Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 119

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 115 ← Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 → Archive 125

Anyone interested in women writers from the Southern States?

I realize that Writers was a focus for September but I have just been reading an interesting article on Crimereads.com by the Arkansas author Kelly J. Ford titled "O Brother, Where Art Thou Contemporary Southern Women Writers?". In it, she deplores our lack of familiarity with successful contemporary authors, especially non-whites. Of particular interest for Women in Red is the state-by-state list at the end of the article identifying several authors from each of the Southern States. Quite a number already have Wikipedia articles but many don't. I thought perhaps contributors like Rosiestep who take a special interest in writers as well as those from the Southern States such as Megalibrarygirl and SusunW might like to compile a redlist of those who are still missing, possibly with recommendations on which of them look notable enough for a biography. As I have little knowledge of contemporary American authors, I thought it would be better to leave it to those who do.--Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Ipigott. Yes, there's a gap in Southern U.S. women writers -- contemporary and historical. From time to time, I've created biographies about the historical ones but I am unfamiliar with the contemporary ones. If someone had time and inclination, they might like to could go through lists such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers - US to find some of them. Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Odd thing about it: a lot of the female Southern U.S. writers I know of - Anne Moody, Harper Lee, Margaret Mitchell basically never wrote again after their big novel. The last two had lost early works published long after, but...
It does make a difference, I think. You can become big on one book, but biographies and such often want multiples, and if the book isn't a huge hit, it, and thus you, can easily get lost if you never get the encouragement to do another. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 19:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Image help?

Hello folks, If any of the image hunters have time/inclination, I would love to add an image to the page for Stephanie Solomonides - the first person from Cyprus to reach both the North and the South Poles. She's alive, which makes it hard, but sometimes others have better luck searching than I do! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nora Turato

A new editor has added a lot to this draft: Draft:Nora Turato. The editor might need a bit of help. I’m going to gather some sourcing and hopefully find a usable image. Thriley (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic for year-long focus in 2023

It has been suggested by Oronsay on our Ideas page that we should begin discussions on which topic should replace Climate for our year-long initiative in 2023. I have been thinking about this and it seems important to me that in our world of increasing conflicts we should address women involved in establishing peace, whether activists, researchers, diplomats or simply writers and commentators. In this connection there is an interesting article on Feminist peace research and we already have a redlist on Pacifists and peace activists. There may well be other interesting suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the conversation. Another consideration could be educators because they are vital to everyone's life, there are so many of them with missing articles, and they are diverse geographically and time-period-wise. Because it's would be a broad topic, maybe we could convince other language wikis to work on the topic, too. Redlists: Educators (CS), Educators (WD), Academics (CS), Academic (WD). --Rosiestep (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
There are certainly lots of opportunities to create biographies of educators, both living and of historic importance. My only worry is that the articles might not attract much attention unless they are in the news or famous for something else (writing, scientific achievement, politics, women's rights). I happen to be working on an early Danish professor of art history at the moment and see there were only 13 page views yesterday. (That's unfortunately quite normal for my non English-speaker educators unless they are accompanied with an attractive portrait!) But I agree it's certainly a good topic for encouraging collaboration with other language versions and we might even be able to involve more students through WikiEd, etc. Now that there are doubts about how we should try to increase participation, educators might work better than women involved in peace. Let's see if there are any other ideas.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I love the idea of women working for peace. So many ways to approach the topic from different fields. I am also happy to do educators, if that's what the consensus is. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that peace is very topical. However, the list provided has just over 100 names. There are 1000s of articles available to be written for educators. (I changed "Limit" from 1000 to 2000 on one of the academics redlists and tried to update it, but got this message: "Killed by OS for overloading memory.") Does someone favor creating biographies about women in sports... or musicians... or scientists... or historical women... etc.? There are educators in all fields and all countries. My thinking was spurred by looking over this year's initiative, climate, where we averaged 15 articles/month in Q1 and in Q2, but for Q3, we're at about 5 articles/month. Ergo, I wondered if our members might favor a broad topic for 2023. That said, I'll happily support consensus. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Farmers, foragers, chefs, bakers, and others in traditionally male dominated food related fields. Education and peace are also excellent topics, my suggestion should not be taken as an argument against either of those.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
+1 @Horse Eye's Back for this theme, but I wonder whether it might be good as a monthly theme? Maybe as "Field to Fork" or similar? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Some other considerations around educators: the nature of their training and work means they're more likely to appear in college yearbooks, which can be a handy source of images. And for folks (like me) who don't think of women's history as being about celebrating role models and heroines, there are plenty of less shiny biographies to be written; education is a complex endeavor, and it's worth telling the whole range of stories about educators, the good, the bad, and even the appalling. Finally, this is my home field of scholarship; my dissertation was about an 1810s girls' school, and I was co-editor of a history-of-education listserv for many years. I might be able to round up some academic participation through those old connections. Penny Richards (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the profile of responses over the year, is there something to be said for having two different 6-month focuses? On an only tangentially related note -- I've been meaning to raise this here -- at present all/most Oxford sources are not working via the Wikipedia Library, with seemingly no end in sig2ht, so a theme like musicians, where I was hoping to use Groves to contribute, might not be timely. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion, Espresso Addict. We could certainly see how things work out with two six-month initiatives. Six months should be long enough for those really interested in researching the topics, both here and on WP:Women in Green if they wish to collaborate on two different ideas for GAs over the course of the year. How about running Education from January to June and, given SusunW's enthusiasm, Peace from July to December? As for music, we just completed a fairly successful focus in June and have covered the topic in previous years. But maybe we should make it a priority for next June too, focusing on classical? As you know, the general topic of women in music attracts constant interest with or without Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
      I think both Education and Peace are both good themes, although I would worry that Peace was too narrow (perhaps like Climate has been) to attract the concentration of new articles that has been seen in the past? International Peace Day is 21 September, FYI Lajmmoore (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I share some of your concerns, Lajmmoore, but while I think we should in general attract interest in writing as many new biographies as possible, it seems to me that the broad field of Education is frequently covered when we write about people in other areas of interest, especially when they have held academic posts. Just look at how many there are in Category:Women academics and its sub-categories. (I do agree, however, that we should spend more time on creating biographies of women around the world who have made important contributions to the development of education itself and I hope that would be the major focus of the topic, cf our success with Gender studies.) Nevertheless, our project also needs to encourage the inclusion of women in fields such as Women's rights, Climate and Peace in which their impact might not be appreciated sufficiently unless the topic is listed as a priority for special attention. While Climate may be criticized as a poor choice in view of the relatively small number of articles it has created, we should not forget that it has already led to 110 new articles and we still have three months to go. (And just look at our evolving List of women climate scientists and activists.) Don't you think that's quite an achievement for a field which had not been covered very well beforehand? I'm pretty sure we could so even better with Peace, even over a six-month period.--Ipigott (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the trouble with Climate was more to do with it being relatively recently recognised. Like, what person would count as a climate researcher 100 years ago? And, yes, there are possibilities - one could cover meteorologists, perhaps - but they don't spring to mind. Educator or Peace both have long histories. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I like the topicality of peace (although educators would also be a great theme). What if the topic was expanded to be something like "Peace and Diplomacy"? That would open it up to articles about other women who negotiated or managed relations between parties, such as diplomats, ambassadors, politicians, union leaders, etc. WiR could certainly split the year-long theme into two different 6-month periods, although I feel like having a single year-long theme is nice for consistency (there are already so many different WiR themes each month). Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd go for it. Lots of Women's Peace movements alongside the suffrage movement as well. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 03:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Peace & Diplomacy sounds good to me (& something that the world needs more of)! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless there are any further suggestions, I think we should go ahead with Peace & Diplomacy. I'll add it to the Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:The New Woman's Survival Catalog

