Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 68

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Wikidata - September 2019

Wikidata redlist not updating

Hi all. The redlist for women with the most sitelinks across Wikimedia projects won't update when I try to refresh it. Whenever I try to update it the Listeria page says "Status:no items". It looks like the bot hasn't been able to update it since July. Does anyone know what's going on? Mcampany (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed The query was timing out. I modified it slightly and it updates correctly now. --MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Mcampany (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata list of Women in Red events & redlists

Kudos to Tagishsimon for what they have done so far. Eventually, after all these items are created, we will tap into the 24 other language versions of Women in Red and have them add their redlists and their events into Wikidata. Some have started doing it already, e.g. annual Art+Feminism events, AfroCROWD redlists, the recent Interwiki Collaboration event... but mostly, not. Ultimately, this will help with promoting our events, plus it will encourage international collaboration and coordination. There is still a lot of work to do, pagestalkers, (see below) and we can use extra hands plus extra thoughts on how to improve on this idea. P.S. Why I mentioned Open Refine is because Gamaliel has mentioned that tool, but I'm clueless how to use it. I might have used petscan and/or quickstatements, but I don't for sure. I could really use a tutorial. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata list of events

I think someone started creating items in Wikidata for each of our events. Was that Tagishsimon or perhaps someone else? I'd like to know where we are with this task as I'd be glad to add the ones which aren't in there yet. I couldn't find a Listeria list showing which events are in Wikidata, and which ones aren't, ergo the question. Also curious if you used Open Refine or something else for the upload. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: after you've created the items, I'd be happy to help with adding what Type of event (e.g. geography, occupation, etc.), plus whom we collaborated with if applicable; plus time period (e.g. September 1 - September 30, 2019). If you state which P numbers to use, I can add that info after you do the heavy lifting of creating the items.

We also need an en.wiki page with the Wikidata spreadsheet depicting all the events, including the sortable columns for Type, Start date, End date, etc. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to do events, make sure to use on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) for tagging the items :) Sadads (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata list of redlists: I added redlists, iirc - https://w.wiki/7$V but it looks like events have not been added. Can probably do that in the next day or two. I used (probably) petscan and quickstatements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: thanks for creating Wikidata items for the many redlists. I would like to add info into each of these Wikidata items. For example, for d:Q65183083, I'd like to add the Type of redlist (in this case, authority control identifier), plus the specific authority control identifier (in this case, Base Léonore). But I don't know which P numbers to use. If you could add that info into this item, I can do the others. We have many other Types of redlists (occupation, geography, dictionary, special focus area, education institution, time period, awards, works (see our current "Crowd-Sourced Redlist Index"). Each of these "Types of redlists" have several items in them and I'd be glad to do this Wikidata work if you could help me with P numbers, and so forth.

Could you also please create an en.wiki page with the Wikidata spreadsheet depicting all the redlists; something that is sortable. I'm thinking this means that each of the Wikidata items will need to be renamed with something shorter; do you agree? I can do it. Just want to make sure this is correct. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Neuroscience twitter wikipedia / wikidata campaign

There seems to be a fair head of steam building around a proposal for 'an informal group dedicated to creating @Wikipedia pages for most notable women in neuroscience' - https://twitter.com/chrisgorgo/status/1169697861811892224 fwiw. To that end we have a new redlist - Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Neuroscientists. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Tagishsimon. Excellent initiative. There does indeed seem to be great enthusiasm on Twitter. Let's hope it will lead to concrete progress on Wikipedia, including perhaps some new members of Women in Red. It will be interesting to see how Category:Women neuroscientists by nationality evolves, especially for those in non English-speaking countries. Our focus on STEM in October offers a good opportunity to get started. When I find time, I'll try to put together a List of women neuroscientists.--Ipigott (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rose Henderson fictional character on the TV series "Lost" has no article

Rose Henderson was a fictional character on the TV series "Lost" and has no article, yet there are numerous links from that name to the Canadian political activist Rose Henderson (1871 - 1937). Anyone wanna take that on? I've got ZERO experience writing about TV characters. If no one takes this on in the near future, I'll remove the incorrect links. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

They should be corrected to point to Rose and Bernard Nadler. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant and elegant solution ONUnicorn! Thank you. That sound you hear is my hand slapping my forehead :) Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

But her birth-name "Henderson" perhaps needs to appear in lead and/or infobox: at present it's only in 2nd sentence of "Arc". PamD 04:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I'd have used a separate redirect, either Rose Henderson (Lost) or Rose Nadler. That way if anyone decided in future to split the article into Ruth and Bernard articles, she's there. And can be added to surname list for Henderson. But I see you've already done what works fine, including the all-important hatnote in the politician's article. Thanks. PamD

Might fix those red redirects when I'm not on phone! PamD 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, now made both those redirects, and added Henderson to Rose and Bernard Nadler - though the only way to include a character's change of name in the infobox seems to be to call it an "alias", not ideal! PamD 06:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, was editing too early in morning. Forget "Ruth". Have made redirect from Rose Henderson (Lost). Rose Nadler already existed as redirect. PamD 06:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Articles about women on Wikipedia that have had the most disputes (the more notable the better)

Which articles about women on Wikipedia have had the most disputes (the more notable the better)? A journalist is asking this question as part of a broader interview about Women in Red. I remember the dispute around Katie Bouman. Who else comes to mind? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Donna Strickland, surely? That was a big one. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really - after she got the Nobel there was no "dispute", just an inquest, & before it was pretty low key. The big ones are probably over singers - Madonna (22 talk archives) had loads of low-level stuff - mind you, the other Madonna has generated quite a lot. Also politicians - I'd bet Hilary Clinton (48 archives) saw a lot - even the name was controversial. Look for big talk archives, or ask User:Iridescent, who knows everything. In true WP style, nobody was very bothered about the content of Sarah Jane Brown (who?), but what to call the article caused enormous rows until the present title left everybody unhappy. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log are probably a good place to start. GMG ^talk 16:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Though the only ones I could see, back to 2010, were for Ayn Rand (50 talk archives). One couldn't say that bios of women are in fact a big area for disputes, probably apart from Gamergate. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're looking in the right place? (e.g., Ashley Bratcher, Abby Johnson (activist), Lila Rose, Kamala Harris, Candace Owens, Rachel Marsden) GMG ^talk 16:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I was just looking at the headers - these are just pages affected by eg abortion disputes. Take a look at Ashley Bratcher & her talk - I don't call any of that a dispute. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Clarice Phelps has a history. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

