Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
    Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

    Women in Red January 2024

    Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


    Online events:

    Announcement

    • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
      of the #1day1woman initiative!

    Tip of the month:

    Other ways to participate:

    Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

    Identifying articles with meetup (Women in Red talkpage banner discussion)

    Please excuse my ignorance, I've been reading through the project pages and discussions but I can't find if it is possible to request a particular red link to have an article written by one of your contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:1CE8:15E4:C0FC:AB22:DDB1:9248 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Our Redlink index provides a wide range of suggestions on women who may deserve Wikipedia articles.--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ipigott, that didn't answer my question I'm afraid. She exists in your redlink index, I just wonder if it is possible to ask a contributor to write the article about her? There are many women waiting for articles, how are they chosen to be written about? 2A00:23EE:2228:2E6E:6C73:5F43:1802:4027 (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are 43 articles from 2016 which have not been identified with any particular meetup. Would it be helpful to work out which meetup they were created/improved under and tag them as such? Or no benefit in this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)7[reply]

    They should be in {{WIR 2016}}, the precursor to #1day1woman which began in 2017. So, if they are identified as 2016 that is fine (I think). Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are a number of articles which are not associated with a meetup or even a particular year. Would it be useful to at least add the year that they became tagged with WIR? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many contributors simply add Women in Red as one of several wikiprojects on an article's talk page. If they prefer not to include additional details, I think they should be allowed to do so. In some cases the tag is added years after the article was created as a result of expansion or later recognition that it is pertinent. Some talk pages even have a combination of a tag without details together with more specific tags added in connection with later events. One thing I have noticed in the banner shell environment is that tags for #1day1women which actually point to the year to which they apply now appear without the year. See, for example, Talk:Jane T. H. Cross (2020) and Talk:Kateryna Boloshkevich (2022). You can of course identify the year (and sometimes the month) by clicking on Show. The same is true of other topics repeated from year to year, for example in connection with writers, Talk:Bernice Love Wiggins (2016) and Talk:Julie Marstrand (2020). This can of course be avoided by placing WiR tags outside the banner shell but the consensus seems to be that they should be placed inside. I don't think it's worth doing anything about this. I just thought I should point it out.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Would you prefer the year to be included on the nested display? If so, just for some events or for all events? I agree it makes sense for the #1day1women initiative because this happens each year — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For #1day1woman initiative specifically, I agree adding the year to the end of it would be a good idea in the nest view. E.g. "#1day1woman initiative 2022". -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Or in front of it? 2022 #1day1woman initiative, which is better? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be happy with either. My only reasoning for after was it was a shorter version of the expanded text, i.e. "#1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022". -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      How does it look on Talk:Annie Adams? Now the full name is expanded to "#1day1woman 2017 initiative" which might not be the best order — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Some talk pages even have a combination of a tag without details together with more specific tags added That seems particularly useless, as the one without details does not provide any new information. Shall we find and remove these redundant banners? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove them. There are a number of highly experienced editors who consistently tag talk pages with a simple WiR tag. If someone comes along years later and adds a more specific tag in connection with a new event, I don't think it would be correct to delete the original tag. Such tags have been used to compile statistics on the number of WiR-related articles per year. I therefore think they should be maintained.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I disagree completely, and this is exactly what would be regarded as talk page clutter, as the additional banner adds no further information. For example, if you look at Talk:Katharina Paulus you will see one WIR banner inside the shell (unconnected to any event) and one outside the shell (connected to #1day1woman). What should happen, in my opinion, is that the #1day1woman banner replaces the unconnected banner inside the shell. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • MSGJ: I am coming around to your point of view but let's say for example that the basic WiR tag was added when a music specialist was writing an article about an opera singer and then two or three years later someone added a tag in connection with a writers event because it was discovered she had written an autobiography. Would it matter that the original tag disappeared? Maybe not. As talk pages are constantly updated it might be a good idea to reduce clutter. Thanks for all the additional time and effort you are putting into Women in Red matters.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how the original tag would add any value at all. I guess ideally someone might convert the original one to one more linked to music, or at least the original year, but if not then removing it is tidier with no loss of information (it's still in the revision history if someone really wanted to dig it out!). -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I trust that edits like this are entirely uncontroversial and to be encouraged? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That depends somewhat on what's agreed re: questions like the "inside/outside banner shell" conundrum (see below); the various tracking uses of these banners (and if/how these may be negatively impacted by the changes that are apparently taking place); etc.
      Is the goal here to supress functionality of the event connected and other specific banners incrementally such that Women in Red is ultimately left with one primary WIR banner? (The technical part of all this is a tad above my head.)
      I might also add that I don't really mind one way or the other (as long as nobody's workflow is being ignored or useful information lost), I'd just like clear guidance on how the templates should be used going forward so we can get-on with other matters. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a conundrum; WikiProject banners go inside the shell. The tracking is being handled. There is no (intentional) suppression of functionality. Nobody's workflow is being ignored. Plus, documentation is being made more clear I believe. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MSGJ, your observation (and this thread) may help illustrate an underlying question of mine—which is: Is there a fundamental difference between the main WikiProject {{WIR}} banner (which simply states that an article is "of interest to the following WikiProjects"), and the "meet-up" or event-specific banners (which transmit additional information)? If they are different, should they be subject to the same rules (e.g., is there a justification for placing the latter outside of the banner shell as per other event-specific banners and informational tags such as {{WPEUR10k}} or {{DYK talk}})? I realise that this question may also impact the broader ongoing discussion about WIR banner usage, "banner blindness", theoretical future research projects, project tracking, etc. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no fundamental difference. They are produced by the same template, just one adds a bit more detail. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we focus less on the technical aspects of how they are produced (details which are invisible to an average reader, and probably of little interest to most editors), and think more about what their intended purpose is, then there may actually be a difference. (Bear with me...)
    The "basic" WIR tag is like most other WikiProject banners—whereas, the event connected banners give specific information about initiatives that led to the creation of the article. These banners can be cumulative if more than one event generates specific article development activity (e.g., article created in the context of "#1day1woman"; significantly expanded and improved during "Alphabet Run: X, Y, & Z edit-a-thon"; and further refined during some other edit-a-thon). As such, we probably want to keep the iterations somewhere handy—both for the tracking activity that seems to be important to some editors, as well as for the link back to the specific events for general reference.
    (For what it's worth, this seems to relate closely to the discussion immediately above too.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your point that these banners are "cumulative", and an article can be tagged with multiple events. Where we differ perhaps, is that I think these are best displayed all together in a single banner rather than scattered across the talk page in different locations. This can now be achieved without losing any data or functionality. (But I have decided to let this matter rest for now and let the project come to that conclusion in its own time.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I attempted to add the "#1day1woman" editathon template to Talk:Neha Singh Rathore and it only seems to create a generic template. My sense is this is not the intent of the {{WIR|293}} template, so I wanted to check to be sure. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes indeed, that is an error. Thanks for reporting and I'll investigate ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much MSGJ, and I have noticed it is now displaying properly. :) Beccaynr (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brittany Spanos AfD (now Draft:Brittany Spanos)