Ran across this draft article for The New Woman's Survival Catalog that's been languishing for about a month. Looks like an interesting topic, but it needs some help before it'll be ready for mainspace. pburka (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavonia Evans

Comments would be appreciated at this AFD. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

This has now been closed as Keep. Oronsay (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Research contributions of female scientist continuously deleted

I am a new editor on Wikipedia and am writing to report an issue on the page “Krista Varady". The editor "Bon courage” has been repeatedly removing the scientific accomplishments of this female scientist claiming that they are self-promotional. However, each statement about her work is supported by several peer-reviewed scientific articles. Moreover, the way that her contributions are listed, are similar to how things are presented on the pages of other male scientists , e.g. Linus Pauling. Can you please let me know your thoughts on how to handle this? Ejacobs8990 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

However, each statement about her work is supported by several peer-reviewed scientific articles. The issue isn't that those statements are not verifiable, it's that they're all sourced solely to WP:PRIMARY papers by her, and so it's not clear that mentioning them is WP:DUE. What we would need are completely independent researchers discussing the impact of her results, ideally in review articles -- this shouldn't be too difficult since you can just look through the papers citing her and add them as references if they go into detail on her work. Stick to the papers with the highest impact that she published as senior author. The promotional language ("pioneering", "seminal", "key", etc.), claims of being "the first" to publish something, and assertions that particular biomedical interventions are safe or effective should definitely not be in the article unless they can be backed by multiple wholly independent evaluations in WP:MEDRS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, all the puffy editorial around the primary sources was made-up (and/or wrong), and that's a no-no especially on a WP:BLP. Stir in the edit-warring and personal attacks by the OP and it all looks very toxic. Bon courage (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. This is very helpful! Ejacobs8990 (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the constructive feedback and letting me know exactly what the issues are. I will work to improve the language and references. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ejacobs8990: On a very quick look, Varady appears fairly early career (PhD 2006) but might already meet WP:PROF based on citations. I note that you are credited for the photograph -- if you are able to contact Varady, then suggesting to her that she might start a Google Scholar personal page is one way of making that more obvious. In most fields it is possible to include comments on research using only primary papers but the wording has to be very flat: "X has studied/published on the effect of Y on Z." However the medical project patrol medical content very stringently and might remove such statements. As JoelleJay advises, you can never state "first" based on a primary paper and words like "pioneering" and "seminal" (always odd applied to a woman's research!) are deemed promotional. "Safe" is best avoided altogether, no matter how well sourced, as no treatment is ever completely safe for everyone, and no-one should ever be embarking on treatment without getting individualised medical advice.
Did her book receive reviews? This is often a good way of finding independent coverage that can be quoted or paraphrased.
You can include a list of up to ~5 of the subject's top-cited research publications and include the citation count; this can be sourced to Google Scholar if you can't access a better source.
Another thing I'd strongly suggest is adding chronological information, eg date of birth, date of PhD, date of appointment as full professor. Once notability is established, this can be sourced to a non-independent source such as the subject's CV or university profile, though some editors will push back on that point. Good luck! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Benton Museum of Art focusing on women

I see from an article by Kimberly Phillips titled "Latest Benton Exhibitions Focus on Women Artists, Feminism – and Punk Cat Eyes" that the Benton Museum of Art in Claremont, California is to focus on women artists and feminism. Associate professor Alison Paul from UCONN announced that an editathon would be held on 2 November in this connection. See details here.--Ipigott (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Written interview enquiry - black women in biology

Hello all, A colleague who is Head of Equality, Diversity & Inclusion for the Department of Biology at the University of Oxford got in touch asking if I'd written many biographies of black women in biology (broadly construed), and if so whether I'd answer a few written questions. I have written maybe ten, so I thought I'd see if there were any editors here, who I've not got to know who focus on that demographic? Or have done lately, perhaps? if you have, would you like to answers the questions too? Feel free to email me, if you don't want to reply here! Lajmmoore (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Since you say "Broadly construed", I've restored the lead image for Della H. Raney, and (while I'm not quite sure of her racial makeup, so she may or may not be part black) Bertha Lutz. I'd love to do more. If said colleague wants to point a few things my way, I'd be ecstatic. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.2% of all FPs 21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
hello @Adam Cuerden - thank you so much, and apologies for the delay in replying! I'll ask around, but I noted there's a couple women in Category:African-American biologists, who might have images you might be able to help: Ruth Ella Moore and Jane Eleanor Datcher Lajmmoore (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams

Hi all, there is a discussion at the Talk page about expanding this article, and some challenges with accessing potentially helpful sources. Any assistance with locating sources and expanding the article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