UK politician Diane Abbott probably sees a lot of vandalism (am on phone, not easy to check), though not serious dispute. PamD 16:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by "dispute"; those articles with long talk archives are often just discussions about which image to use in the lead or similar, rather than anything particularly contentious. If you're after actual "do we include this incident and how much weight do we give it?" controversy, it would probably be either Hillary Clinton or Margaret Thatcher, (with Sarah Jane Brown getting an honourable mention as the undisputed winner of "most words expended arguing about a page hardly anyone ever reads"). If you don't mind opening a can of worms over whether "articles about trans women who are only notable for things they did pre-transition" qualify, then the undoubted champion both for quantity and vitriol of arguments is without a doubt going to be Talk:Chelsea Manning. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a quick look through the first pages of what links to Template:controversial does not produce many women not mentioned above (not that many men either), except for Rachel Corrie and Pia Kjærsgaard (who doesn't seem to need it - oh, added by a bot in 2012, I've now removed). Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In this general context, I think it would be only fair to mention all the articles created in good faith by enthusiastic new contributors which have led to disputes often triggered by minor copy violations. Unfortunately, for most of us these articles are no longer accessible as they have been deleted. Some remained in draft for a time but as no one picked them up they too were deleted. The way in which these editors were treated by those monitoring their work has had serious repercussions on the number of new women's biographies created by members of Women in Red.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

How's that now? Surely exactly the same could be said about an enthusiastic new user trying to fill in the gaps on racehorses, 19th-century oil paintings, or pro boxing. Or are you trying to suggest that there's something specific to Women in Red members that make them more prone to commit copyright violations than others, in which case there is a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, or that WiR participants should somehow be exempted from complying with copyright law? ‑ Iridescent 06:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there a way to see a list of articles with a WiR banner which have been sent to draft? (Yes, some editors won't have added a WiR banner, so it won't be possible to identify all relevant articles.) PamD 07:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

PamD: Yes, you can use PetScan to get a list of pages in the Draft talk namespace with a link to WiR. --MarioGom (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger. It gets a lot of traffic by editors pushing undue emphasis on eugenics.Fred (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning was a long-running and notable dispute that got quite a bit of negative press for Wikipedia due to insistence on misgendering her for years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 15:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Re "years", a look at the article & the helpful list of move discussions on the talk shows that the final move on 1 October 2013 was some five weeks after her spokesman's first declaration & request to use "Chelsea", on 22 August, & predated her legal name change by several months! Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether the OP question here is about female article-creators or articles about women, whose very existence might be seen to trigger disputes. I have had to deal with lengthy disputes on (1) William Swinden Barber (see its talk page), not about a woman, but for which the only portrait available is a rather fey one; (2) Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick which was the subject of an AfD discussion triggered within a day of its creation (discussion now closed in favour of keep), and currently (3) Kate Dover (see discussion on this page).

Each of those three discussions - or disputes if you like - was triggered by a single objector with very strong views, maintained only by that objector, and in all three cases a tedious distraction from normal work on WP. I think one of the problems we have here is that if a dispute is started by someone who just doesn't like something and refuses to let go of it, that their behaviour is not necessarily for the benefit of WP and its readership. Both of the latter objectors wanted to delete the female biographies on grounds of notability - but they were Victorian female murderers (one strongly suspected and therefore a mystery), for goodness sake - that's got to be potentially a good story.

My created articles are frequently about 19th century people in an era when women could expect to be sidelined. Often, if their own work was claimed as their husband's or employer's success, they could not expect to be mentioned in his obituary except maybe as his wife or admin assistant. 19th century vicars' wives who worked full-time in parochial work for free while their paid husbands got credit and promotion for the work of both of them are a common example of this. Kate Dover was apparently very skilled in drawing flowers. Her employer/lover was producing etchings - including flower designs - to be mass-produced on knife blades. Yet if she did contribute to that design work, her contribution will never be mentioned. Her employer's (Thomas Skinner's) article has to credit him alone with the work. If we tried to imply that Kate Dover could have contributed to his success in his last year or so, that would WP:OR and not allowed.

I do feel that biographies of 19th century women, or any women living in a time and place where they are automatically sidelined and most work credit given to men, should be permitted a gentler approach than the standard approach currently applied to the notability of all biographies. Or if you want to be fair - then let's change it to a gentler approach to all biographies in respect of notability. If we don't do that, biographies of women who have lived in a sidelining environment will always be in the minority on WP because they can be sidelined yet again by AfD notices. Thank you for reading this. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

How has Zoë Quinn not been mentioned yet? See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

David's comment made me think of Anita Sarkeesian. Fred (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata Humans and Gender Data Tools

There's a new ticket on phab entitled "Wikidata Humans and Gender Data Tools" which, as I understand it, is a couple of developers inviting a discussion of what will likely turn out to be the future wikimedia bias measurement tool: "Tools like Wikidata Human Gender Indicators[1] and Denelezh[2] and Wikidata Cultural Observatory[3] display data about Wikidata's human coverage, but do they do provide exactly what anti-bias communities want? What new features, tools or maintenance could we build to help these "countering systemic bias" projects succeed?" I hope folk here will have a good hard think & provide some input. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting development. There's some relevant background in 'Anyone can edit', not everyone does: Wikipedia's infrastructure and the gender gap. Various papers have mentioned the generally higher quality of biographies on women but as far as I know there has been no large-scale appraisal of the difference between the biographies of men and women. Maybe ORES could be used in this connection. There could also be further work on the comparative lack of reliable sources for compiling women's biographies. Generally speaking, in recent years less attention has been given to Wikipedia's gender gap in research papers. It would be useful to have a new round of contributions. Maybe WiR could put it forward as a priority?--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

18%!

I see that we just hit 18% for En Wiki women bios. Well done! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats to all! Time to celebrate! --Rosiestep (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. This is great news. SL93 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks mainly to Missvain who moved a huge number of drafts to mainspace, last week there were 1,119 new women's biographies out of a total of 2,412. As a result, 46.39% of the new biographies were on women. I believe this is the highest monthly percentage ever reached. Lugnuts added literally hundreds of stubs on women in sports while David Eppstein created an impressive number of new articles on mathematicians. Jevansen (not yet a member of WiR) created lots of bios on tennis players. Other editors were keen to contribute to our Military History and Writers priorities as well as to 1day1woman. All in all, an extremely good week.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yay! Seems we have been striving for this marker for a long time. On to 19. Good work everyone. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say (aside from AMAZING JOB EVERYONE). Missvain (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

So amazing to think that when I started working to improve coverage around women-focused content, women's biographies comprised 9%. So this is a landmark for us!! Missvain (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Really, when was that? I'm not aware they were ever that low. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

