Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEHalli (talk | contribs) at 08:41, 16 May 2024 (→Draft article for a quick check: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Woman of the day: a new one each day from our women's biographies

    Shortcuts

    Coverage of me in The Guardian (UK)

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

    What a fantastic piece @Lajmmoore! Thank you so much for all your efforts to raise the profile of WIR’s goals! I appreciate it so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like Congrats! Thanks for your contributions and keep up the amazing work! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came across the article and wanted to come here to say congrats! I love seeing Wikipedia portrayed in a positive light in the media. Hopefully this will inspire some new editors to join the project. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, @Lajmmoore, what a great article. Thanks for all your work! PamD 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: This is just the kind of publicity we need. Not only have you demonstrated your own enthusiasm and creativity but you have shown how important it is to have more contributors, especially women, helping to improve our coverage of women. Great stuff! Especially as everyone worldwide can access The Guardian"".--Ipigott (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LajmmooreThe Guardian piece and you just got mentioned on Radio4 Today newspaper round up 7 40 am Wednesday 6 March. Great to have this public acknowledgement MerielGJones (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, heard it on Today (BBC Radio 4) too: I thought the tone was a bit patronising/bemused, but still great coverage! PamD 08:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very inspiring. Thank you! Balance person (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely piece, Lajmmoore. This is inspiring in so many ways. Congratulations! --Rosiestep (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Such great coverage @Lajmmoore, you are an inspiration! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well done you @Lajmmoore! And thanks for flagging that up; I read the Guardian daily, but somehow missed that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Late to the party (as when am I not?), but congratulations and well done on all of this. I had hoped to listen to the As It Happens interview when it aired on my local NPR station, but I...er, have been asleep whenever it's on this week (a recurring issue...hence my lateness, with apologies.) I shall seek it out online instead. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My daughter just let me know of this piece - really fantastic, and well done you! Dsp13 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations @Lajmmoore, Best wishes. I saw the news on the Wiki X page. So glad to be part of the WikiProject Women In Red Taoheedah (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As It Happens on CBC

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

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

    WiR mainpage update

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

    BBC Scotland (radio)

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

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

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

    Another interesting article, with a few curious extensions. These "print" items are easier to monitor.--Ipigott (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bizarre statement that "Louis XIV's elephant is among Women in Red’s additions", but I can see no mention of WiR in its talk page or edit history. Very odd.
    It seems to have been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot, but why? Does that bot detect words like "she" and "her" (it was a female elephant!)? If so, I wonder how many ships are claimed for WiR! PamD 21:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Wikidata Louis XIV's elephant was human (and an elephant). TSventon (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD Human was added by a bot to Q124610027 here, then Q124610027 was merged to Q1326205 here. TSventon (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Éléphante de Louis XIV (now a redirect) was also added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/February 2024 by ReportsBot. TSventon (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On another bit "Unsurprisingly, in such a culture, [in the OED] Walter Scott was quoted about 15,000 times, while Jane Austen’s wit made a mere 700 appearances" - could this be because Scott's 27 novels (a good 4-5 times longer than Austen's on the bookshelf, far more if all his works are included) are full of Scottish dialect words, while Austen's vocabulary is famously and deliberately restrained - I think shrubbery is one of her OED appearances though? No, it must be sexism. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lajmmoore, I am a bit late to this post, but I only just saw it, and I want to let you know that I read this ‘hive of heroism’ article a few weeks ago, having never heard of WIR, nor having ever edited wikipedia. And I immediately signed up. That day was a hot Australian Saturday, it was in the morning and I had made some vague plans to go outside and enjoy the weather. But after reading the article, I forgot about the weather and didn’t leave the house for the entire weekend. And here I am. I’m absolutely obsessed with editing and creating articles about amazing people. So, thank you for making the effort to get the word out. AdaWoolf (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for saying so @AdaWoolf that isso wonderful to hear & you've got the hang of it so fast (I was so much slower). Team work makes the dream (of gender equity) work! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AdaWoolf Brilliant! Thanks for telling us. It looks like you found your feet here really quickly! I see Ipigott found one of your early drafts at AfC and accepted it to mainspace. If you find yourself at a lull in your own article creation in the future, I hope you'll consider helping out at WP:AFC. Lots of drafts on women there that need a bit of a nudge to make it to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I would be interested in helping out with those @Asilvering.I will go and look into the process. AdaWoolf (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Biography/Women lists all the articles on women (as defined by a bot, so not always totally accurate) that are waiting for reviews. Many of them really won't be any good, and probably not notable enough to be worth saving. But about as many could probably make it to mainspace, but the editor who drafted the article is new and didn't catch on as quickly as you did and they don't understand what's missing. -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CNN INTERNATIONAL

