) I'll create a Commons category for her if no one has yet so if we come across more photos, they can be put there. Thanks again! -Yupik (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
It's sad that so few people seem to take photos of Dykes on Bikes. I've found a couple more that I'm pretty sure are of her, but she's in the background of each one, so I haven't included them in her Commons category: blurred out in the background, leftmost rider and this one. Oh, and here's her category on Commons! :) -Yupik (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC) 

Tekedra Mawakana

Resolved
See also: Draft:Tekedra Mawakana

Hello! On behalf of Waymo, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted a Wikipedia entry for African American businesswomen and lawyer Tekedra Mawakana, who currently serves as the company's co-CEO. The subject has also worked for other notable companies (Steptoe & Johnson, AOL, Yahoo!, eBay) and served on the boards of multiple notable organizations (Consumer Technology Association, Global Network Initiative, Internet Association, Boom Supersonic, Intuit).

I've worked to draft an overview of her early life and education, career, board service, and recognition using Wikipedia-appropriate sources and neutral language. Are any project members willing to review the draft and implement in the main space appropriately? I'm willing to address questions or concerns here or on the draft's talk page, where I've disclosed my conflict of interest in compliance with the site's Terms of Use. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott: You've reviewed a few of my draft articles about female executives in the past. Might you have a moment to review this one as well? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Inkian Jason: Given the rather unusual status of "co-CEO", I suggest you provide further background on the basis of the source you cite. The relationship with Dmitri Dolgov seems to go back quite some time. I think Dolgov should at least be red linked in the article in his own right. Currently the name is incorrectly linked to the wrong person. I see Dmitri Dolgov (businessman) appears as a redlink in the Waymo article. I'm not too sure how all this can be sorted out. Let me know what you think.--Ipigott (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I've added a link to Dmitri Dolgov (businessman) since Dmitri Dolgov redirects to Dumitru Dolgov. This is the same link used in Waymo. I should note, I've also drafted Draft:Dmitri Dolgov, but did not mention before since this WikiProject is focused on women biographies. You'll notice Draft:Dmitri Dolgov has a red link for Tekedra Mawakana. I'm hoping both drafts can be taken live. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Inkian Jason: Then it looks as if we can kill two birds with one stone if you can expand a bit on the background for co-CEO in the two biographies. Once you've handled this, I can create Dmitri Dolgov on the current redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Wonderful, thanks! But do you mind clarifying what changes you'd like to see in either entry? As far as I can tell, there's not more to add about their relationship other than being appointed to replace John Krafcik at the same time. Dolgov has been with the company from the start, but Mawakana did not join until 2017. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Inkian Jason: I think there's quite a bit more to be added from [3]. In particular, you can draw on: "Waymo elevated Dolgov and Mawakana to co-CEOs this month, a somewhat unusual power-sharing arrangement that has the blessing of both Waymo's board of directors and outgoing CEO John Krafcik." "Mawakana had most recently served as COO and Dolgov as chief technology officer. The two have developed a close working relationship and have been heavily involved in Waymo's most high-profile milestones, including the ongoing driverless testing of AVs in Phoenix as part of the Waymo One ride-hailing service and the development of the Waymo Via delivery division." and "Co-CEO structures are uncommon, though not rare. Netflix instituted a similar arrangement last July between founder Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos. Companies such as Oracle, Salesforce and SAP have curtailed forays into dual-leadership experiments. The arrangement offers stability at a time when Waymo has made slow and steady progress in launching driverless operations for members of the public in its metro Phoenix operational hub." I have not looked at your other sources but they might also offer explanations. It's the first time I've come across "Co-CEO" and I have a feeling most other readers will find it equally surprising. -- See what you can do.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott: Thanks for clarifying. Of course I'm open to suggestions/alterations, but I've added a claim to the Tekedra Mawakana draft as well as the Dmitri Dolgov draft. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Geregen2: I wanted to bring this discussion to your attention as well, since you created Dmitri Dolgov as a redirect to Dumitru Dolgov. Do you think Draft:Dmitri Dolgov can override the redirect, and if so, can you or another editor complete this action on my behalf? I think hat-notes could be used to distinguish the two, if needed, since their names are similar. If I need to submit a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, I don't mind! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I definitely think the draft can override the redirect, with a new hatnote! Dumitru Dolgov article seems a bit out of date in any case, I will bring it up-to-date. Geregen2 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Geregen2: Thanks for weighing in and supporting my proposed solution. If you or User:Ipigott need me to submit a request to override the redirect please let me know, otherwise I will keep an eye out for both pages in the main space. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC
Inkian Jason: No need for a special request. I can take care of it.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks for your assistance here. I made this minor edit since the disambiguation is no longer necessary and so the link works, I hope you don't mind. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Inkian Jason: OK. Maybe it would nevertheless be useful to have hatnotes on Dumitru Dolgov and Dmitri Dolgov. Perhaps you can take care of them.--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ipigott:  Done Thanks again for your help! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mary T. Reiley

Is this subject independently notable? Is there a way to include her if she's not? Where? Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi FloridaArmy, I've took a look at the draft and think there are some additional sources you can use to both demonstrate notability and flesh out the article, as well as utilising existing sources. The source you have cited via Hathi Trust has a good amount of biographical information on pages ix-xiv which you can cite. I have found an entry for Mary Trimble Reiley in History and genealogy of the Reed family which briefly covers biographical information. She has a very short entry in the Biographical dictionary of Southern authors, p.365. A longer recollection of her life can be found in The Story of the Arndts, pp.316-317. I hope this is helpful! If others have any ideas of where to find additional sources I'd gladly accept them! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Invention of RNA vaccines

Katalin Karikó is acknowledged in multiple RS an a key player in the development of RNA vaccine technology (e.g.[4][5]) Recently, however, there has been some controversy with a failed attempt to install one "Robert Malone" into the article as the inventor. The attempt failed, because apparently no RS names Malone as significant, and the promotional account blocked.[6] (Malone does appear to have had a minor role in some aspects of the technology, being listed as an author for various papers).

