Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 137

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. 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 130

←

Archive 135

Drafts in need of some help

Hello! We have a class that started drafting some bios mainly of women identifying poc, and ran into some challenges. Many of these bios are in the sandbox space or in draftspace. I've looked at them and several of them are borderline notable or need more sources to establish notability. There are also instances of promotional/essay-like text. If anyone is up for it and would like to give these drafts a chance for mainspace, feel free. Any help improving them is welcomed and very much appreciated.

Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Brianda (Wiki Ed), is there a reason you or the course instructor aren’t taking responsibility for the quality of the work in this program? I have to tell you I find it very frustrating that you, the teacher and the students are all compensated here, either financially or in course credit, but you ask volunteers to clean up after you. This is my constant experience interacting with WikiEd. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Innisfree987 I have looked over the drafts and provided feedback to the student editors. As of I now, this is as far as these drafts are going to go, and I don't see them getting moved to mainspace bc of the concerns I mentioned above. I brought this up as a last attempt, good-willed ask to see if any other editors wanted to give these draft bios a chance to exist. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Brianda (Wiki Ed), yesterday, I received a request from SusunW to merge this new article (Federación de Mujeres Cubanas) into a pre-existing article (Federation of Cuban Women) on the same topic. The request for merger, along with some comments regarding the new article's accuracy, was made by on my talkpage here. Agreeing with SusunW's assessment that the two articles were on the same topic, I complied with the request to make the merger, but I did not address content changes. I see now that the newly-created article was by a student in the same class (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCLA/Women's Movements in Latin America (Fall)) as the draft articles you listed above. Ergo, I'm mentioning this matter here for transparency and with the recognition that this article, too, is ..."in need of some help". --Rosiestep (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Rosiestep. There are so many topics that aren't covered at all in the encyclopedia that editors really need to make sure they aren't duplicating existing work. I have no idea how WikiEd works, but if a proposed article list is prepared for articles to be created by students, there definitely needs to be someone checking that those articles don't already exist. This was a very obvious duplication and all it really needed was a redirect to the Spanish name. SusunW (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There should have been a redirect from the local Spanish name to the English title used for the article ... but even without that, a search of en.wiki using the Spanish title would have found the article PamD 23:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The student (and whoever put the organisation on a list of potential topics for the course, or agreed students' choices) should have done a search on the title, looked carefully at the results, and noticed the existing article, which has included the Spanish version of the title since its second edit. But there should have been a redirect from that Spanish title anyway, which would have made it 100% obvious to anyone doing a search.

So, two learning points here, to avoid future similar wastes of editors' time and energy:

Please remember to make redirects from plausible alternative titles, like the local name of an organisation where the article is at an English translation (as well as all the variations of middle name(s), married names, etc for biographies, which I'm forever nagging about!)
Please educate students, and their educators, into checking the encyclopedia more carefully before starting any new article.

PamD 17:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Just picking the first entry I chose at random from that course, Frente Indígena de Organizaciones Binacionales, it appears that the entries in draft are not the only ones in need of serious attention @Brianda (Wiki Ed). Innisfree987 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC

I must say I sympathize with Brianda (Wiki Ed) for posting these WikiEdu drafts here. We cannot expect instructors to spend all their time on improving the work of their students. I see that some of the drafts are at AfC and may therefore be promoted anyway. It looks to me as if others may fail on notability although the students have obviously tried to find valid sources. I don't usually spend much of my time reviewing biographies of English speakers but if no one else is interested in looking more carefully at these drafts, I'll take a more careful look myself over the next day or two. I must say that I am constantly impressed with the quality of many of the articles created by WikiEdu students and am grateful to the instructors for introducing their students to Wikipedia editing. I hope others will take this opportunity of looking at some of the drafts, either explaining their shortcomings to the students involved or perhaps improving them and promoting them to mainspace.--Ipigott (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I concur with you Ipigott that the instructor cannot bear all of the weight of improving their students' articles and in general, I think it is our collective responsibility. That said, I do think that there is some onus on anyone who proposes that an article be created, whether that is on a redlist, for a WikiEd course, etc. to verify that there isn't already an article and that there are sources available to confirm notability. I admit that I don't have a clue how anyone else does it, but if I add a redlink to an article or a list, I have done a search to verify that there is a claim of notability and sourcing to substantiate that claim. (I don't necessarily at that stage evaluate significant coverage.) SusunW (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
With the best will in the world, none of these seem notable to me - at best "too soon". WikiEd needs to ensure that everybody's time is not wasted by letting students produce hopeless case bios. Btw, what does "women identifying poc" (at the top) mean? Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, "people of colour" - got it. But this mainly American term should be spelled out. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel we should be moving towards some rules for WiR talk policing. As I understand, we need to say Canada if we are mentioning anything to do with Canada, but we need to avoid nationality issues. And any mainly American terms need to be spelled out. Any more we should be aware of, John? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Tagishsimon: I very much appreciate all your posts on this page and all the help you have been giving to recent contributors but I strongly disagree with the need for drafting rules for participation on the WiR talk page. Women in Red has always welcomed comments on our talk pages, as long as it is civil and related to the need to improve our coverage of women. Not all our contributors have the same experience as you Johnbod. I hope you can be persuaded to be a little more open minded about what editors can contribute to this page. I for one welcome comments of the kind Brianda (Wiki Ed) has been kind enough to share with us.--Ipigott (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you missed that that post was sarcasm, Ian. Lowest form of wit, I know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I recognized the allusions to recent posts here but I think we all need to be careful of how others may interpret things. I know you two have had difficulty in achieving a harmonious relationship but not everyone will remember the history- Enough said - and so to bed.--Ipigott (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, and will take it into account when referring to this group of people in the future. It helps me get out of this American bubble I live in, which is refreshing. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree these are "too soon" and usually we catch them before too much work goes into them, but this specific class just slipped through the cracks in a way where I didn't catch them time. And it makes for a frustrating experience for all parties involved. In any case, I don't want anyone to feel obligated to take a look, I know everyone has projects they're working on.

A general message to anyone that reads this, whenever you come across student work from our program that needs help, ping me or User:Ian (Wiki Ed). I wish I had eyes everywhere, but unfortunately that's not the case. Thanks to all that chimed in on the thread.Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Late to the discussion here. This class was flagged at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Problematic_course,_still . It seems like there is a known flaw in using Wikipedia as a teaching tool and articles being the basis for grades. The subject gets discussed every doggone semester. My 2 cents, Wiki Ed should add focus on high schools and universities creating Wikipedia clubs rather than professors using the platform. If the class is too large for the professor to monitor the progress, then it should be frown upon by the community. Look at the referenced post to the Education noticeboard. How many volunteer hours go into cleaning up the messes left behind at the end of the semester? The principle of not biting the newbies is just not appropriate for college course student and their professors. I call BS.

Of course college and high school editors produce some of the best work, but it is almost always in an extra curricular setting, not a course setting. I have no facts to back this up, just 6 years of observation.