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

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

    Weekend - BBC World Service

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

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

    Hero of the Week - Pod Save the UK

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

    Diff post

    I wrote a bit about the project on the Diff blog too - thanks for all your kind words over the past month (& past five years) Lajmmoore (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Best month for two years

    I'm not sure how many of our participants are interested in statistics but some might like to know that our Metrics page shows that in March over 1,960 biographies of women were created. Not since March 2022 have there been so many. It's also good to see how many new members have been signing up: 22 in March, 18 in February and 21 in January. It all looks very encouraging.--Ipigott (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is great news, Ipigott! Thank you for bringing it up here. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reporting on these figures, @Ipigott. It's very good to see growth in both numbers – new members and articles created. Oronsay (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Metrics wow reporting 2,005 new articles for March. This may partly be a result of Meta initiatives in Africa and Asia in connection with biographies of women.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding that! DrThneed (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And a third from me. I love good-news statistics. Penny Richards (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    International Roma Day Edit-a-thon (April 1st – 15th, 2024)

    Hi all! Wikimedia Serbia is once again hosting an international edit-a-thon in honour of International Roma Day this year. This year though it lasts two weeks. In addition, English Wikiquote is included and there are at least six local editathons if any of us speak those languages! If you notice any Roma topics or people missing from the edit-a-thon lists, please feel free to add them! -Yupik (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this @Yupik - I really enjoyed it last year! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My pleasure, @Lajmmoore! I hope as many people as possible can participate this year, since I won't be able to to the extent I want to. Will you be participating? - Yupik (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yupik - I've only had time to add one article, but here it is Philomena Franz. What an amazing woman Lajmmoore (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lajmmoore You don't seem to have added it on the results page. Mine seems to be the only new en.wiki article listed, plus two Improved articles. PamD 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen that! Ooops! Thank you Lajmmoore (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inspired by @Lajmmoore: and by the fact that tomorrow is the last day, I've created Melanie Spitta: I looked at the "People" list from the editathon to find someone (a) not in en:Wiki, (b) present in a language I can at least partly understand, (c) female, and (d) initial S-T (if there was one), and found her! PamD 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much Lajmmoore and PamD! <3 -Yupik (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yupik Is there a talk page banner for the editathon? I added a manual note, but wondered whether I was missing something! PamD 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I know of. But that's a good suggestion for next year! - Yupik (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be okay if someone was bold, and created it (talkpage banner), and we started adding it to applicable talkpages? Seems like a good idea for tracking, branding, etc. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should probably come from the editathon organisers? Though it would need to be in lots of different languages. I don't think we need a WiR-specific version (actually en.wiki isn't even listed as one of the "Supported by" wikis on the participants page. Odd. PamD 19:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just sent email to the organizers to suggest having a talk page banner starting next year. Thanks for the suggestion! - Yupik (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TIME100 Women

    If anyone needs ideas for new articles, it looks like there are five women on the TIME 100 list for 2024 who don't have articles yet: Rena Lee, Rachel Goldberg-Polin, Lauren Blauvelt, and Kelly Sawyer Patricof and Norah Weinstein. ForsythiaJo (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And as a note, have we done checks of previous years' TIME lists for women who might be missing entries on Wikipedia? ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ideas. I have had a go at Rena Lee. Impressive lady! Balance person (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft article on artist Bonnie Rychlak

