Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 75

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 2 March 2020 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 70←Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77→Archive 80

Art+Feminism 2020 San Diego edit-a-thon

Hi everyone!

I am organizing two Art+Feminism edit-a-thons this year here in San Diego, one in the Spring and one in the Fall in the lead up to the 2020 election. What is the best way for me to connect with members who might be interested in 1) participating either in-person or online and/or 2) be willing to help as a trainer/instructor/helper during these events? Any guidance is appreciated!

Thank you! Praxis2020 (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Praxis2020: I see from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/February 2020 there is a meetup in San Diego on 2 February but as far as I can see, you are not involved. I recommend that as a first step you create a meetup page of your own. Once we have dates and details, we can announce it on our main page and it can also be listed with other A+F events. If you need further assistance, I recommend you contact Rosiestep on her talk page. Hope everything works out well.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)]]
Praxis2020: I see from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/January 2020, there is also a meetup in San Diego tomorrow. It might be useful for you to go along, see how it is organized and perhaps invite participants to help with your own events.--Ipigott (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! I will look up their next event and start there as you suggest. 66.75.225.244 (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Carol L. Boggs

Could someone familiar with notability rules please take a look at Draft:Carol L. Boggs? It was rejected at articles for creation, but she's a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Looking through past discussions, I think that's sufficient for notability, but that's way out of my wheelhouse. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've commented there. She does pass WP:PROF#C3 but the draft is inadequately sourced for what it claims about her research. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur that she is definitely wiki-notable per WP:PROF#C3 at the very least. A quick Google Scholar check says she has an h-index of 45 and 30 articles with over 100 citations apiece, which is a strong argument for WP:PROF#C1 as well. (Yes, citation indices are fallible metrics, which is one reason why we treat them as only one way to meet one of the possible criteria of WP:PROF.) The article is maybe one solid editing session away from being mainspace-ready, IMO. It needs some comparatively minor adjustments for encyclopedic tone, and claims about the significance, impact or novelty of her research need to be supported by secondary sources, or else trimmed. We can say, for example, "She studied the giving of male nuptial gifts in butterfly species," but not "Her work on male nuptial gifts opened up a new research arena," unless some other reference (a textbook, a review article, a citation for a major award) says so. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added sourcing for her fellowships. But there's something odd about the references: access date 10 October 2019 for several refs, but article created 8 Jan 2020 in editor's first edit (account created 28 December). Presumably copied from a sandbox ... but wouldn't the edits show in editor's contrib list? Is it a copy of something previously deleted? Puzzling. PamD 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It's been accepted as Carol L. Boggs. Thanks all for the help. SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone do a pass on this article for me?

I wrote an article on Megan Rosenbloom and submitted it for DYK and it got flagged as promotional. I don't know what is wrong with it, figured someone else could maybe make a pass and try to make it more encyclopedia? Thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at it and the article does not strike me as being an advertisement. That said, the language in the lede could be very slightly toned down and rewritten, with most items in the introduction could be moved down to a career section. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I took your advice. Jessamyn (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to attend event

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/March 2020/International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Feedback

I am a fan of this project (found out about some women i had no idea existed who did great things in history), but please drop the Valentines' day theme for Women in Red this month. Many of editors of this project are from countries where Valentines Day is not a thing (Poland, New Zealand, Arab countries, etc) and it defeats the purpose of it. For February, come up with a different theme for Women in Red. It's not hard. thanks 41.102.71.57 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Of course, we don't want to be off-putting, but ... what Valentine's Day theme? The red heart on the page is just the project logo; it's been there since April 2016. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
It's in the February with Women in Red newsletter (above). I must say I was surprised to see Valentine's Day being celebrated in late January when the newsletter was broadcast, but I skipped over it and moved on. Oronsay (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought it was rather clever of Rosiestep to match the red heart in the recent invitation image with that of Women in Red. But I fully understand the concerns expressed above. In fact, a number of countries have officially banned Valentine's day (although I don't think there are any problems in New Zealand). We experience the same difficulties on the EN Wikipedia in connection with Christmas and the New Year with the result that we usually opt for something vague like "Seasonal Greetings". We should perhaps be more careful in future. For clarification, though, the new "themes" this month are Explorers, Black women and Women in horror. Fortunately, I don't think there will be any objections to our focus on International Women's Day on 8 March.--Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I placed the Valentine's image on the February invitation. I didn't mean to be insensitive, yet I was by not thinking it through more carefully or seeking opinions on this talkpage. I apologize for that. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Daisy Edgar-Jones