Thanks for letting me vent. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Divya Dwivedi has an RfC

Divya Dwivedi, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

New study on toxic comments effects on Wikipedia editors

Hi everyone. I just came across a new study that has been published by PNAS Nexus, looking into the effects of toxic comments on Wikipedia editors.[1] From an analysis of millions of talk page comments, it found that toxic comments correlate closely with a reduced activity from editors and can even lead to editors leaving the platform altogether. They estimate that this has resulted in 265 cumulative years of productivity loss. Its section on diversity I thought was particularly relevant to our work at WiR and WiG:

Diversity of editors
"Wikipedia is often considered a neutral and unbiased source of knowledge. In fact, this is ingrained in its “Neutral point of view” policy, which is officially one of the five fundamental principles of Wikipedia (36). However, the claim of neutrality should not be accepted uncritically (37). For instance, while Wikipedia mandates that its content is supported by reliable sources, the selection of these sources can significantly deviate from the norms of the expert knowledge community, introducing biases to Wikipedia content (38). Even if the content of articles is neutral, their coverage may be biased. It is well documented, for example, that biographies of women are underrepresented on Wikipedia (39). Wikipedia’s own rules might contribute to such biases. For instance, providing reliable sources as required by Wikipedia for biographies of women might be challenging because fewer sources exist on women due to historic inequalities (40). Another case in point is the Oral Citations project, which aimed to use oral citations for content on countries that are underrepresented in other sources (41). However, this initiative was met with opposition by the English Wikipedia community.
"These content biases are closely connected to the lack of diversity among editors (38, 42). While estimates vary, the vast majority of Wikipedians are men (43). Notably, Wikipedia did not achieve its own goal of having at least 25% women editors by 2015 (44). This shortfall is a significant concern for the project, as diversity can improve the quality of content and reduce its biases (13, 45). While multiple barriers confront women editors on Wikipedia (40, 46, 47), toxicity is likely to be one of key factors contributing to the observed gender imbalance. Specifically, research has shown that while men and women are equally likely to face online harassment and abuse, women experience more severe violations (48). They are also more likely to be affected by such incidents and to self-censor in an attempt to prevent potential harassment (48). This has been confirmed in the Wikipedia context as well, where it has been demonstrated that the psychological experiences of women and men editors differ, leading to higher attrition rates among women (49). Similar results were found in another survey (24), showing that women experiencing toxicity are more likely to stop contributing in the future.
"Overall, there are reasons to believe that toxicity might significantly undermine the diversity of Wikipedia editors, which can, in turn, compromise the quality of Wikipedia articles and introduce biases in its coverage. This underscores the importance of our findings. While most of the existing studies focus on the gender gap, we want to emphasize that the Wikipedia diversity problem goes beyond that, including racial, nonbinary, and other biases as well (50–52). For instance, we observed that many of the toxic comments in our data set include ethnic slurs. Future studies are needed to better understand the experiences of minority groups on Wikipedia and the effects that toxicity has on them."
Interventions
"The Wikipedia community is well aware of the aforementioned problems, and there have been multiple efforts to address them through various interventions. Research into reward systems showed that while they might work effectively for already highly productive editors, they fail to motivate less active editors (53). Another study found no significant effect of positive rewards in online communities (54).
"To address the gender gap in Wikipedia content, numerous events dedicated to creating entries about women were organized (46). An analysis of such interventions, which focused on two popular feminist interventions, confirmed that they succeeded in introducing content about women that would otherwise be missing (55). However, there is still a need to address the gender gap on a more systematic and sustainable level. For instance, one study showed that most of the women activists who attended editing workshops later chose not to continue contributing to Wikipedia, citing safety concerns as their primary reason (46). This issue was echoed in another study which identified safety as a core concern for women editors (56).
"A suggested solution to this problem has been the red-flagging of harassment and harassers (46). However, the opinion that toxic comments are negligible and should be seen as merely over-enthusiastic participation is still present among editors (25). Furthermore, various anti-harassment measures have been declined multiple times by the community, as they were seen to slow the process of content creation (57, 58). Based on our findings, we believe there is a need to reevaluate these policies, and more research attention is required to understand the impact of potential interventions."
— Smirnov, Ivan; Oprea, Camelia; Strohmaier, Markus (December 2023). "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia". PNAS Nexus. 2 (12). doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad385. ISSN 1091-6490.

I've certainly received my (un)fair share of toxic comments, from inappropriate and unnerving comments to seemingly intentional intimidation, so I thought I'd share this here. Given our projects have apparently been highlighted here as successful (if insufficient) interventions to combat systemic bias, I wonder if there's anything we are doing and/or can be doing better to red-flag harassment, as is suggested here? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm I’m sorry to hear of your experience @Grnrchst. I was actually just wondering about this (prompted by this survey); I had the impression maybe it had gotten better since my early days of editing (I started in 2015) but I have no way of knowing whether I just see it less because I’m farther away from those early days. Sounds like maybe it’s the latter. That’s unfortunate. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

My own impression is that the situation has improved considerably over the past four or five years. On our WIR talk pages, we make an effort to avoid uncivil comments and strive to make the project attractive for all our contributors. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of reactions to a new participant's first attempts at creating an article. Rather than with a welcome message, user talk pages often start with comments from a reviewer explaining the unsuitability of contributions. In some cases, a user page is deleted either because the user name is considered unsuitable or because the user is accused of copyright violations. Even after a new editor has attempted to improve an article, it can be refused time and time again. In such cases, new users frequently give up and never return. As few new users declare their gender, it is difficult to know whether this leads more women than men to discontinue their editing. I'm not sure WIR can do very much to improve the situation. Nevertheless, experienced editors might like to spend more of their time helping new participants along, for example by monitoring new pages, examining articles for deletion, or offering support on the talk pages of new or recent users. Does anyone have any other suggestions in this connection?--Ipigott (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ipigott, that’s a good reminder about catching people at New Pages. Especially since the category sorting now allows us to focus on bios of women, we can easily access material of interest to us and new contributors who are more likely to share those interests. Of course we know well that gender doesn’t strictly decide who wants to write about women, but I would guess it would also bring us into interaction with a higher-than-usual proportion of women editors. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The same goes for AfC of course, maybe even more so. Less a matter of toxic interaction, but I think we’re losing a lot of good contributors when they have to wait months for a review. 07:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Innisfree987 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that this is deliberate. AfC is advertised as a way of attracting new contributors but actually used as a way of diverting spammers and promoters, so being discouraging to them is viewed by some new page patrollers as a helpful thing to do. The usual response to suggestions that this might also discourage good faith contributors is that the new page patrollers are too overwhelmed with the mountains of spam to be found there (and there are indeed mountains of spam there) to be any more welcoming. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In connection with AfC, I have noticed that the attempts of many new users to create draft articles in their sandboxes frequently lead members of AfC to fish them out and move them to the AfC draft format, i.e. Draft/article title. Sooner or later the drafts are reviewed under AfC, often with comments informing creators that for one reason or another their work is not up to Wikipedia standards. If a draft had remained in a sandbox, the creator would have been able to ask a mentor or some other experienced editor for assistance. In many cases this results in improvements allowing a smooth move to mainspace. I have often wondered whether moving articles from sandboxes to AfC drafts is in fact actively promoted (or maybe it not strictly permissible). Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that if AfC drafts have not been submitted for review, they are simply deleted a few months later. This is not the case of drafts in sandboxes or in a creator's user space (e.g. as User:JaneDoe/article name).--Ipigott (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Drafts get deleted after 6 months without any edits being made. I sometimes make an edit so as to keep the draft "alive". Oronsay (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I definitely agree that AfC is used that way as a whole, and that we’re not likely to persuade the average NPP participant to do anything differently, but the list of women’s bios there is pretty short, only 28 pending submissions at the moment, so if even a few of us from WiR were interested, we could clear it pretty quickly (not in the sense of making all ready for mainspace but at least providing constructive reviews). To me the deletion after six months is the symptom not the disease—the issue is that if it takes months to get a review, we’ve lost those contributors and they don’t touch their drafts again. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In case I can tempt anyone else, I’ll mention I read four women’s bio drafts at AfC this evening and it was quite satisfying! Already one editor improved their draft enough for me to promote. Very positive experience. Anyone want to join me? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There's recently been an AfC drive which has almost emptied the list. Waiting time has been reduced to days but will no doubt soon be longer again. You can also find a list of all the women articles needing attention at new page patrol. There are almost 400 at the moment, many of them created by new or recent users. For those interested, there's plenty of scope for making improvements to the articles in order to prevent negative reviews and/or critical tagging. It's easy to identify new users as there's a column indicating number of edits. That said, quite a number of them do not deserve to become part of the encyclopedia. Have fun!--Ipigott (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Theme for our 2024 year-long event