    There is an article on Brittany Spanos that may be of interest to participants in this group. I have done some work on the article in order to help improve it's AfD survival odds. I lack the expertise (and time) to add more than I have. [NB: I have also just read the section on canvassing and believe that this note falls within the definition of WP:APPNOTE. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood the policy.] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, this AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Spanos) has just been closed (with four votes for deletion and two against – which hardly seems like a consensus). I was also in the process of improving the article when it was deleted, which seems a bit unsporting too. What, if anything, can be done to rectify what seems like a hasty (and in my view, ill-considered) AfD closure? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin who closed the AfD has kindly agreed to move the article to drafts (instead of deleting), so it can now be found here: Draft:Brittany Spanos.
    The primary concern seems to be one of notability (please see AfD discussion). As there is significant recent media coverage of events in which the subject was a participant, this concern may be diminishing rapidly. (There's also now quite a bit more in the article that wasn't in there when it was first submitted to AfD, as well as some additional refs on the Talk page.)
    Any help developing, redrafting, polishing and publishing an acceptable version of this article would be much appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the problems with this article, Cl3phact0, is that much of the information is based on primary sources, i.e. items closely connected with the subject or articles written by the subject herself. One or two of these could be included in External links but the major details in the article must be based on reliable independent sources. For further background, see our Primer. As you have managed to create quite a number of biographies, including a few BLPs. you should be able to bring this up to standard without too much difficulty. Please let me know when you have improved the article along these lines and I'll see whether it deserves to be moved to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ipigott.
    Honestly, I fell into this rabbit hole inadvertently while trying to help out over at AfD and would love a hand climbing back out! The task seems to be to establish WP:N without mudding the water.
    For me, the BBC, WSJ, and NYT refs, plus the bios from NYU (and maybe the University of Melbourne), the Museum of Pop Culture, the Wheeler Centre, and her employers are useful. Perhaps a few others too.
    I'm at a loss to determine how much of the rest should be preserved in External links, what ought to be trimmed, etc. As I didn't originate the article, I'm loathe to just eliminate someone else's work without consensus.
    Fun Fact: There are over 1,200 redlinks to Spanos (or her work) on English Wikipedia. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your problem but I also sympathize with those who thought the article should be deleted. When reviewers are confronted with so many sources closely related to the subject, it really looks as if there were no really good secondary sources. Perhaps Dsp13 who created the article would like to collaborate. I would suggest going back to a much shorter version of the article (e.g. that of 6 February) and expand it a little (but not too much) with details from independent sources such as BBC. WSJ and NYT. It could then be moved to mainspace for further expansion. I certainly agree that Spanos deserves an article. Let me know if this seems reasonable.--Ipigott (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just hearing a third voice that agrees an article on Spanos would be a plus is a giant leap forward! I was starting to wonder if my judgment was clouded. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if the pieces on her teaching the Swift class were SIGCOV (they are not), that would still qualify as one event when the requirement for all subjects is SUSTAINED coverage. The article definitely should not be moved to mainspace without the addition of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much everyone for thinking about this. Please don't worry about removing material on the grounds you didn't originate the article! To be honest, I'd appreciate it if I could leave it to others as I feel I may have been too close to this article, and don't seem very well aligned with others in AfD. Dsp13 (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One concrete suggestion: I think the first reference in the lede needs to be something independent of Spanos. At present it's a page by her employer. Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. More strongly I would suggest moving all current references that are authored by Spanos to elsewhere in the article, like a "selected publications" section, and avoid as much as possible references that are just author profiles on a site she has written for, that don't mention her at all, or that are just publisher sales links. Because of the negative outcome of the AfD, restoring it to article space is going to face extra hurdles and extra scrutiny regarding the independence and depth of coverage of its sources, so it needs to be ready to stand up to that scrutiny. In theory, it's ok to have an article with a mix of in-depth independent sources and of other sources that are less in-depth or less independent but still reliable. In practice, keeping only a much smaller number of the highest quality sources makes draft reviewers happier. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a first step, I've replicated all of the articles' references on the Talk page with {{Reflist-talk}}. Next step is probably to pare everything per above advice. Working-up the courage...
    Also, based on the quantity of her output, I do think there may be a good case for WP:ANYBIO#2 ("The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field") in the case of Spanos. Reaching consensus on the meaning of our own written guidance may be another matter (see discussion here).
    -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Coverage of me in The Guardian (UK)

    Hello folks, I posted about my global challenge on Twitter & got in touch with a couple of journalists, one of whom wrote this piece about the project: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/05/uk-academics-wikipedia-project-raises-profile-of-women-around-the-world - its quite short, so sadly doesn't include the various ways I mentioned how important this project has been to mentor me, support me and inspire me. I hope others here can see relfections on the conversations we have on this talk page in the article. Deepest thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What a fantastic piece @Lajmmoore! Thank you so much for all your efforts to raise the profile of WIR’s goals! I appreciate it so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like Congrats! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the amazing work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came across the article and wanted to come here to say congrats! I love seeing Wikipedia portrayed in a positive light in the media. Hopefully this will inspire some new editors to join the project. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, @Lajmmoore, what a great article. Thanks for all your work! PamD 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: This is just the kind of publicity we need. Not only have you demonstrated your own enthusiasm and creativity but you have shown how important it is to have more contributors, especially women, helping to improve our coverage of women. Great stuff! Especially as everyone worldwide can access The Guardian"".--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LajmmooreThe Guardian piece and you just got mentioned on Radio4 Today newspaper round up 7 40 am Wednesday 6 March. Great to have this public acknowledgement MerielGJones (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, heard it on Today (BBC Radio 4) too: I thought the tone was a bit patronising/bemused, but still great coverage! PamD 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very inspiring. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely piece, Lajmmoore. This is inspiring in so many ways. Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such great coverage @Lajmmoore, you are an inspiration! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well done you @Lajmmoore! And thanks for flagging that up; I read the Guardian daily, but somehow missed that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Late to the party (as when am I not?), but congratulations and well done on all of this. I had hoped to listen to the As It Happens interview when it aired on my local NPR station, but I...er, have been asleep whenever it's on this week (a recurring issue...hence my lateness, with apologies.) I shall seek it out online instead. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My daughter just let me know of this piece - really fantastic, and well done you! Dsp13 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As It Happens on CBC

    & I was also on Canadian radio yesterday, about 17 minutes 20 secs in: https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-2-as-it-happens/clip/16047110-cancelled-culture - if there's more features, I'll share them here. Thanks everyone for their kind words Lajmmoore (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just listened: that's a great interview! Well done. PamD 20:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really kind Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was impressed by your pleasant voice and your relaxed responses to the questions. I'm not too sure whether I agree that you are not notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone like Victuallers who knows you better than I do could make a start.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I heard her (too brief?) appearance on Radio 4 this morning and tweeted it. I havent seen the Guardian bit yet. Always bit wary of writing stuff for mates. Jess Wade had a BEM and Rosie had been knighted before they got wiki articles I think. An obvious link would for someone to add Lucy to our Women in Red page which is very out of date and make a redirect there. Am I inspired by Lucy .... umm I'm just trying to emulate her woman for every country! Finding women for all the small island states looks very tricky. Still I did Vietnam today and I did Ethiopia and Eritrea yesterday... I'm amazed that I learn such random stuff ... did you know that there is a coutry in Africa who speak Spanish, who have had the same President for 40 years and he gets 97% of the votes despite moving the country's treasury into his own bank account! Oh and back to the subject..... well done our editor in Leeds. Victuallers (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I meet the notability requirements @Ipigott! Well done on your global challenge @Victuallers Lajmmoore (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WiR mainpage update

    Well maybe, Roger, you would like to make a start updating the main WiR page. I agree with you, it does look rather dated. Perhaps Rosie could also help.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish it were, but website design isn't my area of forte. Do we have any website designers around? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's so much the design as the content. Couldn't we put something together on the history of the project?--Ipigott (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BBC Scotland (radio)

    Hello, I was on BBC Radio Scotland just now at 11.41 (that's 2 hours, 41 into the programme) talking about editing, and plugging the event above. This is the proramme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001wzcf (with Stephen Jardine) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Guardian: Comment is free piece "hive heroism that changes history"