Now there is a backlash against the appearance of Katalin Karikó's photograph in the history section of RNA vaccine. One editor referred to Karikó as "supposedly a scientist behind a key discovery in the development of mRNA vaccines" [my emphasis]. Another seemed to think the photograph was promoting a pharmaceutical company.

My concern is that Wikipedia is removing a photograph of a women, acknowledged for a historical role, in whole or in part because of the apparently groundless claims of a man, and that this could be an instance of systemic bias. I have also raised a query at WP:FT/N#Photo of an acknowledged inventor?. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be time to disengage, Alex. I've been reading the conversation and you seem very confrontational which isn't helpful. It's become borderline badgering of others. I get it that you feel passionate about this subject and I'm not saying you can't continue to be passionate but we can't assume bad faith on the part of others and the suggestion, by Red Rose, about not including just one picture of a scientist who contributed, even if heavily, to the development of these vaccines over the countless others who have assisted this development has merit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not mandatory to have every indiscriminate piece of information about a subject. There is no way the servers could contain all of that information. It's best to learn when to walk away, even if for a little while. That isn't always easy but it is a valuable tool for any editor to learn. Take a step back, get some deep breaths and re-evaluate the situation. It affords you the opportunity to look at the issues from a fresh perspective. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ina Caro

Hello everyone! I recently created a draft for the travel author Ina Caro. I saw it mentioned that she is the research assistant for her husband Robert Caro, the author of The Power Broker and The Years of Lyndon Johnson. I was wondering if there was any source material out there published in the last few decades that details what her role has been in doing research for him. Is it something she does full time? Has she made any notable discoveries? I have not found much information, but perhaps there's material out there that I am not finding. Best, Thriley (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thriley, Caro's memoir Working: Researching, Interviewing, Writing describes her part in his work. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Caro’s Way (Columbia Journalism Review, 2002) offers detail, including: "A striking feature of The Power Broker, which resulted from 522 interviews, was the staggering amount of research that went into it, a fact that is true for all of Caro’s books, including Master of the Senate. If the books are remarkable in that respect, it is largely because Caro has a secret weapon—his wife, Ina Caro, who works as his full-time researcher. All of his books are dedicated to her, and the inscription for The Path to Power contained an additional line from Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “More is thy due than more than all can pay.”" Beccaynr (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Thriley, IMO she meets NAUTHOR with her two books. I am happy to move to mainspace unless you are holding back to save a DYK timeline (as you continue to develop the entry) or some such. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your help! I would like to get Robert Caro’s book Working to use to flesh out her role in research. There are copies at libraries near me. I guess that could wait as the article looks good to go as it is. Thriley (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Happy to see this in the mainspace! Thriley I had a go at editing this a week or so ago then realised you were a far more experienced editor and probably did not need my help! Persicifolia (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Dahl

Can anyone help with some reliabpe sources for this actress? FloridaArmy (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ludwika Sosnowska

Hello! Would someone be able to move this page Draft:Ludwika Sosnowska out of AFC? I've made a few changes, messaged the creator and am pretty sure it passes GNG now. Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Done. Needs cats &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Tagishsimon, Thanks very much! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Not clear where she died. Link is to a dab - Równe --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Went to the Polish bio of her and followed the links it gave for Równe, it linked back to the en.WP place of Rivne, so I made that correction. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
SusunW, thanks both Tagishsimon - I hadn't noticed, my bad. Thanks for fixing it :) Lajmmoore (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Lajmmoore de nada. There's a gadget you can install that tells you about link errors, but I have no idea who told me how to do it. It shows ref link errors in red, unlinked errors in orange, disamb issues in yellow, etc. Someone on here will probably know how to do it. If you're interested and someone doesn't tell you how, I'll see if I can search for the instructions. SusunW (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore and SusunW: Go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look near the end of the list under "Display" to find the gadget "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". That's a great start. There's also a more complicated tool which colours redirects green etc which involves installing .js code - I'll see if I can find out how I did it! PamD 21:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
PamD, SusanW Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes PamD the one that involves installing .js code is what I have enabled, but I can't remember how I installed it or who told me how, or even what page that information was on. Here? My page? Some other page? I don't have a clue. Appreciate your help to find it. SusunW (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@SusunW and Lajmmoore: I think this is it: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. I seem to have the relevant two lines of code in my "User PamD/vector.js" page. No guarantee, use at your own risk. I wish I could find a simple introduction to the mysteries of ".js"! Good luck. PamD 10:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks PamD! That is exactly the script I use. I don't understand all the warnings either, but if someone whose judgment I trust recommends an editing tool, I usually try it. This one has been very helpful. SusunW (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Julie Lythcott-Haims - for July Julies

Hi there.

I'm a COI editor who has a client that would like to be added to Wikipedia. She already appears on several pages including Helicopter parent, Hood Feminism, and PEN Oakland awards pages, but oddly has not been coded red. I have done a draft of an article for her, with properly formatted sources, and would like to learn the best way to propose that on Wikipedia. I think this project would be the perfect place her. As you can see, she just happens to be named Julie which fits with the group's July project.