9%??? I know it was 15% when our wikiproject started. But 9?? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the 9% figure comes from the 9% female editors that WMF found in their 2011 census? Speculating here, but I don't think the biography percentage has ever been that low. Enwebb (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I wondered that - the two are quite often confused. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the first assessment of the percentage of women's biographies in the English Wikipedia was reported in Women through the glass ceiling: gender (1 March 2016) as follows: "The English edition contains the largest number of biographies with gender information (893,380), while the Basque edition (eu) contains the lowest number of biographies (3,449). In terms of representation of women, 15.5% of biographies in the English edition are about women." This article draws on figures published on 2 June 2015 in First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia. Since Women in Red was launched in July 2015, some 174,000 of the current 298,376 women's biographies have been created, i.e. well over half.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - just for the record, the paper gives its relevant source as a WP dump of October 2014. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a useful detail. In future, when we are calculating progress on WiR for the EN wiki, we can start with 15.53% in October 2014 when ca. 138,742 of the 893,380 biographies were about women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Great achievement!! Pats on the back all round!! Just out of curiosity, how is this figure calculated? It's not only from articles that have WiR tags on their talk page, is it - it must be also other articles? What if an article about a woman isn't tagged for WikiProject Women (or similar), will it still be counted? MurielMary (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@MurielMary: The counts are based on wikidata records which have values for human, and a gender; and a sitelink to the en wiki article. All sorts of people & bots work to ensure that all en wiki biogs are linked to a suitably coded wikidata item; the statistic is IMO accurate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

And one of the people who has worked hard to ensure as many women's biographies as possible are correctly reflected in Wikidata is Tagishsimon himself. He's been doing a great job. The only remaining problem seems to be bios incorrectly tagged female or male, often as a result of mistaken categorization on Wikipedia. People are often misled by the first name, for example Jean is a man's name in French and many Italian male first names end in A: Andrea, Mattia, Luca. There's also Sasha and Musa. Then there are a whole series of first names that can be used with either men or women: Alex, Andy, Charlie, Chris, Frankie, Hyacinth, Jamie, Leslie, Sandy, Vivian and many more (see Unisex name). Not surprisingly, quite a number of Japanese and Chinese people are given the wrong gender. We need to be careful with all of these.--Ipigott (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I've never created a Wikidata item and I've created probably 500+ biographies and also moved other editors' articles into mainspace through the Articles for Creation process. Should I be checking that they have Wikidata items or do the bots do a good enough job of this? For example I just moved Dolores M. Koch into mainspace and see that it doesn't have a Wikidata item attached to it (nothing in the right hand menu list for Wikidata). MurielMary (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

MurielMary: Kock does in fact have a Wikidata entry - and it was updated shortly after you moved the article to mainspace. Many editors steer clear of Wikidata as they find it difficult to edit. The so-called gadget makes it much easier to add and update entries. If you are seriously interested in adding info to Wikidata, I recommend you add it to your profile in accordance with the instructions given. But don't worry if you prefer just to stick to Wikipedia. Nearly all new biographies are added to Wikidata without delay.--Ipigott (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In the news: Karin Dahlman-Wright

There is a Swedish but not an English article on Karin Dahlman-Wright [sv]. She's been in the news recently as resigning from vice-presidency of the Karolinska [1]. I prefer not to scandal-monger, but I think even before this she was notable. So if someone wants to try handling this gracefully... —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

She would definitely pass WP:Prof on basis of citations in GS, so there will be no problem with AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

In view of the explanations given here, I would suggest this is not the best time to cover her on the EN wiki. A less controversial figure from the Karolinska is Maria Albin [sv]. See [2] and [3]. She seems to have been behind a number of interesting studies.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not refrain from writing about people because they are controversial: quite the reverse. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Very true, but there is a certain contradiction between this and your comment 2 sections up. Just saying. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

What contradiction? Please explain. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

Mid-September featured picture report

New FPs (Spot the Woman in Red)
Emily J. Harding Andrews' "Convicts, Lunatics, and Women!"
Queen Lili'uokalani
Princesses Sikhanyiso Dlamini and Temtsimba Dlamini

Current featured picture candidates
Drum Major Kady Miller
Rosa Parks
Fredrikke Mørck
Gina Krog

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 23:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia women

Emna Mizouni, Wikimedian of the Year 2019

It's good to see that once again a woman, Emna Mizouni from Tunisia - user name Emnamizouni - has been selected as Wikimedian of the Year.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats, well deserved. Good to see its an African too :). HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There's an article: Wikimedian of the Year. PamD 10:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

But Emna Mizouni is currently only a redirect to that article/list. PamD 10:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I looked for press reports and other secondary sources but did not find much, only [4], [5]. Perhaps reports will emerge over the next few days. I'm not at all sure whether being honoured as Wikipedian of the Year is sufficiently notable for an article. She actually spells her name with an accent: Émna Mizouni. In Arabic آمنة الميزوني.--Ipigott (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, thanks for your greetings, I'm an African Woman that only spells her name with accent on Social Media accounts; but my name is Emna Mizouni and the Arabic translation you used is right آمنة الميزوني. For the media sources you found, it's interesting that only those two links were visible to you! Ipigott I'm always and forever supporter to Women In Red.Emnamizouni (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And Women in Red is always and forever your supporter, Emnamizouni! Thanks for being such a great role model and advocate for social change! --Rosiestep (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that Emna has today become a member of Women in Red. She intends to write about Tunisian women. I'm sure we all look forward to seeing her contributions.--Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Maria Sefidari, Chair of WMF Board

Maria Sefidari has biographies in three other languages, but not here. I created a stub two weeks ago, but it was speedy deleted as "not notable". The admin was kind enough to put it in my userspace to work on. I think it is ready to go, but it would be nice if someone else looked it over. I don't want it to be speedy deleted again. It is still brief and could benefit from someone who can read Spanish to add more detail from Spanish sources. The biography is at User:Bitter Oil/María Sefidari. Thanks. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a strong prejudice against having articles on Wikipedians that I think you're running into here. The draft in its present state looks maybe on the positive side of notability, but borderline, to me. It would help to have a much more solid case for notability before putting it up, in order to overcome that prejudice. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The only notability I can see is that associated with the FRAM case, but that would be WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: I'm not sure I understand that comment. Can you explain what you're talking about? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:BLP1E page. Since you press the matter, I add my concern that a BLP may be used as an WP:attack page over the FRAM case/scandal. Eppstein has given good advice that could be followed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

A woman who is the Chair of a major and extremely well-known charitable organization is only known for being vaguely associated with an internal political squabble that no one outside of Wikipedia knows or cares about? Are you joking? Bitter Oil (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability exists only within the Wikipedia universe, and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC).