    & there's a comment piece published by the Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/08/the-guardian-view-on-wikipedias-female-volunteers-a-hive-heroism-that-changes-history - this specifically mentions Women in Red! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another interesting article, with a few curious extensions. These "print" items are easier to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bizarre statement that "Louis XIV's elephant is among Women in Red’s additions", but I can see no mention of WiR in its talk page or edit history. Very odd.
    It seems to have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot, but why? Does that bot detect words like "she" and "her" (it was a female elephant!)? If so, I wonder how many ships are claimed for WiR! PamD 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikidata Louis XIV's elephant was human (and an elephant). TSventon (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD Human was added by a bot to Q124610027 here, then Q124610027 was merged to Q1326205 here. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Éléphante de Louis XIV (now a redirect) was also added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot. TSventon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On another bit "Unsurprisingly, in such a culture, [in the OED] Walter Scott was quoted about 15,000 times, while Jane Austen’s wit made a mere 700 appearances" - could this be because Scott's 27 novels (a good 4-5 times longer than Austen's on the bookshelf, far more if all his works are included) are full of Scottish dialect words, while Austen's vocabulary is famously and deliberately restrained - I think shrubbery is one of her OED appearances though? No, it must be sexism. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite this and several IWD articles based on Wikipedia Needs More Women, I have not yet detected any noticeable change in new articles or new contributors. It will be interesting to see how things evolve over the next few days.--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect there won't be much immediate change, but hopefully this coverage and encouragement will get women thinking longer term about ways to contribute Lajmmoore (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CNN INTERNATIONAL

    & I was also on the CNN International show, Isa Soares Tonight (this evening at 7.40pm-ish) - I have a link to the segment and I've been told it will be up on social media soon. This time I mentioned Women in Red by name! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a link to watch here: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/03/08/exp-international-womens-day-wikipedia-moore-live-030802pseg2-cnni-world.cnn - I was extremely nervous! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weekend - BBC World Service

    & I was also invited on Weekend for BBC World Service this morning - you can listen here, about 50 minutes in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172z37rh4rq6rg It's challenging to include everything you want to in live conversations, but I am hopeful some of this week's coverage will have got more people thinking about our project Lajmmoore (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lajmmoore I can't find you in that link at 50 mins, have dipped in at various other points too and not found you! PamD 12:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PamD - I think I put the wrong one down - it's this about 44 mins in. I changed th link above Lajmmoore (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hero of the Week - Pod Save the UK

    & a UK-based podcast called Pod Save the UK named the project as "hero of the week" (link to a X post is here) & this is the episode (link) Lajmmoore (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No more time to work on this right now, but if anyone is inclined to work on this draft on a recently deceased Black feminist, please have a look. It would be great to be able to send this to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much for flagging. It’s in mainspace now and I’ve expanded a little; if anyone were able to add just a bit more, there’s still time to qualify for WP:ITNRD, since the obituary is dated March 5. DYK might also be an option. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before it goes there, it should definitely have a mention of Digital blackface somewhere in it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added her to Hudson (surname) - perhaps I should claim that edit for WIR-301. PamD 12:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IWDay at Edinburgh

    I shall be there at 1pm Scottish time tomorrow if you want to join Ewan and people virtually Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    #WikiD

    Hi! Dropped a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard##wikid when I saw this cross my TL because, as we all know, new edits to BLPs may need eyes. No specific issues with the edits, but Malcolmxl5 thought this project might have some insight. Is there a link anywhere or some background? Thanks either way. Star Mississippi 18:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design.--Ipigott (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Polish WIkipedia articles

    Dear friends.

    I was wondering whether you have some need of translation about ladies' biographies from Polish Wikipedia? Generally it seems to me that PL and EN Wikipedias differ in what they deem "encyclopedic" and I would not like to questimate which article is okay and needs translation and which do not.

    Could you help me, maybe? ;-) I was thinking about, for starters, maybe translating articles about Polish feminist? There is a whole category on Polish Wikipedia, you know? But maybe you would like something different? ;-)

    Generally I do not know what I am doing xD Any help? ;-)

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Kaworu1992 and welcome. I would suggest reading something like Ten Simple Rules for Women in Red or Help:Your first article to get an idea of en Wikipedia policies. It is important to check that the subject is Wikipedia:Notable at the start to avoid wasting time on a subject which is not suitable for a article. You can also come here for feedback for your first couple of articles. If you want ideas, Women in Red has redlists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Poland. Not all the subjects in redlists will be notable.
    I notice that you have started on an expansion of Gabriela Zych in your sandbox. You should acknowledge in an edit summary when you translate or copy text from en or another Wikipedia, so I have done that for you. TSventon (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy International Women's Day 2024!

    Happy International Women's Day 2024! So thankful to be here with you! -- Rosiestep (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Still joined at the hip. I'm celebrating 2,500 women biogs today! Victuallers (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just created an article as part of the project

    Thread copied here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/301, as this seemed the better home for it. PamD 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just created Brenda Cardenas Thomae as part of the Women in Red project. She was already listed as Women in Red in different lists, like female lawyers and such.

    Do I need to add a tag or anything else on the article wikicode? Or in the Project page? Please advise. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hallo @TepeyacPilgrim. The page you've created looks great, and is relevant to Women in Red, but not particularly to our Editathon 301, which is specifically about adding links and redirects for articles which already exist. This talk page is the talk page for Editathon 301: the general Women in Red talk page is at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Women in Red.
    Women in Red has several Editathons each month (this month being this 301, and also 300: "Art + Feminism", and 299: "women with names beginning Q or R". There's an all-year 294 "Education". But there's also the all-encompassing 293: #1day1woman, which welcomes all articles about women and their works, whether you're writing one every day or just one, once.
    I'll edit the talk page you've created for you article, to reflect this.
    Just one thing I noticed about your article: we don't use a person's given name except in the lead: we use surname only. I'll tidy this up for you. But congratulations on what looks an excellent article, and Welcome to Women in Red. PamD 17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/293, the page for the "#1day1woman", and proudly add yourself as a participant and Brenda Cardenas Thomae as an "outcome"! Again, welcome! PamD 17:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added her to Cárdenas (surname), and made redirects from long name Brenda Georgina Cardenas Thomae, short name Brenda Cardenas and unlikely-but-possibly-sought short name Brenda Thomae. All just optional extras which help get the article seen and read. I've also suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry#Brenda Cárdenas that someone might like to create an article on the notable-looking poet with that name! PamD 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've used RefRenamer to change the unhelpful ref names created by Visual Editor to more human-friendly names, per Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Named references. PamD 18:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New artwork by women added to wikicommons

    My local museum has just uploaded 148 pieces of art by women artists to wikicommons. I'm going to check all the women have their own article and add an image to them. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_Artists_(Images_from_Royal_Albert_Memorial_Museum_and_Art_Gallery)

    EEHalli (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone through the list. There were 14 artists in total. Four had pages so I've done some linkage and edits. Two have wikidata entries so will be next to work on. Two have wikipedia entries on different women with similar names so may need pages and disambiguation pages. One has no wikidata entry as a person but seems to be lurking in entries about a book. Five have almost nothing. I've set it all up on a trello list and am going to plug away at them now my weekends are officially free for pure hobbies/pastimes. EEHalli (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They won't all be notable, I think. Olive Wharry is essentially notable as a suffreagette/terrorist rather than an artist. Interestingly, some of her watercolours on Commons show buildings after (German) bomb damage. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are in the collection of the Royal Albert, and also in the collection of other notable museums, then they would have a case for WP:ARTIST (4b) notability. But it would have to be "several notable galleries or museums". Two major national museums might be enough, but the Royal Albert appears to be more local. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth checking if the collection is designated - which means its of national/international importance. For RAMM, the world cultures and the shell collection are designated, but not the art collection (sadly). This is a super cool project @EEHalli - sounds like you've got stuff covered, but please shout if you need/would like help! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the steers!
    I’ve looked for all the names not already on Wikipedia in the ONDB and online Oxford Art reference books, as those would provide some notability. Not much success, if I’m honest. One, Myra Luxmoore, was a conservative suffragist so I’ll be checking my big book of suffragists for a mention. I suspect this will be something to poke away at!
    EEHalli (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently elected County Supervisor, Rebecca Hermosillo