Project members might be interested in the wide-ranging discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; this project generally and members here have been brought up in the discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it doesn't look like any of the proposals are going to pass. SilverserenC 04:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is becoming increasingly acrimonious, imo. It would be useful if a wider range of editors who are interested in creating articles more than occasionally were to participate. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Espresso Addict, for bringing this to our attention. I've just spent about 15 minutes looking through the reactions but unless I am mistaken, there has been no discussion of short articles created on the basis of more lengthy, well sourced articles in other language versions of Wikipedia. Personally, I always welcome such additions, especially those which frequently occur on Women in Red. Even a line or two backed by at least one strong source and a tag note on expansion from an existing article in another language seems useful to me. I would not like to see such practice discontinued.--Ipigott (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
To me it depends a lot on the nature of those additions. Hand-crafted articles based on properly sourced material from other languages, by people competent in those languages: very good. Indiscriminate machine translations, especially when they copy unsourced claims from other languages: not good. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Ipigott: Indeed, I can't recall that being mentioned. As I wrote above there's a relative dearth of editors who actually work on expanding content in the responses so far, hence my trying to broaden the audience somewhat. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately I usually write new, medium-sized articles although I am happy to collaborate on expansion when requested. One of the problems of expanding short articles, including names of women mentioned as redirects, is that no credit is given for article creation (unless time is spent on DYK). While reviewing or assessing women's biographies, I have found several which have risen to C, B or even GA status, credit being given to whoever originally included them as a redirect! Those who have developed new articles on this basis often mention them on their user page but they cannot be found under the user's name on xtools. Several of those involved in expanding articles about women participate in WP:Women in Green where one of the most active is Alanna the Brave.--Ipigott (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. It's basically a bug with xtools and one reason why the ranking of editors by articles created can be rather misleading. I'm credited with several articles I didn't write a word of on this basis because I'm relatively prolific in creating redirects, and I have a whole lot of deleted "articles" where my redirect got usurped. I wish there was a way of crediting editors for improving other people's creations, but unless one gets it to DYK or GA, it is one of the largely unsung areas of the 'pedia.
Dr. Blofeld ran a UK/Ireland destubbing drive in March 2020, where the Foundation contributed book tokens to the winning editors; might be worth a WiR edition? Espresso Addict (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld has suggested we should apply for support for our contests along these lines but no one seems to be interested in applying and I don't want to be involved in anything to do with financing myself. As a result, we have to rely on virtual recognition with barnstars, etc. Dr. Blofeld was also behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The 100,000 Challenge in late 2016 which included destubbing but I was the only one to show interest as a participant!--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You don't need to do anything with financing, WMUK sort out the prizes, nobody needs to receive money and have to deal with that. Applying takes no more than ten minutes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Then I hope someone else will be prepared to take this on. Applying for a grant is unfortunately outside my area of interest. If anyone is prepared to make the application, I would be happy to help with running contests, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello all - especially @Ipigott I can probably look at applying, but I can't do anything until 2023 so perhaps we could think about a de-stubathon or similar later in the year? @Dr. Blofeld I was looking at the WMUK site, and the only grants I can see are here - but they don't mention prizes at all - would you be able to share a link? Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
WMUK will simply pay out £250 in Amazon vouchers as prizes, like they did in the destubathons. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
FYI all, I emailed WMUK yesterday Lajmmoore (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Solidarity with Iran

I suggest that you use File:Logo WIR Persia.svg for the next issue of your newsletter to show solidarity with Iranians following the Mahsa Amini protests. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

4nn1l2: It's an attractive image but I am not too happy about our site taking a political stand although we should of course continue to support women's rights. Given your interest in Mahsa Amini, I suggest you contribute to merging Mahsa Amini with Death of Mahsa Amini as both articles deal with the same circumstances. It looks to me as if the article on the protests should continue in its own right. I see you added your name to the WiR mailing list in January but you have not yet joined the project. If you are interested in becoming a member, you can register in the box at the top of our main WikiProject Women in Red page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello @4nn1l2 & @Ipigott next month the geofocus is Central and Southern Asia - which includes Iran, so I expect some editors might decide to work more on Iranian women, as several (like me) at the outbreak of war in Ukraine, or at the evacuation of Afghanistan. Your contributions @4nn1l2 would be very warmly welcomed in the geofocus (as well as our wider project of course)! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. As far as I understand, WiR uses a different picture for each of its newsletters. For example, File:WiR climate logo 2022.png, File:Women in Red logo with mike.png, and File:Ada Lovelace Day 2021.png have been some of the recent ones. I don't ask you to take a political stand. I just propose File:Logo WIR Persia.svg as a potential picture for the next issue. This logo was created by me for the Persian version of WiR, that's why the woman is on the left side of the heart (Persian is written from right to left). I can make another version so that the woman appears on the right side of the heart if need be. The decision is yours, of course. I don't know if you have any criteria for choosing those pictures or they are just a matter of taste by some editor. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
4nn1l2, I really like your logo. I think it falls in line with November really well. Not only do we have a Geofocus that includes Iran, but November is also Wikipedia Asian Month. If someone chooses to interpret the logo as Women in Red standing in solidarity with Iranian women's rights, so much the better IMO. I'll put the logo on the ideas page as a possible logo for the November newsletter. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
4nn1l2, I, too, really like your logo for all the reasons just mentioned by WomenArtistUpdates. It's pretty! Also, thank you for all the work that you and others do at the Persian version of WiR. ♥ --Rosiestep (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I would propose to use another logo, a neutral one; because the motive of the protests are against discriminaiton including Ethnic discrimination; Iran is a multi-ethnic country. Persians are only one of the ethnic groups (making up less than 40% of total population of Iran). Using a logo with the name of Persia (Farsistan) or Persians for all of Iran is a sign of continouing discrimination: Iran is more than Persia. Better use a neutral logo which is depicting whole Iran, not just one ethnic group of it. Savalanni (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore: the picure of the woman in that logo is originally not depicting a Persian woman but a Qajar Turkic woman. Better change the name of that logo to Qajar Turkic woman. Savalanni (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Savalanni, please read WP:SOAPBOX, WP:POV, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, this is not a place to rant about your personal feelings and opinions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Savalanni, the monthly logos never capture everything the month’s theme includes; rather it is one example. The writer’s logo shows a typewriter but this does not mean people who write on other devices are excluded. I support this logo as a visually appealing creation relevant to the theme. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Innisfree987 That what I can not understand is that a Kurdish Woman named Mahsa Amini, an Azerbaijani Woman named Hadis Najafi and many people from other ethnicities are died in Iran protests, but I am wondering why we should not select a neutral logo (to avoid feeling of discrimination) depicting whole of Iran not only one part it? Savalanni (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Savalanni, everyone’s input is welcome so if you have a different logo to suggest, please propose it. But bear in mind the theme for the month is not Iran but Central and Southern Asia, so the logo will almost certainly not capture everyone represented, but just be one example. This is frequently the case—for the Olympics we had a gymnast even tho there are many other sports as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As there has now been wide support among our female participants for using the image in connection with next month's geofocus, I'm happy to fall in line with the consensus. I'm sure everyone is aware of the political aspects of wearing the head scarf in countries such as France and Denmark where there has been considerable support among the Muslim communities to maintain a woman's right to continue its use. But as these are not among the Asian countries we now intend to address, I suppose we can forget about their concerns and just go for a really pretty picture.--Ipigott (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Edwige Belmore

I created a draft for Edwige Belmore, one of the icons of the punk era in France. It’s been in draft space for many months. Anyone interested in working on it? Thriley (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion, the article starts saying she was a model and a singer, then has a filmography. It might help if you bring that together. So in the opening paragraph, say she was a model, singer and actor. Then the switch to film makes more sense. I can make a few style tweaks. EEHalli (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Mary Peterson (midwife)