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia is not being used as a source. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The only case for notability that I can see is if mainstream media were to start writing about the FRAM scandal. That would take it outside the Wikipedia Universe. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying now. And I still disagree. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I've added a bit more that should help it avoid being speedy deleted. I am hopeful that a Spanish speaking editor will expand it using Spanish sources. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I translated a few bits from the Spanish article. Nick Number (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! Bitter Oil (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment. María Sefidari has been transferred to mainspace. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Pre-event Survey for WikiWomenCamp 2020

Some of you may be interested in completing this Pre-event Survey for WikiWomenCamp 2020. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Blue Book of Iowa Women

I thought that this 1914 book of women from Iowa might be useful for articles - https://archive.org/details/bluebookofiowawo00reev. I created Emily Calkins Stebbins because of her entry in the book (I know that there is a template for Newspapers.com clippings, but I can't find it again). SL93 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all the Saami articles many of you contribute to

I would really thank all of you for the wonderful articles you created last month and the year before for the indigenous women part of the project and in general. The Saami ones have all been listed on the Northern Saami Wikipedia's Facebook page and many of the people have been tagged in them and even liked them. In addition, I have been told a number of times at various places during the summer how marvellous and how important it is that these articles are in the English Wikipedia and that hopefully they will spread to other language versions too. The redlink list I have had up forever is also starting to be more blue than red, which is a welcome change. So again, thank you so much! -Yupik (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: there will be an indigenous conference at the University of Helsinki in a couple weeks where some of the people in the new articles will be presenting, so we'll try to get some good photos of them! -Yupik (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have a chance, it might not be a terrible idea to ask for photos, explaining photo releases and making it clear that the photographer has to be the one to release in most cases. I'd love to up our coverage of Saami women at Featured pictures as well as article-wise, as Featured pictures is an easy route to the main page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 23:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've tried that before, but I'm either really bad at explaining photo releases and licenses or they just don't see the need. I've even tried saying that they'd have a much better photo in Wikipedia if we didn't take them at events, but still no one takes us up on the offer. -Yupik (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The situation in Norway is better though. So for example, the Norwegian Sámi Association and the Sami Parliament of Norway have released their photos under a license that we can have them in Commons. I'm not sure if you can use any of the photos for FP, but there should be some there since a lot of them are professional photos. -Yupik (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yupik. Are there any more Saami women writers who don't have articles in English? I'm particularly interested in non-BLPs. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Rosiestep: I have tried to cover all those categorized as Sami writers in the other languages but there are quite a few more on Yupik's redlist. For non-BLPs, there's the Norwegian poet and translator Anna Jacobsen (1924–2004) and the Finnish translator Helvi Poutasuo (1943–2017). Living Samis include the Swedish religion researcher Louise Bäckman (born 1926), the Norwegian writer Inga Ravna Eira (born 1948), the Russian Sami poet Elvira Galkina (born 1965), the Finnish novelist Rauni Manninen (born 1946) (https://snl.no/Rauni_Manninen), the Swedish children's writer Madeleine Renhuvud (born 1968), the Swedish journalist and writer Maj-Lis Skaltje (born 1940), and the Norwegian poet and children's writer Ristin Sokki (born 1954). Hope this helps. Unless you cover them all, I might create a few myself once I have finished working on Danish resistance fighters for Milhist.--Ipigott (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott, for this list. I translated the non-BLP articles for Anna Jacobsen and Helvi Poutasuo. Regarding the others -some of whom are quite interesting- I'll follow-up as time permits. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ipigott, from me too! I've been pretty much awol writing up grant applications and all of this, so I really appreciate you taking this task on. And thank you, Rosiestep, for creating those articles! -Yupik (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a really interesting contribution you made for GLAM, Yupik. While I'm here, I have noticed that there are many short biographies with photographs on Sami politicians, particularly the ones from Norway. Unfortunately, apart from Sami language coverage which I cannot read, they don't seem to be backed up by secondary sources. Maybe one of these days you could look into them and perhaps expand some of their articles with more sources. You could then let us know which ones you think should be covered in English.--Ipigott (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Translating Women conference in London at the end of October

If anyone is in town and interested in attending this conference, it's being held at the Institute of Modern Languages Research in London (UK) on October 31 and November 1, 2019. Potential to find a lot of new BLPs! -Yupik (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

For people with more permanent access to London or Nottingham, there's a series of these too. -Yupik (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this news. Translators do not have the coverage they deserve on Wikipedia. As we are focusing on writers at the moment, we could make a start on Annie McDermott [6], [7] (currently a redirect). Then there's Rosalind Harvey [8], Aviya Kushner [9], maybe also Eva Moreda [10], Anna Menyhért [11], Margaret Carson [12], Muireann Maguire [13], and Monica Manolachi [14].--Ipigott (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Collaborations

Interwiki Women Collaboration

Today, I was informed about m:Interwiki Women Collaboration, a cross-wikis and cross-languages campaign. The event runs August 20 - September 20, 2019. Although our August events are almost over, and our September schedule is already fixed, I'm reticent to say that English Wikipedia is too busy with other things to participate on such short notice. So what I will do is donate our September articles to the campaign on meta. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a sign of good faith collaboration. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As it was apparently announced at Wikimania, it is really strange that no one brought it to our attention until now, especially as the WiR logo is displayed on their main page. Given the completely blank results page, it looks as if we are not the only ones to learn about it so late. I see that up to now, there are only nine participants, none of whom appears to be active on the EN wiki. I fully support your idea of donating our September articles, Rosie. They should provide a good basis for extensions into the many other languages they are covering. I see that in this connection, you have created WIR #136 but it does not yet appear in our template. Are you thinking of creating a WIR-136 tag for the talk pages of all the September articles or should we do that individually? It might be a good way of indicating our personal support. Anyone interested can of course join the initiative and list the articles they create in any language on their Meta site.--Ipigott (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Ipigott, thanks for your interest. #136 is in the template as an event we support; please look/search again. This is the "outcomes" subpage where participants add articles. The "results" subpage will be used by the coordinators after the event. I added the Women in Red logo yesterday after I became aware of the campaign, and donating our articles seemed like a good way to go for 2019; we can do things differently in 2020. That said, if any editors want to contribute articles themselves, they could do so in an English section on this subpage -- any articles created since August 20th could be added. m:WikiWomen's User Group may get involved, too, but that discussion would happen on that talkpage. Truly, there is a lot going on, and we need a better way of collaborating. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Greetings from Milhist!