    In the spirit of narrowing the gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles, I spent a significant amount of time composing a page on the artist, curator, and writer Bonnie Rychlak. As I think has been established with numerous references, she has had an illustrious career in all three areas. However, I am having difficulty getting it accepted and finding it hard to believe that she has not met the notability standard, as one reviewer claims. Any assistance would be much appreciated to clarify exactly what needs to be done at this point to publish this article. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As previously advised the public collections (if they are notable) need sourcing. Having an illustrious career is not one of Wikipedia's criteria I'm afraid, see WP:GNG or more pertinently WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if notability can be established, the large amounts of unsourced material needs to be removed or properly attributed to published sources before any draft can be accepted. Also the WP:INUNIVERSE international art English is a problem. Write in plain English. Phrasing like "strongly illustrative of this invitation to plumb unassailable depths" is evocative but meaningless filler. It has no place in an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this. Also the assumption that there is a "gap between male and female artists represented with Wikipedia articles" is probably wrong, as far as artists of the last century or so go, not least because of projects like this. If a proper survey was done, I'd expect it to show that it is easier for a female artist to keep a page than a male one. Obviously, historically, known artists are mostly male, but that's different thing. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly suspect that there still is a numeric gap in our coverage of modern artists, not so much because of Wikipedia editor behavior, but because of the greater tendency of men (artists included) to self-promote rather than just producing good work and hoping someone else notices, and the way this sort of self-promotion interacts with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Perhaps this is something that could be clarified by a careful analysis of data, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we all have our stereotypes! I very much doubt anybody hoping to make a living in today's art industry thinks that "just producing good work and hoping someone else notices" will do it, though it is usually regarded as the job of the galleries and agents etc to lead the promotion effort. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Preparations for May

    It's usually around this time of the month that WomenArtistUpdates prompts us to start working on preparations for the following month. But she hasn't edited since 9 April and seems to be on a wikibreak. Would anyone else like to make a start? If not, I'll see what I can do myself in a day or two.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can make a start @Ipigott I can help out later today or tomorrow Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see who else responds today, otherwise I'll make a start tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore: I've tried to develop Press Women but as you can see it's a real mess as I have no idea what MSGJ has been doing in connection with our meetup presentations. Unless I can go back to our old approach, I'm afraid I can no longer create meetup pages but would be happy to look through those created by others. Rosiestep might nevertheless like to look through the story so far.--Ipigott (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I can't see how this new approach to creating our monthly event pages is a good idea. WiR has no coordinators, no grants. Historically and purposefully, our volunteers have kept event pages simple to replicate so that any editor can do so. Ipigott, IMO, returning to the old approach makes sense. --Rosiestep (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know there was a different way to do it - where are the instructions @MSGJ? I don't have much time to learn something new Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WAU wrote down the instructions (see here). There are 6 steps. I have sorted 305 for you Ipigott — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we have to do this? Why can't we do it the previous way? Where was consensus for this change? Doesn't this just already make an extra burden for the already small organising group? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's actually easier, because the previous method had a lot more than 6 steps. But yes, you can do it the old way, of course — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for reworking things, MSGJ, but I am not happy with this kind of "automation". In the old days (i.e. up until about three or four years ago when I handled everything myself), I was able to create two or three new meetups together with an invitation in about half an hour. I was simply able to copy earlier creations and make any necessary adaptations -- a one-step process per meetup over which I had full control. I had intended to do the same today but was surprised to see that the copy/paste approach was no longer possible. This morning I spent more than half an hour struggling with #305 to no avail. I have considerable experience of Women in Red but how would new members be able to cope? But if automation is the way to go, I hope WomenArtistUpdates will be back before the end of the month to sort things out and add one of her striking images to the invitation.

    I was also wondering if it would be useful to have an additional event in May on "Nobility". I have noticed several editors take an interest in creating articles about women who were either members of royal families or prominent nobles. It would also encourage a wider international approach. In this connection, we have a Wikidata redlink page. I think it would be useful to have at least one more event in addition to the alphabet run. Geofocus is also up for suggestions.--Ipigott (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    'Nobility' seems like a great idea. A suggestion for geofocus: I love 'islands' as a theme as they are everywhere. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we could take an alphabetic approach to islands, starting in May with islands beginning with A, B or C? I think it might be a good idea to eliminate islands that are also countries or else we'll be covering Australia, Bermuda and Cyprus once again. I'll see if anyone wants to take up the "automation" challenge on this; otherwise I'll put something together using the old approach in two or three days time.--Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate that you are willing to create the pages, Ipigott. Using the old, accepted, widely-used approach is fine. As for placing a restriction on island nations, it could limit participation, so I don't know if that's an optimal way forward. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In previous years we have focused on Central and Eastern Europe each May in collaboration with Wikimedia CEE Spring 2024. Perhaps some of this discussion would be better on the Ideas page? Oronsay (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to see things are now moving forward successfully on the Ideas page.--Ipigott (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Voting ends 9 May for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C)