I've created my first-ever article draft about the Alutiiq midwife Mary Peterson, who was listed in red on the Women in STEM page, and I need help from a more experienced editor to help it hatch from draft into something usable. I'm struggling with a few things like renaming the article's occupational identifier (as there is already a Mary Peterson in existence is someone else), and the only photo of Mary Peterson that I can find is located outside of Wikimedia. Is there a way to include it? Thanks in advance for your help! Machineghost0 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (CEST)

Nice job with the article! I've moved it into article/mainspace (Mary Peterson (midwife)) and added banners to the talkpage. I also linked it to the Wikidata item. Keep up the great work! TJMSmith (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@Machineghost0 this is such a great article - congratulations! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Joan Hoff

Could I please have some help with this entry on a professor and author? FloridaArmy (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there are a lot of citations for her work in Google Scholar (366 just for her Law, gender and justice book) so working through them should help. Biogs of living academics is outside my field though! EEHalli (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@FloridaArmy: Hey, I made some updates to the draft and I have added some new citations/details. Hopefully that works now? She is clearly notable. Please feel free to let me know if you have anything else you want help with on WP. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved this to article space. TJMSmith (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Nancy Davis (businesswoman)‎

Our article for Nancy Davis (business woman not Reagan) has had an interesting two weeks. As Nancy Davis Quadratic it was kept at AfD, then moved to Nancy Davis (economist) then moved to Nancy Davis (business woman)‎ and then G5 deleted for being made by a sock. It's now undeleted at Draft:Nancy Davis (businesswoman)‎. There's a discussion over notability, for me it just about scrapes in presently, maybe if someone has access to US newspapers there's more to be found (I'm still waiting for my subscription to be renewed). Mujinga (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Hi, I added two more citations from Newspapers.com - there actually wasn’t much, however it could be that a common name makes it harder to search issue. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Moved to article space. It was recently kept after an AfD. Improvements have been made since the sockpuppet was discovered. TJMSmith (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

600th FP

The good news is that Anna Bartels is passing. The bad news is the one before her didn't, so she'll be 599. It doesn't look like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will pass, so any suggestions for 600, while I slowly build a bunch of to-be-nominated-later things? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 02:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Linda Walsh Jenkins

Hi folks -- I deprodded this bio of an American author; I had thought it was a WiR creation as both Rosiestep & Megalibrarygirl have edited, but there are some concerns on the creator's talk page about undisclosed paid editing and it's been tagged since 2019 for notability. Jenkins appears most notable for co-editing Women in American Theatre, which has tonnes of reviews and looks to be a classic. There are 237 hits in the top-level WL Ebsco search but I fear I don't have time right now to comb through them. Can anyone help out? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Need some help?

Today, I am participating in a workshop in Spain. We have been tasked with assisting in editing with Wikipedia, and I am looking for an easy task that I can assist with. Any suggestions?

Thanks!AnthraciteWolf (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi AnthraciteWolf, if you are interested in supporting better coverage of women, you might find it useful to look through our Essays. It's not too clear to me whether your participants are interested in contributing to the English Wikipedia or just to Spanish, Catalan or other related versions. I would be happy to assist anyone interested in joining the English wiki.--Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Alice Di Micele, American folk musician afd

I saw that Alice Di Micele was nominated for deletion. She may be notable as there appear to be decent sources about her. Thriley (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Leslie B. Vosshall

I proposed a few updates to the article about neurologist Leslie B. Vosshall here: Talk:Leslie B. Vosshall#Proposals October 2022. I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant but believe these changes are obvious improvements to address sourcing issues pointed out in a maintenance tag. A review by a project member would be very much appreciated. Thanks.W12SW77 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Same notice forum-shopped to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah well. I've made the requested changes. Shy bairns get nothing, &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Impressive work!--Ipigott (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

New members of Women in Red no longer included in membership list

The last time a new member was recorded in our Membership list was on 12 September with KatharineAndrew. Since then, despite my efforts to encourage three or four others to join, no new names have appeared. Yesterday, while reviewing new articles, I noticed that JTF2020 had included the membership user box on his or her user page and had completed membership registration on 11 October as evidenced by User:JTF2020/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red. Furthermore, as a result of adding the user box, the name appears on Category:WikiProject Women in Red members. It does not, however, appear on our membership list. This is a serious problem as (a) I am no longer able to check for new members and welcome them to the project, (b) I cannot add their names to the appropriate mailing list and as a result they will not receive our monthly invitations, and (c) it is no longer possible to see whether a contributor is a member or not.

Over the years, we have experienced various problems with our membership list but until now new members have always been included. MarioGom has been able to help to sort things out in the past and will perhaps be able to do so once again although I seem to remember a warning that there was a limit to the amount of data that could be included. I was also wondering if it would be possible for Tagishsimon or Gamaliel to provide a list of additions to Category:WikiProject Women in Red members since 12 September 2022. This would at least allow us to see who has added a WiR user box to their user page. Perhaps it would also be possible to see who has completed a membership card by looking for the "WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red" element in sequences which follow the user name (as for JTF above). I hope very much this can be sorted out soon as I believe several of our participants have been trying to encourage more editors to join the project. (cc Rosiestep, Victuallers)

I would also very much like to hear from anyone else who has become a member since 12 September.--Ipigott (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

