Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 46

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 40 ← Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 → Archive 50

Wiki Women in Red - a proposed User Group

Having worked for 36 months creating articles for WikiProject Women In Red (founded, July 2015), a few members have started drafting a User Group page on Meta. Your input and support are encouraged and welcome! --Rosiestep (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully support this initiative but at this stage I hesitate to add my name as an active participant as I don't think I will be able to devote sufficient time to it. Good luck!--Ipigott(talk) 08:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott. We are hoping people will join as supporters, if they do not have the time or inclination to actively participate. Just add your name to our "Join Us" list, followed by (supporter) at the end. thx MauraWen (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
OK. Just two suggestions at this stage. I think it should be made more clear that both women and men are welcome as organizers and participants in the initiative. While I fully support efforts to recruit more women editors, many of those who have contributed effectively to Women in Red have been men. I believe they could be equally effective in supporting WWIR but I also share the need for giving priority to bringing in more women editors and more women supporters generally. I also realize that while there has been quite a discussion on the talk page about including LGBT and non-binary women, it looks to me as if this has now become WWIR's top priority. I wholeheartedly support coverage of their biographies and works and their recruitment as new editors but reading through the initiative's presentation, it is now beginning to look as if this is its primary purpose. I think we could communicate the same positive message by more carefully editing the text but I hesitate to make any changes myself. Instead of "WikiProject Women in Red was founded to increase content concerning women, including members of the LGBT community who identify as women and non-binary genders;...", you could possibly say "WikiProject Women in Red sets out to increase content on women and all those who identify as women in the widest sense;..." Other suggestions on how to address this issue would be welcome but I think it is important to stress that better coverage of women is the top priority.--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good catch. I have also made the case before to just stick to women in all of our terminology. The various LGBT/LGBTQ stuff can have its own user group, and as contributors they are just as welcome to work on all of this stuff as the men are. The simple fact remains that everyone has a mother, and there is simply not enough evidence of that on Wikipedia. We have articles on great-great grandfathers all the way down to current generation of notable men and they all just sort of spontaneously appeared without any female intervention, if you would apply genealogical indices on top of current Wikipedia articles. Of course not all the intervening women (or siblings) were notable enough for an article, but often they were/are. That said, of course we couldn't possibly have come this far with the ridiculously low number of contributing women on English Wikipedia. We need the men, and any other gendered people we have. All hands on deck. Jane (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As the person that raised the question, I observe that that the statements here contradict what is said there on Meta. From Meta one would believe that WiR participants are singing from the same hymn sheet. Should a WiR UG choose to move forward with excluding non-binary biographies or articles from its supported projects and initiatives because they are not women, and presumably as a corollary exclude any gender or queer identity which may be called not "women", then I start to doubt whether LGBT+ groups publicly committed to inclusivity and diversity would be happy to be seen supporting the initiative.
Perhaps these things can be said frankly and openly on the UG proposal meta page, to ensure these contradictions are openly discussed and addressed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As long as we are all singing from the same hymn sheet I don't much care. This project is all about inclusion, not exclusion, but the main goal is to enable encyclopedic content about women, not any other genders. That said, I generally need to make articles about 5 different guys before I can add an article about a woman, because her biography according to reliable sources is split over those 5 guys. With LGBT/LGBTQ articles that's probably worse. You probably need to create about 10 articles about cis women or something for the same reasons... The point is that we need to be clear in how we communicate our mission. Our mission is to enable content for women. We also don't mention girls and female babies for the same reasons of clarity, though of course articles about notable girls and female babies are welcome. The odd thing about our metrics is that it only counts female items on Wikidata, so other gendered items will simply not be counted in this project. As babies can be gendered female, those articles will be counted, though technically those are not the kinds of articles we want to count. I am just stating the current state of our metrics abilities. The advantage of keeping our mission statement clear is to increase the number of people understanding what we do. Jane (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, the rationale you are providing appears convoluted. WiR currently includes potential articles for genderqueer and non-binary people in LBT Women, for that reason I was considering having the report renamed to be more inclusive. From what you are saying here, I am left wondering whether those potential articles are a mistake, as they are not going to be counted, and it would be misleading to later chalk them up as successes for WiR if volunteers work on them. If the WiR User Group is never going to support projects to address gender imbalance on our projects for genderqueer, non-binary and other poorly represented groups and topics that may be called "not women", then I'm unclear why you would claim the proposed group is "all about inclusion" as your words very clearly state the opposite and it is not inclusive.
To say that LGBT+ volunteers are welcome to freely provide their efforts, but WiR will not aide you with correcting the bias in our projects against the gender or sexuality in Wikimedia projects that you may be most interested in, expert in, or be yourself, because that gender does not meet some yet to be provided definition of "women", then that appears a missed opportunity to do more to address the gender gap, as well as an unfortunately patronising way of addressing LGBT+ participation.
Again I suggest you propose a change on Meta, as your words here directly contradict the proposal. --Fæ (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Fæ I felt that adding information about non-binary and genderqueer people was very important. Traditionally, Women in Red has included these groups in our editathons. I believe no effort can be successful without intersectionality. It also seems to me that non binary gender identifying people experience similar (if not worse) erasure from history. As one of the people helping create the user group I will, like SusunW, will fight to keep them involved in this project. If there's overlap with another user group, so be it. That's a feature, not a bug. We should overlap a bit so that we can support one another's efforts. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I strongly object to omitting non-binary genders in our works and metrics. I take issue with the statement "The various LGBT/LGBTQ stuff can have its own user group". Our project has always been inclusive of the LGBT community and I don't think pushing LBT biographies out of our matrix has any positive benefit. Rather than diluting our objectives, including LBT and non-binary genders makes our work more representative of population at large. Since assigning a sex at birth consists mainly of arbitrary observation, it may have absolutely nothing to do with someone's gender identity. While we cannot fix the omission of minority populations from the historical record, we can certainly work to not acerbate the issue in the present. SusunW (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I now feel rather guilty about bring this up. As I emphasized above, I fully support the coverage and inclusion of all those who identify as women. All I was suggesting was that we should make sure women remain the basis for the user group. There are after all a huge number of notable women who need to be included. If no other solution can be found, then the text should probably go forward without alteration. I think that like me, Jane just wanted to make sure that we maintain full focus on women as generally understood, even if we remain completely open to LGBT and non binary people who identify as women. As for the metrics, that is something which could be addressed as one of the issues but it looks to me as if it is bound to emerge as interest develops.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I do have to correct this. Anyone who identifies as non-binary or genderqueer must not be labelled as a woman or a man, this is mis-gendering by definition. By doing so you are effectively repeating the myth that non-binary people do not exist. Please avoid doing this from here on, and please take the opportunity to advise others when you see it happening elsewhere on our projects. This is especially important when contributing to BLPs, as persisting with mis-gendering is a type of vandalism we often encounter, and is covered by Arbcom's discretionary sanctions for gender related disputes. If you are ever in doubt in a specific case, I suggest asking at the LGBT+ studies group, or off-wiki in one of the alternative channels given at m:LGBT. Jane, I include your statements in this, please think about what you are writing more carefully, this type of misunderstanding is likely to be read as deliberately offensive if it is repeated. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please take care to not create a "walled garden" situation in which members of this project/group end up as an echo chamber isolated from the rest of the WP community. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Good grief! No one is suggesting we should omit anything or anyone. The question has to do with the mission statement, and that is the identification of a backlog in articles about women. Period. Jane (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
As for metrics, we have a bot that handles them. Do we need to tweak the bot to assure it catches all the relevant articles for our metrics? If so, can someone who is technologically-inclined do that? --Rosiestep (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The options in wikidata are limited, but it does include a non-binary gender as well as transgender male and transgender female. There are other options in use like muxe and agender, with some people having multiple genders set (example wikidata:Q5360190), but I am not up to date as to whether there have been recent changes or if these options are considered undefined. Anyone working on the reporting would probably do well to examine all returns for living people without biographies who are not identified as male as a starting point. At least the potential lists would help discussions as to the potential scope of the project and whether all should be included as part of a "gender gap" assessment. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Fæ - I don't know how to do this, but there must be someone who is technologically capable of sorting this out and assuring that WiR metrics (fueled by Wikidata) include all the articles within our scope. If this isn't sorted out by next week, I'll ask folks at Wikimania. BTW, will you be there? --Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
No money, no plan to be there. I presume there will be a LGBT+ social and it would be worth WiR people asking around to talk about how the proposed UG and WM-LGBT+ might share goals and networks. It's worth asking on the Twitter stream or joining the Telegram group to help with finding people during the event, see m:LGBT+.
With regard to playing around with reporting, you can read the SPARQL that generates the sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Missing biographies of nonbinary, trans and intersex people by reading the source wiki text. It's pretty easy do-able to make a sandbox copy and play around with the Q-numbers by reusing that code. To do this well, I think someone would need to talk it through with Wikidata wizards to work out where gender related semantics have been changing on the database, or are likely to change any time soon. Planning to do this at Wikimania would be sensible.
I have some of the skills to do this, but I'm over committed elsewhere and find Wikidata too much of a rabbit-hole. It would be better to get a WiR insider to end up with the right skills and then they can maintain it as stuff comes up. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Dodger67 I agree. That's why we want diverse input and intersectionality. Your input will be very helpful. I know I've learned lots from you and Fæ about communities of people I need to know more about. I would also like to have input from people who work with other marginalized communities around the world. There are things that people on the outside can't always see clearly. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, we'll definitely want to work with Whose Knowledge? To the extent that it's possible to follow the De-Colonizing the Internet conference in Cape Town next week, I would recommend doing so. I'll be there, and will take notes. I'm also looking forward to meeting new people with new perspectives and we should definitely be open for that with the new UG. (cc: Seeeko) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group