    Hi friends! I just created a talk page (not quite a stub) for the recently elected District 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Rebecca_Hermosillo. I want to maintain NPOV, but I do know Rebecca and can access her and her team. She is the first Latinx woman elected to this county's board, so it's a bit of history in the making. I've included some links to good coverage from local media, but how else could I help at this point? I'll ask her team if they have a good CC or PD photo we can use. Anything else I can? I'm a bit nervous about creating the wrong template, given she won't actually be in office until January 2025. I strongly believe she covers notability requirements given the coverage of the race. Thanks! JayWalsh (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be honest, membership of "District 1 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors" doesn't sound notable. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely isn't enough by itself to pass WP:NPOL. To make sure that an article is kept you would need to find significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources, separate from routine election coverage of her run for the board of sups. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to play the 'but this article exists' side of things, but there's a thorough article about this other elected member of the Sonoma_County_Board_of_Supervisors, Chris_Coursey, whose notability appears to be specifically tied to office. It's a county of nearly 500K people. I realize this coverage is mostly election related, but it was a significant topic in the county. JayWalsh (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was "the mayor of Santa Rosa, California from December 6, 2016 to December 18, 2018", which I expect helped a lot. Personally, I think US local politicians get a very soft ride on notability here.... Coursey's article predates the BoS role (elected 2020) - created in 2017 with the edit summary "I created a page for the mayor of Santa Rosa. If anything does not seem up to standard, go ahead and change the page up." Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024

    Bonjour! Starting next week on Saturday 16 March and until the end of the month, I would love others to join the WikiWomen's User Group in supporting the work of Les sans pagEs to celebrate women★ Francophone writers! The aim of this fortnight-long edit-a-thon is to showcase the diversity of Francophone women and non-binary writers from all over the world.

    More information, including how to sign up and participate, and suggested articles to work on, is available at the meet-up page. Like our usual Women in Red edit-a-thons, you can contribute as much as you like. You do not have to be any level of experience or any gender or indeed a French-speaker yourself (my own level of French can best be described as "less than basic"). All are welcome.

    P.S. I've followed the example of Les sans pagEs in the way the event is set up (with a proper events Dashboard and Fountain tool and so on) but if you'd like to just participate in the usual WiR fashion by listing your name and adding your results on the page, you can absolutely do so. Merci beaucoup, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Chocmilk03: I am certainly prepared to create more articles about French-speaking women and their works but I am not particularly interested in "competing", using the dashboard or listing my results. I've shown my interest by adding my name to their EN Wikipedia page. I could mark them sans pagEs on "1day1woman" or wherever.--Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ipigott, sounds good to me! I could be wrong but I'd understood from Les sans pagEs that they're not treating it as a competition either; the Dashboard and fountain tool are just ways to track contributions. I'm happy if people are inspired to work on Francophone women writers and that's what matters. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to change WP Women's History to WP Women's history (lower case h)

    In connection with this proposal, I think there might be a danger that WP Women in Red could be changed to Women in red (lower case). I think we need to make sure we can maintain our current capitalization and do not become a victim of unnecessary "standardization".--Ipigott (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-a-thon in Portland, Oregon: March 10

    On Sunday, March 10, 2024, the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve articles about Jewish women artists. More info:

    Sharing in case anyone is interested in participating remotely.

    Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eli185.2 might be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Eli185.2 (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabriela Zych - translation from Polish

    Dear Friends.

    I have translated my first article as a part of this project. It was in the list of Wikipedia articles in need of translation from Polish (the general list, not something specific to Women in Red) so I think it will be notable.

    The link to the article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaworu1992/sandbox

    If somebody could check my grammar and other stuff and edit the sandbox for me, I would be grateful ;-) After I will get a pass from a Native English speaker, then I will post it in the main Wikipedia, okay? ;-)

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    - Oh, one more thing! You have kinda different copyright than in Poland, right? Does that mean I could upload a photo of this lady to the English Wikipedia? Because that's one thing that is totally lacking in this article, I believe. --Kaworu1992 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaworu1992: I worked carefully through your translation and was in the process of moving the draft to mainspace when I discovered there was already a stub on Gabriela Zych. I have therefore merged the translation into that article. Unless you can edit machine translations from Polish up to acceptable standards for the English Wikipedia, I don't think you should create any more articles in this way. And before you start work on your next biography, please make sure the article doesn't already exist in English. On the brighter side, we now have a much more detailed biography of Gabriela Zych.--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend.
    Yes, I am aware that there was an article about Gabriela Zych. However, the Polish version was more detailed, so I wanted to bring that to the English Wikipedia. Also, it was not a machine translation - I'm a native Polish speaker and I translated the article in the best way I could into English language. I am sorry if something was wrong with grammar or maybe vocabulary, but this is why I worked in sandbox and wanted an input of a native English speaker.
    I am sorry, I am not sure if I understand all of your points.
    Best wishes
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Glitch in red list

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Tunisia has a first column only showing Qnumbers, not names. Could someone who knows about these things perhaps fix it, or ask the right other person to do so? Thanks.

    I was looking ahead of the 19-30 March Francophone women writers project, thinking I might find a woman with a Q or R name to work on! PamD 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've noticed this is now happening with a number of redlists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Algeria, I think we need a Wikidata expert to look into it. Perhaos Gamaliel?--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In connection with the Francophone project, there's also Cameroon, Luxembourg and Romania.--Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD, the problem seems recent so you could probably look at the 26 January version of the Tunisia list. In the Algeria list the problem occurs between 2 February and 3 March and it may be possible to date the problem more exactly by looking at other lists, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Kazakhstan. TSventon (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem may be solved. I have clicked Update the list now and the Tunisia and Algeria lists have got names again. A discussion at d:User talk:Magnus Manske#Labels gone in Listeriabot? may be relevant. TSventon (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, TSventon. Updating does the trick. PamD: All those for the Francophone project are now back to normal.--Ipigott (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked all the nationality redlists and updated a few. TSventon (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Atouna was a Moroccan actress and dancer in 1930's who might be notable but it needs better sourcing and NPOV cleanup if anyone's interested. Here's her Wikidata entry. I tagged as a promising draft so it will not be deleted for at least a year. S0091 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marnia Lazreg up for deletion

    I made a quick stub for Marnia Lazreg after reading her NY Times obit. The article was quickly nominated for deletion. I am very sure she meets notability requirements. Any help with sourcing would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added some Wikilinks and a link to a preexisting Wikidata item. TSventon (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    help with birth/death dates

    Hello friends, Would someone be able to give me hand with some birth/death dates? I'm working on a stub for Draft:Della Aleksander (born Derick Alexander) who was a trans rights activist. This blog post has dates but I can't see where to confirm them? Would someone be able to help? [Warning Aleksander was also far right activist.] Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lajmmoore not really finding much, but in family search (you'll need to register, but it's free) there is a Della Joan S Aleksander born 1 April 1923 died 2001. It is the only listing of that name spelled like that. Ancestry available through the WP library hits on the same person and says the death was registered in January 2001 in Lewisham, Greater London. I find nothing in the British Newspaper archive, newspapers.com, or newspaperarchive.com records for December 2000-January 2001 to confirm if this is your person, but maybe you have access to other sites on your side of the pond? SusunW (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you so much @SusunW - this is great. I had no further luck than you though! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Lajmmoore Glad to help. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So yesterday I was reviewing a FA nomination and a question came up regarding the Quincy Seminary. Turns out it was the Quincy Female Seminary and was run by two sisters, Mary E. and Carolyn Chapin and was commonly called Miss Chapin's School or Misses Chapins' Private School. Mary is this woman, from East Bloomfield, Ontario County, New York and the sisters are likely the Mary and Caroline who attended the Ontario Female Seminary. According to the obit I found she started the prep school that became the University of Kansas in 1864 and began holding classes in 1865. More and more. Prior to Kansas, the sisters worked at the Milwaukee Female College and offered both normal and collegiate prep courses. After Kansas they went to Quincy, Illinois and after that to Chicago. If the info on find a grave is correct, and this genealogy indicates it may well be, the sisters' dad was well-known for apple varieties and they are related to Mary Chapin Carpenter. I'm hip deep in the review and in the middle of writing another article, but they would be great candidates for our focus on Education. I wanted to put it here in case anyone is interested and before I forget the sources I dug out while doing the FA review on one of her students. SusunW (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This poet gets a red link in Simon Armitage, appearing in an event in his "Poet Laureate's Library Tour". An IP expanded on that mention with "despite controversy over the latter's history of plagiarism.", with four solid sources (from 2015-2017). I've removed it from the Armitage article as undue weight. She does seem to be a currently well-respected poet - as shown by her inclusion in Armitage's event, and her position as writer-in-residence to Northumbria National Park[1][2]etc - so someone might like to write an article about her, with a careful mention of that past controversy. (And of course if you leave it until April she'll match the "S-T" section of our Alphabet Run". PamD 20:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Friends.