I could propose the page, but don't want to 'taint' her chances because I am a COI. What I'd like to do is move her from a client of mine, to being assisted by the Wikipedia volunteer community. I think her best selling book may also be notable enough for a page https://www.julielythcotthaims.com/how-to-raise-an-adult. If someone could advise me on the best way to help Julie, I'd appreciate it. It is more important that she be given the best chance for a successful outcome than remain a paying client. Thank you in advance for any advice you may have. Best LeepKendall (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

LeepKendall, you might get more interest by noting the WP:THREE best independent, secondary sources available on Lythcott-Haims. (Recommend reading that essay for guidance if you aren’t already familiar with it.) Otherwise, submitting to AfC isn’t a bad route; we’re working on clearing the backlog of women’s bios. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Innisfree987. Thanks very much for your suggestions. I will explore these options. Best LeepKendall (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
LeepKendall, If you already have a draft, I'd recommend simply posting it using the process described at WP:AFC. Drafts submitted there are evaluated on their merits. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much User:Calliopejen1. Once I have it properly formatted I'll do that. I appreciate the feedback. Best, LeepKendall (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Growth team feature test begins tomorrow (June 8)

Hello everyone -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm the product manager for the WMF Growth team. I'm following up on my post from April 22 about testing the Growth team's features here on English Wikipedia. In short, the Growth team features provide new account holders with important tools to get started: they're suggested articles that need simple edits (based on maintenance templates) and they are assigned a mentor to whom they can ask questions.

In the past weeks, lots of English community members have tried out the features, and we've heard largely positive reactions and ideas. We also have 16 mentors signed up (we don't need more for this test, but we will need more in the future!) After discussing it with the most involved community members, we set a date to begin testing the features on this wiki. Our plan is to start giving the Growth features to 2% of newcomers starting tomorrow, June 8. This means that for all new accounts created starting tomorrow, 2% of them will have the Growth features and the rest will not. Because English Wikipedia gets about 130,000 new accounts per month, we expect this will amount to 2,600 newcomers having the features over the course of the month.

I don't think this will impact the day-to-day operations of Women in Red, but it's possible that some of the newcomers you work with ask about the features. The edits made through the features will be visible in Recent Changes and watchlists with the tags #Newcomer task, #Mentorship module question, and #Mentorship panel question.

While the test is running, the Growth team will monitor newcomer activity to identify if anything negative is occurring (like an increase in vandalism) -- if something goes wrong, we'll be able to quickly make changes. At the end of about four weeks, we'll reflect on the data and ask mentors about their experiences to decide how to proceed, in terms of whether to increase the number of newcomers who receive the features.

I hope this sounds good to everyone here -- we think we've planned this carefully with community input, but I definitely want to hear if anyone has questions or concerns. I'll plan to post again tomorrow to confirm that the test has started. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF), How are you? I've been chatting to someone who is totally new to editing and I suggested getting involved with this scheme, but I can't find a portal/link for them to sign up? Is there something I can send to them? Thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Lajmmoore -- I'm glad to hear that you think the Growth features would be good for this new person. They can turn them on for themselves! Here's how:
Go to your "Preferences" and then:
I'll be interested to hear what this newcomer thinks of the features! MMiller (WMF) (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi MMiller (WMF), the new user is @Kitanana: - Kitanana, MMiller is organising the mentoring that I mentioned for new editors! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Kitanana! Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you've already made some edits through the Growth features -- I would definitely be interested to hear what you think of the experience. Let me know! MMiller (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello @MMiller (WMF)! Yep, I have indeed used the Growth features quite a bit, and I have to say I really appreciate them! The setup is straightforward and intuitive, and the customization options (levels of editing, articles topics) are great. One small thing: it might be nice to have more links to specific help pages, just because the ones on the homepage are pretty general and you have to go digging to find specific ones, which is a bit daunting for a newcomer. Either way, it's not much of an issue. Hope that helps :) Kitanana (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, @Kitanana! Our team is always looking to learn more from real users of our features so that we can improve. It would be great if you have some time to answer a few follow-up questions:
Screenshot of help panel showing the "search" capability.
  • Which levels of editing have you tried? Did you start with certain task types and then move on to others? Which do you like best and which are easiest to start with?
  • We sometimes hear that users wish the topics were more specific (e.g. "Classical music" instead of just "Music"). Are there more specific topics you would want to use?
  • About the links to specific help pages -- are there some that you think would be better for newcomers than the ones we have listed? Perhaps a "search for help pages" option would be useful, like we have in the help panel (see image). Have you used the help panel at all?
  • If you've used the features on both desktop and mobile, we would be interested to hear whether they work equally well on both. What do you think?
Thank you for any thoughts you have time to give! MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Always happy to help, @MMiller (WMF)! Sorry for the delay, here are my answers:
  • So far, I've tried the easy and medium levels, but I think I'll try the hard level soon. I started with the easy-level tasks and then added medium-level tasks later. The easiest task was adding links, given how straightforward it was. I found that, surprisingly, copyediting could be harder than it seemed, especially on articles that had other significant issues. So, I'm not sure about easy vs medium when it comes to copyediting vs adding references.
  • Maybe more specific geographic locations, like countries, would be good? Or, under history, options to divide by time period?
  • Somehow I didn't notice the "search for help pages" option on the help panel, I think that pretty much resolves my problem!
  • The features work equally well on both desktop and mobile for me.
Hope that's helpful! Kitanana (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a little wiki-love from a Wolf and a Rose

I know this isn't a blog but I often take a little time to stop and breathe and I've been afforded time to do that a lot lately. I took a few moments earlier this morning and reflected on the last week and the flurry of activity that has happened on this project talk page. I think it's hard, sometimes, to fully grasp the amazing thing that is our collaborations and discussions together. The fact we can even link up in this way and produce anything of significance is a testament to our character as individuals, as a group and the technology we have at our disposal. I immensely appreciate each of you. You are valuable beyond measure to both this project and Wikipedia at large. Your ideas and willingness to share them openly has already affected this project positively and already made a difference in the community, society and the encyclopedia. Keep it up! Beyond the ultimate goal of bringing attention to specific areas where we can improve the encyclopedia and then setting out to do them, we are developing relationships in a time when that seems to be treated with less importance. Let me tell you that it is still very important and very much needed for so many. Each of you bring a unique perspective and experience of life here with you. Let that shine through. I often refer to this as your Song or Lifesong but that is because it's how I see you and hear you. Sing the song that is you because there are others need to hear it. But more than that, we are creating space so other Songs can be sung that we might not have heard otherwise. That is way cool to me and I enjoy seeing what you all come up with as you create and edit. Keep doing that and if you need help then keep asking for it. Be encouraged and be an encouragement.