As 2023 draws to a close, WiR participants need to select a theme that will run for the whole of next year or, alternatively, two six-month ones if that is preferred. Previous year-long events have been Suffrage (2019), Sports (Jan-Aug 2020) & BLM (Jul-Dec 2020), Women's rights (2021), Climate (2022) and Peace and Diplomacy (2023). --Oronsay (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, Science (Apr-Dec 2016). --Rosiestep (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What would you like to nominate as the theme/s for 2024? All ideas welcome.--Oronsay (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I nominate Education for the 2024 theme as, historically and in the present-day, there are so many women that are included in that occupation. We have at least 7 redlists to support it. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to support your idea of Education, Rosiestep. So many women as well as women's institutions that are notable. SusunW (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it too late to nominate? if not, then i'd like to nominate The Arts, in general. Women are so far behind in being recognized and received in The Arts, which is a historically male dominated, male recognized area. For example, one of the main female contemporary artists of the moment, Emma Webster, has a skeleton of a page (which I'll be working on) while her other make contemporaries that are far lesser known have pretty extensive bios. My two cents. Slacker13 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

What am I, saying?! Most are male dominated. Still, The Arts. Slacker13 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

~~:::I think Education is a great idea, but I'll throw Science into the mix as well! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)~~ just saw the comment above *doh* Lajmmoore (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm very happy to support education as the 2024 theme, but in the interests of having an additional suggestion to consider at the brainstorming stage, I'd also put forward Literature. We have plenty of redlists in this area and it would cover biographies of women in literature as well as women's literary works, female fictional characters, awards for women's literature, etc. This is of course my personal area of interest, so I'm being very opportunistic in suggesting it. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 to 'Literature' which is my personal area of interest, too. ;) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, our articles on literature really do need the help... -- asilvering (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support Education which Rosie also proposed for 2023 until preference was given to Peace and Diplomacy. As an alternative, I think it would be useful to work on Business, an area in which women play an increasingly important role around the globe and which would also benefit from more attention to women's pioneering and historical efforts. But this could wait until 2025.--Ipigott (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I like Education (history of education is my academic home field). However, if we start getting too heroic about it, I'm going to have to write a month of bios about powerful educators and educational theorists who were misguided or destructive or corrupt. (There are/were so many!) Education is complex. I hope if we do a year-long theme on Education, we can do so with this complexity in mind.Penny Richards (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I support Education as it's an area that so many women have been pioneers in. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I support Education and Literature as the two six month themes :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd be interested in trying to write something for either Education or Literature. — Bilorv (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

365 women - 24 x 7 achieved. My prize and yours is "The Greater Bear"

So today's the day. This time last year I thought I wonder if I could write a new women's biog every day for a year. I'd tried before and messed it up at #360. So I started in December last year so I could officially start a full year this January. Well its complete and Wikipedia even records the names and dates here. During the year, I completed my 8 year run of notable ODNB women and ran out of missing ODNB Women in Red. I had to turn to Aussie women on the ADB. All of the 365 articles have fed into one of the WIR editathons. So what should be my prize to myself? I have bought myself a copy of "The Greater Bear". What?... I'll explain ... Imagine a London Underground map where the tube lines are either mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists etc or scientists etc and each station is a notable person. Now where the tube lines cross then you need to find a person who is both say a mathematician and an engineer. Thats one hell of a task, sometimes 3 or 4 lines cross.... is it possible for one person to write wikidata queries that turn out such a picture. My friend Terence Eden (helped by @Tagishsimon) has done just that. You can see the result here. Its not all women but there is an unapologetic bias towards them. (Thanks Terence) I bought myself a copy (and gave it to my spouse as a present). It cost me about £20 and it was mailed to my door and its a fabulous poster. If you like maps and data and notable lives then you'll be fascinated. I'd like to buy you all a copy but I don't have all of your addresses ... or the urge to spam you... or X time £20 to spare.... but treat yourself... and order a copy. Terence did all the work and he is not making a profit and he's done his level best not to infringe any copyrights. How did he do it? Where can you obtain your copy? [Seasons Greetings from Roger] aka Victuallers (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This is such an amazing thing to do! Way to go! Lajmmoore (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This is just wonderful! Thank you for all your contributions and for sharing this with us! Has cheered me immensely. Happy holiday @Victuallers! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Very impressive. Congratulations! SusunW (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on a great contribution to the encyclopedia! PamD 00:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Roger! What an inspiring accomplishment. On behalf of the world, thank you! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Congrats! The amount of dedication (and mental willpower) to write an article every day is incredible. I hope you have a great and well deserved holiday rest. Silver seren^C 01:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Very well done, @Victuallers. I really appreciate your work on Aussie women. Thanks for sharing about "The Greater Bear" – it's amazing. Oronsay (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelmed by your accomplishments, Roger. Are you going for one more year in 2024? In any case, all the best to you and yours for Christmas and the New Year.--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you fellow travellors. I'm entertained by the lives I have discovered, and tickled to see your comments... and this month Ive been doing all the Aussie women whos surname begins with K ... just a few on my list to go! Hope all of you get a hug this Christmas. My virtual one is included with this message. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I added 2 recent photos from Ghana.... another present for Christmas? ... Yes. They are sending me one of those tee-shirts (and I have sent them some badges)! Woohoo! Victuallers (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Well done! Also, many many many of the 365 new articles you've gifted to Wikipedia have images, which I notice as I'm culling for the pinboards. Thank you! Penny Richards (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Group of articles about drag performers at GAN

