Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 112

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 105 ← Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112 Archive 113 Archive 114 Archive 115

Russian speaker for mother of Mendeleev

I created a stub draft for Draft:Maria Mendeleeva, whose maternal efforts impacted the formation of the modern periodic table. Unfortunately, I can't move forward much because most of the relevant references are in russian. If someone can read russian, their help would be appreciated. Even just adding inline references for the data in the bio would be enough to publish the stub.

Thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

TZubiri, I was about to recommend this project to you. I noted at Draft talk:Maria Mendeleeva that the subject of a Wikipedia biography article needs to be notable in their own right, not just as a family member, see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. TSventon (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
TZubiri: Maria Mendeleeva seems notable enough to have a biography. Why not expand your article from available English-language sources such as A mother's love: Maria Dmitrievna Mendeleeva, Journey of discovery? and Scientific Worthies? If you need further background, you can make a Google search on "Мария Дмитриевна Менделеева". You will find a number of detailed sources there which you can translate into English using Google translate (which is displayed in the search results). It seems to me that she deserves much more than a stub. I would go for at least Start class. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties.--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I used those articles to verify the main paragraph. But being online articles from 2019 they seem pretty weak to base an article off, among other things they would be pretty susceptible to circular reporting (authors may have used Mendeleev's Wikipedia article as a source material. The same goes for google search results.
If no russian speaking reader can help here, I might go with using the google translator to forma a start class article as you suggest. Thanks.--TZubiri (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
TZubiri, I do not know what his work load is, or if he has time, but you might ask GRuban to assist. He is a Russian speaker and reads Cyrillic. SusunW (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
... А Менделеев целый век трудился, Чтоб элементы вставить в клетки. Дурак! Он лучше б научился Гнать самогон из табуретки...
I can read Russian reasonably well, and might be able to help check or translate sources, but fair warning that in actual article writing I'm nowhere near as fast as SusunW (who puts out 20 GAs in the time it takes me to do one C class). I'm actually working on one somewhat topical Woman in Red right now, but who knows how long that will take me. What specific links do you want me to look at, and do you want me to translate them, or just say whether they seem to have done their own research rather than circular from Wikipedia, or what? --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, I see https://chemaust.raci.org.au/article/julyaugust-2019/mother%E2%80%99s-love-maria-dmitrievna-mendeleeva.html is very much in English, and contains much more than we have in our Wikipedia article. --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! I'll try to go for a start class with the english sources as Ipigott suggested. When I have something presentable could you cross check what I wrote with the russian references? I'll do some searching in archive.org and use some google translate to narrow down the russian source material as it seems to be quite a lot. TZubiri (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@TZubiri: I checked back in on this, but it hasn't increased much. Drop me a ping or a note on my talk page when you're ready, and I will gladly compare what you wrote with the Russian. --GRuban (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
That's the one I suggested above but for some strange reason, TZubir did not think it was suitable. If I were creating the biography, I would certainly use it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
GRuban, you have magic wands I don't have. ;) Though I may type faster, collaborating with you always has improved articles. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I see that Draft:Maria Mendeleeva was refused at AfC on 22 March. Unfortunately the article had not been developed along the lines suggested.--Ipigott (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oksana Shvets

Oksana Shvets, a Ukrainian actress, was recently killed in a missle attack. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Such a tragedy to lose a beautiful Song as this. I am happy to see her article has been nominated for DYK and was mentioned on ITN. Excellent work to all involved. --ARoseWolf 14:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo for our translation contest

Love this logo! Kudos to graphic designer, WomenArtistUpdates! --Rosiestep (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something, @Rosiestep. @WomenArtistUpdates, you outdid yourself this time. The logo is amazing. All of the various languages stand out. Truly a testament of the wonderful Wikiproject this is and the incredible editors we have here. --ARoseWolf 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. Much appreciated :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

#VisibleWikiWomen 2022

Dear Women in Red community,

It's great to say hello (and sorry for the very late message this year).

On 8th March we are launching the #VisibleWikiWomen 2022 campaign! In the 5th year of #VisibleWikiWomen, the theme for this 2022 campaign is Hope and healing: Creating feminist memory online.

We are grateful to partners and friends like you, who over the years have helped us bring thousand of images of important and influential women,especially black, brown, indigenous, trans women and non-binary individuals, to Wikipedia and the broader internet. As a key partner for the #VWW campaign, we'd love to have you joining us for this year’s edition! Let’s combat online invisibility by creating a shared and collective feminist memory that gives us hope and healing!!

This year, we will be running the campaign all year long, which will allow us to collaborate and work together in a more spacious and sustainable way. Because our team has been heavily impacted by this last Covid wave, we are planning a soft launch for the campaign next week, on March 8th. We would like to invite you to join us and amplify the campaign among your networks and communities. Please share our webpage and use our social media kit to spread the word about the campaign’s launch.

Along the year, here are a few ways you as a partner can support the campaign:

  • Upload freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons using our campaign page or don’t forget to upload your images using our VisibleWikiWomen 2022 category
  • Amplify our social media posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram using the hashtag #VisibleWikiWomen and #WomenofColors
  • Organize and edit-a-thon or photothon event in your community
  • Partner with a local Wikipedia organization to feature #VisibleWikiWomen during their edit-a-thons
  • Write joint blog posts with the WK? team to raise awareness about women’s invisibility online
  • As in previous years, the WikiProject Women in Red can create an own category on Commons to participate in VisibleWikiWomen, maybe related with a specific moment / campaign of the year

We are looking forward to hearing from you and continuing our partnership and collaboration  along the year!