That's odd, I've asked our 11,400 twitter followers and we may find out something ... or gain a few new members. Victuallers (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I suppose the first step is to figure out what, exactly, the bot uses to make its lists. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 07:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
If only it were that easy. The problem is that it's part of a suite put together by Harej as Wikipedia:WikiProject X. Project X no longer exists and Harej no longer takes any interest. Those responsible in maintaining existing tools have shown no interest either. We kept the membership feature as a few contributors thought it was good to have a feature similar to Facebook where new members could express their interests and add a photograph when registering. For the past couple of years it has no longer been possible to access the user "cards" from "Meet the participants" in the registration box and as far as I can see there have been no additions to the Inactive list since August. It's starting to look as if we need to take a serious look at adopting a more traditional method of listing participants.--Ipigott (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I would agree with a more traditional listing similar to what is found on other projects. I did like the Membership Card setup when I joined/rejoined, however, it's not really serving the purpose if it doesn't work how it was intended. --ARoseWolf 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Ditto to ARoseWolf's comment. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The system just doesn't scale, and it's a maintenance burden. I think we can just use a manual list where people just add themselves to a list. I can help migrating the initial list based on WikiProjectCard and userbox. MarioGom (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I was also wondering if it would be possible for Tagishsimon or Gamaliel to provide a list of additions to Category:WikiProject Women in Red members since 12 September 2022. - sorry, no; I don't think there's any good way to do that with the tools at our disposal. I can imagine a programatic method - looking at the history of diffs of user pages for members of the category - but that's beyond my capabilities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
There does appear to be a tool to check additions to a category. I found this on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Women electronic literature writers. I found the additions very useful in the early days of the project. Perhaps Bamyers99 can help us to monitor additions to Category:WikiProject Women in Red members? There appear to be explanations at User:CategoryWatchlistBot but I would happier if Bamyers or someone else with technical experience could set it up.--Ipigott (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Per Help:Category § Watching category additions and removals, you can use your on wiki watchlist to monitor a category for additions/removals. I have also setup a watchlist using my tool at WikiProject Women in Red. My tool only has 7 days of data where as the on wiki watchlist can show 30 days. My tool has more flexibility in displaying additions and/or removals and also subcategory monitoring and partial category name matches. Feel free to play around with my tools options. Making changes to it will not affect the above link as the query id in the url changes if the parameters are changed. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, Bamyers99, and setting up a query for Women in Red. It has already revealed useful additions over the past few days. I wonder if it would be possible for you to set up a query specifically for Category:WikiProject Women in Red members, if possible starting on 12 September 2022. This would allow us to see members who have registered with the project since then. It would be good if the listing could be maintained until 1 November when we intend to introduce a new membership facility.--Ipigott (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
My tool runs hourly and examines every edit for category/template additions/removals. These are stored in the tools own database. This includes every category/template, not just the ones configured in users watchlists. Only 7 days of data are stored as there are over a million records. When I tested the on wiki watchlist for the category, there were no other new members in the past 30 days. Bamyers99 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much for devoting so much attention to our unfortunate problems Bamyers99. I was rather surprised Gazozlu did not turn up after registering at 13-59 on 29 September. See User:Gazozlu/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Women in Red. I think the problem here could have been that he/she did not include the user box on their user page and was therefore not added to the category. In any case, if you can keep things running until 1 November, we should be able to catch most of any further registrations. Your bot has really been a tremendous help.--Ipigott (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added the userbox now. Gazozlu (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Good work, Bamyers99; thank you. As well as to Ipigott for his tenacity & perseverence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Mary Ridge at AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ridge: Can anyone uncover any sources for this? She's very well known to me as a female director of British cult television including Blake's 7 and Doctor Who, in an era when I believe this was rare, but on a very quick look I'm not finding a great deal and the surname is leading to a lot of geographical hits... Got to go offline now, but fingers crossed! Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Espresso Addict: Details of her career can be found on Shannonsullivan and hermit but these are blogs. Maybe this is more acceptable. If you search Wikipedia for "Mary Ridge", you'll see she comes up in lots of other articles but unfortunately not in any depth. I can only suggest looking for obits in the press.--Ipigott (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Espresso Addict: I added some more, and a fair-use image too. Penny Richards (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Penny Richards and Ipigott: That's fantastic, it's really looking like an article now! I'll see what I can do to expand after dinner. My other half downloaded a copy of one of the Blake's 7 guides which will hopefully prove useful. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Espresso Addict: It was fun. Amazing she's had a microstub article since 2005. There's probably more to say if folks have access to better British newspaper and magazine databases. Penny Richards (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Penny Richards: Well it was deleted via prod in 2018 and only recently revived via an IP request for refund, and then immediately put up for deletion without the IP having a chance to improve it, but at least the nominator withdrew gracefully when I pointed to some sources. I'd love to know how many other articles on perfectly notable women (not to mention other topics) are quietly deleted via prod without anyone even noticing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Espresso Addict, Penny Richards, you gonna submit to DYK? The article is definitely more than 5x expanded by now. SilverserenC 04:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Silver seren and Penny Richards: I'd rather given up on DYK, given how few hits it has given me of late, but perhaps this is right up the average reader's street? We'd need more balance though; my Blake's 7 additions have made it lopsided. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
You definitely need stuff on the Doctor Who episodes she worked on, since that's the other primary part of her notability. SilverserenC 04:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
One DYK that the article supports now would be "...Mary Ridge directed an episode of Blake's 7 named "Terminal", and an episode of Doctor Who named "Terminus"?"
And I think the BBC's centenary will be celebrated soon, too, so the timing for such a hook might work with that. Penny Richards (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I've contacted an editor who has a copy of the Nazzaro/Wells book on Blake's 7, which might have a bit more personal information, as I understand Ridge was one of their main sources. Not had much luck with finding non-fan material on the Doctor Who work, though. There's a fan bio that suggests industrial action disrupted shooting and put Ridge off doing further work on Who, which would be useful to add, if mainstream sourcing could be located. If we can't expand the Who material, another possible B7-only hook would be along the lines of: "... that Mary Ridge blew up the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the crew on her last?" Espresso Addict (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty great hook, Espresso Addict, you should definitely go with that one. And I think you have enough material on even the Doctor Who stuff now in the article to do the DYK nomination. More can obviously still be added later, but it's in great shape already to be nominated. And hopefully will get a lot of readers to learn about her! SilverserenC 18:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
And now she's on the front page as a DYK! This was a fun revival/rescue effort. Penny Richards (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Got a decent amount of attention too; "my" highest hit rate DYK in years. Obviously still lots of Blake's 7 fans around :) Great stuff! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwini Puneeth Rajkumar (2nd nomination)

This is a somewhat novel AFD nomination. Editors may wish to comment...4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Claudia Levy at AfD

Beccaynr & I would appreciate expert source finding for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Levy. Thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sheena Wagstaff

Just wanted to note that Sheena Wagstaff who was head of the Met Breuer and the museum's Modern and Contemporary Art department needs an article. [1] Fuzheado | Talk 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Fuzheado, I see her item on Wikidata, and her entry on the WiR redlist for art historians. But it's unclear to me why 19th-century is mentioned on the WiR redlist as it's obvs that Sheena was born in the 20th-c. A photo would be helpful, if someone is able to locate one that is appropriately licensed. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
19th-century in the redlist, for that WD item, looks like a Listeria bug. The data in WD is 1950-01-01 to date precision 7. Date precision 7 is 'accurate to the century', and so we'd expect Listeria to say '20th-century'. Unfortunate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It was raised with Magnus in 2020 :( - https://github.com/magnusmanske/listeria_rs/issues/45 --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nominate Females

If there are notable females that should have a Wikipedia page, how does one nominate them to be included in this initiative? 2601:41:C401:960:3AE1:B01:EC20:5041 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

They can be mentioned here, preferably with links to informative independent sources. Depending on their field of interest, they can be included in an appropriate crowd-sourced listing under our Redlist index. If you are interested in joining Wikipedia, you should look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Another news article on Jess Wade

Timothy Harper of NBC News has just published another article on Jess Wade titled "This 33-year-old made more than 1,000 Wikipedia bios for unknown female scientists". I hope it encourages even more articles on women scientists in connection with our focus this month. (Apparently first published on Today.)--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And this just in:[2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
♥ --Rosiestep (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
And also at SheThePeople as "Who Is Jessica Wade? Physicist On A Mission To Diversify Wikipedia Science Profiles".--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Herb Society of America, an organization founded by women