    A friendly FYI: The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open through 9 May 2024:

    Rosiestep (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    translation contest 2024

    Hi I really loved the translation contest. Is there going to be another one soon ? Nattes à chat (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Me, too, Nattes à chat! Thanks for the suggestion. There were a lot of participants and a lot of new/translated articles for that event in "April-May-June 2022". Maybe we could do it again June-July-August 2024? WiR does events planning on our "Ideas" page, so I suggested it here where comments and assistance are warmly welcome. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Red May 2024

    Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


    Online events:

    Announcements from other communities

    Tip of the month:

    • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
      is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

    Other ways to participate:

    Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

    --Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

    Requested move at Talk:Umm Fahad#Requested move 28 April 2024

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Umm Fahad#Requested move 28 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Categories for deletion/merging

    Hi everyone! As many of you have written articles that are in categories for Sámi people, I feel I should let you know that there has been a spate of deletion and merging going on since last year in case any of you would like to chime in there. Of the ones that have previously been upmerged, they have been merged into incorrect categories in spite of the mergers being told that they were not correct, making findability a major issue (for instance, Skolt families != Finnish families, which is what it was merged into). So, so far we've lost the categorization for Skolt families and the few individual families that were in it, Sámi associations, and now this weekend they've put up Sámi schoolteachers and Sámi educators for merging. - Yupik (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And shortly after I wrote that, Cat:Sámi textbook writers got put up for splitting.... - Yupik (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Brittany Spanos

    I've gone back and re-worked the Brittany Spanos draft in the hope that we might get the article over the line before the conclusion of the S & T Alphabet run. The original references (of which there are way too many for a stub/start class piece) have been preserved on the Talk page (where I've also included a section: Past discussions relevant to this article). I've given this about as much as I can, and I'm not sure what the best practice is now. Should the article now be submitted via AfC, or can we just go ahead and publish per usual? (Pinging Stifle and Dsp13 out of curtesy.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you ever so much for putting this work in, Cl3phact0! I'll leave it to others to answer your question here. Dsp13 (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone? (Now we're in a month to think about press women!) Dsp13 (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of wrapper templates

    Now that we no longer use a separate template for each event, I have nominated the 300+ wrapper templates for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 April 29. This will not have any noticeable impact, because they are all unused. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Great move, MSGJ. I bow to your expertise. It's been a privilege to participate in this project over the years but I now see that there's not much scope any longer for those of my age. Happy editing.--Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather unfortunate outcome. Very sorry to see the depth of your discontent, Ipigott.
    Out of curiosity (and curtesy), have the changes to the templates actually damaged the project – apart from the time spent creating and subsequently trying to preserve the previous method (as well as the considerable effort invested in altering it)? Does the new system now work properly? Are the project participants generally satisfied with its use and outputs? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)br>[reply]
    PS: Notwithstanding unresolved bugs such as: Warning: event {{{1}}} is not recognised (seen here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, MSGJ, you may not delete them. They are historical documentation of our work. You don't seem to understand that Women in Red is not just the articles we write; it is also a community that has accomplished something remarkable. You do not have permission to erase our history. Instead, mark them as being preserved for historical records, or some such. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How thoughtful of you, Cl3phact0. to step in any ask for explanations. It's not so much the templates or the changes in relation to events and meetups but rather the fact that someone who had not shown any particular interest in Wikipedia's coverage of women suddenly decided to modify step by step our previously successful method of handling the project and its activities. I certainly recognize MSGJ's success in contributing to improving the banner shell environment but I did not expect my encouragement of his technical approach to extend so deeply into the basic setup of Women in Red. I realize that you are one of a few younger contributors who feel. the changes are welcome. I am beginning to think that it is probably because of my age (now 81), that I am not able (or willing?) to cope with the new environment. My recent attempt to help Rosie by creating Press women for May was a disaster which certainly did not serve the interests of the project. Rather than upset enthusiasts like you, I thought it better to avoid potential disagreements and conflicts in the knowledge that there are now a sufficient number of new more competent enthusiasts who will no doubt be to ensure the future success of the project. As always, I will of course be happy to help anyone who would like to draw on my experience but I have decided to not to create any more articles about women myself. I sincerely think the project could benefit by encouraging younger participants to deal with tasks such as welcoming new members and maintaining Showcase, Press and Research listings ()if these are still considered useful. I will continue to be active on Wikipedia as I have many other interests. I very much appreciate you interest, Cl3phact0, and have noticed how much you have been doing to support the project. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A month or so ago, I joined this WikiProject and almost forgot about it. I would like to help, but opening the redlink index just breaks my browser and I don't know what else to do. :( Please help! — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @LunaEclipse you don't need to write about women who are on the redlists - any woman who isn't featured on Wikipedia is fine by us! I often create biographies for women who aren't on lists already. If you're looking for ideas, some lists have (CS) in brackets - these are crowd-sourced so don't usually have the big Wikidata driven tables. This is music & this is LGBT - do those open better? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lajmmoore, they open better, thanks! I will add these pages to my watchlist. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Indigenous women at the 60th Venice Biennale