In solidarity,

@Señoritaleona (Mariana) with @Aadele (Adele) and the @WhoseKnowledge? team Señoritaleona (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm laughing to myself, @Señoritaleona and Aadele, as I should never have doubted that #VisibleWikiWomen2022 would be happening! I kept looking on the WK? page on meta, didn't see anything, and didn't want to bug anyone. Anyway... I'm happy to hear the news! Thank you.
All: I just created this category, c:Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject Women in Red - 2022 on Commons. You can add it to all the photos within our focus area that you upload in the month of March. Don't worry... if you forget... I think it would be okay if someone[who?](me?maybe?) adds it to all the photo uploads that are recorded in the Outcomes section for all of our March events. Sound okay? Make sense? Thoughts? --Rosiestep (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm in. Want Victoria Woodhull for it? I just finished her image restoration today. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.6% of all FPs 01:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Rosiestep: I see you are recommending "Category:VisibleWikiWomen-WikiProject Women in Red - 2022" should be used in March. Rightly or wrongly I continued to use the corresponding 2021 category in later months last year as I tended to copy it over from earlier images I had added to Commons. As the campaign is being continued for the remainder of the year, would it not be sensible to help them along after the end of March? If so, we could immediately substitute it for "Category:Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red - 2022", not only on our current event pages but on those for the remainder of the year. And while I'm here, it would be interesting to find out from Señoritaleona to what extent the involvement of Women in Red helped their campaign along in 2021. (I see that 426 images were tagged with the category last year, compared with 3,742 tagged with "Media supported by WikiProject Women in Red - 2021".)--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello dear friends @Rosiestep, @Ipigott @Victuallers First of all, apologies for coming back so late to this conversation. And secondly, just thanks and appreciation to the Women in Red collective for your amazing contributions over the years. In some VWW campaigns, WiR has focused on March, and in others the use of the VWW category has continued throughout the year, even when VWW is over as an active campaign. However, every year we keep the category live after the official closing of the campaign, and we track metrics until the end of the year, because you and other users continue using the category (and that's wonderful!). Feel free to organize your categories as is best for you, depending of your strategies and planning for the current year.
Since in 2022 VWW will continue all year long, perhaps beyond March we could co-organize joint actions for other specific dates, and in those actions, we could use specific categories as part of both VisibleWikiWomen and Women in Red. Let's keep in touch! Señoritaleona (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I can now answer that query myself. From here, I see that out of a total of 1,108 VisibleWikiWomen images last year, Women in Red was the keenest contributor, followed closely by Ghana.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually we have loaded much more that 1,108 images this year as part of women in red's work. We have loaded over 1,700 images and the new project has loaded 75. We operate all year every year. Its great work but not sure we need a tag war. I have been tweeting #visiblewomen occasionally and it doesnt appear to have hit much interest.Victuallers (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Goodness me, Victuallers! I was certainly not trying to start a tag war. I saw the figure of 1,700 in the grant application and also here but the images are not listed under the linked category. I would be really interested to hear where the others come from and where we can find them. Perhaps there's a similar category for Wikipedia although I have not been able to find it? The reason I suggested extending the category to later months was that I found out by accident that I had been using last year's after the end of March and I'm glad to hear you've been doing the same. I was simply trying to be supportive but if I'm causing any kind of difficulty, please ignore my suggestions. We'll keep the standard Women in Red categories for our events and simply hope that people will adapt to March. If not, I see from above that Rosiestep has undertaken to add the VWW category to all Commons images created in March. It may be well worthwhile spending a day or two just adding more images to Commons. As far as I know, there's no obligation to attach them to articles.--Ipigott (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Please stand down. I wasn't accusing anyone. I think I will keep quiet. Victuallers (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. If so, my sincere apologies. Let's just leave everything as it is. If you say there were 1,700 images, then that must of course be correct. Let's just forget all about the categories. After all, it's the additions that count and I'm sure I've forgotten to add the category to lots of my images too.--Ipigott (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

History marathon

See https://historyforukraine.co/speakers-and-volunteers/ for a 24hr fundraising event (starts noon today UK time, ie 11.5 hrs from time of this email) of half-hour talks by historians, many of them female. The talks, or just the list of presenters, might offer ideas for articles. PamD 00:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

and provide your inputs @

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon on women composers

I was just alerted to this event by the Boulanger Initiative, a locally-headquartered group dedicated to encouraging performances of works by women composers. It's going to be on Wednesday, 03/30, from 5 until 7, if anyone's interested; I will not be able to attend, even online. Apologies for the short notice, but I only found out about this myself yesterday evening. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Nina Tannenwald

Nina Tannenwald, an expert on American nuclear policy, has been in the news a lot lately. Any help with her article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Her book appears clearly notable; it has many published reviews, which I'm in the process of finding and adding. So what the draft is most in need of, I think, is evidence of additional notability (I guess in the way of in-depth sources about her) that are not directly related to the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I’ll continue to search for more information next week. Maybe, due to the current war, there will be an extensive news story about her life and work. I hope! Best, Thriley (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is her CV: [1]. Does it look acceptable? Thriley (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Acceptable for what? It can be used to source basic facts of her education and career that don't have other sources. But it doesn't itself bring any more evidence of notability. It's not the kind of in-depth published source by someone independent of the subject that would be needed for WP:GNG-based notability, and the accomplishments that it lists are not at a level that would automatically produce WP:PROF-based notability. ——David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve seen CVs debated over. I don’t see it as evidence of notability, just a helpful source to build out the article. Thriley (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Rabab al-Sadr

Hello all, I have created a draft for Rabab al-Sadr at Draft:Rabab al-Sadr. I have tried to gather some sources, but am having a hard time writing, this being my first article and all. Any help is greatly appreciated. lav:~ % Maddy from Celeste (they/she) :: talk to me uwu 17:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste: Thanks for writing that; short articles are good, if they're well written and well cited, as this one is. It is clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. I've added one word - 'prominent' - cited to the WaPo American Educational Trust and promoted the article to mainspace as Rabab al-Sadr. None of that gainsays your original request: I hope some WiR folk dig in. Equally, it's progress. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Metrics

It all goes from bad to worse. Reports bot, for whatever reason, updated only the September 2015 metrics today, and didn't update the ten or so most recent months, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/March 2022, as it normally does each day. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks as if Earwig might be able to fix it once again.--Ipigott (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Our Earwig is User:The Earwig ... to whom I won't link b/c the metrics snafu seems to have sorted itself out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Not the first time, I'm afraid. Glad to see we are back to normal.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable women on red lists?

I have been writing biographies of women in the context of the Women in Red climate initiative, which includes a link to crowd sourced oceanographers.[2] The original list started from 2005 and 2014 articles in Oceanography, the journal of The Oceanography Society, in which women shared their own one-page biographies. Indeed, I added many of the names in the interest of having all the names available. However, upon closer inspection, I don't think all of these women are notable. What are people's thoughts about removing names from such lists? --DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