Over at Wiki Loves Pride, I've listed a group of articles about drag performers (including one about a trans woman requested at Missing biographies of nonbinary, trans and intersex people/transgender female) I've nominated for Good status. Sharing in case any project members are interested in providing feedback or reviewing, as this year's campaign comes to an end. Thanks and Happy New Year! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Another Believer: Which is the one you would like us to look at?--Ipigott (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Lashauwn Beyond. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Another Believer I haven't much experience of articles about drag performers but this one seems pretty skimpy to me as a GA candidate. Two of the sections are one-liners while the listed TV appearances coincide closely with the Career section. I would have been interested to see how he/she developed an interest in drag and costume design, how he/she designs/markets her products, and since when he/she has been openly trans. Perhaps some of those more experienced in writing about LGBT people can find more background and help you along. As LB is in the mid-30s, there must be quite a bit more to report on. At the very least, the boy's birth name of Jamall Jackson could be included. I also see that in many sources, the pronoun he rather than she is used. --Ipigott (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Equal Suffrage Amendment

Am I right in thinking this article is kinda... half-baked and awful? Didn't even include Duniway's major contribution until I added it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look pretty bad. I'll look through some books and see if I can find anything else about it. Historyday01 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Megalibrarygirl will be able to help out here. She has created informative articles on women's suffrage in many states but has not yet covered Oregon.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Thanks for the tag in! I'll take a look. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

#1week1woman Question

As with the counterpart of #1day1woman, is it specifically only women biographies that count or do women's works (such as books) also count? Since I have a fair few of those in addition to biographies on my list to make. I'm currently reading through The Exceptions by Kate Zernike, which is excellent (and infuriating) and plan to make an article on the book when I'm done. Silver seren^C 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Silver seren: I specified biographies as I think we need to increase the proportion of women's biographies as compared to men's. In recent months the increase has been marginal and I thought this might provide an opportunity for us to do rather better over the coming months. Articles on women's works, organizations, etc., can of course be included in the traditional #1day1woman as before. In addition to your article on the book, you might like to consider creating a biography in the first week of January.--Ipigott (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Olympian AFDs

Can anyone find coverage for any of the following Olympians at AFD?:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Potentially relevant discussion

I know members of this project contributed to the discussions around moving men's football team articles to "X men's national football team", and would like to neutrally draw your attention to a similar discussion at a football records/achievement page. I am not suggesting contribution, but anyone interested could read the arguments there in case there are future discussions on the topic. See: Talk:List_of_footballers_who_achieved_hat-trick_records#Women. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Patricia Schultz author of the best selling 1,000 Places to See Before You Die

I created a draft for Patricia Schultz. Her book is found on many a book shelf- a popular Christmas gift in the 2000s. Thriley (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Australian women

I've just come across an interesting research paper on "Gender and the invisibility of care on Wikipedia" which reveals irregularities in Wikipedia's coverage of women in the Australian Honours System. "...we demonstrate that women are more likely to be awarded a Wikipedia page after the award announcements or not at all if their contribution is for labour relating to the caring professions than if their service is for sports, arts and films, politics or the judiciary." This should be of special interest to Victuallers and Oronsay.--Ipigott (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks you for sharing this, Ipigott; it is interesting indeed. I'd be quite keen to see this study replicated for other countries. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the UK would show the same. To get an award for sports & the arts you really have to be quite famous already, but most awards go to the deserving unknown in the caring professions etc. It's well-established that getting a UK "honour" does not itself make you notable, and most recipients aren't. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That was an interesting read (I put it off under after xmas). I noted particularly that "Women are receiving a larger proportion of a shrinking base of the created biographies." I feel that. I also noted that the authors gathered a lot of new data but they didn't mention if they had load all the stuff they created into Wikidata. Why not? This undermines their (sound) proposal that editors should be aware of the disparities BUT the authors are aware of the disparities BUT they didn't realise that they are the missing editors. You cannot criticise Wikipedia saying "Someone should ..." when its obvious that anyone can be that "someone". I think thats one of the strengths of this project is that we don't say so much "someone should... " but "See what Ive done". The other missed effect is that of Australian sources. The Order of Australia have historically copyrighted the images of their recipients. American governments sources do not. That is a bias created by the Australian gov. The more positive Aus aspect is the effect of the Australian Dictionary of Biography. It is remarkably NOT behind a paywall. This means a) its easy to source the facts for a new article but also b) there is less value to the new biography as a lot of the stuff is easily available from the ADB. Final point. I have just written quite a number of articles about Aussie nurses in the last few weeks. ie caring profession. The ones in the ADB are frequently war nurses where bravery can be the notability or just being a woman who gets an army rank normally reserved for male soldiers. on that theme. In the UK last year there was a project called "Nurses in Red". So should be try "Nurses in Red" (again). Happy New Year! Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Roger, unfortunately most of the studies dealing with our interests have serious weaknesses and keep drawing on less than perfect earlier work. Nevertheless, I think this study was both interesting and enterprising in that they decided to go for the "big data" resources available about Australians on Wikidata. Maybe their findings were based on a number of shortcomings but their conclusion appears to hold water. While I was reading the study, I kept wondering to what extent they had taken into account the important work you have been undertaking on nurses and others in the "care" professions.--Ipigott (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote to them drawing attention to this debate... maybe we will hear from them in 2024. Victuallers (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"...but there has been a significant decline in page creation for Order of Australia recipients since 2014. Women are receiving a larger proportion of a shrinking base of the created biographies". Hmmm, clumsy wording - the actual number of OoA bios has surely been growing, if rather more slowly since 2014? I'm not sure how this is a "shrinking base". Interesting paper, but the usual slew of citations of papers researched over a decade ago - some of these should really be re-run on more up-to-date info, which might be interesting. Many citations to Tripodi, who has of course now entered the Valhalla of peer-reviewed research, despite all the failings documented here. Happy New Year to all! Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

National Organization of Afro-American Women

I think this is an interesting and important subject missing. Anyone want to start it? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nancy La Vigne

Came across this draft, which is too CV-like, but the subject seems notable Lajmmoore (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Rosalind Goodfellow

I'm looking for sources to see if an article on Rosalind Goodfellow (1927-2008) is feasible. She was the first woman Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church, and the first lay moderator. There was an obituary in the Independent, and there is coverage both in newspapers of the time (the Daily Mirror, "The dark-haired, plucked-eyebrowed Mrs Rosalind Goodfellow, JP the Moderator of the United Reformed Church, spoke like Dame Edith Evans") and in history books of her participation in the service in St Paul's Cathedral after the Falklands war.^[1]^[2]^[3] There is coverage in local papers which backs up what the obituary says about her activity as a magistrate and in voluntary organisations. There is also a reference in passing to her as one of the judges of Preacher of the Year in 1996. But I think with what I have an article would be vulnerable to AfD on the grounds of not enough coverage under WP:ANYBIO, and potentially WP:BLP1E for the reading at the Falklands service. I have looked at the Wikipedia Library and only found one passing reference. Does anyone have other ideas about where there might be significant coverage of her? I'm thinking there might be something in biographies or memoirs of people active in the URC at the same time as her. Or do I give up on her for the moment? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Wolffe, J. (2019). Sacred and Secular Martyrdom in Britain and Ireland since 1914. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-350-01926-3. Retrieved 28 Dec 2023.
^ Filby, E. (2015). God and Mrs Thatcher: The Battle For Britain's Soul. Biteback Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-84954-888-5. Retrieved 28 Dec 2023.
^ Boyce, G. (2017). The Falklands War. Twentieth Century Wars. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 196. ISBN 978-1-350-30792-6. Retrieved 28 Dec 2023.