Naming update

The revised name better aligns with our mission and activities: Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group. Hope this interests some of you! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WiR Monthly achievement scheme

As promised, I have put together a short proposal on a WiR Monthly achievement scheme. Initially, to avoid confusion and keep things staightforward, I suggest we should limit it new biographies as these are by far the most popular type of article on WiR and they also form a basis for statistical assessment of progress. I look forward to general reactions here. More detailed comments could be made on the scheme's talk page. If all goes well, we could trial it in August for just one month. We could then assess whether/how to proceed in the months ahead.--Ipigott (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea, Ipigott; thank you! While it would add a layer of complexity, I wonder if we should consider setting this scheme in a table format so that the information could be sorted by the various headers (username, country, article quality, and so forth). This way, we would have easy access to metrics. Maybe add columns for New/Improved, and for Biog/Other. Mind you, these are just ideas, which add complexity, and that might not be suitable for at least the first month. Here's an example and one more example. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me -- I would support trying it out for a month. I'm intrigued by Rosiestep's idea about being able to sort by country, article quality, et cetera, but I'm thinking that might be better left until after the trial period. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I like this idea. Possibly wise to keep it simple at least for a start. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this initial support. Rosiestep: Personally, I always think twice about making additions to table-based pages, for example to the lists of women in various occupations. I frequently find my edits throw the whole display askew and have to spend several minutes sorting things out. If the list is not in table form, I go ahead and make a quick edit in less than a minute. I think many less experienced editors may also be reluctant to edit tables. In any case, I tried to make things pretty simple so that anyone could add biographies to the lists without too much editing experience.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea Ipigott. Could we include a section for collaboration wanted, needed, etc? SusunW (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, in view of the general interest expressed above, I'll try to put together a workable model with simple guidelines over the next few days. As for a section on collaboration needed, this could possibly be handled initially by a link to a separate page. If it works, we could include it in future versions of the scheme. Perhaps the best way forward at this stage is to try out the basic scheme in August, examine how it was received in September, and come up with a more permanent version for October. In the details listed on each biography, I think it would be useful to include the occupation/claim to fame of each woman covered.--Ipigott (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: I enjoyed adding names and country flags, including my own to the Monthly Achievement scheme page last week, but as time passed I could see that only a few people were participating. I started to forget to add my own name (I'm behind now) when I created a new biography. Is it possible to add our names/new biographies to our monthly editathon pages with the additional flag/country information and have that info automatically moved to the Monthly Achievement Scheme page? So editors only have to post new biography information once. I don't know if editors, including myself, are going to remember to add their new biography information twice, even with a helpful link. MauraWen (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
MauraWen: Thank you for your continuing interest. The page you have been updating was only created as an example. The new approach, now known as the Monthly achievement inititative, will be launched soon to cover the month of August. I'll be making announcements soon and it will be included in the invitation to the August editathons. If you have any further comments on the approach, please let me know.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Women Disobey