Every ounce of who I am is behind every letter I write. There are no idle words. --ARoseWolf 12:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, What a beautiful message to wake up to. Thanks so much for sharing this, I hope you see your value and contributions shine in what you've said here too. *heart emoji* Lajmmoore (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Angiola Borrino

Project members may wish to comment here.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to this one, 4meter4. Certainly a "keep" for me. I am constantly surprised how often outstanding historical figures fail to make the Wikipedia mark as they do not show up frequently enough in Google searches. Many of our contributing editors don't seem to realize that we did not have the internet back in the 1950s. It's now up to us to ensure notable women of the times are covered on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:APPNOTE, this kind of AfD notification to WikiProjects is good. But also per WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS, discussion about the merits of an open AfD is best kept within the AfD.
That being said, I share the view that Google hits are often overused for older biographies where plenty of reliable sources exist, but Google hits may be relatively low compared to BLPs. MarioGom (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott. I think this was doubly hard because of the best sourcing most likely being in Italian. I personally didn’t think I would be successful in finding sources because of the language barrier which is why I didn’t comment at the AFD other than mentioning my note to this project. I figured that if quality sources existed, someone in this group would probably have the the specialized language and research skills necessary to locate them; and indeed it looks like one project member has added three quality references. Hopefully more editors will be able to continue in that vein.4meter4 (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
4meter4: Without blowing my own trumpet too loudly, I think I may have developed something of a specialty in writing about women whose principal sources are in languages other than English. I always start by trying to find at least three recognized secondary sources to justify the biography. I have found that in general just a few really good secondary sources rather than several sources liable to be considered "primary" are usually accepted by reviewers. But not always: see for example my recent Kjerstin Braathen which is still tagged for notability despite my attempts to explain... But if you come across similar cases in future, please let us know.--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Especially in this case where it seems highly likely, from the sources that have been found thus far, that there are a number of sources in Italian publications about her that just haven't been digitized yet. SilverserenC 15:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll peruse for Italian sources and add them if I find them. I'm still working on the Alessia Zecchini article and trying to bring updated versions of the Italian sources over to the EN-Wiki article. --ARoseWolf 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

For another pioneering female doctor, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelia Chase Brant. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Gender imbalance per country

Help! Could someone please add explanations regarding the columns named "# to median" and "# to parity" here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Gender imbalance per country. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably needs to be @MarioGom:, since there's every probability that any change made by any of the rest of us will be overwritten by their bot/method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Column # to parity is the number of women BLP missing to reach the same number of men BLP. # to median is the number of women BLP missing to reach the median female-to-male ratio. If these are confusing or other stats are more useful, let me know! MarioGom (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Very good @MarioGom:. Now could you add that to the page in such a way that your updates leave it in place? thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Sure. By the way, the process is semi-automated. I generate the table with a script, and then I copy-paste manually. So I'll preserve whatever changes you do outside the table itself. MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
t/y. Good to know :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@MarioGom: Me again. Quick sanity check: BLPs, or just Biographies? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: Ouch. Biographies. MarioGom (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, MarioGom, for clarifying. Now I get it. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the work you have done on this, MarioGom. It's a very interesting and useful table, especially for those of us who write biographies about women from the non English speaking countries. I have two minor suggestions. Would it be possible to include at the top of the table (a) the date of the most recent update in connection with the figures and (b) the inclusion of the applicable median female to male ratio? I think this would improve understanding of the figures for those who are not familiar with our other stats.--Ipigott (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds good. I'm generating an update with these changes. MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
     Done MarioGom (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Readability of project headers

Headers based on {{WiR-HeaderBox}} use a thin font weight (375, vs the standard 400). This affects readability in some systems, depending on the font and font rendering engine. Results varies across operating systems, in some cases it looks mostly the same, in others it looks a bit thin but readable (original intent, I assume), and in others it looks fatiguing to read. You can compare the difference with and without this setting here:

I think macOS users are likely to find the less problems, with Windows somewhere in the middle and some Linux systems being on the bad end. I'd like to change all header templates to the second version (no thin text), if there's an agreement about it. I could post some screenshots across different systems too. MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Workaround to ListeriaBot crashes

As some of you noticed already (cc Tagishsimon), ListeriaBot sometimes crashes with the error "Killed by OS for overloading memory" and fails to update some redlists. This seems to be due to an implementation problem with handling large linked entities. This is not related to the complexity of the SPARQL query. In our redlists, it is possible to get rid of the error by removing some columns that link to geographical entities. So far I'm removing place of death (P20) where I encounter this problem. MarioGom (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a million, MarioGom. The updates you have already been able to facilitate are really useful, especially those on the countries. We slowly seem to be returning to normal.--Ipigott (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Women South Asia 2021

Wiki Loves Women South Asia is back with the 2021 edition. Join us to minify gender gaps and enrich Wikipedia with more diversity. Happening from 1 September - 30 September, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on gender gap theme. This year we will focus on women's empowerment and gender discrimination related topics.