Tacyarg, in general an obit can be informative for an article, but it cannot be used necessarily to prove WP-notability. That requires sources, over time which discuss the subject. There are plenty for her from 1962 until her death. Some of the more detailed which provide significant coverage are [2], [3], [4] and others which provide details such as mom's maiden name, term as general moderator, other activities,[5], etc. I found all of these through the WP library at newspapers.com and the British Newspaper Archive tabs. archive.org has entries you can sort through, but I find no open access entries at hathitrust. There are many more sources, which indicates to me she meets anybio. SusunW (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had found all the newspaper articles, but didn't think of the Internet Archive. I'll have a look. Tacyarg (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

MassMessaging oversight

hello folks, I just sent the MassMessage for January, but for this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/A-F I forgot to put my signature at the end. Is there a way I can go back and mass-add-a-signature? If not, really sorry for the mistake! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a way, but it’s beyond my technical expertise and also, I don’t think it’s a big deal at all if they go without a signature! Thank you for doing the MMS! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem for me. Anyone interested can see from the history that you were the one who sent it out.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

User:PMCH2 sandbox drafts

User:PMCH2, who had a great interest in this project, and wrote several articles under its domain, has passed away. She leaves in her userspace three early-stage drafts on notable women:

If possible, please finish these and move them to mainspace. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've moved Marinez Santos Bassotto, a Brazilian bishop, to mainspace and tidied her up a bit, with incoming redirects, added her to Wikidata (existing Portuguese article is at fuller form of name). I added a note to the talk page to give credit to PMCH2. If I'd left it a couple of days I could have listed her under our "A-Z" project of M-N! This one was much more advanced than the other two, and had four good sources. The other two need a lot more work to establish notability. PamD 18:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there is already a Draft:Azza Karam, so I've moved PMCH2's contributions to that draft (which currently needs a lot of work). ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Prominent women in artificial intelligence

Draft:Daniela Amodei - I started this one.
Draft:Tasha McCauley - I recently came across this draft.

I think I may add a few more names over the next few days. Thriley (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Two more. Thriley (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts, but when you're selecting articles on academic researchers (some but not all of these), I think it would be helpful to pay more attention to our standards on academic notability. Katja Grace appears to be unready for an article, to me. She has only one academic publication of any significance, and the two sources listed in the draft are entirely about that one publication rather than covering her or her work more broadly. For artificial intelligence researchers more likely to be notable, see e.g. the list of AAAI Fellows or the Fellows of the IEEE Computational Intelligence Society (neither broken down by gender, unfortunately, so you'd have to do more work to find women without articles from those lists). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Youtube: "Bridging Digital Skills Gap Amongst Women through Wikipedia_Wiki Women in Red with UPSA"

Here's a link for "Bridging Digital Skills Gap Amongst Women through Wikipedia_Wiki Women in Red with UPSA" by Women For Sustainability Africa, via Youtube. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Lot's more WIR T-shirts for Roger. Some of them speak much more clearly than others but they all seem enthusiastic.--Ipigott (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Any Czech readers?

I was thinking of creating an article for 2023 Deaths for Andrea Majstorovičová. There appear to be a lot of sources out there, but all in websites that are .cz and .sk , and I am struggling to read them. A good project for someone else? Kingsif (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year - Sharing the Wealth - 1st competition for 2024

So my holidays are complete - as a package arrived from Accra for me complete with Tee shirts. I'm offering to mail one and a real Women in Red barnstar to the first person to add 24 new biographies to our Education editathon which starts tomorrow. Thanks to Women for Sustainability Africa!. Feel free to cross post.

The new articles need to have 1,500 characters of original text, three refs at least, (preferably a picture), not "an orphan" and not be about anyone known to be from the UK or US. What do the prizes look like? See the pic. Happy New Year. Victuallers (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Victuallers. That's just the kind of thing we need to get people moving. I'm no expert in education but I'll no doubt be able to add a few. Is there a registration page for this or can we use the same kind of registration as for One biography a week? Perhaps you can adapt the education page along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!! it would be good to add it to the education page, I think. I was thinking that we might just encourage people to add their signature and the number they had done as in * Ms Wikilink Victuallers #1 . I will tweet it out too Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What a great idea Victuallers! I joined in with your numbering before realising it related to this competition (I just thought you were tracking your contributions and reckoned that was a useful thing to do). I'll review my pages and make sure they fit the rules above (and remove the earlybird one as that feels like cheating now). DrThneed (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting Facebook group

People you may not know about, but probably should.

The first entry I looked at covers Louise Cook (humanitarian) and Mary Burchell, but I wonder how many of the entries don't have articles? Would be worth digging into the group's archives and having a look. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, that is a very interesting page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Temperance activist women with a Wikimedia Commons photo but no Wikidata item

There are many women temperance activists/workers affiliated with International Organisation of Good Templars and Woman's Christian Temperance Union who have Wikimedia Commons photos (see c:Category:The International Good Templar and c:Category:Woman's Christian Temperance Union people), but don't have Wikidata items. If someone feels inclined to add them to Wikidata, then they'll show up on this redlist, which would be helpful for #296, which is happening this month. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Already Women-in-Redded a while back in the last drive, but I'm quite happy with the image I restored for Genevieve Clark Thomson last week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.7% of all FPs.} 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, wow; it is gorgeous! --Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconded, breathtaking @Adam Cuerden! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been adding Wikidata items for subjects of the Templars images where there's basic information available. Those looking to create articles can make use of the references linked in them. Nick Number (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick Number, ♥. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding women's images

I uploaded a bunch of images from events in NZ last month, and have just been working through the extracted headshots. About 70-odd are women - I was planning to add them to last year's #1woman1day page, and I see there's a hidden category on Commons for media supported by WiR, so I'm guessing I should I add that? Is there anything else I need to do with respect to WiR (I already linked to Wikidata items using SDC)?