There is currently a draft for the Herb Society of America, an organization founded by women to promote the growing and use of herbs. There’s a lot about the group out there, especially in older sources. Thriley (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

New approach to WiR membership registration

As a result of the failure of our present registration system to accept further additions, I have drafted an alternative New members registration page which could be introduced on 1 November with a link from the main WiR page. I would welcome any suggestions for improvement either here or on the related talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support for the reason stated by Ipigott. The new page looks great and is easy to deal with. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosie. Good to see we already have one new registration.--Ipigott (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • We've now completed work on the main WiR page. From now on, new members can register by clicking "Join Women in Red" in the green box at the top of the page. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members, It's encouraging to see we have already had seven new members this month. With all the publicity around Jess Wade (see below), there may well be more.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    If one were to register as a new member, but *not* include the WiR userbox on their User page, would they successfully avoid being tagged to the Category? (Asking for a friend.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    Cielquiparle: The simple answer is yes. Their name would appear on the registration page and they could be included on the pertinent mailing list (if desired). Displaying the user box helps other users identify who is participating but every user can choose what they want to display on their user page. I look forward to this new registration. I think we are flexible enough to cater for individual interests now that we have a new registration system we can control ourselves.--Ipigott (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Florence Parpart

Hello!

I have gone through the page for Florence Parpart and updated it considerably.

There is still work to be done describing her contribution to electric refrigerators, which I have listed on the article's talk page. Fujibeard (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the improvements you have made to the article, Fujibeard, and for becoming a member of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Flonzie Brown Wright

Flonzie Brown Wright is missing from Wikipedia. A.K.A. Flonzie B. Wright and Flonzie Brown-Wright. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A few resources from a quick search:
  • Fowler, Sarah (2 December 2017). "'We gave so much': Reflections on Mississippi Civil Rights Museum". Mississippi Clarion Ledger.
  • Privett, Symphonie (7 February 2019). "Women in Civil Rights: Flonzie Brown Wright". WLBT.
  • "Black history: Activist Flonzie Brown-Wright". NBC News. 1 February 2021.
pburka (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Added Draft:Flonzie Brown Wright, and working on this. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Armella Shakaryan

FYI Armella Shakaryan is nominated for deletion. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

request for help finding a death date

For the WPA artist Isabelle Greenberger. She was born in 1911. She might still be with us, but I doubt it. Any help appreciated. Thanks. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

1997? https://www.artland.com/artists/isabelle-greenberger --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Tagishsimon ! -- WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Marcy Morrison

Would anyone be able to help woth this entry on a state legislator? It's been rejected twice. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Beccanyr expanded it and I've resubmitted it. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential competition funded by WMUK

Hello all, With the instigation of @Ipigott and with advice from @User:Dr Blofeld I got in touch with Wikimedia UK to see if they would still be open to funding a Women in Red competition. This is their encouraging reply:

"You got in touch with us because you are interested in running a competition to support the Women in Red project. We are very interested in this. Could you give us more background about how much would you need to fund the competition, when would it run, and who is involved with you in the organisation of the contest? Responding to your question about rules, usually, you set the tone/theme of the competition and the rules and we provide the funding. We do require you to create a Wiki page for the contest so we can track how it is going, etc, and that you write up a final report where you summarise the competition, results, etc. Let me know if you have more questions about this."

The next stage would be for us to collectively decide on the parameters they ask for infomation on. They need to know about

1) How much money for prizes?
2) Who will volunteer to run it from Women in Red?
3) When would we want to do it?
4) What rules/themes would we like?

I am happy to be involved to some extent, but there needs to be a team of others as well. Hopefully this will help get something off the ground Lajmmoore (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative, Lajmmoore. I would be happy to help with running the contest but would prefer not to have any involvement with handling the money or sending out the prizes. As you are in the UK and have contacts with WMUK, perhaps you could deal with this aspect. Our latest discussions indicate that the contest could run for two months from 1 January 2023. There would be awards at the end of each each month to those who have created 5, 15 or 30 articles on biographies of women in any field or sector of interest. The resources of Women in Red such as our Redlink index and essays could be used to encourage participation. I believe the Fountain system is based on adequately referenced articles with at least 150 words of running text but would like confirmation of this. It has been suggested there could also be a prize for 100 articles over the two month period. Perhaps Dr. Blofeld or Rosiestep could suggest how much should be allocated for each award and estimate how many winners there will be. It would also be useful to hear from Gamaliel if the Fountain system can be applied to tallying the results.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, this is very promising news. Thanks for all your follow-up! Ipigott, because of my other hat, I'm not in a position to make suggestions about a contest with prizes. You can count on me to participate (just not win any prizes). Roger is in the UK and may have thoughts on prizes or may want to be involved in the contest in other ways. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The Fountain tool is pretty versatile. It can easily screen minimum article length. In addition to quantitative statistics, it can also be used to rate or rank articles in various subjective ways if we wanted to award prizes on a quality basis using judges. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Seconding Gamaliel, I like the Fountain tool a lot. As for prize amounts, my memory is that the awards weren't all that large in Dr. Blofeld's successful contests, just enough to feel like recognition. Several small prizes might be more motivating than a few larger ones, if the goal is increased participation. And it's still nice to get a $10 Amazon credit (or whatever currency works).Penny Richards (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
WMUK has funded Wikipedia:The Core Contest for some years, always giving a total of £250 in cash (vouchers) as prizes, to between 3 & 6 editors. They might well raise that a bit. They use (non-physical) Amazon vouchers, & handle the prize distribution themselves. You would just need to supply a list of winners, with I think their emails. I think it used to be a problem using Amazon vouchers in a second country, but that seems no longer to be the case. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"would prefer not to have any involvement with handling the money or sending out the prizes. ". You don't have to handle any money nor hand out prizes, WMUK deals with all that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Lajmmoore: It's a pity no one has volunteered over the past week to liaise with WMUK as organizer of the contest. I keep being prompted to take this on myself but I am not resident in the UK, have provided very little support for articles about British women, and on my retirement in 2006 I decided that I would no longer become involved in any administrative duties involving financial compensation. I had enough responsibilities in this regard in my posting with the EU. I try to do a lot for Women in Red but I'm afraid I draw the line here.
I seem to remember, Lajmmore, that you informed us that you would not be able to be involved until sometime in 2023. It seems to me we now have sufficient details to respond to WMUK. Would you be prepared to do this for a contest starting some time in 2023? If not, do you have contacts with anyone other members of WiR in the UK who might be interested in helping? If not, it looks to me as if we should cancel the idea of a contest with financial awards. I would have been happy to run a contest with virtual awards but there was some strong opposition to this. It's not very productive to keep trying to organize a contest when there's so little interest in support.--Ipigott (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Ipigott - I think I've caused a bit of confusion - I replied on the ideas page, but not here. I did get an email from WMUK who said they'd do the admin, but the prizes would have to be vouchers. I am just waiting on two things:
1) For the person I'm in touch with to absolutely confirm they can do any currency
2) Then folks here to suggest the amount to ask for
I'm happy to be to the WMUK conduit, but I think we need to plan it and sort of tell them what we want. To me, it seems like we should run it as a two-month contest, starting mid-Febraury and running to mid-April, covering all of March (and therefore International Women's Day). I think we need to decide the number of prizes, and what they'll be for. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I think WMUK buy the vouchers in GBP, but Amazon can apply them to the winners' accounts in whatever their local currency is. I'd ask for say £400. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Lajmmoore: That all sounds very positive. The dates you suggest seem fine to me. As for the prizes over the two month period, I'm not too sure whether WMUK would be open to vouchers for $5 each for the first 20 who complete only 5 new articles ($100), $10 each for the first 10 who complete only 25 new articles ($100), $15 each for the first 10 to complete 50 articles ($150) and $30 for the first contributor to complete 100 new articles ($30). If all slots are filled, that would amount to $380. This might be covered by the £250 which they seem to be willing to offer as I don't suppose all the slots would be filled. In any case, I suppose we would be the ones to decide who should win the awards and we could calculate accordingly. It might be a good starting point for further discussions with them. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
That totals 41 award winners, each I think needing a couple of emails at least. They might prefer fewer. But you can always ask. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The object of the exercise is to encourage many more contributors to become involved in Women in Red. It's therefore not surprising that there should be so many awards. It would be great if we could achieve our targets for all the various categories.--Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI: New database of South Asian colonial era magazines