We warmly invite you to help organize or participate in the competition in your community. You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.

Best wishes,
Wiki Loves Women Team
10:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata redlist guide

I have started this Wikidata redlist guide. It's meant to guide the uninitiated, but also to share some tips among those of us already familiar with redlist creation. Feel free to improve it directly or give any feedback here. Thanks! MarioGom (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, MG. As you're in the mood a couple of food for thought thingies: 1) we should consider constructing redlists like this one - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Animators - relying on P360 qualifiers in the redlist's WD item - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q65183649#P360 ... the advantages of so-doing are that it facilitates the building of a Listeria index of occupations pointing to the redlist on which they're found; and means that a standard block of SPARQL can provide the report - all the variables are now in the WD item. Disadvantages are the need have a properly constructed WD item linked to the redlist, &c.
And 2) (although I can only describe this in the vaguest terms) I'm not sure we really have our {{Women in Red redlist header}} act together (or indeed WiR header templates, generally). In the redlist I point to, we're having to insert text between the header and the top of the Listeria ... that seems suboptimal. I think, in short, I've always been a bit dissatisfied with WiR header templates, but it's long enough ago that I did serious redlisting that I can only say they make me grumpy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
1) Wow. I didn't know we had this kind of query. It looks great. Also, I had the impression that ListeriaBot processed raw wikitext and wouldn't see transclusions, but I see {{FULLPAGENAME}} is used there.
2) {{Women in Red redlist header}} now has a wikidata=yes parameter that adds a category and some specific text. I think that whatever generic text we want to show about Wikidata, it should be defined in the header template. Also, regarding templates, I think the ideal situation would be to generate almost everything (including SPARQL query) by defining a few parameters in a single template, except for the few complex cases we have. And if we ever get to that point, in many cases these parameters could be fetched from Wikidata too.
Anyway, just with point (1) I have quite some food for thought ;-) MarioGom (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
You must have been reading my mind, MarioGom. I have two new bio subjects that I've been researching for WiR, but who aren't on any of the WiR redlists and also aren't yet entered on Wikidata. I was just about to post a query to Tagishsimon about how to handle the Wikidata issue. So, thank you for creating this guide (and thank you both for all of the work you do to make it easier for the rest of us to create new biographies)! 47thPennVols (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
47thPennVols: If we already have redlists for criteria relevant to these two subjects, we just need to add Wikidata items. Let me know if you need help. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
MarioGom: It would be great if you could add the info for Lucy Kennedy Miller and her sister, Eliza Kennedy Smith to Wikidata and to the redlist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Suffragists (under the United States section). Not sure how much of this you need, but their respective basic info is:
1. Lucy Kennedy Miller (1879–1962): Born in 1879 in Pennsylvania as Lucy B. Kennedy. Died as Lucy Kennedy Miller in Maryland on June 30, 1962. Daughter of Jennie E. Kennedy (Q106444916) and Julian Kennedy (Q29876183). Graduate of Vassar College, 1902. Married to John O. Miller. Occupation: Suffragist and president of the Equal Franchise Federation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Country of Citizenship: United States.
2. Eliza Kennedy Smith (1889–1964): Born as Eliza Jane Kennedy on December 11, 1889 in Latrobe, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Died as Eliza Kennedy Smith on October 23, 1964 in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Daughter of Jennie E. Kennedy (Q106444916) and Julian Kennedy (Q29876183). Graduate of Vassar College, 1912. Married to Raymond Templeton Smith (1888-1967) in 1915. Occupation: Suffragist and membership committee chair, Equal Franchise Federation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Country of Citizenship: United States.
Thanks so much for your help! 47thPennVols (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
47thPennVols: Started with the first (Lucy Kennedy Miller (Q107526284)) with the first reference I found online, but it's not very complete. Do you have some reference for all this data? MarioGom (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
MarioGom: Thanks so much for your help. Yes, I have multiple references for Lucy Kennedy Miller. Now that I'm looking at them again, it appears that the majority list her birth year as 1880, rather than 1879. Here are several of the most useful references:
1. Lucy’s obituary, The Pittsburgh Press, July 1, 1962, p. 38.
2. Lucy Kennedy Miller, in PGHSuffrage100. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Suffrage Centennial Committee, Office of the Mayor, 2020.
3. Lucy Kennedy Miller, in "Valiant Women of the Vote: Refusing to be Silenced," in Women’s History Month. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Senate.
4. Pitz, Marylynne. “A roll call of Western Pa. suffrage trailblazers.” Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 13, 2020.
5. Obituary of Lucy's daughter, Eliza (mentions names of Lucy and John O. Miller, and Lucy's father, Julian Kennedy), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, September 6, 2007, Page 21.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you need anything further. 47thPennVols (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
MarioGom: Eliza Kennedy Smith is also mentioned in references 2 and 4 above. Another reference that mentions both women is: Reck, Sarah. "Pennsylvania Women and the Vote: On the Centenneial of the 19th Amendment: Lucy Kennedy Miller." Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Heinz History Center, August 18, 2020. 47thPennVols (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Lucy is more or less complete. Eliza Kennedy Smith (Q107528449) can still use some more properties and references, but it has the basics for the redlist. MarioGom (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Time's Up History

Hello, are any editors here interested in helping with the Time's Up (movement) page? I was pointed to this WikiProject by another editor as somewhere that there might be knowledgeable editors who could help review some changes. As background, my name is Hope and I'm an employee of TIME'S UP Foundation, and I have been making requests on behalf of the organization to follow the Conflict of Interest Guidelines. Right now, I'm proposing a rewrite of the History, as the history of the movement and organization is not fully explained and some of how it is written doesn't feel encyclopedic to me.