DaffodilOcean Having just gone through an exercise to expand the list of women's/gender studies academics there isn't an easy answer to the question. If they are not notable because their career isn't advanced enough I'd say remove them. If you find repeated information that they are probably notable but you cannot find adequate sourcing at this time, you can leave them. Admittedly sometimes I did leave them and other times I removed them, especially if I could find no RS (i.e. blogs, interviews, facebook posts, etc.) that gave basic details for a biography/career. It may well be that someone searching with a different engine, in a different place or language, has access to sources you do not. Probably not the easy do remove/don't remove answer, but it is how I approached the situation. SusunW (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your perspective, I think I will leave them for now, but I might add (another) statement about checking notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Quite apart from the uncertainty attaching to a judgement about notability, there is no mechanism by which names can be marked in wikidata as non-notable for en.wikipedia. WiR Redlists are not lists of en.wikipedia notable people, so much as lists of people who meet wikidata's WD:N; and WD's notability policy is very much broader than is en.wiki's. The rubric at the top of most WiR Redlists reads: "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify"; the issue is old and perennial. Finally, any notes appended to a Listeria redlist will vanish upon its next update. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
(I appreciate the OP is talking about a crowd-sourced - i.e. not WD - list, but the thread title is much broader & so it's worth reiterating the limitations of most redlists). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I would certainly leave any which appear interesting, even if initial searches reveal no hits. Quite a number of the Scandinavian women I have written about were not listed in reliable secondary sources on Google searches but were in fact notable thanks to coverage in documentary databases, digitized versions of old journals, exhibition programmes or old newspaper items. I have found that on occasion, additional sources can be found by making searches of items including occupation or place of work in their national language. The towns where they used to live sometimes include them in their history files. Looking into the background of image files displayed on Google can also be helpful. In the case of visual artists, they may even reveal works included in the permanent collections of world-class institutions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
One of the most gratifying things that's come about as a result of my listmaking for WIR is to see someone write an article about a person on one of those lists that I was unable to find enough sources about to write myself. So I say keep everyone and let individual editors make their own decisions about notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Support per Gamaliel. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I had a similar situation where I was working on Darcie Dennigan, and was having some difficulty scraping together good reviews to establish notability. Then, after I cried out for help, User:Uncle G swooped in with way more sources than I was able to find. I think it's fine to keep them on the lists, but it might be nice to have a "checked for sources, can't find any" flag, so users who aren't skilled at digging up sources don't waste time trying when they could be writing a different article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


All excellent points. I was considering it from the other perspective of hoping for a little efficiency so I don't look for sources on a person I have already mentally crossed off. I will find a different way to track people I have already looked up. Thanks everyone. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no harm - with the CS lists especially - in adding a note if you want, saying something like "assessed for notability on XXX, using USA google, and did not appear notable at present" - that at least gives a trail if you and perhaps other editors? Lajmmoore (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
If that's OK, I will do that as I find myself re-considering people and then realizing I have already looked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Meta page for April

Thanks to your suggestion, Rosie, I've put together a short page on Celebrate Women for April encouraging participation in our Gender studies and Translation contest. It seems to me someone should also be updating the main Celebrate Women page. Perhaps I can help out a bit but I've never been very good at lists and have little knowledge of the activities of other language versions of Wikipedia. Any ideas on where to provide links to the new April page?--Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Ipigott, thank you!! How do you feel about moving this subsection (Meta page for April) to the WiR talkpage so that others can see and help out? Yes, WiR should be on Gender gap/Groups and Gender gap/Initiatives. The only thing I can think of why it wasn't included in Groups (and this is just a guess) is that historically, WiR has only communicated on EN-WP, while all the others mentioned in the "Groups" have a Meta (all languages) presence. We've discussed at different times creating a Women in Red page on Meta; I really do feel we need it, but there has to be consensus, and while I serve as a Trustee, I'm not in a position to move this forward. I'll notify about the April update (provide links) on the various TG channels and perhaps others will be inclined to do so elsewhere. Pinging Victuallers to keep you in the loop. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, by all means move it to the WiR talk page or at least provide a summary there with a link. I try to avoid overloading the WiR talk page with too many new items but as you probably know there's lots of stuff on our Ideas page and on my own talk page which may be of more general interest. Judging by all the pings I keep getting, I think most of those who are really interested manage to get a good idea of what's going on.--Ipigott (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

New pages from Anglia Ruskin students

Hello all, @Victuallers & @Charles Matthews & I were involved in supporting some media students from Anglia Ruskin to start some pages. They've starting making them live, but I wondered if anyone with a little time could take a look at those published. The dashboard is here and all who need to do more work on their pages have been contacted. There's some really interesting people! I've just got lots on this week, and won't have time to do more than I've done this evening! Many thanks! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The two problem children look to be Basmah Felemban, graphics designer, for whom notability might be questioned; and Giulia Cassini Rizzotto, actor - for which references are required. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Giulia Cassini Rizzotto be Giulia Cassini-Rizzotto? One of the films she was in, Fabiola (1918 film), has a redlink with a hyphen. I also see that usage on Google. The Wikidata and other language articles don't use the hyphen. StrayBolt (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The article source and IMDb use the hyphen. However a quick scan thru google books shows mainly no hyphen. At the least, a redirect is needed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Probably a case of a Latin name being two names and certain Anglophones, not sure what to do, add in a hyphen. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I've added a redirect on the hyphenated name; seems most/all incoming links to the article are hyphenated - [[3]]. That'll probably do, but if anyone has strong opinions or better insights, the non-hyphen article could be moved over the hyphen redirect. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Meta page for March. (The other Meta)

Sorry; couldn't resist. There's what might be an interesting blog post on ai.facebook - Their stories should be celebrated: Using AI to deliver more inclusive biographical content on Wikipedia which may interest some here ... equally, how far can one throw facebook? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Good find, Tagishsimon. Well presented paper demonstrating clear progress on the AI model. I've included a link to the full paper on our Research page. It was heartening to see it included this acknowledgement of our efforts: "Finally, we thank all of the editors of Wikipiedia, particularly those in the Women in Red Project, for their hard work and dedication to creating, moderating, editing, and all that is necessary to keep Wikipedia running."--Ipigott (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please see this AfD. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion"

Sure. Lugnuts. Fade258 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

"6 Groundbreaking Women You Didn’t Learn About in History Class " from Atlas Obscura: One of them red

This popped up on my search page, and five of the six already have articles (to save you checking them if you see it). The one who doesn't is Emily Ford (not Emily Ford (1850–1930), Quaker artist and campaigner, nor Emily Ford (rower) (born 1994)). She may be a bit towards the BLP1E, but "The First Woman To Hike Wisconsin’s Grueling Ice Age Trail" (and the first person of colour too), and seems to have quite a lot of coverage (eg Guardian and a short film made about her). I've created two new articles today (first of the month, so WiR editathon day!), and need to get on with some RL stuff, but someone might like to have a go. PamD 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

She also is currently trekking across the Boundary Waters: [4] --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 18:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Correction, she finished last month: [5] --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I have created a draft for her page now. It's only a few sentences now, and I think needs expanding before moving it to mainspace. I'm still a little concerned about BLP1E, too. --Maddy from Celeste ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk to me uwu 18:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
t/y. The draft is thin; but the subject is probably on the right side of BLP1E conditions. In reverse order we have multiple sources saying the subject's 1,200km trek was significant; the subject is unlikely to remain a low-profile individual; and the subject has received coverage for her trek, for the film of the trek, and as a diversity ambassador in the field of trekking. Indeed the titles of the four references pretty much refute BLP1E - "historic", "months later" &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

WiR at the Oscars?