Women Disobey

Women Disobey, I decorated my talk, feel free to do the same. The picture is missing on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I prefer that other image, but I would say that because I took it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
How lovely, Gerda. I've put it on my user page. Ritchie333 I love the other one. But as an admin who sometimes has to block editors for using that exact language against other editors, I would not be setting a good example ... not to say that I haven't thought it often, and for a very long time. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's how I see it. A woman felt sufficiently strongly against Trump and wanting to stand up for her rights, that she felt happy parading that sign in front of tens of thousands of people in a very public place, where many others aside from me photographed it. I asked the subject if I could take a photo and warned her that I would be uploading it; as you can see, she is grinning inanely towards the camera because she wanted the sign to be plastered over the internet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie, I like yours, too, but prefer the more people, blue sky, and yes "humanity" ;) - Article credit goes to Coffeeandcrumbs, - I was only the happy reviewer. Love the slogan, for broader use than the particular protest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I love the sentiment of both pictures. Can you clue me into exactly what you are discussing? I am unfamiliar with this project. From what I can see, it is exactly my kind of project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Look at the project page. We try to write articles on women, - individual and in groups - and their work. Women Disobey is listed as an achievement, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
This is like finding out I was a member of a cool club and did not realize the club existed or was so strong.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Women Disobey happened on June 28, 2018. It was one of the organized protests on a day of nationwide worldwide protest expressing civil discontent about the immigration policies of the United States Government that separated immigrant children from their parents. Most of those children have still not been reunited with their parents. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
My photo came from Womens March London. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: A very apt description but that wasn't what I was asking. I basically wrote our article on the subject and nominated it to DYK. I apologise I was unclear. My question was more for @Ritchie333:. I love that photo and would love to add it somewhere prominent. What we should do is write a page on Protests against Donald Trump's visit to London and include a section on Protests against Donald Trump's visit to London#Women's March Against Trump. I have experience in this. I have been a major contributor to Families Belong Together and March for Our Lives.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Protests against Donald Trump in the United Kingdom

As Another Believer and Gerda know, I prefer starting a page with at least two editors involved. There are two many trolls on these controversial subject for just one person to handle. If anyone is interested please ping me.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The photo is already in Protests against Donald Trump, in a section "Trump in United Kingdom", which also refers to Donald Trump baby balloon. The main protest article is getting a bit long, so I would say a spin-off Protests against Donald Trump in the United Kingdom could be considered. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) One aspect of London: Donald Trump baby balloon (needs DYK review, hint hint) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I have taken your hint but must decline it as I took the photograph so consider myself to have a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I cropped to create File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square (cropped) 2.jpeg, which maybe a little better. I can crop it more.Done. And I am willing to give reviewing a go. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nida Khan

Nida Khan is a Muslim activist needs to be expanded .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I expanded the article a bit. More sources on her activism would be great :) Sbbarker19 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

New Fellows of the British Academy

Hi all. The British Academy (the humanities and social sciences equivalent of the Royal Society) has just its new fellows for 2018, and a good proprtion of them are women. Unfortunately several are lacking articles – it would be lovely to see some of this page's followers do what you did for the latest FRS elections: turn those red links blue! The list and links are here. Thanks! —Noswall59 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

Wikidata gadget

Does someone know what has gone on with the wikidata gadget? I cannot input any data. It gets stuck on the language selection and will not let me input her maiden name. When I try to input instance of "human" it will not let me select human, much less put in a gender. Date boxes for birth/death are gone. Try to select a town and it comes up with a photograph? It is impossible for me to update, so I abandoned my edits, but this is going to be difficult on our metrics if one cannot input from the gadget. Wikidata itself is too confusing for me to update. SusunW (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

There does indeed seem to be something seriously wrong with the gadget. I am not even getting the gadget options on my sidebar any longer. Like you, SusunW, I find the standard Wikidata interface far too difficult to edit. Perhaps Edgars2007 or The Earwig can help?--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
The tool was re-written recently. Yeah, it looks buggy. But it seems, that you can't add claims (instance=human, gender=women) to only those which doesn't have created in Wikidata yet. Will bring to author. ru:Обсуждение Википедии:WE-Framework#The changes --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott and Edgars2007: Thank you both. So nice to know it isn't just me. Hopefully they can fix it soon. In the meantime, what do we need to do for our metrics? SusunW (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
There's something really strange going on. I get the options in my sidebar and can access the gadget for older articles but not for the most recent ones. I see there is a new line at the top of the first screen for Aliases. Pity it's not working for recent articles. I hope someone reading this page can do something about it.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
From the messages in Russian on the WEF talk page, it looks as if the problem is a result of a change in the data downloaded from Wikidata. Maybe that's also the reason our weekly WHGI stats have not been updated.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I was able to update information on my file Enid Gonsalves, but that doesn't tell me if I could have created it. By the time I was able to use the tool, the initial entry had already been created by someone else. I see it as problematic if we cannot create new entries when we create new articles which have no equivalent on any other WP language platform. SusunW (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
update Appears to be working. I was able to add an entire entry on Lina Mathon-Blanchet to wikidata with the gadget. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I go about using this? The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife Install the gadget per facilitating data entry to Wikidata for new Wikipedia articles. Once you do that you should see a bunch of entries in your "Tool" bar on the left of your screen that start wth "WEF: XXX". Press on the one that says person, input what you know and save. FYI to input a maiden name, you must first select the language from the drop down and then type in the name. SusunW (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Got it working. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Glad to see it's working for the two of you. I still cannot use it for new articles as the WEF options do not appear in my sidebar. I've notified Vlsergey. Strange that it's now working for you again, Susun, but not for me.--Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
That is very weird, Ipigott I use Firefox too, so it makes even less sense to me. SusunW (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
SusunW ... Well ... I use Firefox, 61.01 32-bit, Windows 10, but did not have this gadget loaded on my .js, but decided to give it a go just now. I found it somewhat distracting that it loaded a whole slew of entries on my sidebar Tools. As I was testing it on various articles, I pulled up this talk page. It added multiple phantom sections below this one in the top Contents listing . It would not let me click on them, and when I scrolled down, those sections did not exist. So, while I acknowledge that several here have found this tool helpful, I've removed it from my .js For my purposes, I have just recently figured out manually adding to Wikidata, and I think I'll stick with that method. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Maile66 you are much more technical than I am, so it is not surprising that you can enter directly in Wikidata ;) . I cannot figure it out, but that should come as a surprise to no one. That being said, as long as we can input gender it will be able to flow into our matrix, which is the ultimate goal. It's not good that Ian's doesn't work, as he gnomes articles to ensure that the gender piece is there. My tiny bit to help is to input my own articles. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
SusunW it took me a while, and I went through a lot of frustration before I realized that the current version of NoScript prevents editing on Wikidata. If you disable that while you're in Wikidata, it allows you to edit. — Maile (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Maile66: I can also edit Wikidata directly but for me the tool had several advantages. You can open it while editing a Wikipedia document and simply copy some of the document details on the various WEF pages, then save them all together (rather than updating one by one in items in Wikidata=. The tool also gives you a good overview of what info Wikidata already contains on documents already entered, allowing you to fill the gaps. Especially important for me are occupation/profession details in biographies as well as a basic one line description if it is missing in English. In connection with WiR, there is a bot which adds female on the basis of Wikipedia categories but it does not add occupation details. Unfortunately, I am still unable to access the tool for recent documents. I really don't know where to turn for further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I've finally solved the problem and discovered why others are able to use the tool. Until recently, the WEF links appeared in the sidebar under the article's mainspace entry. For recent articles, they now only appear once you go into edit. Pity no one explained this change when it was made. For me, it's not very convenient as it means I cannot view the Wikidata info by turning up articles in mainspace but first have to go into edit. One more unnecessary complication, I think.--Ipigott (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

August Invites - anyone not receive them?