Apologies that this is probably covered somewhere but I've failed to find it! DrThneed (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

DrThneed: Yes, you should certainly add the hidden WIR category. If you write or improve biographies about any of them, you should list the article on an appropriate event page and add a link to the photo in the "Outcomes (media)" section.--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For your information, Commons now also has Category:Media_supported_by_WikiProject_Women_in_Red_-_2024.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ipigott! I added the images last month so figured 2023 was the one to use this time, but of course any more I add will be 2024. I couldn't find a way to make OpenRefine add the hidden category, so have had to do it manually which is annoying (just noting that in case anyone reading it knows how). DrThneed (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Marvellous additions @DrThneed, thank you! Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It's like a cascade

I've started work on my first article draft for the #1Week1Woman initiative and I'm kinda amazed (in both a good and bad way) how simply doing the research keeps leading to more women to cover, but thus more women we were already missing. I've already added two more well known scientists to my list of future women's biographies to make. I wonder how many more will turn up in the process of making those articles. Either way, at least it means we will finally be covering them properly. Silver seren^C 04:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren: It's really great to see you are starting to write biographies. I've had a quick look through your draft and see that it's coming on well. Up to now, only one of the sources meets notability requirements as the others are directly related to the subject. I see there are a number of reliable secondary sources you could draw on including [6], [7] and [8]. You should try to incorporate details from some of these. You might also find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Let me know when you have made improvements along these lines and I'll take another look at the biography. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the confusion, Ipigott. When I said first, I didn't mean my first biography, I meant my first article for this event. I've written plenty of the former, including for women in science, like Hildegard Binder Johnson and Margery C. Carlson. It's just that when I was writing those, I was treating them as singular topics to be worked on and wasn't keeping an eye out for other potential biographies to be made. Now that I am looking specifically for that with this draft on Mary Clutter, I'm very easily finding more missing women in science. Which was a bit of a surprise.

As for the draft, no worries! My writing style is to start with a reference and get everything possible out of it into the article and then move onto the next source. If the next one covers information I already have, then I swap it in for some pieces the first source was covering. That way I end up with a diverse collection of references in the end when I started with just one. So I haven't even attempted to look for other sources just yet, I'm still getting material out of that first one. Silver seren^C 23:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Silver seren: I'm the one who should be apologizing. It was the "draft" that put me off. I've just been looking through all your impressive work on Xtools, reassessing articles that were underrated. I look forward to more of your interesting contributions, including many more in connection with women.--Ipigott (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Invite template

I have proposed a light copy-edit of our invite template here. I would be grateful if anyone has a moment to make sure the suggested changes wouldn’t be objectionable, since it speaks on behalf of the project. Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As a result of discussions on the template talk page, the invitation has been updated. You can see the new version at Template:WikiProject Women in Red invite.--Ipigott (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

One biography a week contest

It's encouraging to see how well this new feature of #1day1women is coming along. Anyone who thinks they could create one acceptable women's biography a week is welcome to contribute. The first of a series of virtual awards is for adding a minimum of 13 articles over the first three months. There are no special requirements in regard to size or presentation but the biographies should of course meet basic Wikipedia standards of acceptance. Why not start today and see how long you are able to participate? Your contributions will help us to increase the percentage of women's biographies in the English Wikipedia which now stands at 19.72%. Let's see how soon we can reach 20%.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this again, Ian. Initially, I didn't add the new articles that I created to that section of the #1day1woman2024 page as I thought there were special requirements ... listed somewhere... but I didn't know where ... and I was too bashful to ask ... ergo ... I didn't participate. But yesterday, I sorted out that the only requirement to contribute an article to the contest is that it meets meet basic Wikipedia standards of acceptance, so I did contribution the articles I created. Hope with this prompt that others do likewise. Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Folks... As it's a contest, and some people LOVE contests, was there consideration about having a separate meetup page for it vs. including it on the #1day1woman2024 page? I think if people were to see the word "contest" as one of our offerings on our invite every month this year, it might influence editors who don't commonly participate in our "regular" events but do participate in our "contest" events. Also fine with leaving things as is. Rosiestep (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe "#52wks52bios contest"? Rosiestep (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Rosiestep, but for me it seems fine for it to be part of #1day1woman. Those contributing in the "traditional" way can see there is a new option. In any case, 33 new biographies in the first week isn't too bad. And anyone can join whenever they like.--Ipigott (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Simple guide sought!

Hello!

I'd like to set up a DAB for 'Margaret Costa'. There are currently two:

Margaret Jull Costa - translator
Margaret Costa (food writer) - new article I created

Someone has set up a redirect on Margaret Costa to go to the former. I'd like to create a DAB for the two women, then have the redirect go to the DAB. However, my problem is finding a simple guide to creating a DAB! Every time I look at the MOS:DAB, I find it impossible to follow. Is there the equivalent of a Dummies Guide I can follow? EEHalli (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

EEHalli, I haven't seen a simple guide, but asking here is a good alternative. I suggest

read Help:Disambiguation and decide if there is a primary topic, in this case there doesn't seem to be.
find an existing disambiguation page, e.g. Jane Smith.
create Margaret Costa (disambiguation) from the red link
copy the wikitext from 'Jane Smith' to 'Margaret Costa. (disambiguation)', adapt as needed and publish the page. You won't need section headings as there are only two articles.
go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and request a move of 'Margaret Costa (disambiguation)' to 'Margaret Costa' leaving a redirect.
ask here if you have any problems. TSventon (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks (and to @PamD and @QuicoleJR). I've followed the steps here to have a go at creating the DAB. EEHalli (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@EEHalli Don't forget to remove the hatnote on Margaret Jull Costa as it's no longer true that "Margaret Costa redirects here". Oh never mind, I've fixed it ... just something to remember another time! The dab page looks great, I don't myself see the point in doing it that way round and making work for someone else in the Requested Move, rather than just overwriting the redirect, but obviously some people prefer to do it that way! PamD 19:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@EEHalli And also, don't forget to look for any links which were going to the redirect, and which now go to the dab page instead: you need to fix them, otherwise you're giving the reader a worse experience. OK, again, I've fixed it: there's a link in The Cave (novel). I've disambiguated it by piping to the full name of the translator. PamD 19:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm steadily building the mental checklist of things to do after the fun bit of writing an article! EEHalli (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@EEHalli Oh, creating incoming redirects can be great fun: it's very satisfying when you make a load of redirects (name including middle name, maiden name, stray version found in a source, etc) and then do "What links here" and find that she's been sitting as a red link in a list of award winners or something, for years, but that list used her full name with the little-used middle name so the link would have stayed red until you make that redirect! (You do also sometimes find you have to disambiguate a 1920s tennis player with the same name to prevent her from linking to your newly-created artile, but that's all part of it.) PamD 09:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon@EEHalli It's simpler than that: if neither is the primary topic just overwrite the Margaret Costa redirect with a dab page (ie edit the redirect to turn it into a dab page). Margaret Costa (disambiguation) is not needed, unless you need for some reason go link to the dab page from elsewhere.