During the in memoriam segment of the Oscars telecast last night, at least one of the people featured got a Wikipedia article during Women in Red's "Women who died in 2021" editathon, in December--I know, because I started it. I was pleased to see Marcia Nasatir's notability confirmed (not that I ever doubted it), but also glad to know that anyone who wanted learn more about her would find a good starting place on Wikipedia. Penny Richards (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty damn awesome. Good work. Trillfendi (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford § Processing of sexual assault cases

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford § Processing of sexual assault cases. Feel free to crosspost to anywhere more relevant, but this is about violence against women at a (former) women's college, so I thought WiR members may be interested. (This is a conflict of interest edit.) — Bilorv (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Assistance for Bulgarian language references at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevda Shishmanova

Hi all. If anyone is talented at researching in Bulgarian I would appreciate some assistance looking for sources. Shishmanova is the programming director of BNT 1, and it appears she has won some awards for her work as a television producer which potentially means she passes WP:ANYBIO. I of course may be wrong, and all opinions are welcome at that discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

4meter4 I don't speak Bulgarian, but a targeted search yields thousands of sources about her. Even discounting the tabloid nonsense of some of them, there are significant sources including a bio in the Bulgarian Media Academy. SusunW (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you SusunW for your input. Another article rescued. :-) 4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Materre

Michelle Materre, an important figure in promoting black women filmmakers has died. The company she co-founded managed the release of numerous films including Daughters of the Dust. Thriley (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Feminism and Folklore 2022 has ended, What's Next?

Please help translate to other languages.

Dear WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 112,

Feminism and Folklore 2022 writing competition has ended. We thank you for organizing it on your local Wikipedia and help in document folk cultures and women in folklore in different regions of the world on Wikipedia. What's next?

  1. Please complete the jury on or before 25th April 2022.
  2. Email us on wikilovesfolklore@gmail.com the Wiki usernames of top three users with most accepted articles in local contest.
  3. You can also put the names of the winners on your local project page.
  4. We will be contacting the winners in phased manner for distribution of prizes.

Feel free to contact us via mail or talkpage if you need any help, clarification or assistance.

Thanks and regards

International Team
Feminism and Folklore

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

All, I received the same message on my talkpage and I've responded to the sender. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth and death

I'm having trouble finding the date of birth and death for Daisy Wood Hildreth. I'm seeing if anyone here would be interested in finding that information. Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

1894 for the DoB - http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu/masc/finders/cg442.htm and search for 'daisy' --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 and Tagishsimon: But is this her performing in 1904 being married and returning from the "Atlantic"? "MRS. DAISY WOOD HILDRETH. Of Atlantic. Moines as a vocalist a few weeks ago at one of the Saturday afternoon matinees, at which time she distinguished herself as a singer of more than ordinary ability and her playing last night proved her to be no less accomplished as a pianists…. Mrs. Hildreth is very prominent in musical circles in Atlantic."[6] (OCR corrected) StrayBolt (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I found her obit but need you to e-mail me back for it. StrayBolt is correct that she was married by 1904. She married in 1900. Yes, I see that the clipping says her name was Ward, but it was definitely Wood, because the license confirms they married on Thursday 24th. (you may have to create a free sign in to see the record). She was born 17 December 1879 (note parents names match the marriage license and age at death confirms 1879) and died 30 July 1969. SusunW (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Scherer

Judge Scherer is only considered to be known for one case (albeit, one of the biggest trials Florida history) that she was "randomly" assigned to. Other than that, she is deemed young and inexperienced by a source that she doesn't like (South Florida Sun Sentinel), and seems like her family's legal drama is what comes up when you try looking for her background; I did find that she was an assistant prosecutor and assistant state attorney for a decade. People believing she only got the position of judge because of cronyism (apparently her father represented George W. Bush). I'm seeking opinions on if she is independently notable or not yet. Trillfendi (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think that she would able to pass this criteria. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Wilson Hodge

FYI. I was copy editing Henry Wilson Hodge currently at DYK, and ran across an interesting write-up about his wife Sarah Wilson Hodge.

"If We Forget, Who Will Remember?". savannahherald.net.

A rather remarkable woman. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Also known as Sarah Mills Hodge (Savannah College of Art and Design), with an elementary school named after her. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for that. I've added her to Savannah Women of Vision. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Terminology request

Who or what are 'women'? PortholePete (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Woman. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The original comment seems to likely have been anti-trans trolling. Though you linking that article did inform me that it seems like the anti-trans types have succeeded in getting the ledes of these articles written in a certain way that affirms the transphobic bigot wording of things. SilverserenC 00:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
And you deduce all of that because someone asks "Who or what are 'women'?", do you? PortholePete (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to be here to make any positive contribution, PortholePete. Isn't there a railway line somewhere near you that you could go and play on instead? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
So there are now rules on making 'positive contribution[s]' before anyone can ask questions are there? That's news to me.
PortholePete (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot is down

WP 1.0 bot stopped auto-updating on 4 April. (I updated it manually 6 April for WPWW). See also: Women Scientists; Women Artists. I'd be really happy if someone could sort out how to get it working again. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Now functioning again.--Ipigott (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Yay! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sonja Lang

Hello. I've started this draft right here which is basically Special:Permalink/402913209 but expanded further. Before I expand the article even more, I wanted some community feedback on whether or not I'm wasting my time on a BLP1E. Thanks, and feedback requested. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I should also let you know that if it is a BLP1E, I'm just going to G7 it, since there is no point in wasting the community's time and resources AfDing or MfDing it. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Lots of people are known for one thing, without them falling foul of BLP1E. The subject is known for a particular work, which I guess is somewhat analagous to an event. BLP1E has three criteria, all of which must be met ... Toki Pona does not pass criteria 3 "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" and so BLP1E cannot apply. GNG - and the notability of Toki Pona - is evidenced in, at least, The Globe and Mail article. Conclusion: subject is near the notability borderline, but on the right side of it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
3PPYB6 a life cannot be a one-time event. She may be notable for one thing, but that isn't the same as only having a flurry of coverage around the time of the event and then no other notice by media/academia. Granted I don't understand the dating you have listed, nor why you do not have in the body that they were formerly Sonja Elen Kisa, but you have media listed going back to 2007 (the LA Times piece you show from 2013 is actually dated 24 August 2007). Thus, on a bio, the question becomes do you have sufficient information, in RS, over time to create a fairly complete biography of the person. You have a mix of RS in the article, were it me, I would try to remove sources that are not curated by with editorial oversight as this is a living person. Particularly because of this discussion. There is scholarly information as well about her in a variety of languages[7],[8],[9]. She has also published books [10],[11] on the language. (Maybe more, but the name is common and difficult to search). Thus, you have information in RS covering her from 2007 to 2021 and she would appear to meet WP:CREATIVE #2. SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd never heard of it, but WP's Toki Pona got over 200k views last year, despite the topic being over 20 years old. I would think its creator is notable. At the least most of it could be merged to the language. Should certainly not be speedied. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • So, there's some ancient history here: An article under her maiden name was merged in 2008 based on a 2005 consensus, pre-merger history deleted a few months later on BLP grounds—ticket:2008100510006381 for those with access. Sonja is a friend of mine, and I've asked her if she retains the concerns she once had about being the subject of an article. @3PPYB6: Would you mind holding off on any final decision as to whether to publish, until she's had a chance to think it over? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
    @Tamzin—Of course; I asked here because it was redirected before as a BLP1E. If Sonja decides to have the article not published, let it be—I'll G7 it in accordance with her preferences. All subjects of BLPs that are borderline-notable should have the right to ask it to be deleted; if I was on here I'd say "Get it off now! I do not belong here!". So yeah, I'll hold off… if Sonja says no, I'll G7 it. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
    @3PPYB6: Sonja says she does not object to publication. FWIW, speaking just for myself, I think she's likely just over the GNG threshold. Let's just remember that, if this is sent to mainspace, there's a history of revdellable/OSable trolling here, and there's some evidence that leads me to believe that even 14 years after the previous deletion it may reëmerge. If any passersby here wouldn't mind watchlisting the page, that would be appreciated. (Also, procedural note, if publishing to mainspace, please file an {{FPER}} for the redirect at Sonja Elen Kisa.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Undisclosed Jamaican school writing project