Hi! I was notified that a few people didn't receive the mass message invite for August. Can you let me know if you didn't get the invite, also? Please ping me. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I received the July invite, but haven't yet received August. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks... You're the 3rd person to let me know this happened. I think I need to report this as a bug. Does anyone know where I'd report this specifically? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Instructions at m:MassMessage. If that doesn't work for you, there is always WP:VPT where someone might have an answer. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: I haven't had the August invitation yet. I'll confirm here when I do get it.Oronsay (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: this is the first time a MassMessage I sent that didn't work. I'll try VPT. I'm not sure if I should resend.... >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: Haven't seen anything on my talkpage, either. Sorry. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Or me, but then, who knows if I am supposed to get one? Carptrash (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it showed up on my user page overnight. — Maile (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender gap on Wikimedia Commons

Hi all. I've been adding Wikidata-driven infoboxes to commons categories, and these automatically add commons:Category:Men by name and commons:Category:Women by name based on the Wikidata sex or gender (P21) property. There are currently 290,982 and 75,412 subcategories respectively - 79.4% male, 20.6% female. This isn't complete, as there are many categories that don't yet have a sitelink from Wikidata to Commons, but it should be a fairly representative sample. I hope this is helpful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting - a significantly lower gap than for articles. Mind you, 4 out of a random 6 I looked at were actresses. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes nice to know - 20.6% is a great score for Commons. Better than I would have guessed. Jane (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Susan Unterberg

Probably worthy of a page, as she meets WP:NARTIST, being in a few museum collections. And then there's the $5.5 Million she gave to female artists as a philanthropist.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a draft at Draft:Susan Unterberg, in case someone want to chip in with sources. Meets WP:NARTIST as she is in three major museum collections.96.127.242.226 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Adding the above "find sources" template to this thread. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Elmarie Wendel's recent death at ITN/C

Elmarie Wendel died recently. Can you help properly source the article so it can be mentioned on the Main Page? There is no question about her notability just the sad state of the article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Annual Report for WikiWomen User's Group

Please feel free to jump in and add to this: m:WikiWomen's User Group/Reports/2018. You can create additional headers if you wish. You don't have to be a member of WWUG to contribute to the Annual Report. We have until July 31st to finish it. There is no mandatory format except to account for money if there was a grant. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Detailed article in The Guardian describes Jess Wade's contribution to Wikipedia

Hannah Devlin's article Academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed in today's The Guardian describes the great contribution Jess Wade (Jesswade88) has been making in recent months. Good to see she's been a member of Women in Red since the beginning of the year. Her work is bound to inspire many others.--Ipigott (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

👍 Like — Maile (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! I've added it to my bookmarks to share on my G+ later. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
ISTR that Dr Wade was getting disillusioned as some of the biographies she wrote were being sent to AfD, I certainly remember rescuing one (Abbie Hutty). Looks like we’ve turned a corner then. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Jess was also named a runner-up for Wikipedian of the Year at this year's Wikimania! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in Red

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!


For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hmm, we have a topic for WiR 88, Women of Marginalised Populations, where the linked list of suggestions has just five redlinked names and four articles "needing improvement". Doesn't give a lot of options, and seems quite similar in spirit to WiR 87, Indigenous women. August might be quite a challenge. Should there be a minimum size of redlist before we assign a topic to a month? Or could "Indigenous and marginalised women" have been combined into a single Editathon? PamD 10:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Marginalised populations include religion, political or cultural group, age, gender, or financial status. So I think we should be able to get a longer redlist together to include other women than the few listed by August. It only overlaps a little with indigenous women. As a note to the idea of a minimum size redlist - to be honest, I only use the proposed redlists if I have no idea who I want to write about or where to look - I use the month theme more as a reminder to expand my general preferences into wider fields. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 10:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We all take different approaches: I treat the month's topics as a challenge to create at least one article (OK, usually stub) for every Editathon, and use the redlists for suggestions as to who to write about. PamD 10:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
:-D And I just realised - my usual focus (writers) means I overlap my current thoughts on marginalised populations with the next one of women writers... So there will be overlap there for me...It's an interesting dilemma. ☕ Antiqueight chatter 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • May I suggest that someone come up with a one or two sentences to define "Women of Marginalised Populations" and put it as the very first sentence on the 88 Meetup page. That's so broad in interpretation that it could mean, "women who don't get no respect anywhere". It could also mean every farmer's wife on the face of the earth. Or every woman of any given fundamentalist faith. Needs more definition, please. It really confuses me what you are looking for. Thanks .— Maile (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: we originally meant to do an editathon on Untouchability, but felt that marginalized populations was a better term for the group we were thinking of. That's why I put together a list with Dalit women, for example. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Help on Draft:Ann Patricia Bowling

Hey folks, I was trying to help out at Draft:Ann Patricia Bowling because the subject was trying to write it herself and was struggling with the various WP policies. I was able to clean it up, but I'm not very familiar with biographies or notability. This is not technically a redlink, but I thought it might be of interest to someone here because if she does qualify for notability it would be an additional female biography on wikpedia. Please take a look or advise if you can, I would greatly appreciate it. -Furicorn (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Furicorn: Of course we are interested in helping to improve drafts for mainspace at Women in Red. I've had a quick look at this but had difficulty in finding secondary citations. Most of what is in the article appears to come from Bowling's own profiles. It would certainly help if you or other contributors could find secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Ipigott Thanks for the advice. I was able to get some help over at Notability (academics). She's held multiple professorships, and someone in her field provided some secondary literature references. -Furicorn (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigríður Ásdís Snævarr

Hi all

I've just published Sigríður Ásdís Snævarr, I'd appreciate people who are experienced in writing women's biographies to take a look.