Hello, all! I'm here to inquire about the possibility of coordinating a milhist drive in the spring with the Women in Red Wikiproject. The proposal is located here, if you'd like more information. Note that at this time nothing is set in stone, I'm merely attempting to get a feel for how much interest there would be for a spring drive and if there is enough to move forward where should the effort be concentrated since as we all know getting people to work on drive related events is difficult at best :) Drop me a line if you have any questions, and if there is interested from this project's members in a cross project drive we'll keep you informed of the developments (if any) at MILHIST. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

TomStar81: Perhaps you are not aware of our September drive in collaboration with Milhist as suggested by Peacemaker67. I see it is now posted on your project site as "Backlog Banzai". See also Women in military history. Let's see how this goes before we plan anything for the spring.--Ipigott (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: do you know any people who might be interested in working on the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) article with me? I think we can get it to GA. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: No names of editors interested in WASPS in general come to mind instantaneously, unfortunately. There are short lists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Military (our biography task force page), Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force where editors who once subscribed to specific task forces have listed their particular interests, you may be able to find some help there. As for the GA push, Peacemaker67, Ian Rose, Sturmvogel66, Hawkeye7, and Gog the Mild may be in a position to help with the GA push since these editors tend to the most content driven (and have the awards to prove it:) Hope that helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: thanks for the suggestions! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red collaboration with The National Library in Norway and Oslo Metropolitan University

This news may interest some of you, with a thank you to Astrid Carlsen (WMNO). --Rosiestep (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur :) Astrid Carlsen (WMNO) this is great news! SusunW (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed an interesting and well focused development. As it looks as if the new articles will be in Norwegian, it would be useful for us to receive accounts of progress as many of the women to be covered will no doubt deserve articles in English too. Perhaps you have a project page where we can monitor progress?--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Astrid Carlsen (WMNO), are these articles being tagged on Wikidata (e.g. d:P5008 "on focus list of Wikimedia project" or something else) so that we can create a Wikidata redlist specific to the wiki work being done at the Norwegian National Library and/or Oslo Metropolitan University? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a bit about this on Facebook. -Yupik (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Betty Corwin

Newly created article on a theater archivist. Expansion efforts welcome.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to Biografer and WomenArtistUpdates who did some beautiful work on this article!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Initially, I had the idea to create it, but somebody beat me to it. I'm not upset though since I had written couple of articles on deceased notables and writing one now.--Biografer (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sports, sports, sports (Aug-Sep 2019)

July+August sports editathon

Photo of Sophie Luff, cricketer, uploaded in August

Photo of Tayla Vlaeminck, cricketer, uploaded in July

So far, our sports editathon has yielded 1,033 new articles in August, plus 556 new articles in July! So thanks to everyone who has been contributing articles for this event, and here's to making "sports" be Women in Red's 2020 year-long focus!

Final outcomes for our Sports editathon: July = 556 articles; August = 1,104 articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

But for athlete-related articles

According to today's issue of The Signpost, the bad news is that: "... for athlete-related articles, there are far less articles about female athletes than males, hindering the fair representation of the female in the athletic world." --Rosiestep (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Women in American football

Mike Vage from the A.V. Club has published a generally positive but somewhat critical article about our List of female American football players titled "They weren’t all kickers: Tackling the history of women in football". It points out that "the Women's National Football Conference has 20 teams, only five of which have Wikipedia pages" while the article on the Independent Women's Football League does not mention it is now defunct. Anyone interested in dealing with these shortcomings?--Ipigott (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Maybe you'd be interested in this? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Christine N. Govan

Christine N. Govan was a prolific author of children's novels. I found her article in sad shape with a prod on it, added some more books and reviews, and removed the prod, but it could use more help, especially in filling out her biography. (Also there are a lot more books and published reviews of them than the ones I added.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The U. Miss. Library source has quite a bit of biog info to use. PamD 05:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

David Eppstein biographical information is done if anyone wants to input info from the various book reviews. I also found a photo. SusunW (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

REDress project - page in review so help appreciated!

I've belatedly put the REDress project draft I was working on up for review: User:Moira Paul/REDress Project. This was part of the August focus on indigenous women and was discussed here before I started. I'm afraid life got in the way so I've only just gone back to look at it and decide it's ready to go. As always, I'd appreciate people more competent at wikidata and images to take a look to increase its chance of being accepted into mainspace. I've deliberately included names that are in red, so we have a way of picking those up and expanding them at another time.Moira Paul (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this, Moira Paul! I looked through the article and added some photos. Would you be interested in writing a small blurb about how the dresses going missing is parallel to the women going missing (also [15])? I think it's good to go though as it is! -Yupik (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the images, Yupik! I've got that link on my trello cards for the project so I'll come back and add it in when I get a chance. Maybe not this month though. Moira Paul (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Red list for female Chinese artists

A while back I did a biog of Wen Shu as part of the 'women in space' monthly theme. I ordered a library book that catalogues an exhibition and contains lots of biographical details. When I got it, I realised many artists featured were not on en-wikipedia. I've added one, Qiu Zhu, which has been accepted as a 'start' quality page. And I've created a redlist for the others: ~~Redlist of female chinese painters~~. Is there anything more I need to do or can I just start working through them? Moira Paul (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved to project space, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Redlist of female chinese painters. Cabayi (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Moira Paul (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Inspiring women of 2019 from Marie Claire

Sophie Goddard's Marie Claire article Meet the Future Shapers of 2019 who are inspiring women worldwide picks out the following: Seyi Akiwowo, Jess Wade, Lynette Linton (artistic director at London’s Bush Theatre), firefighter Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, Emma Barnett, Alice Tapper (financial consultant), Sonia Adesara (a medical campaigner), screenwriter Laurie Nunn, playwright Cash Carraway, and sustainability website founder Tara Button. The article offers background on all of them, including those already covered.--Ipigott (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

We've been discussing plans for October, the main topics being science and fashion but we could possibly also launch a three-month stubathon (not just creating new stubs but destubbing existing ones). Please let us know whether you think this would be a good idea, either here or on the Ideas page. It would be great it we could put things together over the next four or five days.--Ipigott (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Support the idea of a stubathon. I'd like to see what it can do in the realm of driving some numbers for us within the next three months. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Amparo Alonso Betanzos

Hi! I've recently joined Wikipedia and came across your project a few weeks ago. I have since tried to write articles on notable researchers in my particular field (technology), and computer science specifically. I am proud to have created a few in just a few weeks. I received a talk page message, however, saying one of them would be deleted for not satisfying the academic criteria. I find this quite strange given Alonso Betanzos has over 4,000 citations and is quite well known in her field. A quick read of the criteria (a second time, as I obviously checked before writing it in the first place) confirmed my assumptions. I am sure everyone here is aware of the prejudice female academics often face in the "real" world, but I was truly expecting something different on Wikipedia, especially given initiatives such as this project precisely exist to promote greater development of female participation online. I am here to basically request assistance in dealing with this issue given I've never participated in the deletion process. I would appreciate any comments and you are all welcome to continue this in my talk page. Thank you! PK650 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Remember the history of the Donna Strickland BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC).