    Reading this Guardian article I noted that neither of the indigenous women artists it mentions have articles (in any language). They are Rosa Elena Curruchich (WD) and Sarah Ortegon HighWalking (WD). Curruchich passed away a few years ago. I mention them in case anyone is looking for inspiration. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I just started a stubs on Rosa Elena Curruchich Sarah Ortegon HighWalking and additional content and sources can be found online. They both meet NARTIST criteria 4 for inclusion. Please feel free to improve the stubs for those who are interested! Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rater tool & talkpage templates

    Hello all. Does anyone else use the rater tool and if so, have they noticed that it doesn't seem to pick up the event specific templates any more? Is there a way to fix this? It's slightly annoying to do it manually all the time Lajmmoore (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lajmmoore. Yes, I constantly use it. Same as you: I've noticed that Rater doesn't let me add WiR specific templates to article talkpages. So first I use Rater for all other Wikiprojects; then I go to the article talkpage and add the WiR template(s). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Lajmmoore and @Rosiestep. I use Rater all the time but have never used it to add WIR templates, I've always done them manually. I know from any Aussie editor who knows the creator/maintainer of Rater that they are not always available to make changes. I will raise it with my mate and see what can be done. Just warning that change is unlikely to be instant. Oronsay (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has more than 2 million bios

    Exciting news. While updating the statistics via Humaniki just now, I discovered that in the last week Wikipedia has reached the 2 million mark for bios, of which 19.81% are female. (The actual percentage is 19.814% which we have always reported to two decimal places.) The march to 20% continues! Oronsay (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone know if this is the first time we've been over 2 million? (Considering the number might fluctuate some with deletions and such.) That seems like a pretty big milestone to reach. Whether it's the first time or the fifth, congratulations WiR! Penny Richards (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oronsay! Exciting milestone! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, long-expected. It is the first time - deletions do not stop the upwards trend. The female % also rises, but now pretty slowly. We discussed this a while back, with better statisticians than I contributing. Does anyone know the link? Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnbod, the last few discussions I could find were January 2024, August 2023, July 2023 and April 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks - I had August 2023 in mind, but the others are relevant. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain the slower growth in the percentage of women bios, I would imagine pouring warm 30°C water into a barrel of 15°C cold water. If you keep pouring at the same rate the temperature in the barrel will rise more slowly as the amount of water in the barrel increases and the temperature in the barrel gets closer to 30°C. If the water is poured more slowly the temperature in the barrel will also rise more slowly. (That may or may not make things clearer and would not work in real life.) TSventon (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done a summary of Women in Red's statistics by year, as published on the project page starting in mid June 2016. In 2017 the percentage of women bio articles increased by 0.70%, while in 2024 (to April) it only increased by 0.24%. This can mostly be explained by a 36% increase in the number of bios (1.5 million to 2 million) between 2017 and 2024 and a reduction of 45% in the annual growth in the number of bios (101 thousand to 56 thousand) in the same period.
    See updated version below
    Summary of Women in Red statistics
    Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
    2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28%
    2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
    2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
    2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
    2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
    2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
    2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
    2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
    2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%