On the Talk page I've shared a draft. There are also some notes on my user Talk page with another editor. I'd love to get more feedback as well as any help editing the page to add the new draft. Thanks for any help, Hope with Time's Up (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hope with Time's Up, thanks for your attentiveness to WP policies. I read through the draft which to me seems adequately sourced and neutrally presented, altho I don’t have time just now to read through the sources to make sure they’re being accurately and neutrally conveyed. That’s mainly to say: this is basically a favorable account and if sources include any significant criticism, that needs to be included too. To be clear it doesn’t read as promotional and so far as I’m familiar with the movement, nothing major comes to mind as missing from this particular section but if another editor has time to check the sources, that would probably be preferable before pasting in such a big rewrite. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: Thank you for looking over the draft and your feedback here. I think that another editor had planned to review sources, so I will check back with them about that. Thanks, Hope with Time's Up (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thanks again to the editors from here who helped review the Time's Up History. I wanted to let this project know that I have a new request focusing on adding information about the purpose and organization of TIME'S UP. The two short drafts I'm proposing are similar to ones for other movements and non-profits. The Purpose section is to provide an explanation of the aims of the movement and organization, while Organization explains how the non-profit is structured and governed.
Like before, I've made a request on the article Talk page and put the drafts in my user space. Thanks for any feedback and help, Hope with Time's Up (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

250,000 pageviews

Did you know... that at some point today, July 11, 2021, Women in Red's talkpage will have had 250,000 pageviews? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

With an average of 103 page views per day, we have attracted more attention than wp:Medicine (91) and wp:Military History (74) over the same period. I don't think any other wikiprojects have received comparable interest. And we seem to be doing equally well on the social networks. Perhaps, Rosie, you could put together a list of key statistics which could be linked from our main project page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, the other metrics I cover when I speak about Women in Red include: --Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't usually pay attention to page views. What is popular is not a measure of the import of most of our biographical subjects, but this is pretty cool. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Ditto with me, SusunW, when it comes to article pageviews.
For the record: between 18 July 2015 (Women in Red "birthday") and the end of day, 11 July 2021, there were 225,057 pageviews of our talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Page views may not be a huge indicator of import but the more popular a page is the more likely it is to be viewed which does means that the subject is generating some amount of movement. Let's keep going in an upward trend! --ARoseWolf 14:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Congrats to everyone! MarioGom (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Kudos to everyone contributing to the cause, especially those who help out new folks. --OtuNwachinemere (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

NPR interview with Francesca Tripodi on Wiki Gender Bias

  • Kelly, Mary Louise; Triodi, Francesca (2021-07-13). "Who Gets To Be Notable And Who Doesn't: Gender Bias On Wiki". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-07-14.