A scholar at NYU, Rahul Sagar, at has compiled Ideas of India, a database of small magazines published in India during colonisation by the British. It includes university magazines, non-governmental publications, and other such sources and is freely available. If you're working on this region, some slightly more obscure sources are now available, including those particularly relevant to women in that period. See, e.g., Hind Mahila (tr: Indian Woman) published by Rebecca Reuben Nowgaokar; Indian Ladies' Magazine (created by Kamala Satthianadhan, whose page was created newly for this project last year!). Lots of these magazines contain writing, and biographical sketches by/of women from colonial India (as well as colonial Pakistan and Bangladesh). If you're working in the area, it may be useful. - Naushervan (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: New database of scientists and experts in the fields of climate science, policy and energy from the Global South

"The Global South Climate Database is a publicly available, searchable database of scientists and experts in the fields of climate science, policy and energy." (created by Ayesha Tandon of Carbon Brief, accessible here.) - Naushervan (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Joyce Molyneux, one of the first women to receive a Michelin star, has died

Joyce Molyneux has died. She had quite the career. Thriley (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors with an inclination toward anthropology?

The redoubtable SusunW and myself have ambitions of taking Theodora Kroeber to FAC; if there's any anthropologically-inclined editors here who would be willing to have a look at it beforehand, any feedback would be much appreciated! Vanamonde (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: Interesting article and certainly well on its way to FA. I am nevertheless a little concerned about the lead. I'm not too sure how important it is to include details of her three marriages and children there. Possibly those details could be summarized and more attention given to her other writings and summaries of the sections on "Later life" and "Legacy". As the article is quite long, the lead could run to three paragraphs.--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Ipigott: That's a good point; I neglected to mention I still haven't expanded the lead, after having expanded the article. Her relationship to Ursula Le Guin is mentioned often enough that I think it's lead material, but perhaps I could condense the other family information. Any other suggestions you have would be appreciated, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Yes, I think it would be useful to include something on the connections with Ursula in the lead too. If you would really like to hear another concern, I would suggest that rather than including a bullet-pointed list of publications, it would be preferable either to expand the section into running prose or prepare a separate article on her publications where they could be presented as a list. Others might of course think the existing list is acceptable.--Ipigott (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll be contrarian for a moment and say I think the bulleted list is actually best. I've done both the things you suggest in the past; splitting off complete bibliographies, and prose summaries; but in this case, a prose summary already exists in the article, and almost nothing could be written without original research that isn't covered. However, I believe there's value in summarizing her best-known works in one place. A bibliography is likely viable, but I'd want the summary even so, and I find I'm not cut out for writing bibliographies. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Those are good arguments, Vanamonde93, and I hope they'll be accepted by other reviewers.--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Birdsite exodus

Since some people involved in WiR are clearly active on the Birdsite (there's an external link on the main page here) and may be thinking of joining the exodus to the freedom and grassroots community moderation of the Fediverse, I suggest https://fediverse.party as a good starting point. Boud (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm at @11011110@mathstodon.xyz, a more mathematics-focused site, but I do sometimes post about Wikipedia and WIR-related issues there. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Some people might want to ask Taavi or Legoktm for an invite to the Wikis World fediverse instance (running on Mastodon (software)) if you want to be on an instance with other Wikipedians or generic wiki enthusiasts - they might want to update the "While we are getting settled, registration is limited to those who are already established on the Fediverse" comment at Meta if it's out of date... But the Fediverse is not like the Birdsite or FB: you can choose any instance where there's a community and moderation policy you're comfortable with and then communicate across the federation, like with email. Maybe someone geeky with a server could even be persuaded to set up a Fediverse instance with a name like https://womeninred.social ... (I'm at @boud@framapiaf.org in case someone's interested; apart from linking to Wikipedia articles as ;) sources, probably my only active "Wikipedia" discussions there are pointing out the relevance of Wikipedia principles and guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:AGF.) Boud (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not really out of date in that we're still getting settled, but we're happy to give invites to people who ask and aren't already on the Fediverse. :-) Legoktm (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

For the hive mind

Women and the problem of "so many names" was mentioned above. I continue writing little articles on WPA artists and doing the alphabet run. Shirley Julian was married three times. She is in the WPA records and listed in most museums as Shirley Julian, the last name of her first husband. She also appears in searches under her maiden name Shirley Staschen, and also Shirley Julian Staschen. But surprise! most edifying was the information under Shirley Staschen Triest, the name of her third husband. I wound up referring to her as "Staschen" throughout the article, though I chose to create the article for name # 2 Shirley Julian, because that is how museums refer to her. I think that is the best approach. Any differing thoughts or opinions considered. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your method and reasoning for choosing that name as the title seems fine to me, though I disagree with the lede layout of names you've went with. I'm a lot more partial to "also known as" or "also known by the name/s", rather than your subsequent listing of all three names one after the other. Since that makes it a bit confusing for readers on what the names mean. SilverserenC 01:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that looks much better . Thanks Silver seren --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Interesting article. For good measure, I also added her name to Julian (surname).--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sachiyo Ito