    TSventon (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, TSventon, for producing this interesting table. It might be useful to include a copy on our Metrics page where it can be consulted by those interested.--Ipigott (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, thank you, I could do that. Do you or Rosiestep have any stats for July 2015 or thereabouts (date, women, total bios)? For the metrics page I could see if there are figures for calendar years. TSventon (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is grand, TSventon!! The information on WiR's mainpage addressing "October 2014 = 15.53%" is based on the information in this article; I can't tell if the article addresses the number of women's biographies, and number of human biographies; I can only spot the percentage. The information is probably there; maybe someone else can find it. That said, when it comes to "maths", I rely on Victuallers' expertise, ergo, pinging him. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay! I did my first 2 WIR bios this past month, so hopefully they have helped boost the percentage :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hitting 2 million is a significant step. Well done everyone. I like the water analogy and I guess thats how it has felt over the last nine years. I hope WiR raised the profile of gender bias and I would hope that many editors would have modified their direction when picking "their next article". They may not have decided to do only women from then on, but if their interest was Swedish WW2 fighter pilots then they may have decided to do all of those women pilots first as "tall poppies". Obviously as time progresses then they may return to blokes as the number of available notable women reduces in the area they are interested in. As we know the chances of getting a gender balance this year is unlikely. We have found the women who were at the battle of waterloo ... and there still dozens of notable blokes who were there. I wonder if it is possible to use the water analogy to work out what the percentage is that we are iterating towards - sadly it wont be 50% if we include all the long dead notable blokes. The good news is that we have seen evidence that 50% may be possible now! if we excluded footballers and concentrate only on contemporary women..... and! ... that Wikipedia continues to grow. If there are no new articles then change is not possible. (Hopefully not everyone is going to switch to tidying talk page templates) Victuallers (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Victuallers, if the number of biographies continues to grow and the percentage of women being added averages 28%, then the overall percentage would iterate towards 28%, albeit slowly. That assumes that nothing much will change in the future, which is unrealistic. There will be more contemporary bios to write with a higher percentage of women and a dwindling pool of 19th-century European men without articles so the percentage of women in new articles may well increase. TSventon (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be realistic. We might be able to reach 20% this year, 21% in two or three years time and perhaps 23% within the next ten years. But I don't think we should worry too much about these numbers. What is equally important is that Women in Red should continue to cover notable figures from a wide range of interests, demonstrating that women have played a key role in the past and continue to do so today, perhaps even more significantly. The main reason we are not able to cover higher percentages is that men continue to receive wider press coverage as well as more general recognition for their efforts. Future success will therefore depend more on the development of sources about women which are suitable for use in Wikipedia than simply the efforts of our contributors. But I certainly agree that it is something of an achievement that some 240,000 biographies of women have been created since 2015, more or less doubling the number back then. I am currently devoting more of my time to encouraging and assisting new contributors as I believe they will be the ones who will best be able to ensure our future success.--Ipigott (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ipigott, I agree with your comments above, but how did you get 240,000 biographies of women created since 2015? I couldn't find any statistics for July 2015 and the October 2014 paper was based on 893,380 biographies with gender which may exclude a lot of biographies of unknown gender. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TSventon:: My figures are approximations based on the table on our Metrics page (total 216,628) with an additional number of biographies so far this year as shown in the figures for January to April. On rechecking, the total seems to be more like 223,000 (rather than 240,000) but now that you have found a figure of around 209,000 for September 2015, it does indeed seem as if we have more or less doubled the number of women's biographies since we started in mid-2015. Some of the figures on our Metrics page may be rather too high as in earlier years we included women's works, organizations, etc. For recent years, however, they should coincide exactly with the figures from Humaniki on our main page as they only cover biographies. I would also like to point out that there are a fair number of articles which Wikidata counts as only one biography (if at all) although they actually cover two or more women. These include closely associated entertainers, singers and sportswomen. But this is certainly also true of men. (Apologies to those of you baffled by 240,000 -- I should have been more careful.)--Ipigott (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about that too - it would mean we only had c. 160K female bios before, which I don't think is right. And "more or less doubling the number back then" would imply there were something like 240k "back then". I don't think the number of bios with no/unclear gender was that significant by then either. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If 26,788 women's bios were added in 2015-16, the same as in 2016-17, then there would have been 196,247 in June 2015 and that number would have doubled to 396,434 in April 2024. The number added would have been 200,187. According to the linked article "To obtain gender meta-data for biographies, we match[ed] article URIs with the dataset by Bamman and Smith [7], which contains inferred gender for biographies based on the number of grammatically gendered words", which suggests that counting articles by gender was not trivial in 2014. TSventon (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have done some more research and found a Wikidata report from 30 September 2015 produced by Jane023 following a conversation here. That suggests a 90% increase from 209,060 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024. I have updated the summary below.
    See updated version below
    Summary of Women in Red statistics
    Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
    Sep 2015 209,060 1,307,779 15.99%
    Jun 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 0.29% 13,975 62,148 22.49%
    Jun 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
    Jun 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
    Jun 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
    Jun 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
    Jun 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
    Jun 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
    Jun 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
    Apr 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%
    Total 187,374 692,970 27.04%