    I extended and improved the article about Zofia Marchewka. Since when I am asking about native English proofread of articles in my sandboxes (English is my second language), I only get "this article already exist" and nobody does the proofreading, I hope now somebody will work on the article's grammar and wording and nobody will misunderstand my intents.

    Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to events

    @Oronsay: I am here to discuss the bold edit of mine to Template:Women in Red navigation which you reverted. There is a complete list of WiR events listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events going back to 2015. I also included a link to this page from the navigation template. I think the navigation template would be more useful if it only contains the most important links, and I believe it is excessive to include a link to every meetup in this template. If editors want to see the complete list, they would be better served by clicking the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Events to see the full list. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any reason to change this important WIR template. It is only the current year's events that are displayed in full in the template and just a single click to show the earlier years. I don't seek why it is better to click away from the template. The list on the the Events page is very long and not easy to see at a glance, unlike in the template where the info is condensed. Oronsay (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think it's excessive for the template, and we could make a much more useful and accessible list of past events on the /Events page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Oronsay. Yes, it's a lot of events, but the purpose of the navbox is to help people navigate, and I would rather find my way through a long list in this template than be sent somewhere else to look through it. This is more convenient to me as a user. DrThneed (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well perhaps you can tell me how you think they should be displayed? This is what happens when they are all listed in one box, and it looks pretty terrible.

    And this is what it looks like when separated out into years. I think you'll agree that this takes up too much space.

    Generally I don't think this template is useful for someone who is genuinely trying to look for a past event. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've used the template to find past events, especially if I can't remember which biographies I might have written for a theme, so think it's useful and a good go to place. Is it really neccessary to change it? Lajmmoore (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of the above do you prefer or can you suggest any improvements? I was thinking that something like the below would be more useful on its own page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two reasons I prefer the original template. I can make a single click and see all the previous events, 2015–2023. Your amendment means I have to make 9. More importantly, the January 2024 events don't appear at all and when the calendar turns to April, neither will the February ones. Please ensure that this year's events will all appear in the template. Oronsay (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, well spotted! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I'm in this boat as well; I frequently use the template to find past events and like that I can see all events in one place. I can see your point @MSGJ about it looking unwieldy though and it's likely to get to a point where it is too much for one template at some point.
    Maybe instead of 2015-2023, we could do 2015-2019 and 2020-2024? Two clicks to see all previous events instead of 9? Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Compromise suggestion: show all events from the past 4 years in the template, and include a link to the list of all events elsewhere. I seriously doubt anyone is using this template to look for an event from 2016. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I frequently do, and from their previous comments it appears that @Oronsay, @Lajmmoore and @DrThneed may also do so. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Please also read below, @Rosiestep's comments on these recent template changes. Oronsay (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MeetupNameDate
    150#1day1woman2020
    151SportsJanuary–August 2020
    152ExplorersFebruary 2020
    153Geofocus: Central AmericaJanuary 2020
    154Black womenFebruary 2020
    155Women in HorrorFebruary 2020
    156Art+Activists & FolkloreMarch 2020
    157AviationMarch 2020
    158Geofocus: Great Britain and IrelandMarch 2020
    159Visible Wiki WomenMarch 2020
    160Gender studiesApril 2020
    161DanceApril 2020
    162Geofocus: CaucasusApril 2020
    163HealthcareMay 2020
    164Women and their animalsMay 2020
    165Geofocus: Central and Eastern EuropeMay 2020
    166Mary Mary month of MayMay 2020
    167LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves PrideJune 2020
    168United Nations & UN AgenciesJune 2020
    169Geofocus: Reducing gender imbalanceJune 2020
    170July JuliesJuly 2020

    I am confused. I was looking at the green template for the "temperance women" event we did in January 2024, as I'm about to write another article about a temperance woman, and I don't see our January 2024 events on the green template. I guess I missed a conversation where this was decided? (pause) Okay, I searched by number, starting at 293, and found "temperance women" at 296. Looking at #296, though, I don't see the other January 294 events like I used to. Why aren't they showing up here? If they don't show up, it's wiping out our history. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an oversight, just pointed out by Oronsay above. I'll fix it shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply above was in response to your question about the "green template" - this should now be resolved. Your second point relates to something different I think? Are you referring to the navigation buttons at the top of the meetup page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MSGJ, (1) Regarding the "green template", I don't like the change made where the months associated with the year's events are no longer shown. It has worked well for us to be able to see what events we did in, for example, in January, of each year. If you are the one who made the change, would you please revert it? Thank you. (2) Regarding the second point, yes, it was that the links at the top of an event page used to include all the events for the month, e.g., if the particular event page was for a January 2024 event, there would be links at the top for all the other January 2024 happenings. If you are the one who made the change, would you please revert it? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding (1), I will look into it. Regarding (2), would you also want to see link to the current events and upcoming events, or just that particular month? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosiestep; does this work for you? (You may not realise but these lists are being created on the fly from the list of events, so when we get it how everyone likes it they will update automatically each month with no more manual updating needed.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MSGJ, it's hard for me to respond to ... "does this work for you?" as what we had worked for all of the working members of Women in Red... not just for me. With the latest depiction of the "green template" that you are sharing, each event has a month next to it vs noting the month once and then all the events associated with it trailing. Let me also note that I have to click each year separately to open it, vs. in the past, with one click, I could view all events for all years. This is really helpful when our members are trying to decide what worked in Foo month in our first five years vs. our last five years. I get that you are trying to be helpful with automation, but WiR has always operated from the stance that we gain consensus first, and then we take action, vs. what you're doing, which is the opposite. Frankly, it flummoxes me that you persist in this way, and I wonder if it's because no one is being forceful enough in saying, 'please stop'. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree fully! As noted above, I regularly use the template to refer to all past events and can't do so on the current version. I understand this may seem like an odd way of using the template, @MSGJ, but given that there are a few people here in the same boat, could we please discuss and reach consensus before changes are made? Thanks, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. Consensus first. It's most frustrating to find big changes made to commonly used templates without even a discussion started first (I'm used to missing discussions that have happened, but that's on me). DrThneed (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored an earlier version. See "WiR template" below.--Ipigott (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Created a new article: Chimalxochitl II