Found this over at WP:ANI while I was looking at it, and thought I'd raise it here since it seems to be within our purview, in case anyone might like to take a look. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Susanne Hirsch/Hirt

Question for the hive-mind: I am working on the Virginia Women's Monument article. Specifically looking at the individuals whose names are on the "Wall of Honor". A "Susanne Hirt" in included. The current link from her name is to a German slalom canoeist. I am trying to correct this. I think the correct person is Susanne Hirsch, a holocaust survivor who changed her name to Hirt and settled in Richmond, Virginia. If others agree, I will turn the link into a red link for Susanne Hirt (1913-2006). Any thoughts? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The Biographical Note for the Susanne B. Hirt Collection (Center For Jewish History) does not mention the monument, but does seem to support her eligibility for it. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
A few more articles from a casual glance around. She would be an interesting bio to start.- Penny Richards (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Susanne Hirt, "Progress is a Relay Race" Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Journal 61(November 1981): 1609-1612. The sixteenth Mary McMillan Lecture
  • (edit conflict) There is also a bylined obit (abstract via ProQuest): "Susanne Hirt, MCV professor, dies / In 1945, she started teaching at new school of physical therapy" Robertson, Ellen. Richmond Times - Dispatch. 18 Sep 2006: B5. ("She came to the United States at the invitation of a family who also had left Europe and worked for them in Baltimore and Washington. The host family's father, who had converted to Christianity, "made me change my name from Hirsch to [Susanne Berthe Hirt] because he did not want the world to know that he was Jewish," Miss Hirt said in 2002."), and a report on her later work (abstract via ProQuest): "EVEN IF YOU ARE 80, YOU CAN RECAPTURE THE NATURAL, SAFE MOBILITY OF YOUTH" Robertson, Ellen. Richmond Times - Dispatch. 19 Oct 1989: 19. ("Miss Hirt, who retired in 1983 as head of the physical therapy department at the Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, is teaching the elderly here to do just that -- recapture the natural, safe kind of mobility they had when they were children, through gentle Feldenkrais exercises.")
  • There are also references available via the WP Library for the Mary McMillan Lecture Award, e.g. via Gale: Stuart Binder-Macleod (Dec. 2021) "What I Know: The Value of Mentoring and Leadership." PTJ: Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal (Vol. 101, Issue 12) Oxford University Press. DOI: 0.1093/ptj/pzab199.
  • Given the weight of the CJH source, I am wondering if her article title could be Susanne B. Hirt, with a hatnote. I am trying to incorporate the guidance from WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MIDDLENAME when thinking about this. The Virginia Women's Monument does not appear to have done much to publicize her inclusion - at this point it seems likely, but not completely clear that it is her. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(restoring conflicting edit)
A few more articles from a casual glance around. She would be an interesting bio to start.- Penny Richards (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Susanne Hirt, "Progress is a Relay Race" Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Journal 61(November 1981): 1609-1612. The sixteenth Mary McMillan Lecture

Thanks Beccaynr and Penny Richards, I now feel confident that Susanne B. Hirt is our honoree, and agree we should use that name for the title and will change it to a red link on the Virginia Women's Monument page. I'll put it on my list, but if either of you wants to take it, please do. Interesting life! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, WomenArtistUpdates and Penny Richards, the article has now begun. Beccaynr (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Mrs Pender Chalmers

Putting this here since this seems like a very weird way to title that article. WP:COMMONNAME might apply, but there's a big WTF upon landing there to someone who isn't knee deep in Victorian society. I'd move, but I don't even know to what I'd move it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Headbomb: Just as well you didn't move it. In the 19th and early 20th century, many women became known by their married name. Unless there is substantial evidence that she was known by her maiden name, it's probably better to keep it as it is. There are also quite a few beginning with Madame, e.g. Madame de Matignon which I recently assessed.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Btw, Headbomb, she was 7 when Queen Victoria died, and lived until 1982! Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
In some cases we might not even know a historical married woman's personal name, but that's not the case here. She was already well known on the stage as Maysie Burlingham before her marriage. Perhaps it's revisionist, but I feel like we ought to prefer a woman's personal name over her husband's name if both names are about equally common in sources. (I could be persuaded that we should usually prefer the personal name, even if it's less common.) pburka (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This suggests she was known as Maysie Chalmers, which I suggest should be the article name. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I also prefer her own name (for Mrs. X) if it is known and a redirect to the other names. In cases where someone was known as Madame, as in Madam C. J. Walker, or Madame Sala because of branding, I've used that. It is especially difficult for someone like Emily Elizabeth Holman who purposely masculinized her name. I know we have WP:Common name but in the case of women, it sometimes just requires that you WP:IAR. I'd vote for Maysie Chalmers with a redirect to both Burlingham and Pender. SusunW (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Moving it to Maysie Chalmers makes sense to me. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • We don't have to WP:IAR. MOS:MRS advises us to avoid honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Dr, etc., in the article body. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that guidance also applies to article titles. pburka (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually I don't see how that applies here at all; certainly it doesn't address this specific point. As always, WP:COMMONNAME out-trumps everything else on article titles. Butr all this should be on article talk, not here. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed: no-one has even yet pinged the article creator: @CuriosityScribe:. It's not clear to me whether her husband's surname was the double barrleed "Pender Chalmers", so "Mrs Pender Chalmers" is more like "Mrs Smith" or "Mrs John Smith". She may have been known as Edith Pender Chalmers, Maysie Pender Chalmers or umpteen other variations:: we certainly need redirects from every version found in any source. Agree that any page move should be made using the formal WP:RM process, which will see a discussion on the article talk page. (In about 1984 my born-1917 Mother caused confusion by writing me a letter when I was in a hospital but addressing it to Mrs [Husband's initials] [Very common married surname]: it reached me but only just - they had no patient with that surname + initials combination, but that was the "correct" way to write to a married woman!) PamD 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • See this document, page 74, item #1251, where the surname is recorded as "Chalmers" (not "Pender Chalmers"):
(Gipsy II #2016) DH.60G regd G-AAYY (CofR 2589) 6.30 to John William Pender Chalmers, London NW3 (based Stag Lane); named “Cygnet II” (replacement for G-AACO). CofA 2568 issued 26.6.30. Flown by Mr & Mrs Chalmers on Middle East tour, departing London 9.5.31 for Baghdad and to Basrah 18.5.31; ret to Heston 31.5.31. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd go with whichever of her stage names was more commonly used, same with what was done for Lou Swarz. SilverserenC 22:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, that's none of them, as she was a fairly minor actress who gave up the stage when she married, at 21 or so. I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be notable on her stage career at all. Her notability came later. But again, let's do this at the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as well we have redirects. There seems to be an increasing case for titling the article Maysie Forrest. That would allow us to get rid of Mrs and begin to look more carefully at her achievements under that name.--Ipigott (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be gone a bit