Best

John Cummings (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@John, thanks for creating the article. It is best practice to refer to the subject by surname vs. I noticed that you occasionally refer to her by her given name. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Thanks for making this article. I wonder, what's the source for the list of ambassadorships? It doesn't seem to be in reference 1, which is the only ref for that paragraph. If they are verifiable, then she ought to be in all the corresponding categories such as Category:Ambassadors of Iceland to Finland (existing categories are listed as subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of Iceland, and it's easy and correct to create a new category in an existing hierarchy by modelling it on one of those which already exists). I've done a couple of copyedits.
I've also made several incoming redirects, including the one necessary to turn the red link blue in List of ambassadors of Iceland to Sweden: as a general rule please make redirects from every form of name which occurs in any of your sources, anything already used as a redlink, and anything else plausible! I've made redirects from the versions of her name likely to be typed on a non-Icelandic keyboard.
Are you sure that her article should be at this title and not just at Sigríður Snævarr? Of your 5 sources, only 2 use the "Asis", one of which (5) also names her without in a photo caption, and the official govt site at (3) and company site at (4) suggest to me that it's the form most used. PamD 16:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Should she be referred to by surname, though? She's Icelandic...they don't have surnames per se. See Icelandic name. I'm not sure what the convention should be here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. They have "second names" instead of surnames, meaning, IMO, she should be referred to as Snævarr instead of Sigríður. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Rosiestep: Thanks for the clarification. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the feedback @Rosiestep: and Ser Amantio di Nicolao, so the draft was written by a native Icelandic speaker (see link in the history) as part of a prototype I've been running working with government delegations at UNESCO (the writer was actually the Icelandic ambassador to UNESCO). The model is they write a draft and I change any formatting and grammar needed to fit Wikipedia standards. Its possible I got the references mixed up since they are mostly Icelandic and I was using Google Translate to understand what went where. I knew that there were interesting rules around Icelandic names, thanks for working on it. There are a few other drafts here for anyone interested. I'm trying to find a model for experts to contribute to Wikipedia in collaboration with Wikipedia editors to reduce the technical barriers to collaboration and also improve the probability of the articles staying alive.
Best
John Cummings (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like a great project, John Cummings! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
👍, John Cummings (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It really does sound like a great project! This would be neat to get up and running elsewhere too. -Yupik (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

And another, Bunny McDiarmid. John Cummings (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Awesome - I like the way this is going. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
We need a real Icelander here, but I am pretty sure that even Icelanders with family name should be referred to by their first name. Carptrash (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be unusual to refer to her by surname even though she has one. Sources use her full name or first name, never that I can see her surname only. Icelandic sources use 'Sigríður Ásdís' or 'Sigríður', for example in this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 22:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • John Cummings: I'm not an Icelander but I am familiar with the EN wiki's approach to Icelandic names. There are clearly defined rules, as you can see from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iceland/Style_advice. One of the major problems is Defaultsort which is frequently misused. One of these days, we need to go through all the names (starting perhaps with the women), making sure they are correctly listed in categories and lists. Below you will see how to handle things:

Sorting

Icelandic names are normally sorted as they are written, just as any other patronymic name. On English Wikipedia, per WP:SUR and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iceland#Sort keys for Icelandic names, an Icelandic category's sort value follows that convention, with the first name first and the patronymic afterwards. However, the DEFAULTSORT value is in Western order, treating the patronymic as a surname.

For the listas= parameter in project templates on article talk pages use the DEFAULTSORT value (since it mainly categorises in non-Icelandic categories).

Per WP:MCSTJR, only the standard 26 English letters should be used in sorting. Sort keys should use ae for 'æ', o for 'ö', th for 'þ' and 'd' for 'ð'.

Example for Arnaldur Indriðason:

  • {{DEFAULTSORT:Indridason, Arnaldur}}
  • [[Category:Icelandic photographers|Arnaldur Indridason]]
  • | listas = Indridason, Arnaldur

--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

{{automated tools}}

Just to let you know, I've added {{automated tools}} to {{Draft article}} and {{AFC submission/helptools}}. It will add the following links to the templates:

You can see them (as of writing) in action at Draft:Scafida#See_also (expand the "How to improve your article" section) or at Draft:Shell Pernis Refinery). If you don't make use of those templates, you can always add {{automated tools}} to whatever page you're working on (in non-mainspace) and it'll give you those links. In mainspace, the links will only show in preview mode. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Some general observations

I spend a lot of time on Wikipedias in other languages and some things that I've noticed there and here: 1) women don't tend to have infoboxes, 2) there are often 0-2 women mentioned in lists of notable people from towns, regions, or in other groupings, 3) women's biographies tend to have a lot of information about their personal life and less about their achievements outside of relationships, and 4) wikidata pages about movies are often missing women from the description blurb "2018 film by <man>", but "2018 film" for women.
I think these are some important issues that we should be keeping an eye out for as we are writing biographies about women. Add an infobox, put them in lists of prominent/famous people for whatever they are prominent/famous for, make sure their partner's/partners' page has the same info about their relationship, and make sure they can be found on wikidata too.
I've taken to rectifying some of these, mainly 2 and 4. For 3, I've been adding the same exact sentences from the biographies into their partner's/partners' Wikipedia pages, because if it's good enough for the woman's article, it's good enough for their partner(s) too.
Thanks and keep up the great work! -Yupik (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yupik: Thanks for these interesting thoughts. It's good to have a keen linguist commenting on women's biographies in various languages. I'm impressed by your fluency in Sami and Finnish; both are among the languages I am unable to work with. Your contributions to these Wikipedias are amazing. As you no doubt realize, our efforts on Women in Red are devoted primarily to improving coverage of women and women's works on the English Wikipedia although we have close ties with several other language versions. As for your comments, many editors systematically add boxes to women's biographies while others consider it unnecessary in cases where key biographical details are already included in the lead and perhaps also on Wikidata. I think you'll find we have quite a number of specialized lists of women in various professions, countries and regions although you may be right in asserting that they may not be adequately listed under towns. They should nevertheless be covered under the appropriate geographical categories: People/artists/writers from ?city/?municipality. When we write new biographies of women, we try to cover their most prominent achievements as well as their personal life and background. Some earlier articles might not be so systematic in their coverage. Indeed, many of the earlier articles about women seem to be based on the fact that they were married to a prominent man. As for Wikipedia, there is a huge amount of missing information which needs to be added. It's quite an effort just to keep up with the basics for new articles. Anything you can do to help us along with all this would of course be greatly appreciated. You might also be interested in WikiProject Women in Green which is specifically designed to improve existing articles. And last but not least, you may have noticed that one of our WiR August priorities is Indigenous women, offering you an excellent opportunity to write more articles on Sami women.--Ipigott (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Review request