    This is the second article I write for the project. Please let me know if you find any major issues with it. Also, I try to follow the guidelines when writing about women in history. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi TepeyacPilgrim, that is an interesting article, my main concern is that the biographical content seems to be based on ancient codices, which Wikipedia would regard as primary sources, rather than the secondary sources which Wikipedia prefers, see WP:RSPRIMARY. I will ping SusunW, who is more experienced in writing biographies and has an interest in indigenous Americans. TSventon (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks TSventon, missed the note here. I am definitely not an expert on Aztec history, but a brief search shows that there are definitely mainstream sources available, most of which I cannot access. TepeyacPilgrim I note that your link to the Chimalpopoca Codex is a translation and interpretation prepared by Primo Feliciano Velázquez, so in fact, you are not interpreting the codex. You should add him as |translator-last=Velázqez |translator-first=Primo Feliciano |translator-link=Primo Feliciano Velázquez so that it does not give the appearance that you are relying on your own interpretation. The same should be done with any of the links that have authors or translators. I notice that your article does not specifically give information of her death. Alternate versions of her life occur here and here, giving the source as the Codex Vaticanus 3738. Don't know if you would be able to find that, but it might be worth exploring. I added a redirect for her name Shield Flower. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but can I change it even though I already introduced the source. Like I said, I'm still learning about WIkipedia. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, me personally I'm experienced in Mesoamerican history, even when I may not be so in Wikipedia. So what I can tell you about ancient codices and such and you can tell me about Wikipedia. First is I understand your concern with using primary sources, although what I did was to paraphrase when using primary sources in order to avoid original research. Second -- and this is a major problem not only in Wikipedia but also in Academia -- is that Ancient Mexican history hasn't truly being studied or has been scantily discussed... For instance, there are some horribly written Wikipedia articles without sources and factually (completely) wrong. This was the case with the Wikipedia article of Atotoztli I. This amongst other things was what prompted me to sign up as a Wikipedian. In fact if you name any Mesoamerican Wiki-article I can pin-point inaccuracies, unsourced factoids, and blatant confusions. That is why I had to rely in certain sentences on primary sources because there was no other way. Any obscure British princess is far more quoted or studied in secondary sources than entire empires from Ancient Mexico. As far fetched as that may sound, we wouldn't be discussing this if this wasn't the case. @SusunW mentions correctly that the written codex is translated, although I also read it in Classical Nahuatl to make sure certain things were right... would this eliminate this effort or help? These are honest questions. Would peeking to the Nahuatl version count against Wikipedia policy? Lol. Anyway, I appreciate your comment, but bear in mind the points I brought. Other than that, you're welcome to erase whatever you seem fit from our history, lol, you get the point. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TepeyacPilgrim welcome to my world. I always want to see the original for myself too. It's not exactly a lack of trust of the academic, but a recognition that historians have biases that might slip into their interpretations or might have made errors. Primary sources like the codices, especially in the period for this subject, are pretty much the only historic records we have, until after contact when we have narratives by explorers, priests, and conquerors. Almost all academic work on ancient societies in the Americas stems from interpreting those and yes, like women, Indigenous societies have not received adequate attention. I appreciate that you are trying to address inaccuracies and gaps in our knowledge. In answer to your question, establishing notability for en-WP requires secondary curated sources, meaning that there is an editor, translator, editorial board, or publisher, who has reviewed the work. Once notability is established, details can be filled in by primary sources. So it's a balancing act. In this case, you need both primary and secondary sources. As to your question about citing it, were it me, I'd do it like this: {{cite book |translator-last=Velázqez |translator-first=Primo Feliciano |translator-link=Primo Feliciano Velázquez |title=Códice Chimalpopoca: Anales de Cuauhtitlán y Leyenda de los Soles |url=https://historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/publicadigital/libros/000/codice_chimalpopoca.html |edition=3rd, 1st electronic |publisher=[[Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México]] |location=Mexico City |language=es |trans-title=Chimalpopoca Codex: Annals of Cuauhtitlan and Legend of the Suns |chapter= |chapter-url= |isbn=968-36-2747-1}} And then insert the chapter name and specific chapter-url when it changes in your citation. I hope that helps. SusunW (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • TepeyacPilgrim: Thank you for your useful information about the inaccuracies you have found in Wikipedia's coverage of Ancient Mexican history and related Mesoamerican articles. In this connection, I see you have already made substantial improvements to Atotoztli I. In line with the approach suggested by SusunW, it would certainly help Wikipedia along if you could correct any other major errors you find, drawing on primary sources when necessary. (If you don't have time to work on the articles themselves, it would be useful to mention the problems you encounter on the corresponding talk pages.) While Wikipedia's policy is to justify notability by requiring articles to be based on secondary sources, once notability has been established, it is perfectly permissible to use reliable historical accounts. You will find this approach is widely used elsewhere, for example in connection with ancient Greece and Rome. If you run into any problems, you are of course welcome to post them here. In the short time you have been contributing to Wikipedia, you have certainly been producing impressive work.--Ipigott (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft for review & suggestions Elizabeth Kathleen Turner

    Hello, I have written an article draft for Elizabeth Kathleen Turner. I followed the guidelines in the primer... I think. I hope I did it correctly. I wrote my first articles last weekend and did not follow any guidelines (sorry I was a bit quick to jump in due to excitement about this project!), so I am hoping I have improved my processes this time.

    I would love to have someone review it, and give me any suggestions on how to improve it, and/or help me get it published.

    I have included a section at the bottom called 'The Elizabeth Turner Medal' which was named in her honour posthumously. I am thinking this whole section with the list of recipients might be be better placed on the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne page, and then linked to from Turner's page. But I would love to know what people think about that?

    Thank you,

    AdaWoolf (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AdaWoolf My feeling is that the full list of medal awardees is probably undue detail, as it's an internal award within one hospital. The fact that the medal exists and is named for her is of course worth mentioning in her article and also in the hospital's article - and the reference could usefully be annotated with "includes full list of recipients", in both places. A redirect from Elizabeth Turner Medal could lead to the content about the award on her page, or perhaps better to a section on the award added to the article on the hospital, with a link to her, which would raise her prominence and de-orphan her article.
    A tiny little general point: section headings don't use capitals except for the first letter and proper nouns, so it's "Early life" not "Early Life".
    You've linked to a couple of disambiguation pages: Australian and Presbyterian Ladies' College. There is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages: if you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page. It's a great little gadget! Whether or not you're using it, be sure to check that all your links go to the page you intended: it's all too easy to link a name, find it goes blue, and not realise that it's linked to a singer or tennis player instead of the nurse or politician you were looking for, as well as disambiguation pages. PamD 08:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @PamD, Thank you for your feedback.
    I think you are right about the medal section. I will put a summary on the hospital website, maybe with a sentence about notable recipients and the two blue-linked people from the list. And then link it back to the page. I haven't made any redirect pages for the articles I have written yet. I will read up about about how to do it and make one for the medal. and fix my other articles.
    Section headings capitalisation - good to know! I will fix.
    And the disambiguation links - I absolutely missed them. Thanks for the gadget tip, that will help a lot. And yes, I should check all the links anyways!
    I will make a few edits tomorrow to fix these things up. Thanks again for your assistance!
    AdaWoolf (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome @AdaWoolf - it's wonderful that you're editing! Warmest wishes Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I tend to forget to be welcoming as well as nitpicking/informative! Yes, @AdaWoolf, thanks for this article, and I hope you enjoy your editing. Beware, it can be quite a time sink: I sit down to do one little thing, and suddenly it's beyond lunchtime and I've rescued an abandoned draft about a museum in Brussels. {That was yesteday's little diversion). PamD 12:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Lajmmoore it is lovely to be here!
    And no worries @PamD, you got straight to the point and I love some good critical feedback :)
    I have noticed the time sink. I think I have become a bit too obsessed. How can anyone go about living their normal lives when there are important articles that need editing?? AdaWoolf (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @AdaWoolf, I found a pretty decent interview of Dr. Turner in "The world of sick children", The Age July 14 1945, page 6 (here for those with WPL access) that could be used to fill in some more descriptions of her work. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh cool, thank you @JoelleJay. I have looked it up in the trove archives, I will have a read now and add in some more detail.
    Also, I didn't know WPL was a thing. I am looking forward to getting access to that!!
    AdaWoolf (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again! I have made some edits based on this helpful feedback. I have now moved it to the main space.
    Elizabeth Kathleen Turner
    I followed all the instructions in the primer, but I would love it if someone wanted to have a look and let me know if it all looks okay. I am still a tiny bit confused by how talk pages work, and what tag thingos I should add. And the content assessment thing is still a bit of a mystery to me. I am not meant to assess my own article or anything right? That is for the magical amazing administrator people to do?
    Thanks again, AdaWoolf (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help with the edits @PamD. I can't believe I missed another link! I could have sworn I checked Croydon.
    AdaWoolf (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Help to reach DYK eligibility

    Hello! I've just created Alda Milner-Barry, after coming across her in a biography I read on Emily Anderson. I think there's a good DYK hook for it along the lines of "Did you know Alda Milner-Barry, the older sister of WW2 Enigma codebreaker Stuart Milner-Barry, worked for British Military Intelligence during World War One?"