Laptop seems to be toast and I cannot afford a new one. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunate to hear about the state of your laptop. There use to be a way to get a functional but used laptop, I have been a beneficiary of a mini laptop, while I was still in school. You can read more about it here. For an experienced editor like yourself, it shouldn't be too difficult getting endorsement from fellow Wikipedians. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Luckily, my father declared "early birthday gift" to bail me out. That program looks great, but may be dead. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 17:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Tagging new WIR articles

Been some time since I have come here. What are we tagging new WIR articles as these days? Sometime back we used to add them to a tracker here. Are we doing that now? If so - can any of you add Elvera Britto to the WIR trackers. Ktin (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ktin: I've simply tagged it as WIR 2022. If you like, you could use WIR-217 (1day1woman) or, if applicable, one of the tags corresponding to the current month's priorities. Thanks for maintaining interest in the project.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Humaniki no longer returning results

Following the latest batch of statistics from Wikidata on 8 March, Humaniki is returning no results. There has been a problem since 3 March (see above). Maximilianklein will probably be able to sort things out in April. In the meantime, WDCM shows there are now 376,256 women's biographies on the EN wiki (up from 375,638 on 28 February) and that the percentage of women's vs. men's biographies (in terms of usage rather than sitelinks) is now 19.21%.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we update the mainpage to that effect?--Oronsay (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
No opinion on that. But it is vexing that WDCM is finding ~16k more women than either of Humaniki (based on dumpfiles) or WDQS (Blazegraph), both of which are consistent. (from the above thread, WDQS 360,042 versus Humaniki's most recent 359,396). --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: That's simply because WDCM counts "usage", in other words if a Wikidata entry appears for example in a box it counts even if there is no actual article. It seems to be because Wikidata wants to see how often its data are used. All rather confusing.--Ipigott (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see; thank you. "we focus on the wbc_entity_usage table of the Wikibase Schema here." In which case, we should probably not use their figures nor their percentile b/c it's not measuring WiR's article metric; or if we do, make very clear that it is a use-of-wikidata-item-on-wikipedia measurement, not an article measurement. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Tagishsimon: At this stage, I don't think we should change anything. In any case, as far as I can see virtually all the items in our metrics are articles.--Ipigott (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If anyone is interested, as of 22 March WDCM is reporting 377,069 women's biographies under its usage criterion, representing 19.22%. Humaniki is still not responding.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • And as of 29 March, WDCM lists 377,475 women (usage), 19.24%.--Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As of 2 April, 377,998, 19.25%.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • IMO, I think we could add info on the WiR mainpage to include the WDCM results, with explanation that this refers to ALL biographies on Wikidata, not just EN-WP. Or maybe this would be confusing to the casual reader? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Rosiestep: That's not quite correct. Both WDCM and Humaniki have options for listing figures on all the biographies on Wikidata or by selective criteria such as a particular language version. The difference with WDCM is that it is based on "usage" rather than the existence of articles whereas Humaniki on looks at the existence of articles. "Usage" can include any use of Wikidata results such as in boxes or occurences of names from Wikidata in references or when names other than the subject of the article are included in an article. That explains the difference in the figures. But as you say, including two sets of figures would probably be confusing. Fortunately, Maximilianklein has now restored Humaniki and as of today we have the most recent figures. With the data dump of 11 April, we're now at 19.22%, up from 19.16% on 25 February.--Ipigott (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
      Big thanks to @Maximilianklein: for their work. Much appreciated. Interesting to note that the stats have been improving by their customary 1 basis point per week during the outage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mimi Reinhardt, secretary of Oskar Schindler

Mimi Reinhardt, the secretary of Oskar Schindler has died. Is there a public domain image of her anywhere? Thriley (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Balkanska

I saw this article in draft space: Draft:Anna Balkanska. Does she appear notable? Thriley (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: Both DGG & I independently staved off G13 on this the last time around, however I've not been able to find any useful sources. The creator appears to have retired so if left in draftspace it will eventually be deleted. I never know what to do with such material; there's a feeling that for an established editor to move it to mainspace involves taking responsibility for verifying the content, which I'm not qualified to do. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I don’t speak a word of Bulgarian and I’m not familiar with notable publications or ways of searching in that language either. If only there was a Bulgarian to English editathon going on in Sofia this year. Wouldn’t this be a great place for one : SS. Cyril and Methodius National Library? Thriley (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's AI