Sorry if this is covered elsewhere, but I have a stub ready for review. Draft:Morénike_Giwa-Onaiwu. Please let me know if I need to do this somewhere else. Thanks! Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Natalie Bueno Vasquez, add the code {{subst:submit}} (including the double curly brackets) to the top of the page, then it will be submitted for review by the Articles for Creation team. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Dodger67! Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Natalie Bueno Vasquez: I've moved the article to mainspace as it is well written and contains a number of secondary sources. As a recent editor, you may be interested in our Ten Simple Rules. We look forward to more interesting women's biographies. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Losing momentum? Part III

Just a note, and a new section since it's been so long in the other two sections: June/July were lower in number of articles created and percentage-wise in terms of biographies, but enwiki overall had the lowest number of average articles created per day since 2004 (Source). I think that's worth mentioning, although that doesn't explain the drop in percentage. It's worth mentioning that it isn't just WiR but enwiki in general. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 17:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you counting draft articles? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Frayae Nope, just going off the project metrics page and wikimedia stats page and I think they only count namespace articles, which would go with what Dodger67 brings up below. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Originalmess It's most probably due to WP:ACREQ. See the first paragraph of WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Special report. The flow of utter rubbish new "articles" has basically dried up, almost all of the remaining trickle of junk is removed at AFC before it gets to the mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment. Although the quantity of new articles appearing may have diminished, the quality has much improved. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC).
Dodger67 Oh that's excellent :D I just wanted to point out the simultaneous drop in raw numbers since it wasn't mentioned in anything I could find with a ctrl+f of the discussions above. Thanks. originalmesshow u doin that busta rhyme? 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Originalmess, Xxanthippe, and Dodger67: Well let's not be too complacent about this. While the overall drop in new articles per day from June 2017 to June 2018 for all language versions is quite considerable (14,295 to 5,588), that for the English wiki is less significant: 658 to 572. According to the WiR metrics, the number of articles on women has however dropped from 63 per day in June 2017 to 39 per day this year. I'm hoping very much that our Monthly achievement initiative will help to improve the stats for August.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
My view is that quantity is less important than quality, however I cannot quantify the latter. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

Confusion on the name of Norma Harris

For the main one See this I just created an article about an American female sprinter Norma Harris who is quite notable for competing at the 1963 Pan American Games winning a gold medal in women's 4×100m relay event. But when I went onto search about her in the Google, I couldn't able to derive much information about this old athlete and instead the search index displayed that Norma Harris is an author(After the creation of athlete Norma Harris-few changes happened in the Google search results after autopatrolling the article Norma Harris. I was a bit confused whether author Norma Harris is a notable person in her career. Can somebody think about this and help me out with this issue? Thanks. Abishe (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Abishe: It looks to me as if Norma Harris (author) might well deserve an article on Wikipedia. Her work has been reviewed in several secondary sources. But that does not prevent you from including your athlete. Thanks btw for all your new articles and your participation in our Monthly achievement initiative. I see you have now already written six biographies.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Abishe and Ipigott: I'm not sure whether an article on the writer would survive AfD: I found just one review of one of her books, and it started "As though written by a computer, this formula saga seems programmed to include every facet of Jewish experience worldwide from 1891 through WW II" and ended "The plot, doomed by stereotypes, becomes reduced to a mind-numbing blur." Though I suppose our criterion is notability, not quality! Anyway, for now I've removed the hatnote from the athlete's article at Norma Harris because we don't use hatnotes until there's a bluelinked article to point them to. Thanks for your work on new women athlete articles: 6 biogs already this month is most impressive. (Mind you, I created my contribution for WiR 88 yesterday and then realised it didn't qualify for the new monthly recognition scheme as I'd decided the woman listed in the redlist was less notable than her organisation so she only got a redirect and I didn't get a listing!) PamD 11:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott: Thanks for your recognition of my works and contributions to improve and create articles about women. Yes I understand your wordings on author Norma Harris and try my level best to create about her or not. Thanks for implementing a good initiative and I would like to contribute to WIR even further. Abishe (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Abishe: Don't bother about the author. If she's important enough, someone else will cover her.--Ipigott (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Gladys Ngetich

Gladys Ngetich, about an African engineering student in England, seems headed for deletion because of not passing academic notability. But maybe she can pass WP:GNG instead? I haven't made up my mind (hence haven't yet contributed to the AfD myself) but I think this one may be worth a second look, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of reliable sources being written about her over the past days, I've added a few, I'm sure there are more if anyone else would like to chip in.
As with many deletion discussions people are using acronyms without explaining them which is increasing the barrier to participation, I've suggested the template used on deletion discussions link to a list of commonly used acronyms, please do say if you think this is a good idea and also if you know of if this already exists please do suggest a link (or some that should be included).
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks David for bring this one to our attention.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you John that we have here an inspiring African student who merits wider attention given the news coverage she has already received. Perhaps Anthere and others involved in Africa would also like to participate in the review. I share your views on Wikipedian acronyms. I generally try to avoid them (as well as Wikispeak in general) but in connection with article deletion discussions they unfortunately seem to be firmly implanted. If seasoned editors like you find them too cryptic, just image what difficulties newbies must be experiencing! Some of the jargon is approaching the stage where we need something like Google translate to reveal it all in clear English.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ipigott, so a little update, the link to the glossary has been added but the glossary doesn't cover many of the phrases used, I made a list to be added but I'm not sure I'm covering everything needed. Are there any obviously missing? I don't usually take part in deletion discussions. John Cummings (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The updated Shorthands seems to cover all the usual acronyms. If I come across anything else, I'll try to remember to let you know. If you are baffled by the deletion discussions, you'll probably have even more difficulty in interpreting some of the stuff on the Admins noticeboard and related discussions.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Ipigott:, I did a survey of the last few weeks of article for deletion and add a whole load more in, I hope this makes things easier for people. Please do add more when you see them. John Cummings (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pasión Vega

I started on a Spanish-to-English translation of singer Pasión Vega's article a few months ago, but ran out of enthusiasm for it partway through section 1.2. Would anyone be interested in resuming work on it if I were to drop what I have into a draft? Nick Number (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Leila Stahl Buffett at AFD

Is someone who owns millions in stock considered an investor notable? Need help to find source around 1992 to 1996. When she died all her $million worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock were inherited by her children. Doris Buffett used this large inheritance to start her Sunshine Lady Foundation. SWP13 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

in this case it depends on how she acquired the "Berkshire Hathaway stocks". Did she inherited them? or was herself a businesswoman? if the latter, you need to find sources stating that this fortune was her own achievement. Elisa.rolle (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@SWP13: "Buffett’s interest in the stock market and investing dated to schoolboy days he spent in the customers’ lounge of a regional stock brokerage near his father’s own brokerage office. On a trip to New York City at age ten, he made a point to visit the New York Stock Exchange. At 11, he bought three shares of Cities Service Preferred for himself, and three for his sister Doris Buffett (founder of The Sunshine Lady Foundation)."[1] Looks as if it was Warren who was the genius. For more background see this---Ipigott (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As is well known, Warren bought Berkshire Hathaway in 1964 (when his mother was 61). His mother may have invested, or been given shares, but I'm pretty sure she was never involved further. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