    TSventon (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the ping - yes this looks about right. We could step it up a bit by including more bios of women who are connected through relationships with men as more info about them has surfaced thanks to improved genealogical research online. I am referring to all those pesky royals and other notable women who married, had several kids, and then died in childbirth. They are often listed on Wikipedia pages for fathers/sons/husbands but lack their own pages because there are no reliable sources specifically discussing them. These women have had lots of additional coverage in the past twenty years, if only as heirs of their father's or brother's goods, or as pretty sitters of portraits, or as participants in significant events, or as owners of artefacts in their dowry. Many of the last century do have Wikidata items, but not enough statements to warrant a whole Wikipeda page (yet). I have tried but cannot find an easy way to extract such names from existing Wikipedia pages (due to the age-old problemm of married vs. maiden names). With three sources and three incoming links, such bios have a good chance of survival. Jane (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to an update here the September 2015 figures were not human only. Hence I have updated the figures again to show a 93% increase from 205,814 in September 2015 to 396,434 in April 2024.
    Summary of Women in Red statistics
    Year Women Bios Percentage Increase in % for year Increase W for year Increase B for year Percentage for year
    Sep 2015 205,814 1,299,047 15.84%
    Jun 2016 223,035 1,369,927 16.28% 0.44% 17,221 70,880 24.30%
    Jun 2017 249,823 1,471,151 16.98% 0.70% 26,788 101,224 26.46%
    Jun 2018 273,099 1,547,649 17.65% 0.66% 23,276 76,498 30.43%
    Jun 2019 291,649 1,632,191 17.87% 0.22% 18,550 84,542 21.94%
    Jun 2020 318,844 1,723,693 18.50% 0.63% 27,195 91,502 29.72%
    Jun 2021 344,238 1,818,170 18.93% 0.44% 25,394 94,477 26.88%
    Jun 2022 365,133 1,894,095 19.28% 0.34% 20,895 75,925 27.52%
    Jun 2023 380,835 1,945,199 19.58% 0.30% 15,702 51,104 30.73%
    Apr 2024 396,434 2,000,749 19.81% 0.24% 15,599 55,550 28.08%
    Total 190,620 701,702 27.17%

    TSventon (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Behind Every Good Man

    I just created the article on the 1967 short documentary Behind Every Good Man (es) on the Spanish Wikipedia. It could be of interest to the wikiproject, given that it stars a trans woman and is an early example of the representation of transgender women in American cinema. --Peridotito (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Peridotito Do you know there's a template for that kind of link? {{interlanguage link}} or {{ill}}. {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es}} produces the same effect as you did above: Behind Every Good Man [es]. Or more sophisticatedly {{ill|Behind Every Good Man|es|lt=''Behind Every Good Man''}} for Behind Every Good Man [es], with "lt" being "link text", the version you want displayed. There are various other complexities available, eg if the English wikipedia title would be different from the existing one in the other wikipedia. As I understand it, when the article gets created in English wikipedia the code is automatically simplified into a plain blue link. I'm not a film buff and read very little Spanish, so I'll leave it to others to answer your actual question, just thought I'd offer some info about a perhaps little-known template! PamD 08:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    University of York Open Research Awards