Simple way to create the first line of a dab page is {{subst:refer}}. Then make a bulleted list, link plus brief annotation(including dates, when known, for biographies). Then {{dab}} or, if it's people's names, {{hndis}}. PamD 17:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@PamD, WP:DABNAME says that "if "Term ABC" is a disambiguation page, a~ re~direct from "Term ABC (disambiguation)" should be created if it does not already exist." I like the method I suggested because it means that the new disambiguation page is listed as a page I created, but other editors may not be interested in that. TSventon (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that. But I'm not bothered about attribution of dab pages so wouldn't go to such lengths to claim ownership: my user page liist of article creations says something like "and also lots of dab pages surname lists, and redirects". PamD 09:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the translator seems like the primary topic in terms of influence and pageviews, although this is not my area of expertise and I might be wrong. I have added a hatnote to the translator's page directing people looking for the other Margaret Costa to that page. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, on further reading of the food writer article, a DAB page would probably be best. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@PamD, I have started twenty 'articles' over five years, including six disambiguation pages, so using the 'Pages Created' tool works for me. If I wrote around a hundred articles a year I probably would want to keep a manual list. TSventon (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon I only mentioned that list to show that, to me, it doesn't matter whether a dab page is listed as being created by me or not. PamD 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Another redirect, Henrietta Brown (Q115787698)

On this redlist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Temperance worker, does anyone know why the redlink is for Henrietta Brown (Q115787698) instead of just her name? This redlist also contains Margaret Parker (Q18762034) with a redirect to Margaret Eleanor Parker. I've noticed this issue on at least 1 other redlist, though I can't remembered which one. Maybe others have encountered it, too? Hoping someone knows how to fix this. I'd be happy to do so, but I don't know how. Happy New Year! -- Rosiestep (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rosiestep It's because Henrietta Brown exists for another woman ( as a redirect in this case). You could turn the RD into a dab page if neither HB looks like the Primary Topic. With Margaret Parker I was all set to create her article till I found via Wikidata that there was already an article at her full name, so I created that redirect as a way to save anyone else wasting time. I think I also did what was needed to merge the two separate Wikidata records: I tried, at least, if I remember rightly. It all gets complicated, doesn't it! PamD 21:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

PamD, that makes sense. I hadn't considered that it was because there was another person with the same name. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I have set up a disambiguation page at Margaret Parker. Margaret Parker (javelin thrower) is unlikely to be the primary topic as it gets less views than Margaret Eleanor Parker. TSventon (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

PamD Rosiestep, Late to the conversation, but I am having an issue with the Overbeck Sisters. Most of the sisters have a redirect to that article, but the redlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Artists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/ANB show redlinks for Hannah Borger Overbeck (Q56104316), Margaret Overbeck (Q55866026) and Elizabeth Gray Overbeck (Q56104317). I went in and manually updated the redlists to point to the redirect page, but SPARKL goes back and replaces the blue links to the weird redlinks pointing to the name with wikidata ID. I know it is small potatoes, but I would like any hints on correcting these redlinks. Any idea what data SPARKL is scraping? Thanks --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates I think it's because although there's a Wikidata entry for, say, Hannah, there isn't an article for her, only a redirect. So the system which creates the redlists creates a link with the bracketed Wikidata number to make sure it shows as a red link. That's the same situation as with Henrietta Brown, except that here the existing redirect for Hannah is to an article which includes her among the sisters, rather than a link to a different person. There's a note on the redlist which says that edits to it won't make any difference and the next version of the list will revert them. I suggest creating a redirect from the redlist entry (eg Hannah Borger Overbeck (Q56104316) to the same destination as Hannah Borger Overbeck points to, ie Overbeck sisters, as a pragmatic solution which will at least make the redlist show her as non-red (green in my case because I've got some gadget or script which colours redirects green). Does that make some sort of sense? PamD 23:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response PamD! I understand the concept of a link with the bracketed Wikidata number to make sure it shows as a red link on the redlist, but am amazed the program can pick up a redirect page. In the past, I have made a redirect for one of those bracketed redlinks to make it go away. Alas, a clean-up happens and then I have a deleted page in my stats. I will just take a deep breath and let the individual Overbeck sisters stay as redlinks. I suppose that it is really just my opinion that they will never merit individual pages. Who knows!? Perhaps they will be written one day. Thanks again. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mary Balch's School: School merged with schoolteacher

Does anyone have any suggestions for when you write about a school that is basically synonymous with its school founder/teacher?

I added a biography section for Mary Balch to Mary Balch's School, since a separate biography article would probably 1.) be short, and 2.) have a lot of overlap with the article on the school. Mainly, the schools' notability is because of Mary, and Mary's notability is because of the school. However, I do think there's enough info on Mary Balch to create a separate article, and I'm wondering if the "Biography" section seems weird to have in the article about the school?

My instinct is to have Mary Balch as a redirect to the school, but any improvements or suggestions would be appreciated :) - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, I think the current arrangement is reasonable as the article is short and the needlework fits better into an article about the school. I would rename the "Biography" section "Mary Balch". TSventon (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I've renamed the biography section to "Mary Balch". Whisperjanes (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Emilie Solomon

I have begun a stub on the above, who is part of this month's Temperance Women editathon. I have requested resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#offline_book:_Emilie_Solomon:_1859-1939, but if anyone has access to this or other information on Emilie Solomon's life I would greatly appreciate the help in the article. Thank you. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan It looks like her name was Emilie J. Solomon, and looking up that name (and variations like Miss E. Solomon, E. J. Solomon, etc) turns up some more sources.

According to this article, her brothers were Edward Philip Solomon, Richard Solomon (barrister), and William Henry Solomon. Although not ideal, looking up her brothers might be another good way to find more info on her. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan Actually, it looks like I replied too soon. Her full name was Emilie Jane Solomon. Here are two (better sources/) short biographies on her in the Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa and the Dictionary of South African Biography. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Amalija Knavs, mother of Melania Trump, has died

I just created Draft:Amalija Knavs. The New York Times wrote her an obituary, which I generally find a signifier of notability for a standalone article. Thriley (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd have thought a redirect to her daughter's article was all that was appropriate, as "notability is not inherited". But in case the article survives I've tweaked the wording, because it read as if AK was the wife of Donald Trump. PamD 08:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is enough press out there for her to meet GNG- the way she got her citizenship attracted controversy when it came out as it used a system Donald Trump regularly spoke against. Thriley (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking for your Input: Invitation to interview on using Wikidata in other projects

Hello WikiProject Women In Red editors, Wikimedia Deutschland has a new project team investigating the different ways Wikidata is being used in the other Wikimedia projects. As your project exists on different Wiki's and uses integrated data from Wikidata, you may have valuable insights that could help us or you might like to share. If you would be interested in such a discussion, we encourage you to register for an interview with us at the following link: Sign Up Here

The format will be a 1-hour (recorded) call.
Interviews can only be conducted in English (our apologies).
Compensation is available. More information here.
Interview Sessions will be held in January and February.
- Please Sign Up Here if you are interested.

Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment. We hope to hear from you, -- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just signed up for this. Hopefully, some others may be interested in participating. Oronsay (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I signed up. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's wonderful, thank you @Oronsay & @Rosiestep for your contribution. -- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Danny Benjafield (WMDE) thanks for the invite! I've signed up for a potential chat too! Lajmmoore (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I also signed up. Peaceray (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore and @Peaceray, thank you both for registering! I hope to see you all during our Interview Phase.-- Danny Benjafield (WMDE) (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hanne Fischer

This article was PRODed as an unreferenced BLP. I added a reference work and removed the PROD. If others care to expand and improve further, please do.4meter4 (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't read Danish except through translate, but https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/mennesker/hun-s%C3%A6tter-pris-p%C3%A5-samspillet looks like a pretty good source (not merely a performance announcement). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein I added an English language encyclopedia entry on her in The Grove Dictionary of Opera Singers; and yet the same editor still added a notability tag... I would think having an existing encyclopedia entry on a person published in a reference work by the Oxford University Press would indicate a biography on this woman belongs in our encyclopedia and is a notable topic...4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Grove is a good source, but to satisfy the GNG purists we need multiple good sources. That's why I suggested another. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Academic attacks

Liz Magill and Claudine Gay have had recent edits that feel disproportionate + feed into media bias targeting women that I'd like to think we can avoid (or be patient enough not to take part in).

Quickly adding new unverified / exaggerated sources for negative claims, rather than waiting for clarity
Volume of click bait during a media blitz used as justification for disproportionately long criticism/scandal sections, with editors pushing for separate headings, or even top-level headings
Personal attacks with social or political context are presented at face value; i.e. Gay's plagiarism allegations presented as though sincerely interested in academic standards, despite coming from an unreliable source.
Association with controversial tangential events that mainly involved men.

An example of the last is the repeated inclusion on Gay's article of a controversy involving two other men, which did not involve her, presented so as to suggest it did.

As people who started campaigns against them have said they mean to "carry out a long-overdue cleansing" of academia, I assume we'll see more. A little extra attention on these articles (and Sally Kornbluth, Minouche Shafik, and the category) would be welcome. I realize this is minor compared to many biases, but given the volume of media attention on these women, singled out in the first place for their prominence, the least we can do is not contribute to an echo chamber. – SJ + 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

My question is why WP:ARBPIA hasn't been applied to these articles? Because it seems clear that the usual types of editors trying to smear the BLP subjects in question are heavily active in those articles. Silver seren^C 20:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree; I have requested that the unprotected articles be protected in line with WP:ARBPIA. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the same pattern of edit warring now on Neri Oxman.

I'm also watching Martha_E._Pollack at Cornell, another female president at a university in political crosshairs this month. – SJ + 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Tie in to Education? Wiki Loves Muslim Academia 2024

I spotted this initiative Wiki Loves Muslim Academia this morning, and I imagine there might be some nice crossover with our own Education year-long theme! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Ineke Jonker

While writing a new article on computer scientist Catholijn Jonker, I ran across some references to her mother Ineke Jonker [9] (1934–2011), a Dutch author of multiple books on sexual violence. Maybe she is also notable? I found two reviews for her book Christianity and Incest but I think we would need more sourcing than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I found a couple of things ([10], [11], [12], [13]). It definitely feels like we need a language and source expert to look for more, since Dutch language sources from the 80's and 90's might not be so publicly Googleable. Silver seren^C 22:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I made a Wikidata entry with her authority IDs and some other basic information. Nick Number (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mika Tosca

Discussion on if something she wrote on Instagram should be mentioned in the article. It's Gaza-war related, your opinion is welcome at Talk:Mika_Tosca#She_no_longer_works_at_SAIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Annie Nightingale

Looking for a new topic? British pioneer DJ Annie Nightingale has just died, she'd be a good 'Recent deaths' candidate, but the article needs referencing and a thorough copy edit. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Jose Maria lo Monaco

Mezzo-soprano. I just heard a recording of her and she’s mentioned but not in red. Just posting in case anyone has some knowledge and wants to do it. Pbackstrom (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This might be helpful for a start.--Ipigott (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo for Susan Berget

I just published Susan Berget and, unlike most of the biographies I work on, she's still a living person. Meaning the usual non-free allowance rules I work with for photos doesn't apply. Does anyone know of any usable photos for her that would meet our copyright requirements? Silver seren^C 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

AFD / PROD

Can anyone find coverage for the following Olympians who have either been AFDed or PRODed?

Asteria Limai (AFD)
Andrea Schaller (PROD)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Would the article for Schaller on the German wiki be helpful, as a starting point for some biographical info and language-specific sources? I haven't checked them in any detail, and would have to use google translate anyhow to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article isn't up to date. Apparently Schaller recently moved to Bundeswehr University Munich, where she is a professor [14]. I haven't found a RS that explicitly confirms that the goalkeeper and the professor are the same person, though (photos make it look likely). —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't see a clear case for WP:PROF – that is not to say that she is non-notable, rather merely that we need to go by WP:GNG-based notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: I found a source confirming that they are the same person (and also provide coverage improving notability) — the right keys to search for turned out to be "Dr. Andrea Schaller" "Bundesliga". Anyway, see p. 6 of [15]. Now we can at least add her academic career to the article to match the de version. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Cultural depictions of women by nationality

This category was recently under discussion at CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 1. It was closed without much participation with the result of deleting many women related cats. I only became aware of it after cats were being removed on mass on my watch list. There appears to be a number of gender related cat deletion nominations currently at CFD. Project members may wish to keep an eye on project related categories for discussion, and notify the group about discussions for comment. All opinions on any of these discussions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

WOW! Just two supports! The crowd has certainly thinned at Cfd these days. It might be worth appealing. Having said that, "by nationality" categories are in many cases a harmful nuisance on WP, mostly with only one or two entries. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Helen Marcus

This recent article about a 20th-century American photographer currently only has two secondary sources. Based on her obituary from the New York Times, she seems likely to be notable, but I'm struggling to find information about her online. Bringing this up here in case anyone else is interested in finding sources to expand/support the article. ForsythiaJo (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a little more about her experiences in China, in Li, Shi (December 2019). "Western Interactions and Influences: Chinese photographers seeking out changes, 1978–88". Media History. 26 (4): 546–563. doi:10.1080/13688804.2019.1702005. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wedding of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia and Rebecca Virginia Bettarini#Requested move 16 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wedding of Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia and Rebecca Virginia Bettarini#Requested move 16 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Hazard up for deletion

Amelia Hazard at AFD sourcing issues. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Dolores Cannon at AfD, possible WP:HEY save

In The Skeptics Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll wrote that Cannon was "the poster child" for the New Age movement but was undecided as to "whether Dolores Cannon was a charlatan, a fraud, or a sincere delusional person...." Or so says our article. Given the hyperbolic claims of her opponents, I suspect this person is notable, but the AfD right now is a mess. It could use the help of one of WiR's newspaper-search wizards to get a solid claim for notability. Or, alternatively, if some previously uninvolved editor could put this to bed with a really clear source evaluation table that proves all of this is junk, that would be very helpful. So far the arguments run the full gamut from impassioned keep votes to "delete and salt". -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the article is now four times longer than it was when tagged for deletion. Looks to me as if it will be kept without further attention.--Ipigott (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Those edits were already done before I posted this notice here. I am not at all confident that it will be kept without further attention. -- asilvering (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
It has now closed as a keep. Of course, that should not be a reason to stop making additional improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)