>I don't care what Warren Buffett did. Leila Stahl Buffett has a center named after her. She was an editor and active in sorority at University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Women in her generation don't start a company. She made the men in her life great but the world in news or written history ignores her existence. She was very social in Washington DC when her husband was in politics. We need to find someone willing to write about her existence like a biography of wives of politicians. SWP13 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/María Sáez de Vernet

I am surprised at the tone of this discussion. María Sáez de Vernet is an acclaimed 19th-century diarist. I certainly think she deserves an article in her own right. Perhaps others could look at it, including both Rosiestep and SusunW who are something of specialists on Latin-American women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep and SusunW for commenting on the AfD. Unfortunately, the original article has now been so drastically redacted by one of the AfD contributors, that it no longer reflects the work of the diarist. Indeed, it has been reduced to the state where it could indeed be simply redirected to the article on her husband. I do not like to get involved in edit wars. Is there any way we can restore some of the content without facing more violent reaction?--Ipigott (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I had the same reaction, Ipigott she is clearly notable in her own right per two of the major newspapers in the region. There is absolutely no reason for politics to be involved in her article, as she was not a political figure, but clearly that has become an issue in the AfD. I see no possible way to avoid an edit war at this stage. When the AfD comes to a conclusion, it might be possible to protect the article and rework it. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps Drmies, one of WCM's most respected friends, could help us out?--Ipigott (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
WCM? Wee Curry Monster? Drmies (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah I see. Well, I don't know if WCM considers me a friend or worthy of respect, but I'll see. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
He mentions you on his user page. That's why I contacted you. Thanks for looking into it.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I note from Wee Curry Monster's user page that he has concentrated considerable efforts on articles relating to the Falklands War. He does not seem to appreciate that the person we are writing about had nothing to do with it. I hope other interested parties will come in and comment on the AfD. It's still not looking too good despite a number of supportive comments.--Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't love you like a brother Drmies but I do respect you. WCMemail 17:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You could have just tried talking to me? I thought my ears were burning. You seem to be of the impression she was a noted diarist in the 19th Century? Is that the case? Well that is incorrect, the diary was never published in her lifetime. It was her personal diary, which was included in her husband's papers when they were donated to the national archives. As far as I can tell it was published in Spanish in Argentina in 1946 at the time when Peron was using the Falklands as a cause celebre to whip up anti-British feeling. And when I say published, you could say it was somewhat embellished. Its had material added reflecting modern sovereignty claims that simply isn't in the original document example [2]. It's language that simply wasn't in use then.

And you are making presumptions about my motivations and areas of interest. My focus is on Falklands history from discovery till the 20th Century but my specialism is the Vernet period. If you're researching in this area you learn to be very wary about claims made in some Argentine works, particularly those of the Revisionismo movement. See [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

I can expand on this if you desire. It appears to me that your comments are based on the assumption she was notable in the 19th Century in her own right as a diarist. I am sorry to have to inform you that you're simply mistaken. Her diary has been used and abused in the 20th Century for political purposes connected with the Argentine sovereignty claim to the Falkland Islands. Its also used in certain national myths e.g. the claim her daughter Matilde was the first child born in the islands, which is simply untrue.

I'm happy to work with anyone in this subject area but I do not respond well to accusations of bad faith. WCMemail 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I was incorrect, it was first published in 1989. [9]. 1946 refers to this work [10]. WCMemail 17:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear WCM, Am I not talking to you now? I have tried to talk to you on the AfD discussion and have pinged you here. I have never accused you of bad faith, only of misunderstanding. On WiR, we try to cover women who have made an important contribution to literature and history. It is quite immaterial that her diaries were not published until recently. What is important is that here is a women who was not not recognized in her day but who has now become significant for her contributions to 19th century history. Whether you agree with her accounts is not important. She deserves recognition in her own right and not just as a "spouse". I hope you will reconsider your attitude in the light of some of the comments made at AfD. If so, we would be happy to work with an expert on the Falkland Islands.--Ipigott (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Point me to a contribution concerning 19th Century history. That is actual history not modern politics. WCMemail 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
[11] This may help. WCMemail 17:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wee Curry Monster: The headings are not important. The contents of the diary are significant in their own right. I hope you can come to grips with what we are doing at WiR—not politics but the history of women and their achievements. Their contributions have tended to be swept under the carpet. Now they need to be recognized.--Ipigott (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh please, this is not misogyny denying women their true place in history. Look at the actual content of this diary you contend makes this woman so important in historical terms.
This is her significant contribution to history - that there are strong winds in the Falklands. If you're really interested in woman who made a contribution to history then you'd be interested in people like Antonina Roxa or perhaps Carmelita Simon; these were strong women who did make a contribution to Falkland history. Yet they are being ignored or wiped from the historical narrative because they are inconvenient for modern political narratives.
I asked you simply to point to something this person did that made a contribution to 19th Century history and you can't name one single thing. That speaks volumes. WCMemail 21:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually I read part of the diary on that link and there are interesting parts, like when she discuss about the free black people working the plantation, or gives details about historical people she met. This is the importance of diaries, decepting the daily life of people from the perspective of a contemporary writer. Anyway, I don't understand the comment like, write about THESE women, instead of these other women... instead of focusing on deleting an article, why instead not writing about these women you care about? Antonina Roxa has a wiki article, but Carmelita Simon does not. My two cents, I would prefer a wikipedia with all three women, instead of one with only Roza. Elisa.rolle (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you want to take a guess who wrote the Roxa article? I've struggled to find information on Carmelita, since as one of Vernet's slaves there isn't an awful lot out there.
And the black people weren't free, they were slaves. Vernet took slaves to the islands, one of whom was Carmelita.
I suggest deleting this article because she's non-notable, she doesn't meet WP:GNG and this project translated verbatim an appallingly biased articke. You can't tell me what she's notable for, all you can provide is platitudes that I'm somehow diminishing the historical contribution of women. Give me an example of one notable fact that is down to this woman's diary. I wrote a diary growing up in Glasgow, does that somehow make me notable? WCMemail 22:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Nick Number#María Sáez de Vernet Nice, lovely to see people assuming good faith Drmies and I quote "I'm not sure I want to continue dealing with it after having my good faith and translation skills called into question by people who are still busy fighting the Falklands War." WCMemail 22:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