This draft about a New York based dancer and choreographer looked initially like an autobiography and has been declined several times over the past 18 months. After some pruning and tidying recently by myself and S0091 it was again declined for WP:CITEBOMBING (originally the issue was lack of sources!). It could be salvaged by someone well versed in biography who was willing to prune it into WP:NPOV shape by using the most reliable sources. I don't feel competent to do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that around 50 of the 70 or so refs don't have links, so it's very hard for other editors to evaluate the content or quality of the sources. pburka (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull I don't think it is an autobiography but certainly written either by a fan or someone connected to her. I did do some cleanup as I was trying to determine notability. The issue I had (outside of some sourcing/verification issues) was the only reviews were from NYT and while she performed at other venues/festivals outside of NYC she appears to be largely a "local" performer in NYC/burroughs and was not sure the NYT reviews alone were really enough to support notability. I did do some extensive research on my own (via WP Library sources), but found little other than performance announcements and the like, thus I left it to another reviewer to determine if the NYT reviews were enough. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@S0091 I thought it was autobiography based on WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1166#Third_Party_Writer, which is when I became aware of the draft. I don't have access to the NYT, nor specialist dance magazines but I hoped a member of this Project might be motivated to trim the draft into shape. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull yes, the Teahouse post does make it clear it is autobiography.:) Just an FYI, I use the Bypass Paywall Clean extension on my browser to get access to NYT (and others) and Proquest through the WP:Library has NYT archives. The WPLibrary also had the dance magazine which is how I determined in at least one instance it did not support the content, but I also searched for other sources. S0091 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Monika Borgmann

Dear User:Ipigott & fellow WiR activists,

a few days ago I created the article about Monika Borgmann, an award-winning documentary filmmaker and activist against impunity in Lebanon, as a contribution to the current WiR geofocus on women from West Asia, since she has Lebanese citizenship in addition to her original German one. I realise it may have been wiser to first finish it in the sandbox, but I had already put the WIR 244 template on the talk page, therefore assuming that other editors would assume good faith. However, it was taken down to draft status for doubts about notability because of lack of references within 19 minutes (!). If that editor had assumed good faith and bothered to take a swift look at the footnotes of my German-language article about her, it should have been a clear case.

In any event, now I have happily added 35 references to reliable independent sources from NYT to The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Le Monde etc. Yet, I was all the more shocked to receive the automatic reply upon submitting the draft that the review might take 4 months or longer. I have written to the editor responsible for relegating it to draft, but he seems to take much more than 19 minutes. Sigh.

Would it be possible for you to conduct the review? Really, it should be a matter of seconds to recognize her notability and so I would be truly grateful instead of pretty frustrated. Best regards and wishes RomanDeckert (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: 21 minutes seems better than 4 months. Thanks for the article, now at Monika Borgmann . --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, what a relief, loads of thanks, you saved my weekend, because this article followed me into my dreams and I was just about to be afraid it might turn into a WP-nightmare, when you shot that fear down, have a lovely weekend, cheerio! RomanDeckert (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@RomanDeckert: If someone working on new page patrol moves your article to draft, and you then improve it to meet their concerns, you are fully entitled as an autoconfirmed editor to just move it back yourself. Unless you have a connection with the subject, you are never obliged to get the Articles for Creation team to review it. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me, @Espresso Addict:, or to be precise for making it clear to me because somehow I thought I would still have to leave it to somebody else. Now I shall be much more relaxed about such a situation!RomanDeckert (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Just make sure it is in a state where it is likely to survive a deletion discussion before moving it back yourself, because there is a reasonable likelihood that the new page patroller who first moved it will be miffed that you disagreed with the move and initiate a discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@RomanDeckert, lovely work, thank you! To avoid similar troubles in the future, you might use Template:Under construction or Template:In use while you’re still working. Happy editing! Innisfree987 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you lots, Innisfree987, both for the appreciation and the helpful idea to use those templates which I somehow did not have on my radar!RomanDeckert (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@RomanDeckert Also note that although you addressed your talkpage reply to the draftifying editor, you didn't use a link or template which would notify them of your reply - though I'm not sure whether they would be notified automatically because it was a thread they had started, under the new talkpage setup. PamD 07:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, alright, thank you, Pam, shall check that out as well!RomanDeckert (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to see our "fellow WiR activists" sorted this out before I had an opportunity to look at it. Great to have such constructive page watchers.--Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, that was an impressively swift treat to a slightly frustrated editor, who is all the happier now!RomanDeckert (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Just so you know, the time it gives you is the current timer on the oldest articles - the ones that stick around because no one wants to review them for whatever reason. Most articles are dealt with much, much more quickly than that, especially if you have the article tagged with the appropriate wikiprojects. -- asilvering (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Death of Pratima Goankar

Hello all, I've started a page for the Death of Pratima Goankar, an Indian interesex athlete who died by suicide in 2001. I was wondering if project members could give it a read - I don't think I've written a page who someone identified as intersex previously. Also, if anyone can find her date of death, I'd be very grateful - it might be paywalled in here? Many thanks (will cross-post to LGBT Studies too) Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting RfC

Hello all, I started a page for Rosalia Abreu a few weeks ago, and there's a really interesting RfC on the talk page now. All thoughts welcome Lajmmoore (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to this, Lajmmoore. I can't remember any other RfCs specifically focused on the lead in our biographies. It will be interesting to see whether we can arrive at any kind of consensus.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does it seem odd that instead of just having a conversation with the editors working on the page, an RFC was launched? SusunW (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It's odd. I gave the RfC opener a heads up about WP:RFCBEFORE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for help with Draft:Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough

I have started on Draft:Eleanor Rosamund Barraclough, (British cultural historian, broadcaster and writer) but I am unsure if there is enough coverage for notability. I'd appreciate any help, or the advice that she isn't notable. Newystats (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Newystats - thanks so much for sharing your draft. I've not delved deeply into the subject, but the first thing I do with academics is do a search on google scholar, to see if there are reviews of their books or their work. This helps to establish notability, if people have talked about e.g. how important they are in the field. Happy editing Lajmmoore (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello Newystats -- Not my area so might well be wrong, but I think from the citation profile the subject may be a bit early career as yet? Do you know whether she has published a second book? Generally under WP:AUTHOR two books with book reviews are needed as a minimum. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
fyi, she's not at Durham anymore. [3] -- asilvering (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Newystats, Lajmmoore, Espresso Addict, how does the article look now? SilverserenC 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I think the article is good to publish. Newystats (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure - I don't think she passes WP:NAUTHOR, which is the guideline you appear to be going for. That edited collection won't count as a second notable book with most AfD !voters. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I would add some the of the descriptions the reviews have given of her work? I think she meets WP:GNG if you think about her being a book award judge - Costa is big the UK. It's a tricky one though Lajmmoore (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_119"