    But I'm 200 characters short! Her brother named his daughter Alda after her, and this second Alda Milner-Barry was one of the first two women appointed as a clerk in the House of Commons but I don't know if that really fits. Any suggestions and advice very welcome! EEHalli (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEHalli: I've added a little bit of wording - not 200 characters' worth, but it's a start. I have to leave shortly, but I'll try and take another look before I go and see if I can think of anything else to add. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEHalli: I've added some too, and an infobox. We might be there now. Penny Richards (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEHalli:, agree with what others are saying; I think it's okay now: Prose size (text only): 1607 B (261 words). --Rosiestep (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a Times death notice, which has further detail if needed. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all! I’ll submit a DYK in the morning. EEHalli (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone in and added two articles Milner-Barry published - it seems like her literary analysis in these articles is cited in quite a few other works, if more is needed for the article. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! EEHalli (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you everyone who has contributed. I've just made my first DYK submission! EEHalli (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EEHalli: Congratulations! I have to say, I'm reminded a bit of that meme that occasionally makes the rounds, about writing for school versus writing otherwise. Where normally one would say, "I'm sorry, but I can't"...but when writing a paper with a minimum length, turning it into, "I apologize, but at this time I am unable to can".
    Which is to say, there's always a way to add a few characters here or there if you're shameless enough... :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been trained over 20 years to write as concisely as possible so I find expanding text hard. On the other hand, I hope it means I write a sharp opening para! EEHalli (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEHalli: Oh, I get it. I suppose I still preserve some of the habits of my wayward youth. Whether or not those habits are good I leave to others to decide... --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mujeres Referentes

    Hi! I'm not sure if this is the place to comment it, but some time ago I created the list Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Mujeres Referentes. It is a compendium of over three hundred Veezuelan women from different fields collected by media outlets El Pitazo, Runrunes and Tal Cual. I supposed it could be a nice supplement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Venezuela, and a briefing of their biographies can be consulted in their main page: https://mujeresreferentes.com. Best wishes! NoonIcarus (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Katarzyna Kasia (polish journalist and philosopher) encyclopedic?

    Dear Friends.

    Katarzyna Kasia, Polish journalist and PHD of philosophy, just got an award for her journalism activity. I wonder is she is encyclopedic from point of view of English speaking people? Because she has a page on Polish WIkipedia [LINK: pl:Katarzyna Kasia] and I could translate it into English, but also I would like to not get the article later deleted, so I wanted to ask you first.

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking over sources both on that other language article and from a Google search, I think there's enough coverage of her to meet notability standards here. I would say put the translated article together in a sandbox first and we can take a look at it then. We might need to beef it up with some more sources. If you could make the sources you use from the other article better formatted so it's easier to tell if they're from reliable news and television sources, that would help. SilverserenC 23:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend.
    It seems to me that I do not completely understand. There is some kind of problems with sources, right? Can you explain to me what exactly is wrong and how I could fix it? ;-)
    Best wishes
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just not entirely clear, especially with me not being familiar with Polish sources, on which sources are to actual news sites and which are just to random websites. The latter of which would be more unreliable. Also, some may be primary rather than secondary sources. What I like to do when I fill out references is wikilink them to the article on the news or organization site, if we have one. You can also cross-wiki link them to the Polish Wikipedia article instead, if one exists there. Such as for Press.pl, which then shows that it is an industry magazine and, thus, reliable. SilverserenC 02:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Friend.
    I translated the article into English. I hope now it is more clear - I will try to fix the issues you have with it.
    Please, read my version of the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kaworu1992/sandbox3
    Actually, I have two problems/issues:
    1 - do you wanna English translations of titles of her Polish books?
    2 - some references are in red, could somebody help me with them?
    If you have some input, please, say so :-)
    Best wishes
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at Template:Cite News, you can see there's a |trans-title= parameter, where you can add the English title in addition to having the Polish title in the regular title parameter. I'll see what I can do about the errors. SilverserenC 03:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you fixed the references for me - a thousand thanks :-)
    Also: in which categories should we put this lady? I suppose you have different categories than Polish Wikipedia has, so I cannot just to a literal translation, right?
    Best wishes
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Some might be similar, but not all. I'd suggest finding a similar English article to her's, another Polish woman philosopher, and just copy whatever categories at the bottom also apply. SilverserenC 03:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I did some categories and I published the article in "main" Wikipedia. I hope everything is alright? ;-)
    -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, one issue. You should have used the Move button from your sandbox to move it to mainspace, since the way you did it, with just copying the text, disconnects it from the edit history of your sandbox. No worries though, I'll request a history merge. SilverserenC 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women of Russia bloc redlist

    Hi all. I've created a new redlist for the Women of Russia electoral bloc (Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Women of Russia bloc), which elected 24 women to the State Duma in the 1993 elections. The corresponding articles in Russian Wikipedia may serve as a good baseline. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Three WiR GAs today

    For the first time I can remember, three articles created in connection with Women in Red have today been promoted to Good Article class. They are Marcela Pérez de Cuéllar about a UN first lady created by SusunW, Ninfa Huarachi, a Bolivian politician, created by Krisgabwoosh, and Abigail Larson, an American illustrator, created by KRKwrites. Congratulations to these three and to the other editors who have contributed to improving the articles.--Ipigott (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow that's cool. Congrats Krisgabwoosh and KRKwrites. Really cool that KRKwrites started this as a school assignment and the hive of WIR came together to offer help and advice. Really impressive to get Larson to GA status. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all again for your help! I really do appreciate it, and made sure to give the community a lot of credit in my assignment write-up! And congratulations to you @SusunW on your GA as well (and you too, @Krisgabwoosh).
    I have a new name to add to the WiR redlist, but it should be blue soon as I'm hard at work on an article already (Draft:Chris Bearchell). Apparently I'm hooked on editing, which I don't think would've been the case if I hadn't been welcomed so enthusiastically by this community. Thanks everyone :) KRKwrites (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to see it! -- asilvering (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right on! It's so cool to see the contributions of both veteran and new editors come together like this. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a bit to make all these three great contributions more findable, as in our current month's editathon - details in the "outcomes" section. Adding women to surname pages makes it easier for the reader who gets a passing reference to "[Surname]'s work", and also reminds the world that women exist and are notable, by raising the proportion in those surname lists. PamD 20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024

    While we're talking about GAs, I'd just like to plug the backlog drive, since there are still hundreds of articles waiting for review, including many that have been in the queue for 180+ days! Come help some other WiR writers get their articles to GA too! -- asilvering (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cross-posting regarding specific and actionable lack of coverage of women in sports

    Hello, I didn't see any traction over ~3 days at the other WikiProject, so thought I'd mention that here. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Check before you write

    I've just had a look at both Ten Simple Rules and Primer, and neither of them starts with the first step along the lines of:

    "Check carefully that there isn't an existing article in English Wikipedia on your subject. Check variant spellings or transliterations of her name, check married and birth surname if she used both, check any name you find in any source (eg stage name, pseudonym, code name), check her surname/family name on its own, etc. If you find a foreign-language wikipedia article, check on the "Other languages" link in case there's an English version you haven't found. There may be an article which uses a short form of her given name (Liz/Elizabeth), or a different number of given names, or a married surname... Even names appearing in our lists of red links can occasionally be found under another name. It can be disappointing to put effort into an article and find that it's an accidental duplication which can't be used."

    It doesn't often happen, but it does occasionally, and it must be very disappointing for newbie editors to find that they've put a lot of effort into an unwanted duplicate article.

    Should we include something on those lines, as a first step perhaps before even considering notability? PamD 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think so, yes! I caught one of these in NPP recently. It's a bummer. -- asilvering (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree! Great addition. Thank you for spotting that omission PamD. SusunW (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We had that as the "Tip of the month" for March, and agree the warning should be put into the steps and primers. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've adapted the Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is being a female winemaker "defining"?

    Comments please (and ideally sources) at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_18#Category:American_female_winemakers. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New article Lorna Verdun Sisely - and a question

    Hi All, I have created a page for Lorna Verdun Sisely. I would love to know if anyone has any suggestions? And it would be great if anyone wants to do a quick edit and check I have done all the things I need to do.