WCM - I don't have a stake in this, but wouldn't it make more sense to cover this controversy in the article (so people who hear about her diaries can assess their credibility as a historical source, as they appear to be reasonably well-known in the area) as opposed to deleting it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
You have to separate the individual from the myths created around them. Honestly if you remove the hyperbole around this person there is little of note. An article on how historical documents and figures have been misrepresented has merit but not about the individuals themselves. This has been handled very badly by this project, a verbatim translation of the es.wikipedia article, with all the attendant failings of the original, followed up by a presumption of bad faith when it was nominated for deletion has been counter productive. It seems like the concerted lobbying will win out but an article that improves the project is not going to result. WCMemail 23:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This edit appears to remove a lot of useful content, including a further reading section, not sure why so much was removed. John Cummings (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Because the content was sourced to WP:SPS and some of it was actually sourced to works of historical fiction. E.g.
Is actually sourced from:

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

Its not actually in the diary, though you will find it on the online version properly attributed to the fictional work. Are fictional sources acceptable?
Other material is source to El Malvinense [12], historically the author and his friends were banned permanently from wikipedia since around 2007. The material is entirely self-published and presents a strong nationalist POV. WCMemail 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Works of fiction, properly marked as such, are entirely suitable content for "additional reading" sections. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
One of the quotes in the article was a direct quote from a work of fiction. I removed content from the article that was entirely fictional dressed up as historic fact. WCMemail 01:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Again the question, point me to a contribution concerning 19th Century history made by this individual. That is actual history not modern politics. I keep asking but I don't get an answer. WCMemail 07:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Medalist at Paralympic games

Women who won gold, silver or bronze medal at Paralympic games are automatically notable, right? I need to clear this because I am about creating a couple of them. There are numerous independent sources covering these women, not just enough for GNG.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes the WP:NOLY SNG says Paralympic medallists are presumed to be notable. Please note that there is no such thing as "automatically notable". All an SNG can do is state a case for a presumption of notability, an as a presumption it is of course subject to rebuttal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
For info, here's a recent(ish) discussion about Paralympic athletes and WP:NOLY. I think medal winners should be fine, but best to have other sources to fall back on, incase someone goes on an AfD spree. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Women's categories on Wikidata

Over the past few days, I have been informed that many of the women's categories I have created over the years have now become Wikidata items. The most recent have been Category:Bangladeshi women scientists (Q55949479), Category:Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University alumni (Q55949451), Category:Bangladeshi nuclear medicine physicians (Q55949461), Category:Women in the Danish military (Q55945749). I see that the additions are being carried our by a bot developed by Wikidata user GZWDer. As I am being informed systematically that this is going on, am I expected to do anything more? I must say I am intrigued to see our categories on Wikidata as I cannot understand what their function is there. Can anyone provide any background? Perhaps Rosiestep or Jane023?--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing mysterious. It has to do with the oldest function of Wikidata, namely to create interwiki links. Since you created the categories, you are probably just noticing them, but Wikidata has items for all categories, many of which have interwiki links. Currently these items don't really add any value to Wikidata except in those cases where the category (often for important creators such as writers, musicians or other artists) can then interwikilink to Commons. Jane (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jane. I add categories all the time but I've only been receiving Wikidata notifications for the past two or three days. As far as I can gather, then, no further information needs to be added on them. As you know, many of the EN women's categories are non-diffusing but there is no slot for this on Wikidata.--Ipigott (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm yes you might want to turn those notifications off. I noticed my watchlist changed on all projects, but I haven't started receiving notifications like this (yet) on enwiki. I did receive some notifications from Commons that a few of my Commons categories were added to Wikidata, and maybe this is what you are seeing. It is possible if some of those categories are also on Commons. Mike Peel implemented on Commons the Wikidata infobox for categories and it has really improved multi-lingual image search. Just a thought. Jane (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not just women's categories, I've been getting a trickle of similar notifications about a random assortment of categories I created. Maybe it's just an infrequently-run bot? – Joe (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a ton of these noitifcations recently for the same reason, and I simpy unticked the box in my preferences. Nothing to worry about. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Article has recently expanded and is the subject of a lot of controversy, especially on its talk page (which has spilled over into ANI). The eyes/input of neutral, experienced, policy-knowledgeable Wikipedians would be welcome. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The article could also use some more content, to prevent the recent controversy blip from dominating the text (and thus violating WP:UNDUE). Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am intrigued by all the work on this article since the beginning of August. Has she suddenly hit the headlines?--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ipigott: You could say that. :-) One of many articles on the subject over the past week or so. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 12:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets in the wiki article: [13]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Women in Iceland

Could someone please help fix Draft:Women in Iceland. The article has content and references, it needs someone with experience in similar articles to adjust the tone. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Frayae: This looks to me like a really good article. I do not agree that is reads like an essay. It does nevertheless need some attention. I'll see what I can do.--Ipigott (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Frayae: I've spent quite a bit of time trying to tidy it up but the figures on the pay gap are still pretty confusing. You should go through it all again carefully, explaining more clearly the variations (if indeed they are important) or simply providing an overview of the main trends. I've also been reading the Icelandic Kvenréttindi á Íslandi which might help you to provide more background and draw on other sources. Let me know when you think the article is ready for mainspace and I'll take another look.--Ipigott (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I've also been working on articles on subjects like this where the first sentence cannot just be name of subject is a .... Does anyone know of any guidelines where article can't really start with a definition? I wonder if any of these will be helpful; Women in India, Women in Islam, Women in the workforce, Women in science, Women in government, Women in China. Thanks John Cummings (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The bolding is a Manual of Style guideline which goes on to say "These applications of boldface are done in the majority of articles, but are not a requirement." I seem to remember a recent discussion (but I have no idea where) where no one could remember how the practice arose but it seemed quite a good idea though not very crucial. Any bolding certainly doesn't have to be in the first sentence but is very often somewhere in the lede, particularly the first paragraph. There is no technical need and I've occasionally seen bold paraphrases of the title. Thincat (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
My understanding is that unless the title itself (or a natural redirect target) appears in the lead, one should leave it unbolded rather than making efforts to find and embolden something vaguely related. It is not a requirement that there be bold in the lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The most recent AFC reviewer's comments should not be taken as in any way authoritative (or even helpful). They have recently withdrawn from reviewing and maybe it's best just to draw a veil here. Thincat (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to accept it as-is, but I can't do it without a resubmit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the contradictory paraphrasing of gender pay gap figures and boldly moved it to the main article area. As this counts as a new article I took it to DYK as well. Template:Did you know nominations/Women in Iceland. The article can be improved further, but this takes time and DYK won't wait because of it's threshold. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_46"