Thing about proposed deletion is that, if it's removed, that's it. PROD has failed, and it may not be used again. Let us know if it escalates further. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 04:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The only way it could plausibly escalate is to a full deletion discussion, I doubt that would happen now, and I'm confident that if it did the article would be kept. Alonso clearly passes our academic notability guidelines in multiple ways (one being president of a major academic society; the previous wording of the article using "presides over" rather than "president of" maybe did not make that clear enough). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen people try to re-PROD things. Which you're not supposed to do, but not everyone knows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 20:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I know, I often patrol the list of prods and end up removing re-prods. I would hope that whichever admin encounters such a prod would do the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

PK650: I'm glad we've been able to sort this out for you. I'm not at all sure the article was tagged because of prejudice towards female academics. Some article reviewers tend to apply criteria on article deletion too strictly, often ignoring convincing evidence of notability. As you have already created a number of short biographies on women computer scientists, you might like to become a member of Women in Red. You can join by using the box at the top of our main WiR page. In October, we'll be focusing more directly on women scientists.--Ipigott (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all so much! I did read about Donna Strickland in the news. So if I understand correctly one can remove the message and then it could still move on to a deletion discussion? What does the latter entail? That's a wonderful suggestion, Ipigott. So will you be working on women scientists with and without articles? Really looking forward to it! PK650 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

One can remove a proposed deletion, yes. It's a good idea, in doing so, to use an edit summary that makes clear why you think the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There are other types of deletion notification that cannot be removed as easily. If you remove a proposed deletion and the person who proposed the deletion is unconvinced, they're likely to take it to a full deletion discussion, but they don't have to. The discussions usually take a week and involve editors putting forward their opinion on whether or not (and why) the article meets or doesn't meet the notability guidelines. See WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:HELPAFD for more. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, David Eppstein! This is very helpful. PK650 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

October Events from Women in Red

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140

Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red...

Online events:

New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest
Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman

Editor feedback:

Check out the conversation regarding:
Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities
Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage

Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Reminder about findability

Please remember to make your article as easily found as possible. If you state that there's an alternative spelling of their name, make a redirect from it. Make redirects from longer or shorter versions of their name - if you've included a long version of their name in the lead it's because you found it somewhere, and a reader might find the same source and search for it ... or a careless future editor might create a duplicate article there, if you don't create a redirect.

And surnames: Wikipedia has loads of surname pages, mostly just a list of people with that surname. Please make sure that the women we write about feature good and strong in those lists. And if they were known under both birth name and married name, add them to both lists. If there isn't a surname list, there may be an article or disambiguation page because the name is also a word used for other things: add a hatnote or a dab page entry. If there is nothing at the surname, make a redirect from surname to unique surname-holder (checking afterwards that it hasn't got a lot of incoming redlinks). If several people share the surname but there isn't yet a surname page... create it, if you've got the time and energy. To format the top nicely, you can type {{subst:refer|type=surname}}, then add your people, and end it with {{surname}}. (There are also a lot of given-name lists, but I'm not convinced that they are useful enough to bother with: I suppose someone might remember Greta and not Thunberg, but for the vast majority of people it's more likely to be a mention of "Professor Thunberg" or "Thunberg's work" or a paper by "G. Thunberg" which sends readers to the encyclopedia to find out more about someone, so surnames seem to me to be vastly more important.)

I've spent the last couple of hours sorting out half the entries in the list of outcomes of our WIR-129 on Indigenous women (have a look at my contribution list), and will get back to numbers 1-47 in that list when I've got time - there is a lot of Real Life stuff I need to do, and I've been using this too much as an excuse for procrastination (no, I'm not wasting time, I'm fixing Wikipedia and making women more visible!)

I know redirects and dab pages etc aren't everyone's favourite thing, but they can make a big difference, and can turn red links blue in all sorts of places. (You just need to check that it's the right red link, not a tennis player who happens to have the same name as your Antartic explorer!) PamD 10:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

PamD I really appreciate your work on this. I usually remember to make redirects, but seldom remember to look for surname pages. Have to figure out a way to ingrain that in my brain and the routine I follow when I move an article to mainspace, but there's already so many steps. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, try to include redirects for every way a person signs their name on art. Emily J. Harding, Emily J. Harding Andrews, E. J. Harding, Emily Jane Harding Andrews, etc. If they sign that way, it's a likely search term. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 16:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

And of course the redirect from Emily Harding, as readers may expect the article to be at the simplest forename+given-name version.Pam D 21:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide about a disambigfrom EJH. She did sign things that way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.9% of all FPs} 22:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. Possibly also include EJH Eckersley and EJH Corner. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

Personal milestone

I know it's not a competition and there are others here with more, but I just created my 1000th biography of a woman in STEM today and thought I should share it with this group. I made a blog post about it at https://11011110.github.io/blog/2019/09/22/1000-women-stem.html —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's certainly something to be proud of, David. I realize that as a mathematician, you have to keep count! Thanks for everything you do to help us along with women's coverage on Wikipedia. Your work is certainly making a real difference.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks, David Eppstein. PamD 07:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations David Eppstein. I just passed my 300th article recently (at about 317 now-273 of them are bios of women) so I'm both in awe, jealous and delighted for you. Well done. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 07:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Congratulations! Best of luck on the next 1,000. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am very happy that you have been so committed to our project, David Eppstein. I don't delude myself that historic parity can or should be a goal, but I do think that we are improving the chances that our daughters will know there were women in history who made a difference and significantly contributed to the world in which we live. You've been a big part of that, and I thank you for your work. SusunW (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else, this is a commendable work which I've admired for a while. Nemo 14:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations. I hope to enter the 1000 mark myself soon :). I have been creating more of women articles in the last two years, which is definitely because of WiR highlighting and increasing awareness of gender gap with wonderful edit-a-thons and projects. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations, David Eppstein. You are truly an inspiration. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the good wishes! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

RSNZ 150

{{RSNZ 150 Women in 150 Words}} has quite a few redlinks. There are articles about each of them at [16] but (per the template name) they're pretty short, so you may need to find additional material elsewhere to make Wikipedia articles out of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @David Eppstein: I've checked the RSNZ list against Wikidata and updated the template links to several more women who have Wikipedia bios. Still to check are the women from 1968 to date. Oronsay (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Kerry Sink

I am considering starting an article on Kerry Sink, a South African marine scientist and head of the marine programme at the South African National Biodiversity Institute. I would like a second opinion on notability, as I may be slightly biased, having known and occasionally worked with her for several years, and I don't have much experience with biographies - they are not generally my line of interest. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood: Thanks for contacting us. I see you mentioned her on SeaKeys. As you probably know, there are good sources at [17], [18] and [19]. In general, it is not a good idea to write biographies of people you know but I'm pretty sure you will be creating an objective view of her. I would suggest you go ahead, perhaps taking account of our Ten Simple Rules. Please let us know if you need any assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, SeaKeys was one of her projects on which I contributed as a volunteer collecting and uploading observation data - much like I do on Wikipedia but with more outdoor time. I will give it a go, and will appreciate any constructive feedback.