    A question - I don't understand how small I need to make the non-free images. I read the page about sizing, but it was confusing, and the tool it linked to was written in Chinese. I thought maybe I should add the 'reduce size' tag, but I don't know where to put it. On the talk page? In the summary, or the licensing section? Or is this something the magic bots just automatically do anyway?

    Thank you, AdaWoolf (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AdaWoolf, the article looks good, I have tweaked a couple of details. I have added Template:Non-free reduce to the top of the image page and it should be resized automatically shortly. I doubt the exact location is crucial. TSventon (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you @TSventon I appreaciate your help.
    AdaWoolf (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a bot (JJMC89 bot) that automatically tags non-free images that are too large with {{Non-free reduce}}, another bot (DatBot) that does the actual resizing, and then a third bot (DeltaQuadBot) which then rev-dels the overwritten original upload. The entire process takes about a day (besides the revision deletion, which takes the customary week) and happens automatically. You can see an example here. Curbon7 (talk) 05:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay cool. So I can let the bots do their thing. Thank you for explaining!
    AdaWoolf (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone help me with Mirna El Helbawi?

    Hi all

    I've started an article for the journalist Mirna El Helbawi who has been coordinating providing esims to reconnect people in Gaza to the internet, my main concern is notability. I also created an article for her organisation Connecting Humanity.

    Thanks very much

    John Cummings (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Cummings: Looks to me you've done a pretty good job on these two.--Ipigott (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New article: Helen Parsons Smith

    One more red link down. Article is fairly robust, but any additions or input would be appreciated. Skyerise (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found the article quite interesting, Skyerise; thank you for creating it. I added WP:WPWW to its talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! She was a very interesting character. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New articles: defunct Australian girls' industrial schools

    For our "Education" campaign, I created 2 articles about defunct Australian girls' industrial schools -- Newcastle Industrial School for Girls and Biloela Industrial School for Girls -- and would appreciate a glance at them from our Australian editors. My big concern is getting the nuance right as the follow-on institution for both of these was Parramatta Girls Home, which has a "See also" section that includes Stolen Generations. Should that be included in the Newcastle and Biloela school articles? Thanks. -- Rosiestep (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for creating these two articles of importance in New South Wales history. The article on Stolen Generations states 1905 as the commencement date. As both the Newcastle and Biloela schools closed in 1887, they pre-date the period covered by Stolen Generations. Parramatta Girls Home, in taking over from them in 1887 and continued through to 1974, warrants the link to SG. Oronsay (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Oronsay. Happy that you could sort this out. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New article Peggy Crewe-Milnes

    I just added this stub. I'm not sure if the title should be her formal name or the one she was commonly known as. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wanted to add that I also found sources that refer to her (after her marriage) as Margaret or Peggy Primrose, so I've added those as redirects to the page. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for all your improvements. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's VERY difficult to find red links that have sufficient sources, I've just checked about 20 (awards and actresses) and could find virtually no sources for any of them. I will have another look later. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be worth starting a separate topic and linking the lists you have been having problems with. Probably some lists are more user friendly than others. TSventon (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Danish West Indies flag?

    Dora Richards Miller was born in the Danish West Indies. When I added her to 299, I included the Danish flag icon. Should I have used a different one? --Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that is the most appropriate. The Danish West Indies were part of Denmark when Miller was born in 1842. They didn't become part of the United States until 1917. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for the hive-mind - UK edition

    WiR Art & Feminism 2024

    Hi Londoners, Do any of you know if the sculpture The Man Who Blows the Clouds by Marisa Rueda is still standing in Shepherd's Bush Green? Brief newspaper report makes it seem like it was removed during renovation.

    Also, it would be great if there was a copyright free image. I am not finding it in the commons. Thanks WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: compiling a redlist

    Hi everyone! Some of the articles I have worked on recently have been on women featured in the Diccionari Biogràfic de Dones [ca] (Catalan Biographical Dictionary of Women (Q61591046)). I was wondering how I could go about creating a redlist for it, along the lines of the ones already in our index. I'm not overly familiar with how Wikidata works, as I'm very new to editing it and almost completely unaware of how to integrate it with Wikipedia red lists, so if anyone in the know could help that'd be fantastic. The Catalan Wikipedia article already includes a loooong list of articles from it, if that's at all helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks good. Now added to our Redlink index.--Ipigott (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women's Forum

    Theroadislong has just written Susan Wood (photographer) following a helpdesk request. They have asked about this source, which says that Wood was a founding member of the Women’s Forum. My guess is it was the International Women's Forum, founded in 1974 as the Women's Forum of New York, would anyone here know where to look for more information? TSventon (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have found an archived New York Times article from 1974, which says that the organisation had 59 members and 18 on its steering committee, so Wood's role may not have been particularly prominent. TSventon (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary and Margaret Gibb

    Today I discovered that there was not a page for Margaret and Mary Gibb, and I think they would be notable (I only found out about them today but I think they sound notable and the article would meet GNG). I found the following sources online: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. This one too [8]. What does everyone think? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding to this, these two also are referenced in several books ([9], [10], [11], among others). ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Former Women-in-Red project. I managed to get a featured pictre for her, but her article's rather undercited. Anyone want to help fix it up? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Added three refs, now it's at 10 in the reflist, but some of the items in the further reading list after references should probably be worked in as refs too. Penny Richards (talk)

    Just started a new article on Amelia Elizabeth White and Martha Root White, sibling philanthropists and champions for the arts of the Indigenous Puebloan people of New Mexico, their culture and land-rights. Benefactors of the School for Advanced Research, the Corcoran Gallery and several museums of Indigenous arts in New Mexico. It's just a start, but it can be improved and expanded. Please have a look, and improve or expand if you have the time. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Aleksandra Janusz encyclopedic?

    Dear Friends.

    I wonder whether a Polish article about Aleksandra Janusz, a Polish writer and neurobiologist, would be considered encyclopedic, thus, do you want a translation into English?

    Best wishes --Kaworu1992 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Friends.

    I expanded the article about Katarzyna Paprocka, based upon the Polish Wikipedia article. However, my English and understanding of Wikipedia is not perfect - if a native English speaker could look at the current version of the article, I would be grateful.

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jadwiga Szubartowicz

    Dear Friends.

    Seems I had a productive night. I translated an article about Jadwiga Szubartowicz into English from Polish (it was on one of the redlists). Please, check my grammar and other stuff, okay? ;-)

    Best wishes -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaworu1992:: I should first point out that our redlists are not intended to indicate suitability for inclusion. This biography may meet the requirements of the Polish wiki but I'm not at all sure she is notable enough for the English version. Unless they were notable for other reasons, many articles about centenarians and supercentenarians have been deleted. In future, whether you are translating or creating biographies yourself, I recommend you make sure articles meet the notability requirements listed in our Ten Simple Rules.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Winifred West

    Hi. While I was writing a separate article, I noticed that Winifred West, an Australian educator, had an Australian Dictionary of Biography entry. Her Wikipedia article had been redirected on notability grounds 8 years ago, but I noted that an entry in the ADB equals a passage of WP:ANYBIO#3 and reverted this ancient redirect. However, the article is in pretty dismal shape, with the ADB entry being the only citation provided. I am unable to work on it as I am busy with another project so I figured I'd toss it here to see if anyone is interested. Curbon7 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've sourced her CBE and added the ref, with the text of the citation. Also made a redirect from Winifred Mary West, and added her to West (surname). PamD 09:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WiR template

    Despite many requests for restoring the template we have used over the years for navigating past meetups, etc., nothing has been done. I have therefore restored an earlier version myself. It looks OK to me but might need to be updated for anything included over the past few weeks. You can view the template at the foot of our main WiR page. (Or go to Template:Women in Red navigation and click on Show.) I for one make frequent use of the template but was unable to find anything in the version recently reworked by MSGJ in good faith but without prior consultation. In connection with the preparation of events for April and beyond, we need to be able to review past events which are similar or relevant.--Ipigott (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]