Peaceray (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Francesca Tripodi [Wikidata] — Peaceray (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The following has been touched on above, but a different way to present her data would be to say: men have 82% of the bios on Wikipedia and 75% of the AfD nominations. Contra my own suspicions, I have to admit that’s close to proportionate, and does not seem like robust evidence that we writers of women’s bios deal with a unique double burden of being so much more likely to end up on the chopping block.
Now, there could be reasons men’s bios ought to be overrepresented at AfD (I’ve spent a couple weeks just reading women’s bio drafts at AfC and on average they seemed noticeably stronger than the average entry from all topics coming over the transom)...but that’s not the argument I’m hearing. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It would be good to have a researcher do some statistical analysis. It would be unsurprising to me if that 7% difference between all articles (82% articles on men, 18% articles on women) & the ones that come up for AfD (75% for men, 25% for women) was statistically significant. My question would be, if it is statistically significant, by how much? Peaceray (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven’t read her paper (but will try to do so given continuing interest in it); there could well be more analysis like that in it. Of course one perennial difficulty is that statistical significance isn’t a fixed number, but rather a threshold chosen by the person conducting the research. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think these metrics shouldn't be the end of an analysis, but the start of it. There are many reasons for asymmetries to be caused by reasons (partially) external to Wikipedia. If a significant difference in proportion is there, I would ask: is there any particular category or set of categories that account for a good amount of this difference? (e.g. beauty pageants, businesspeople, porn actresses). Does blatant spam play any role here? Etc. MarioGom (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
From the interview, I think her basic analysis is more or less correct. What needs to be investigated more thoroughly is whether women's biographies are in fact deleted proportionally more than men's, and if so why and by how much. If it's simply because they are less adequately sourced than men's, then perhaps we can do something about improving access to sources. Or maybe together with Innisfree987 we should be devoting more efforts to AfC and to deletion tagging in general.--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, also more analysis beyond deletion is needed. I'm not sure comparing proportion of total articles to proportion of deletions is that meaningful. Why aren't we seeing a decrease in the overall women proportion? It's the opposite: we see an increase of women proportion. I think next step would be comparing proportion at articles created vs articles deleted. And the next step would probably be looking at some funnel and cohort analysis. What's the proportion in direct mainspace creations? And draft creations? And draft accepts and declines? There might be some bias issues, and they might or might not be primarily at AfD. Given the multiple processes involved, it's easy to see these metrics, and then misinterpret the cause. MarioGom (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Quick note about my above comment: Why aren't we seeing a decrease in the overall women proportion? It's the opposite: we see an increase of women proportion. I over-simplified here, and it was flawed reasoning. I still have doubts about the conclusions about AfD ratios, but it's more complicated. MarioGom (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You bring up some interesting points here, MarioGom, but now that I have read the paper in full I am more ready to accept its conclusions in regard to the greater proportion of deletions of women's biographies, particularly as it was based on a carefully compiled data set. One of the most interesting findings was that it was only because projects such as Women in Red had organized such effective monitoring and follow-up of women's biographies that so many had been "saved" from deletion. I highly recommend this article to all those interested in research on Wikipedia's gender issues. It also has a long list of pertinent sources.--Ipigott (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Ipigott, I love the point you make here. It is because of projects like this one that the proportion of deletions isn't higher. I have seen the AfD dicussions of countless articles shift because editors from this project got involved to defend the articles and present outstanding properly sourced arguments founded in policy but also rooted in common sense. That is how we are going to slowly change the thought process. In some ways articles on women are an easy target for deletion, especially from a historical standpoint. I believe the AfD process should be one of education. It can show us how to properly articulate and focus our arguments while also teaching others to approach a subject from different perspectives. The key is to not get bogged down on a particular view, which regrettably, I find myself doing sometimes as well. --ARoseWolf 15:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It is an interesting study. Makes a lot of sense and corresponds with a separate and unscientific study I did back November of 2020 in relation to Female association football players vs Male association football players. The findings were that while male articles were more likely to be brought up for AfD they were less likely to be deleted than those about women. The total number of AfD's on Male and Female players were relatively close but articles on women represented a higher proportion because there are significantly less articles on women in the sport. The number one reason sighted for the deletion of articles for females was the fact they didn't play for a fully professional league at the time. They sighted a failure to meet WP:NFOOTY, the SNG that cover association football, because it states that subject can be considered notable if the player has participated in a match between two fully professional teams. I have argued in the past that this limits the number of articles on women players because the majority of leagues are not fully professional though they are the top level in their country or league. These women are still pioneering their sport but, as it currently stands, we will never have articles on historical women in the sport because their leagues were not fully professional and media coverage was denied these events because people of the time did not deem them significant whether by personal bias or systemic sexism attributed to society as a whole. It also builds a scenario where GNG, the basic guideline for inclusion, can be ignored in order to create an article on a male player who has only ever played in one professional game but you can have accomplished and significant historical women being denied because enough sources can't be found for them to pass GNG. I would like to note that the majority of the male AfD's were men found in developing nations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. --ARoseWolf 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
So I’ve read the paper as well and having given it a bit of time to marinate, while I still have some disagreements, at its most basic, I don’t at all disagree that correcting the gender imbalance means doing much more work than the better described topics require; I mean, women didn’t become underdescribed by accident. I also agree with you both, Ipigott and MarioGom, that there are lots of places where we could intervene; it’s not obvious where efforts are best directed (and this paper suggests we’re already doing what can be done about this particular issue.) Maybe there is something tho in trying to catch new editors at AfC quickly (rather than letting drafts languish months without a response), to try to expand the corps of people interested in doing the work... Innisfree987 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need graphs or diagrams to illustrate these phenomena

In view of MarioGom's rather surprising comments above in regard to the increase in the women proportion, I was wondering whether it would be possible to create a graph of how the proportion of women's articles created vs the number deleted has evolved over the last few years. This could possibly be compared with similar statistics for men. As Mario points out, the whole matter of draft creations vs direct mainspace creations also deserves more scutiny. I am particularly surprised at how often evolving work on biographies in the user space of recent contributors is moved to draft space by AfC participants without any discussion with the creator. The result is frequently that draft biographies are deleted after six months whereas (I believe) the developing work could have been maintained in user space without any time constraint. Perhaps we could try to prevent action along these lines as it can not only be discouraging for those concerned but it also leads to good material being completely removed from the encyclopedia. I often find valid preparatory work in user space which can be fairly easily adapted for mainspace, either for new articles in their own right or as part of existing articles. I think this needs more careful monitoring and attention. In many cases, users are simply informed that Wikipedia policy is that all articles under preparation must be in draft space. Is this really the case???--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is - a user sandbox is fine. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
So should we be reverting moves from user sandbox or similar to draft? It happens very frequently and sometimes drafts are immediately deleted on copy vio grounds. This can be devastating for new contributors, especially women who come in to help with the gender gap.--Ipigott (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Userspace drafts are fine, like Johnbod says, and it is often what experienced editors do before they move it to mainspace themselves. However, the current reviewing instructions for drafts going through the AFC process specify that Pending submissions that have been created in userspace (including sandboxes) should be moved to the preferred AfC namespace, so a discussion should probably be opened there if one feels that this should not be the case. If a draft has been speedy deleted via G12 for copyvio, it would have been G12-eligible in userspace as well, so I'm not sure if I understand that point. DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Just a clarification about my comment above. I was talking about increase of women ratio across all biographies, which is well-known, as we have these percentages in the main page of the WiR project. I still think that comparing ratio at AfD vs ratio at overall biographies is not a good measure, and it does not prove bias at AfD. The analysis does need to account for creation ratio across a period of time to get a better baseline. MarioGom (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for you quick response. So what, if anything, do we need to do to improve our understanding of these developments?--Ipigott (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The AfroCine Project/Months of African Cinema/2021

I received an email from the organizers of meta:The AfroCine Project/Months of African Cinema/2021, which runs 1 October - 30 November 2021.

The Afrocine Project core team would once again like to thank everyone who contributed towards ensuring the success of the Months of African Cinema Contest in 2020. Due to your valued efforts, the third iteration was a success! Over 3,000 articles were created across various Wikimedia projects and in 19 different languages. Months of African Cinema, 2021 is three months away! To ensure a more seamless organization this year and better support, we are calling on interested local organizers from across the movement to join us in facilitating this contest in their various communities. This year, in addition to local community organizers, we are particularly also inviting Wikimedians to help coordinate the contest in their local languages, as this will play a huge role in the number of languages that would be eligible for international prizes. If you would love to join us in organizing this exciting contest in your local community or your local language wiki, kindly show your interest by listing your community or project on the organizer’s meta page. [1] Please try to sign up by 23rd July 2021. Thank you once again! We are looking forward to your participation.