By the way two of your links are to the same article;-) I assume you consider these to be sufficient evidence of notability. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities

As per list created stubs for missing Times Higher Education listarticles need translation from German Kerstin Krieglstein and Sabine Kunst ,Dutch Geert ten Dam and Mirjam Van Praag ,Catalan Margarita Arboix ,Swedish Sigbritt Karlsson.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Perfect timing...the other day I created Category:Women deans (academic), for those who are interested in populating it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There are few Indian Vice Chancellors Snehlata Deshmukh ,Mehroo Bengalee and Mrudula Phadke need expansion. (Note these are different not in the top 200 )Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Two hundred seem too small, maybe 500 list. Good idea though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Indian Women Vice Chancellors and There are 40 African Women Vice Chancellors are there is a Forum for African Women Vice Chancellors (FAWoVC) work with UNESCO and Launch of the 1st Forum for African Women Vice Chancellors (FAWoVC) at TICAD VI.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic! I can tackle the Catalan one. I am so psyched for the October event! PK650 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Dr Snehlata Deshmukh Ex V.C Mumbai University
Dr Mariamma Varghese Ex V.C S.N.D.T University Mumbai
Dr Naseem Bhatia Ex V.C Jai Naraya Vyas University Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Dr Sudha Rao Ex V.C Karnataka Open University
Dr P. Selvie Das Ex V.C Mysore University, Mysore
Dr M. Munniyamma Ex V.C Gulbarga UniversityGulbarga
Dr Rupa Shah Ex V.C S.N.D.T University Mumbai
Dr Mrs Kamal Singh V.C Sant Gadge Baba University Amravati
Dr Surabhee Banneijee Ex V.C Netaji Subhash Chandra Open University and V.C Gour Banga University, Malda, West Bengal
Dr P. Kusuma Kumari V.C Sri Krishna Devaraya University Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh
Mrs Vidyavathi Ex VC Kakatiya University, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh
Dr Pratima Asthana Ex V.C Gorakhpur University, Uttar Pradesh
Dr G. Pankajam V.C. Gandhigram Rural UniversityGandhigram, Tamilnadu
Prof Y. Saraswathi Rao Ex VC, Sri Krishnadevariya University, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh
Prof R. Madhavi Ex Ex. V.C Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
Prof Ratna Naidu Ex Ex. V.C Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
Dr Veena Noble Das Ex Ex. V.C Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
Dr G. Sarojamma V.C Sri Padmavathi Mahila University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
Prof K. Nirupa Rani Vice-Chancellor, Adikavi Nannayya University, Rajahmundry
Dr P. Padmavathi V.C Jawaharlal Nehru Architecture & fine arts University,Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh
Dr Manjulata Ex. V.C Potti Sreeamulu Telugu Uni Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh
Dr Cynthia Pandian Ex. V.C Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Tirunelveli, Tamil nadu
Dr Jancy James V.C. Mahatma Gandhi University Kottayam, Kerala
Dr Mrudula Phadke V.C Maharashtra University Of Health Sciences, Nashik.
Dr Prema Jha V.C Bhagalpur University Bihar
Dr Padma Ramchandran Ex V.C The M.S Uni of Baroda, Baroda
Dr Sudha Rani Pandey V.C Uttarakhand Sanskrit University, Jwalapur Haridwar.
Prof Dr Gita Paintal V.C Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh
Dr Indrani Chakravarty Ex. V.C Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh, Chhattisgarh
Dr Pumima Pande Ex. V.C Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Khairagarh, Chhatisgarh
Dr Indu Dhan Ex V.C Siddhu Kanhu Murmu (SKM) University Dumka, Jharkhand
Prof Kanta Ahuja Ex. Vice Chancellor, Rajasthan University,Jaipur

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

Nice list, Rich Farmbrough; thanks. It seems like these names aren't in Wikidata yet, so that's a task someone might want to undertake. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Graph showing progress on women's biographies

There has been a discussion on my talk page about preparing a graph to illustrate progress over the years. Perhaps one of our more mathematically-minded participants could use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Graphs and charts to compile a line graph. I think the priority is to display percentages reached over time (i.e. the percentages of biographies on the EN wiki which are about women). I suggest we start with the following (drawn from WHGI):

September 2014: 15.5%

Then no data until:

March 2016: 16.08%
June 2016: 16.28%
September 2016: 16.48%
December 2016: 16.78%
March 2017: 16.89%
June 2017: 16.98%
September 2017: 17.10%
December 2017: 17.34%
March 2018: 17.50%
June 2018: 17.65%
September 2018: 17.79%
December 2018: 17.77%
March 2019: 17.74%
June 2019: 17.87%
September 2019: 18.03%

Once we have this, we might also try to trace the number of new biographies over time but I think the percentages are more important. Any offers?--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that if it is too difficult to use the Wikipedia graph templates, someone may be ready to make a simple graph on paper and then photograph it. MS Excel also provides for graphs. Perhaps David Eppstein or Victuallers could devote a few minutes to this? Rosiestep thinks a graph would be really useful for her coming presentations. Or maybe someone could simply let us know of an editor interested in helping out with graphs. It seems quite important to me.--Ipigott (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this accurate? After steadily increasing until Sept. 2018, the percentage declines for the next two data points (Dec. 2018 and March 2019). Did we really lose ground for six months? Or is something else happening here? Also just wanted to note that I have a working understanding of several of the graph extensions (these) and would be happy to help in the future with direct requests. Enwebb (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Can't comment on your specific points, but it looks good. Can the vertical access by extended, say up to 20%, also the horizontal one labelled. Might a bar chart be better? Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Enwebb: Looks good to me. Thanks very much for your efforts. There was indeed a reduction over the period you mention. On the one hand, a considerable number of drafts from a banned editor were deleted while progress was made on upgrading male biographies on Wikidata too. It nonetheless shows a pretty steady increase over the years. I hope Rosiestep can make use of the graph as it stands.--Ipigott (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It is lovely. Agree with the request to label the horizontal acces as it's unclear what those numbers represent. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

PS if you give me the data and what you want to see, I can give you graphs. But I'd need to email them to you - this is a terrible place to post graphs....

Like this? ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 21:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

An interesting graph. The first thing that came to my mind on looking at it was what are the absolute numbers at each date. Could that information be added with a seperate scale, or provided on a companion graph? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! There's actually more points if you drill into the raw WHGI data:

There's a lot more data in there too. You could look at new creations only, compare enwiki to other projects, break it down by nationality, ethnicity, etc. – Joe (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Orlando, Women's writing in the British Isles from the Beginning to Present

interesting website sponsored by Cambridge University, "Orlando, Women's writing in the British Isles from the Beginning to Present", password protected but people can subscribe: [20] --Elisa.rolle (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting - I know I've seen it before and cited it, without subscribing: perhaps that was a universal free trial. Any idea how much they charge for a subs for an individual? PamD 09:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, maybe I'm only thinking of summary pages like this one, which gives a one-paragraph summary and a few dates, and is free to access. PamD 09:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the same for me, I found a summary page and went to look into details and was password protected. You need to write for individual subscriptions, so I did not proceed. No idea of the costs. Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Elisa.rolle and PamD: We have access to the site from the WikiLibrary. I worked for almost a year with Jake Orlowitz and Sam Walton to have it included in the Cambridge Core group. Be sure you specify that you want your subscription to include Orlando. In the mean time, if you need something, Rosiestep and I both have access. SusunW (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Russell (United Empire Loyalist)

I worked on a draft of an article on Elizabeth Russell Elizabeth Russell (United Empire Loyalist).