    The writing women around the world challenge keeps on giving, with an Open Research Award from the University of York! Lajmmoore (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lajmmoore: Marvellous to see your hard work being recognised. Congratulations! :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reminder: Shakers in America: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon

    Just wanted to post a quick reminder for anyone who might be interested that the Shakers in America Edit-a-Thon I'm doing with my choir will be this Saturday. The event page is currently live, and there's still time to sign up. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the reminder! I added an article this afternoon for the event: Lillian Barlow. Time zones meant I wasn't really simultaneous with the other participants but I was with you in spirit. Penny Richards (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ser Amantio di Nicolao, I uploaded several Shaker hymns to Commons and have more to upload in the days ahead after I'm back home from traveling. The hymns are ripe for Wikidata items, if they don't exist already. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about notability - Australian scientist

    Hello, not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, please. The page for Josephine Cardale has a notability flag. I am still adding publications from her Trove search results, but I'm concerned by this flag. Could you please advise? Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the tag, notability seems to be established. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Magdalena Hinterdobler

    Your help with finding additional references for the Magdalena Hinterdobler biography would be appreciated. I learned about this opera singer from conversations with Gerda Arendt. -- Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Rosiestep: There's also positive critical comment by Brachmann which I've added. There's probably more in the German press but I think this already makes it a keep.--Ipigott (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Collaboration on a New Article for Michelle Valberg

    Hello, Women in Red community!

    I am currently working on a Wikipedia article about Michelle Valberg, a Canadian nature and wildlife photographer known for her extensive work documenting Canada's landscapes and wildlife, particularly the Arctic. She is a Nikon Ambassador, Canadian Geographic Photographer-in-Residence, Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographic Society, and an International Fellow of the Explorers Club in New York City and was appointed a Member of the Order of Canada in 2022 for her contributions in photography and philanthropy.

    Despite her significant achievements and contributions, I have noticed a lack of comprehensive coverage about her on Wikipedia, particularly highlighting her role as a woman in a field that significantly intersects with environmental conservation and cultural documentation.

    I have been working on an initial version of the article, focusing on her career, achievements, and philanthropic efforts but would greatly appreciate any assistance to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards in terms of neutrality, verifiability, and depth.

    Here is the link to the article: Draft:Michelle Valberg

    Any contributions or advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for helping to improve the representation of women on Wikipedia and looking forward to your valuable feedback. Bojamon (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bojamon As a reviewer I would be happy to accept if you submit.Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your message! I have just submitted it for review. I appreciate your support and willingness to accept it! Bojamon (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bojamon, you have delared a WP:COI, but not (that I can see) the nature of it, which you should do. She has a what on Lake Whatever? "house"? Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that out! There was something originally there, I don't know what happened. Bojamon (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Women in Green GA Editathon June 2024 - Going Back in Time

    Hello WikiProject Women in Red:

    WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in June 2024!

    Running from June 1 to 30, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Going Back in Time! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 20 centuries by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

    We hope to see you there!

    Grnrchst (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Netiporn Sanesangkhom

    Netiporn Sanesangkhom a Thai activist died in a hunger strike it needs expansion. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible case of mistaken identity: suffragettes Elsie and Mathilde Wolff Van Sandau

    A source from the British Library suggests the two may actually have been one woman going under different names. Looks like something interesting to investigate if anyone wants to improve the page! ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft article for a quick check

    I went to add a woman who was a WW1 cryptographer and discovered that their entire WW1 unit was not on wikipedia. I've created a draft, and have three sound sources, plus leads for more. I'd appreciate a quick check that I've created an article that won't be deleted, given I normally do biogs.

    Draft:Hush WAACs

    Once I make it live, I can then hang at least two more biog stubs off from it, and connect it to the wider topics of WW1 and cryptography. EEHalli (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red&oldid=1224106508"