We have a Film+Stage event tentatively scheduled for November, but could move it to October, or could run it both months. What do you think? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Helping hand

Hi, by chance is anyone free to lend a hand at Orion Sun, a recently AfC-approved (not mine tho) women’s BLP with an editor Orion sun saying they are the subject and expressing a great degree of unhappiness with the entry (see their talk)? I’m a little under the weather and not up to combing the sources just now, so I wondered if anyone were up for helping them out. Otherwise I’ll get to it when I can. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Innisfree987. First, I hope you get to feeling better very soon. I am sending my thoughts your way for a fast recovery. Second, I have opened dialogue with Orion sun on their talk page. I hope they will respond and I will do my best to resolve any issues they may have. I'm already searching the sources and trying to determine if their is anything we can add or more properly source. Again, rest and get well. You are so valuable to us here. :) --ARoseWolf 17:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987 and ARoseWolf I reworded the paragraph to try to eliminate the confusion of how Orion arrived in Philly. Please feel free to revert if I've gotten it wring. I am really confused about which editor represents the artist, Is it Orion sun or Serols? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
WomenArtistUpdates, what was written is accurate according to the source. One can make the argument that the source isn't reliable but it appears to have interviewed them because some of the comments are in quotes. I don't know if accuracy was the problem or if there was something else at issue. --ARoseWolf 17:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I will be deeply curious to hear what Orion sun has to say. I want to get their opinion of exactly what is not accurate and see if we can find sources to confirm it. I think we all agree that it becomes very slippery if we just start deleting information because a presumed subject of an article says something is inaccurate without verification but we most definitely should listen and be understanding and try to accommodate where it is possible. I'm leaving what has been changed until we know exactly what is thought to be inaccurate. --ARoseWolf 18:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
ARoseWolf The way I read the issue, the subject did not move to Philly with her family. She moved there on her own...then it is unclear. Maybe she was staying with a family friend who kicked her out. The two sources don't reinforce the story. I rewrote it so that it was clear she was asked to leave a home because of her sexuality and she eventually settled in Philly, leaving out whether is was her mother or the family friend who kicked her out. Again, does Orion sun or Serols represent the subject? There is an edit war going on with them. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Inquirer states "That year, her mother fell behind on rent, and the family lost the home that Majette and her two brothers had grown up in. They lived in a hotel in Cherry Hill for a time, before Majette went out on her own. She lived on the streets for a few weeks, she says, before reaching out to a friend whose family took her in." The Wikipedia article stated "In 2015, her family lost their home. Majette lived with her family in a hotel, as well as on her own on the streets, before a friend's family took her in." That particular source never says anything about her getting kicked out nor about her family living in Philadelphia, only in a hotel in Cherry Hill which is in New Jersey. The Vinyl Me article picks up with her being estranged from her family when they settled in Philadelphia, after moving yet again, presumably from Cherry Hill. It says she was kicked out of her home due to her sexuality and she was happy she had a friend's family to take her in after she was left homeless. Later she realized living isolated was best for herself because, to quote her, "people give up". I think it is safe to say that the sources seem to indicate that it was her mother and family that kicked her out, she was homeless for a time and then a friend's family took her in but she then realized she was better off alone so she left. That's what I read from the sources. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both so much for digging into these sources. I can add: Orion sun says they are the subject, but doesn’t know how to use/sign talk page posts, so they are intermingled with Serols’s warnings; Serols is an established vandal-fighter who reverted, I assume, because ORES flagged the removal of large chunks of text. Whew literal headache—back to resting! Thank you for kind wishes ARoseWolf. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Innisfree987, we'll get this all worked out. WomenArtistUpdates is an amazing editor and I am glad they are looking at the article too. I'll have to go back and look at the talk page again. I missed their responses I think. You rest! Put on some relaxing music. If not then listen for the wind. I'll sing a song to you on it. :) --ARoseWolf 18:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jasmineeve/sandbox

I just declined this draft as having insufficient evidence of notability, but it's possible that this illustrator is notable. (Maybe more sources can be identified?) Putting here in case anyone is interested in helping out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Women in Green

As we unlock from isolation, the issue of what to wear becomes more pressing. Is green the new black? Discuss.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson: I can see what you mean from this. Your work on Greene Man shows you have a firm attachment to the colour. Perhaps you should consider enhancing one of your women's biographies so that it can become a candidate for Good Article. You can receive assistance and support from Women in Green.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
In this connection, can anyone find an image for Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It would greatly improve the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) I see from this picture she was already wearing green in 2019.--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Marija Trandafil

Does anyone have any interest in adopting this declined draft about someone who sounds notable? One major thing is going to be transferring the references properly from sr.wiki (the IP user who drafts these Serbian bios never does it correctly). Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: I found it a bit too tricky with the unusual refs in the draft. The IP user maybe needs to reach out for a guide. However I recreated it here Marija Trandafil. I thought it was a nice choice for Women in Red's birth-day as @Rosiestep: is also a philanthropist with Serbian ancestry. It could go to DYK but be nice for someone to give it a polish of correct my understanding of who she was. Seems to have created the building for the main Serbian library - but I couldnt find good sources. Happy anniversary Victuallers (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Victuallers, Calliopejen1, I am quite interested in this biography, but am traveling so it may be a couple of weeks before I can focus on it. Happy anniversary... Rosiestep (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_97&oldid=1255062376"