Yesterday I uploaded Annie Salomons as part of the translation contest. I did a double check of the article on my phone. This morning the "Because you read" section of Wikipedia on the phone app offered me five more articles to read about Dutch and Flemish writers. All were men!!!! Roundtheworld (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably "gender" is not a property of interest in the algorithm or machine learning process. If more than 50% of Dutch and Flemish writers are men, then it is very likely that such will be the case. Maybe they can make it such that for every suggestion there should be at least a woman. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Per WiR's own page, 19.21% [of bios are for women] as of 4 April 2022. But that means that of 1,881,935 biographies, only 361,569 are about women - so that's less than 1 in 5, ergo it is unlikely any bios in a random set of five will be for women. Why are you surprised? Or, going by the section header, are you trying to imply the AI has some programmed gender bias? Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really one for statistics, Kingsif, but I thought the maths was more like (4/5)^5 = 32.768% chance of no women, 67.232% of at least one women, in a set of five articles where the discrete probability is 20%. It's unlikely that "the AI" has programmed gender bias. It is more likely that little or no programming effort has been dedicated to ameliorating bias - well understood a priori - in the article set on which the AI is acting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It's also possible it prioritised things in ways that increase gender bias. If systemic bias reduces the prominence of women writers over all society (especially if the exceptions tending to be those that would already have translated articles), then simply sorting the remaining articles by something that tracks with prominance, such as page views, will increase the systemic bias. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
If we really wanted to get into true statistical probability here, we would have to know how the selection of articles to draw from is sorted before even getting into the math - so to keep it basic, <20% of bios being women = less than 1 in 5 'random' selections will be women. I just thought it was a really weird thing to bring up, what is WiR going to do about it? Of course, if we did want to lobby for whomever messes with the AI to make it more proactive in selecting women, then that (human-decided) sorting of the articles would be where to start - just 'bump up' articles on women, like Adam kind of implicitly suggested. Kingsif (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me put it to you that you're being obstinately statistically innumerate, still trying to assert a ~20% probability to a situation which has a ~67% probability. See, for the simplest case, Probability#Independent events. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
No, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
A rudimentary understanding of statistics and probability should (probably) be part of every editor’s toolkit. And I say that not having any STEM background myself. One set of five random names is a tiny sample size. As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. If the algorithm designer(s) were to involve themselves in “ameliorating bias”, for example by boosting the likelihood of women appearing in any list of five names, then this might have the unintended consequence of readers inferring that the proportion of women biographies is higher than it actually is. And what about ameliorating other biases? Recentism? Race? Developed/developing world? Perhaps best to leave the can of worms unopened. Edwardx (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I think the problem is we're also not looking at the right sample. This is suggestions for translation, right? So this is the proportion of articles that exist on one Wikipedia, but not the other, that are women, which might be wildly different from the overall proportion. I'd imagine that Wikipedias are likely to get the most prominent women writers on them first, but those are exactly the ones that are likely to already be on other Wikipedias; as such, we really know very little about the data or the data set we're over-analysing from a single result. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 21:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you for sharing. I always thought that the selections were made based on the page categories, and most of the categories here are the subcats for women. It's definitely more complicated. It may be the case that they should weigh these kinds of categories more heavily -- related articles to a woman poet probably should include other women poets, in the same way I'd expect articles on women novelists or astronauts to suggest the same. Urve (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being prematurely critical. Today I got five articles on women suggested for reading, after I wrote and then read Marie Muller-Lulofs. Or perhaps someone has acted on my complaint? Thanks to all for the comments. Roundtheworld (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
No one acted on anything. "Because you read" is based on your browsing history/pattern. If you read an article on Annie Salomons, a Flemish writer, you'll have other Flemish writers suggested to you. If you read an article on the Schottky diode, you'll have suggestions related to diodes, electronics, and their related pioneers (mostly men). If you read an article on Miss America, you'll have suggestions related to beauty pageants, and other Miss America contestants. Yesterday, you read many articles on women, so it suggested other women to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Urve (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Urve. How about changing it so if you read an article about a Dutch woman writer you have other Dutch women writers suggested? Roundtheworld (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe. I misunderstood the original post. I thought this was about the suggested articles underneath a specific article (which in my case were all men hence the categorization comment), not the specific "because you read" feature on mobile (which I don't use and can't comment on). Urve (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Tracey Medeiros, cookbook author, up for deletion

I was reading about the new cookbook by Tracey Medeiros recently. I saw she didn’t have an article, so I created a stub. It was nominated for deletion immediately. She has media going back to at least 2008. Any help finding sources would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us. This will probably be resolved as "Keep", from what I see. I don't know at what point I got tired of pre-mature tagging of articles I'd created. But it eventually dawned on me to create works in progress as a subpage of my user page, and move them to Main Space once I got past the tag-anxiety point. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Lucia Chamberlain

Image restored

This is a weird redirect, right? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Nothing the matter with that: it redirects to a film based on a novel she wrote, and if there's no other mention of her in the encyclopedia it's a good redirect. Now on the other hand Clifford Howard, who wrote the screenplay, linked on the page to which she redirects, was a really bad redirect: to Clifford_the_Big_Red_Dog#Characters! I've found a third Clifford Howard and made a dab page.
    Ah, note the "if" above: Lucia also wrote Blackmail (1920 film) and The Wedding Guest (1916 film), so perhaps the redirect is a bit iffy and she ought maybe to have her own little article, unless there's a list somewhere to which we can retarget her redirect and somehow unite her with her three notable works? Hmm. PamD 14:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    OK, dammit, she's now got a solid little stub (I hope), and another afternoon of decluttering hasn't happened. Ah well. If someone has books about early silent film writers, or early 20C American novelists, they might be able to expand the stub. (Actually Clifford Howard (writer) looks possibly more even notable, with 20 films to his credit according to imdb ...). PamD 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    If we could find a birth and death date for her, we could determine if this is a photo of her in the National Portrait Gallery: [12]. Netherzone (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Here is another photo that is positively identified as her. Any thought as to if this may be the same person? [13] pg. 762 in the 1908 (Vol 27) of The New Book Monthly.
    Birth and death date now in article (from Fold3, and a death notice); her noted aunt might make family connections easier to figure out. The photo by Zaida Ben-Yusuf is this author; other photos of her in newspaper clippings confirm that. The article now has 20 refs! Fun collaborative blitz, thank you all. Penny Richards (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well, that was fast. I'll fix that NPG image up. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 00:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@PamD, Netherzone, and Penny Richards: And the image has just passed FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs 20:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Hurray! A beautiful restoration of the image, and a nice article! Netherzone (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Duaa Khidir

Hi there -- Could someone try to help this editor out; they've received a slew of speedies and draftifications; the latest two are about women: Draft:Haya Muhammad Saleh & Draft:Haifa Bitar. Thanks for any help you can offer! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Two redlinked women writers

I've just done a lengthy bit of work to create Big Jubilee Read, copying from a list of 70 titles and manipulating the data, via an Excel spreadsheet and the very useful "Excel2Wiki" helper, and had fun sorting out all the disambiguations needed (people write novels with titles like "Salt" and "Chinaman").

Just two of the 70 authors are red links: both women. Are we surprised?