She is one of the very few women with an entry in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography.

I'd appreciate both advice, or assistance, in getting it ready for article space.

Is this the place for this kind of post?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Late September FP report

I... really didn't expect to be back so soon. But here we are! Rosa Parks and Fredrikke Mørck have passed. New ones come from several different nominators. I'm going back to being chatty, because I like being chatty, and you can't stop me. :

This image, part of a major drop from UNESCO archives that would well be worth going through, shows women working to repair damage to National Central Library (Florence) manuscripts after the 1966 flood of the Arno. Nominated by MER-C. Update: Now featured, because I really should have mentioned this last report.
Gina Krog, one of the really big Norwegian feminists and suffragists, was mentioned in the last report... a few days after it went up, because I didn't think there'd be more to report anytime soon.
Bessie Coleman was a bit under half Native American, a little over half African-American, and a woman. D'ye know which of those were allowed to become a pilot in America at the time? None of them. So she saved up money, went to France, and became one anyway. Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs.
This documentary about Women Airforce Service Pilots was intended to be shown to male military recruits as entertainment. It shows. It really shows. And, that kind of makes it a really excellent documentary for understanding 1940s gender roles, even if that is not what it meant to show. Don't worry, they'll make lovely wives when they give all this up after the war's over! Coffeeandcrumbs again.
So, what do you do if you had to struggle to become a lawyer because universities kept blocking you, and now want to help other women become one? Found the Washington College of Law if you're Emma M. Gillett. This restoration was surprisingly hard to get started; this was my third attempt over the last couple months, because this one tiny area took some poking at to get right. Finally found a solution, and there we are!

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 01:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I for one like it when you are chatty! Speaking of the 1966 flood, I updated photographer Balthazar Korab because he photographed the flood. He photographed his wife and daughter working to dry glass negatives. It's so inspiring how the people of Florence worked together!Fred (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

These are gorgeous Adam Cuerden. Nudging you slightly to find out if you have made progress on the Inter-Allied Women's Conference photo. Still toying with sending it for FA. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Still poking at it. It's one of the more difficult restorations so it may be a little bit. My rough queue is Norwegian National Women's Council, Inter-Allied Women's Conference, Women's March on Versailles, Elleanor Eldridge. Probably with some easier ones, like Emperor Norton or Hattie Caraway in the gaps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 16:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! SusunW (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

For the record, all of these are currently passing, except Emma Gillett, and I think that says more about how recently Gillett was nominated (it's at 4 out of 5 supports, and it's less than 24 hours since the start of the nomination. With the exception of Wikipedia-related women like Sue Gardner (and that may be more of a bias against appearing too insular), I've usually found that a well-composed high-resolution image of a female notable enough to have a Wikipedia article will usually pass without problems, though featured pictures has had a definite bias towards more nominations of men in the past, that... well, there's good reasons I've switched heavily towards females. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 18:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MacArthur Fellows ("Genius Grants")

Hi all, the 2019 crop of MacArthur Genius awardees were announced, including some missing women on ENWP:

Sujatha Baliga, attorney and restorative justice practitioner
Lisa Daugaard, criminal justice reformer
Annie Dorsen, theater artist
Stacy Jupiter, marine scientist
Jenny Tung, evolutionary anthropologist

This is a big prize, so hopefully we can turn some of these women blue! Enwebb (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No more time to work on Lisa Daugaard right now, but there is enough coverage of her life in various sources to support a much more extensive article, including some DYK hook-worthy material (e.g. attended uni at age 12) if anyone is so inclined. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I've also made the Annie Dorsen stub and I'm working at Draft:Sujatha Baliga. ミラ P 14:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

PS @Bakazaka: Lisa Daugaard has a prose size of 957. Adding some info about her company should bring the article a few steps closer to breaking even for DYK = 1500. ミラ P 15:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Done but that's all the time I have. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bakazaka: Thanks. Prose size is now 2151 > 1500. I'll take it to DYK now. ミラ P 21:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

REDress Project and DYKs?

Anyone up for nominating this page for DYK? As far as I can tell, today would be the deadline for doing so. One hook that came to mind is the parallel between the dresses in the outdoor installation being vandalized and going missing as did the women they represent [21]. I have to leave for an event soon and I'm not sure I'll be back in time to do it myself, which is why I'm putting it up here and asking for your help. :) Thanks! -Yupik (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Got back just in time. This DYK has been submitted. -Yupik (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote or name DAB page

Is there a rule that editors should add a hatnote when there are two articles on people with the same name and only creates a human name DAB page if there are more than two? Oronsay (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Lots of words on Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but nothing very suggestive of that. Hatnotes directing the user to a DAB page arguably work better than hatnotes to a second person of the same name, in that they survive the addition of the third & greater similarly named person. My inclination is for a DAB page even with just two candidates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thanks. Have to admit that I'm not good where "Lots of words..." are concerned; probably why I chose to ask here. When checking and linking new pages to Wikidata recently I've seen a number of DAB pages with two candidates. I'm happy to create DAB pages, and then additional names can simply be added to them down the track. Oronsay (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is. See MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries and WP:ONEOTHER. But the rule is more specifically that there should not be a DAB page when one of the two articles is the primary topic for that name and the other one is less significant. When both are roughly equal in significance, a dab page can still be used. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is an existing article at the base name and you are creating an article with a disambiguated title, either (a) you take the existing one to be the WP:Primary Topic and add a hatnote there pointing to the new one, or (b) you don't believe there is a Primary Topic so you move the existing article, using WP:RM if anyone might disagree, create a dab page at the base name, and fix all the incoming links and redirects so that they point to the right article not the dab page, or (c) you think the new article is the Primary Topic, so you need to move the existing one, using WP:RM if it could be controversial, create new one with hatnote, and again fix links. PamD 05:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Madeline Merli

I'm trying to create an article for the Italian actress and playwright Madeline Merli. I can find plenty of information about her career in newspapers.com and barely anything about her personal life ("Madeline Merli, billed as "the Italian star actress," but also said to be the daughter of a prominent New Yorker, toured in Canada and the US in the 1890s with Orson Clifford."), but I can't find her birth date and death date. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I found two sources: [22] and [23] where the name is given as Madeline Merli Mills. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)