Bringing attention to the DRAFT for Daisy Edgar-Jones - actress has at least 2 notable roles and media coverage. Co-star Paul Mescal from upcoming series Normal People has been published. Starklinson 07:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Starklinson: I've promoted it to mainspace - Daisy Edgar-Jones. It may or may not now get nominated for deletion; we'll just have to wait and see. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Lady Laura Troubridge

Hi everyone. I picked up Troubridge from Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Writers - UK number 180, Laura Troubridge, Q28325435. But it seems there is a little confusion over two women with the same name. One is known as Lady Laura Troubridge (nee Gurney), the other as Laura Troubridge. The file Q28325435 seems to have both women as one. I was too far gone in my research to turn back by the time I realised, so decided to finish the article I was doing on Lady Laura Troubridge (nee Gurney), and then follow it up with a second article on Laura Troubridge. To make way for the second Laura (and not to confuse myself) I've moved the article I've written from my user to main userspace. I haven't put authority control or categories into the draft article yet, as I'm not sure if something needs to change in wikidata (Q28325435) first to split the two women? Can anyone advise me what to do? Cdefm (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This article now links to Wikidata (Q84512674). I suggest Q28325435 should be completely deleted as it is indeed very confused. Any items pertaining to (Q84512674) could then be added there. Perhaps our Wikidata expert Tagishsimon could sort it out.--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds fun. I'll take a look later today. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think we're good. There are two people with similar names, both novelists, both with a father or a mother called Gurney. Both wikidata iteams look as if they have the right data for the right person, and the wikipedia article is attached to the right person. I've not check all of the IDs on the earlier wikidata record; there's a possibility that some are for the later record; equally a possibility that they're not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Epic hatnote there! Disam page needed? Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you everyone!!! I'm now tackling the second Laura, the one who is now Q28325425. The whole web seems to have confused the two women, additionally the second Laura has more than one 'professional' name by which her works were known. And then, some people confuse these two women with a third, Una, Lady Troubridge. It's a maze out there. Wish me luck! Cdefm (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

PS Diambuguation page still way above 'my pay grade'. I've haven't even tried one of those yet. But it looks like I've cracked the hatnote. Whoo hoo! Cdefm (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cathy Whims

Hello! I expanded the Cathy Whims article back in March 2019. I'm considering a Good article nomination, but I'd love to get a bit of feedback from project members here first. I'm not concerned about notability, but is the article long enough to be promoted? Also, are there places to search for possible images for the infobox? Thanks for any article improvements or feedback in advance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Another Believer I think the article needs to broaden coverage if it is to be reviewed for GA. Dr. Blofeld and Montanabw were my mentors in GA. They said the article should be at about 15,000 bytes of text before final editing. That seemed really daunting to me on my first nomination, but making the article as comprehensive as possible, typically requires at least 8,000 - 10,000 bytes of text. A search of Google makes me think that kind of coverage is not going to be easy to come by. I typically avoid working living women up for Good Article, as maintaining the status as their lives change requires a good deal of commitment, but if you really want to go for it, I wish you luck. SusunW (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW, Thanks for your feedback! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer: Susun has offered some very sound advice. Nevertheless, from time to time much shorter articles are promoted to GA. Among the most recent promotions, Willard Ryan is considerably shorter than Cathy Whims (although ORES continues to give it a C class). It seems to me that the weakest item in your article is the lead. You should develop it further on the basis of the main achievements mentioned in the article. It would also be useful to check for recent news to make sure the article reflects any important developments. Perhaps you could contact the subject for a photo suitable for Commons -- and possibly date and place of birth. I would then encourage you to have the article reviewed or simply go for GA where constructive comments will follow. It might be useful to bring it to the attention of WikiProject Women in Green which specializes in promoting women's articles to GA and beyond. Hope this helps.--Ipigott (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Ipigott, Very helpful, thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_75&oldid=943501864"