Anyway, someone might like to have a go at Jing-Jing Lee[14] [15][16][17] or Yangsze Choo[18][19][20]. I suggest that inclusion in this high-profile list is probably notability in itself, for at least either the writer or the book in each case. PamD 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Choo's first book is the basis of The Ghost Bride (TV series) (where I've now red-linked her) and reviewed here. PamD 17:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
This is greatPamD! I'll work on this draft Draft:Yangsze Choo, but it might take me a few days! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

On recording gender

Noteworthy thread on Twitter from Merrilee Proffitt here, pointing to a 7 April 2022 Revised Report on Recording Gender in Personal Name Authority Records produced by an ad hoc task group of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging, which afaics is a significant thing in libraryland. tl;dr, their advice is: don't record gender in catalogues, remove gender from catalogues, fullstop, b/c causes harm. Some food for thought here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a similar discussion to one we've had before: assuming gender based on name is, frankly, dumb. Whether that's for sorting like a wikidata suggestion, or for actual published records that could go on to harm the persons in question. Kingsif (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
In my experience, gender tends to be inferred from the pronouns used in sources and/or from images of the subject; and from the (Women foo) categories in which articles are found. Not clear that your "assuming gender based on name" covers all, or indeed any significant part of, the grounds that might be discussed here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The full report gives their rationale in more detail but mainly concerns the difficulty in cataloging bibliographic data without context. The harm they outline in the report is being outed or misidentified (whether that is by deadnaming or being misgendered). It's a complicated issue because gender is at the heart of identity and many people, be they women or LGBTTQIA community members, have fought long and hard to be recognized. Balancing the need to protect against the need to claim identity is no simple task and not one I think we can solve. I am reminded of the harm that the Ninety-Nines expressed when WP decided to eliminate the categorization of them as aviatrix/aviatrices. Their position was that they had to work harder to be recognized and lumping them in with pilots and aviators erased their identity and struggle, which they were proud of. Intent matters, we can only do our best to 1) be inclusive and 2) respect those we write about. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Liang Boqi

I recently created a draft for Liang Boqi. She has an article in Chinese, but I don’t feel comfortable using a translator as I have no familiarity with the language. Does any one speak Chinese or have a basic understanding of the language? Thriley (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Intersectional environmentalism

This article has been brought to my attention by our new WiR member Digital_Lit_Anonymous as it has been AfD'd. See User talk:Digital Lit Anonymous who explains it has been created by a student interested in Leah Thomas. I'm rather confused about this as there have been many contributors to the article and the editor of Leah Thomas (ecofeminist) is the one who is calling for its deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

To offer a little clarity, I'm the one who created Leah Thomas (ecofeminist) and I'm not a student in that class. I encountered the page on the neologism "intersectional environmentalism" while patrolling new pages and found it in quite a bit of WP:SYNTH disarray and of dubious notability. Since it's WikiEd, I typically hesitate to nominate an article for deletion, but I was unable to find reliable sources that show that the topic itself is notable (or really that it's in any way different from mainstream conceptions of environmental justice). Combined with the issues with the present text (and other text available in the page history) being WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and being virtually unusable in a merge, I'd ordinarily WP:BLAR this sort of thing on my own. However, I fully expected that a WP:BLAR would be controversial and contested, so I opened an AfD in light of this RfC's guidance.
While looking through all of those sources on the topic of "intersectional environmentalism", I realized that the person who coined the neologism (Leah Thomas) was getting a good bit of coverage as a person so I looked a tad bit more for sources to confirm that she meets WP:NBASIC or WP:NAUTHOR. I started a biography for her when I was satisfied that she meets the relevant notability criteria. Her bio's currently a stub and it could definitely use expansion, but I think that it's a step in the right direction (in light of policies and guidelines) to cover the notable woman who coined the neologism even when the neologism itself is not notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I do appreciate your consideration of my students - noting that it is indeed a WikiEd. I would like to note that once my students' work became problematic that I started collecting scholarly, peer reviewed academic research to help further support their work, which will demonstrate the opposite assertion - "intersectional environmentalism" is a notable neologism. I will be adding these references as time permits. In terms of how Leah Thomas meets the criteria of notable woman is a whole other controversial matter. Digital Lit Anonymous (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@IpigottThank you for bringing this to the WiR community, as my students and I are novices. I am a university Lecturer teaching at a land-grant, Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI). My first-year students (class of 20 students), with guidance from our campus librarian and myself, just created the Wikipedia page for "intersectional environmentalism". WikiDan61C shortly thereafter recommended the page be merged into environmental justice, which students argued would once more marginalize POC voices (i.e., Leah Thomas). After consulting with our campus librarian yesterday, we decided for now to move content to a biography page for Leah Thomas. There are decidedly thousands more Wikipedia pages that are less developed than the one my students began, so I am perplexed why their page received the attention it did so quickly and was recommended for merge and/or deletion. It was intended as a work-in-progress. 45.29.202.142 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The last contribution was mine
45.29.202.142 (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Digital Lit Anonymous (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Digital Lit Anonymous: Wikipedia mainspace is nto the ideal location for "works in progress"; that's what the draft article space is for. I was unaware that Leah Thomas was a person of color until just encountering that fact on this page; I certainly had no intent of marginalizing her voice when I proposed the merge of intersectional environmentalism into the environmental justice page. On the contrary, since the page was an orphan when I first encountered it, it was unlikely to receive much attention. The merge would have brought Thomas' ideas to the wider audience of the already established page. Wikipedia has too many article on these related topics as it is (see the "see also" section of environmental justice for a sampling of largely redundant content); more pages on essentially the same idea is not the way to amplify Thomas' message. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Digital Lit Anonymous: Before you begin to add to Leah Thomas (ecofeminist), I think you should look carefully at the advice given here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intersectional environmentalism, especially that given by Mhawk10, the creator of the biography who questions the sources used. In this connection, please look carefully through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Together with your librarian, you could look for more authoritative sources as a means of improving Intersectional environmentalism itself.--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominees: Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, Poison Waters

I've nominated Bolivia Carmichaels, Flawless Shade, and Poison Waters for Good article status, if any project members are interested in reviewing. Trying to work on improving coverage of PDX's LGBT culture and history. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer! Very cool, and thanks for the notification. Not sure if you are aware of WikiProject Women in Green, which is dedicated to article improvement of women's representation in general, and to GA status in particular. Perhaps cross-post there? --Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, a wonderful suggestion, thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Join Community Conversation to discuss Women & WMF Human Rights Policy

Dear Wonderful Wikimedians of Women in Red, the Global Advocacy team is inviting members of this group to participate in a series of conversations that will help us implement the Foundation Human Rights Policy.

We want to know how community members' human rights have been negatively impacted and how the Foundation can better support individuals and prevent such situations. Given the disproportionate harassment, violence and harms that Women face related to their Human Rights, we hope members of the community will join our calls and share their experiences.

You can join any of four regionally-focused conversations. Each call will be 60 minutes, on Zoom, with translation support. More information about how to join these calls, what we will do with the information collected, and the history of the human rights policy can be found here.

--FPutz (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Dutch woman at AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Made EASY: linking Wikipedia articles with Profiles from Women Film Pioneers Project

Help link Wikipedia articles with Profiles from Women Film Pioneers Project. See Talk:Women Film Pioneers Project, it should be much easier now. Point and Click. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's excellent, thank you. I've added a direct link column to WiR's Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Women Film Pioneers redlist, taking a lead from you. Wikidata has ~301 WFP ID entries ... that's maybe 10 or 20 short of the WFP list? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
If we can get those that are black or from Africa, I'd love to add them to AfroCine MAC ToDo list page for 2022. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_112"